Terrorists Scouting Airplanes for New Attacks

[B-Man]

Scouting jetliners for new attacks
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 22, 2004

Flight crews and air marshals say Middle Eastern men are staking out airports, probing security measures and conducting test runs aboard airplanes for a terrorist attack.

At least two midflight incidents have involved numerous men of Middle Eastern descent behaving in what one pilot called "stereotypical" behavior of an organized attempt to attack a plane.

"No doubt these are dry runs for a terrorist attack," an air marshal said.

Pilots and air marshals who asked to remain anonymous told The Washington Times that surveillance by terrorists is rampant, using different probing methods.

"It's happening, and it's a sad state of affairs," a pilot said.

A June 29 incident aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 327 from Detroit to Los Angeles is similar to a Feb. 15 incident on American Airlines Flight 1732 from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to New York's John F. Kennedy Airport.

The Northwest flight involved 14 Syrian men and the American Airlines flight involved six men of Middle Eastern descent.

"I've never been in a situation where I have felt that afraid," said Annie Jacobsen, a business and finance feature writer for the online magazine Women's Wall Street who was aboard the Northwest flight.

The men were seated throughout the plane pretending to be strangers. Once airborne, they began congregating in groups of two or three, stood nearly the entire flight, and consecutively filed in and out of bathrooms at different intervals, raising concern among passengers and flight attendants, Mrs. Jacobsen said.

One man took a McDonald's bag into the bathroom, then passed it off to another passenger upon returning to his seat. When the pilot announced the plane was cleared for landing and to fasten seat belts, seven men jumped up in unison and went to different bathrooms.

Her account was confirmed by David Adams, spokesman for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), who said officers were on board and checked the bathrooms several times during the flight, but nothing was found. "The FAMS never broke their cover, but monitored" the activity, Mr. Adams said. "Given the facts, they had no legal basis to take an enforcement action. But there was enough of a suspicious nature for the FAMS, passengers and crew to take notice."

A January FBI memo says suicide terrorists are plotting to hijack trans-Atlantic planes by smuggling "ready-to-build" bomb kits past airport security, and later assembling the explosives in aircraft bathrooms. On many overseas flights, airlines have issued rules prohibiting loitering near the lavatory.

"After seeing 14 Middle Eastern men board separately (six together and eight individually) and then act as a group, watching their unusual glances, observing their bizarre bathroom activities, watching them congregate in small groups, knowing that the flight attendants and the pilots were seriously concerned and now knowing that federal air marshals were on board, I was officially terrified," Mrs. Jacobsen said. "One by one, they went into the two lavatories, each spending about four minutes inside. Right in front of us, two men stood up against the emergency exit door, waiting for the lavatory to become available. The men spoke in Arabic among themselves ... one of the men took his camera into the lavatory. Another took his cell phone. Again, no one approached the men. Not one of the flight attendants asked them to sit down."

In an interview yesterday with The Washington Times, Mrs. Jacobsen said she was surprised to learn afterward that flight attendants are not trained to handle terrorist attacks or the situation that happened on her flight. "I absolutely empathize with the flight attendants. They are acting with no clear protocol," she said. Other passengers were distraught and one woman was even crying as the events unfolded. The plane was met by officials from the FBI, Los Angeles Police Department, Federal Air Marshal Service and Transportation Security Administration. The Syrians, who were traveling on one-way tickets, were taken into custody.

The men, who were not on terrorist watch lists, were released, although their information and fingerprints were added to a database. The group had been hired as musicians to play at a casino, and the booking, hotel accommodations and return flight to New York from Long Beach, Calif., also checked out, Mr. Adams said.

"We don't know if it was a dry run, that's why we are working together with intelligence and investigative agencies to help protect the homeland," he said.

Mrs. Jacobsen, however, is skeptical the 14 passengers were innocent musicians. "If 19 terrorists can learn to fly airplanes into buildings, couldn't 14 terrorists learn to play instruments?" she asked in the article.

The pilot confirmed Mrs. Jacobsen's experience was "terribly alike" what flight attendants reported on the San Juan flight. He said there is "widespread knowledge" among crew members these probes are taking place. A Middle Eastern passenger attempted to videotape out the window as the plane taxied on takeoff and, when told by a flight attendant it was not permitted, "gave her a mean look and stopped taping," said a written report of the San Juan incident by a flight attendant. The group of six men sat near one another, pretended to be strangers, but after careful observation from flight attendants, it was apparent "all six knew each other," the report said.

"They were very careful when we were in their area to seem separate and pretended to be sleeping, but when we were out of the twilight area, they were watching and communicating," the report said. The men made several trips to the bathroom and congregated in that area, and were told at least twice by a flight attendant to return to their seats. The suspicious behavior was relayed to airline officials in midflight and additional background checks were conducted.
A second pilot said that, on one of his recent flights, an air marshal forced his way into the lavatory at the front of his plane after a man of Middle Eastern descent locked himself in for a long period.

The marshal found the mirror had been removed and the man was attempting to break through the wall. The cockpit was on the other side.
The second pilot said terrorists are "absolutely" testing security. "There is a great degree of concern in the airline industry that not only are these dry runs for a terrorist attack, but that there is absolutely no defense capabilities on a vast majority of airlines," the second pilot said.

Dawn Deeks, spokeswoman for the Association of Flight Attendants, said there is no "central clearinghouse" for them to learn of suspicious incidents, and flight crews are not told how issues are resolved. She said a flight attendant reported that a passenger was using a telephoto lens to take sequential photos of the cockpit door. The passenger was stopped, and the incident, which happened two months ago, was reported to officials. But when the attendant checked back last week on the outcome, she was told her report had been lost.

Recent incidents at the Minneapolis-St. Paul international airport have also alarmed flight crews. Earlier this month, a passenger from Syria was taken into custody while carrying anti-American materials and a note suggesting he intended to commit a public suicide.

A third pilot reported watching a man of Middle Eastern descent at the same airport using binoculars to get airplane tail numbers and writing the numbers in a notebook to correspond with flight numbers. "It's a probe. They are probing us," said a second air marshal, who confirmed that Middle Eastern men try to flush out marshals by rushing the cockpit and stopping suddenly.

[cardcounter0]

Right on time. The 9/11 report was released today.
7 days until John Ashcroft has his press conference.

Move along, nothing to see here.

[Utah]

hmmm.....you dont think terrorists are probing us? When do you think they stopped exactly?

What's life like on planet denial?

So, if an attack happened would you believe it was a real attack or would you believe it was planned by the Bush administration.

[cardcounter0]

Try reading the article.

The most recent event (that is dated, a lot of this is just undated antidotial gibberish and non-events) happened a month ago. The other dated event was back in Feburary.

So why does this article appear on JULY 22nd, 2004?

Why not June 10th? Aug 3rd? WHY TODAY?

[B-Man]

You are paranoid. Just like the people who question the timing of the disclosure of Sandy Berger's crimes, rather than wondering why Mr. Berger was stuffing classified documents down his pants.

[cardcounter0]

He didn't put anything down his pants.

Hmmmm.... This article pertains to "probing" by terrorists,
ahhhh.... now I see why you are so interested in it.

[elwoodblues]

I wonder why he was stuffing things down his pants (other than the occasional zucchini) and I question the timing.

[adios]

Ok I'll bite, how does the timing of the info going public about Berger help Bush and/or the Republicans?

[elwoodblues]

I'm not sure, but it might distract from the 9/11 commission report. It might distract from the upcoming Democrat convention.

I'll toss the question back to you, why the delay in reporting the Berger incident (it happened and was investigated a while ago). The story didn't just magically appear in the press.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure, but it might distract from the 9/11 commission report. It might distract from the upcoming Democrat convention.

[/ QUOTE ]

It also might focus more positive attention on both as well /images/graemlins/smile.gif. It might do a lot of things. So the answer is there's no clear cut reason that a leak of the information would benefit the Republicans.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll toss the question back to you, why the delay in reporting the Berger incident (it happened and was investigated a while ago). The story didn't just magically appear in the press.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know but it seems to be irrelevant at least as far as I can tell. Perhaps a Democratic supporter leaked the information so the Republicans could be trashed for suspicious timing.

[miamikid]

[ QUOTE ]
Scouting jetliners for new attacks
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 22, 2004


[/ QUOTE ]

There is an almost exact article written first account by Annie Jacobson at womenswallstreet.com supposedly written a month ago.

http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
It also might focus more positive attention on both as well . It might do a lot of things. So the answer is there's no clear cut reason that a leak of the information would benefit the Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that there was a clear cut reason that the leak would benefit the Republicans. Let's be reasonable. This story is clearly beneficial for the Republicans. You can try to be cute suggesting a double-feint super tricky democrat might have leaked it, but that just doesn't ring true.

If the timing isn't suspicious with you that's fine. I would just suggest that there is a reason it was released (I am assuming that it was "leaked" to the press) when it was. It might be that it was leaked as soon as it was found it. It might be that it was leaked at this time for political reasons. That's something I would want to know. If you don't, so be it.

[andyfox]

" . . an air marshal forced his way into the lavatory at the front of his plane after a man of Middle Eastern descent locked himself in for a long period. The marshal found the mirror had been removed and the man was attempting to break through the wall. The cockpit was on the other side."

"Middle Eastern men try to flush out marshals by rushing the cockpit and stopping suddenly."

"a flight attendant reported that a passenger was using a telephoto lens to take sequential photos of the cockpit door."

And then what? These people are questioned and let go?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said that there was a clear cut reason that the leak would benefit the Republicans. Let's be reasonable. This story is clearly beneficial for the Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the sake of reason, if there is no clear cut reason that the leak benefits Republicans I can't see how it's clearly beneficial for the Repulicans. I think the Berger story is more of a media event than anything else and I don't see it having any impact on the election. My wife came up with a reason, Berger had to resign his role in Kerry's campaign so maybe there is an impact. It seems minor at most to me though.

[elwoodblues]

Let me put it another way. Assume that there was a leaker and he/she is a Republican. It doesn't matter if the leak is actually beneficial to the Rep's in only matters that the leaker would believe that it would be beneficial. Any right-minded (no pun intended) Republican would see this as a beneficial story for them --- and would probably believe that the release at this particular time is even more beneficial than if it were leaked not near the Dem's convention.

[ACPlayer]

We should have been preparing for fresh probes and attacks. Instead we have spend the last 15 months helping create more terrorists.

This administration is so lame brained it would be laughable if it was not so serious.

[John Cole]

And Bill Parcells is inviting opposing coaches to watch his team practice.

[andyfox]

You think these guys are as sharp as Bill Parcells?

[paland]

I agree that this is something to not take lightly. Whether the release of the information is political or not, the truth is that there are more terrorists now than ever and they REALLY dislike the USA now. This administration can hold some of the blame for it. What I don't like about it is that the country seems unprepared for any attack and that is inexcusable.

Let's hope that the terrorists keep busy in the Middle East until we get someone in office who gives a [censored] and will do something about it. The present administration seems weak against the terrorist threat, regardless of what the redneck croud thinks.

[jokerswild]

A legitimate complaint of the Democrats against the Bush administration is that by lying to the public about Iraq, he stopped focussing on Bin Laden. The unwarranted attack also has vastly increased Islamic radicalsism in the Middle East. The liklihood of attacks today is frankly higher because of the neglect of Al-Queda, and the creation of thousands more committted to terrorism as an unjust occupation plays out.

This is serious criticism levelled by just not the Democrats (and the CIA in Imperial Hubris), but by most moderate Arab states in the Middle East.

[nicky g]

The mirror thing especially. Surely he'd have been arrested and we'd have heard more about it if that was really what happened. Some of the article is worrying. Some of it is plain silly. Man told to stop filming out of window and gives air stewardess a "mean" look. Dundunduh. On the way back from the states recently some woman locked herself in the bathroom near me just before take off. In the end a steward practically hammered down the door demanding she get out. Upon exiting she too gave the stewardess a mean look. I wonder when we'll be reading about it in the Washington Times.

[MMMMMM]

On what basis do you (and the other Democrats you mention;-)) believe the Bush administration stopped focusing on al-Qaeda?

[cardcounter0]

Now if the guy had been smoking a cigarette in the lavatory when the sky marshal broke the door down, then he would have been in REALLY big trouble.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ACPlayer]

Well, lets see

1. For at least the past 2 years and possibly since the start of the administration the number one foreign policy focus has been Iraq, which we knew then and know for sure now had nothing to do with AQ. Even you are left with the only reason to invade Iraq being to save the average Iraqi from Saddam.
2. We have invested billions and 900 plus lives in Iraq, the same resources could have been used to fight AQ. 130,000 troops in Afghanistan instead would have been far more useful in rooting out the AQ and the rapidly reviving Taliban in that area.
3. The primary focus in the past six months has been managing the political fall out of Iraq, rather than the AQ.

Any person familar with organizational dynamics knows that when the bulk of executive management is focussed on a big problem (Iraq in this case) other management priorities suffer.

Even some of the more reasonable (as in those who think for themselves as opposed to supporting the administration blindly) have spoken out on this issue.

[MMMMMM]

M: "On what basis do you (and the other Democrats you mention;-)) believe the Bush administration stopped focusing on al-Qaeda?"

"Well, lets see

1. For at least the past 2 years and possibly since the start of the administration the number one foreign policy focus has been Iraq, which we knew then and know for sure now had nothing to do with AQ. Even you are left with the only reason to invade Iraq being to save the average Iraqi from Saddam."

Doesn't answer the question.


"2. We have invested billions and 900 plus lives in Iraq, the same resources could have been used to fight AQ."

Presuming that the same resources could have been used against al-Qaeda seems a stretch.


"130,000 troops in Afghanistan instead would have been far more useful in rooting out the AQ and the rapidly reviving Taliban in that area."

Some of those troops, surely. But with al-Qaeda taking refuge not only in the mountainous border region but also in Pakistan (Peshawar area for one locale) and even in Iran, 130,000 troops in Afdghanistan would have been an oversized deployment in Afghanistan only. Pakistan and Iran of course ae not permitting our troops to enter their borders in pursuit of terrorists (and that is where many of those guys are, sometimes going in and out of Afghanistan and back to the relative safety of Pakistan tribal regions).


"3. The primary focus in the past six months has been managing the political fall out of Iraq, rather than the AQ.
Any person familar with organizational dynamics knows that when the bulk of executive management is focussed on a big problem (Iraq in this case) other management priorities suffer. Even some of the more reasonable (as in those who think for themselves as opposed to supporting the administration blindly) have spoken out on this issue."

I don't disagree that some resources that could have been used to fight al-Qaeda, have been diverted to Iraq, nor that the politics of the IUraq war have consumed much energy. That however is a FAR CRY from the claim that the Bush administration has stopped focusing on al-Qaeda. There is only so much we can do in pursuit of al-Qaeda and it takes time. The administration is perfectly capable of working against al-Qaeda while being involved in Iraq--and is of course doing both right now.

[andyfox]

Yeah, smoking is verboten, but shtupping is OK.

[ACPlayer]

Perhaps, but those options were not even explored as we boondoggled in Iraq. Even a blind ass should be able to see that.

Disclaimer: Nothing in this post is personal.

[jcx]

Why does anyone think it makes the slightest difference whether Kerry or Bush is in office? Neither has the balls to allow airlines to do the one thing that will truly make skies safe: racial profiling. Because of political correctness run amok, it is virtually guaranteed there will be another terrorist attack using airplanes. There is a reason El Al planes do not get hijacked or blown out of the sky.

Disagree with me if you wish, it doesn't really matter. The airline industry barely survived 911. The next attack will finish it off and likely throw a few hundred thousand out of work. But we can sleep well at night knowing we didn't offend anyone.

[MMMMMM]

The administration did not stop pursuing al-Qaeda even while involved in Iraq. Continued captures of terrorists have been made; additional funding sources for terror have been cut off; intelligence continues to be collected on terror groups: all this and more has been a work in progress. Additionally, we maintain troops in Afghanistan so I am having a bit of trouble seeing your point. Granted if we had zero troops in Iraq we could have had more in Afghanistan. However my point in this entire sub-thread was that the administration did not STOP focusing on al-Qaeda (as some poster falsely claimed).

[MMMMMM]

You make a very important point, jcx.

U.S. airlines today risk large punitive fines if they search more than two Middle Eastern men prior to boarding on any flight. This is one of the stupidest policies that can be envisioned. So: say a total of 20 Middle Eastern men are in line to board a flight and 10 are acting very
suspiciously. Only two however can be searched because of (Minetta's?) policies /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

There should be no arbitrary limit whatsoever on the number of non-naturalized foreigners that may be searched prior to boarding any flight on U.S. soil.

Political correctness is a very flawed and pernicious ideology which inevitably WILL get a LOT of people killed.

[cardcounter0]

I don't think the airlines seach any passengers.

Airport security and Passenger Searches are handled by the TSA which is a government agency.

I don't think it matters anyways. I don't think a 9/11 scenario can happen again. It will be 4-5 hijackers versus 120 mad passengers. Aren't airline cockpit doors now hardened?

Doubt if passengers will sit quietly, or hijackers be invited into the cockpit with cooperative flight crew, in the future.

[MMMMMM]

Well, OK then, thanks for the minor correction: the TSA has that idiotic restriction in place, not the airlines themselves.

Hijackings may not be quite so easily accomplished, as you point out. However that doesn't mean terrorists can't/won't assemble a bomb or weapons from parts carried on by individual members of a team.

[ACPlayer]

I agree with the poster who says that the Admin is not focussing on AQ. The activities you mention are all at least third on the list of priorities at the admin (after reelection and iraq). Given that, the focus of the Admin on the AQ is very fuzzy at best.

If the focus had been on AQ, they would have realized that there strategy of going into iraq would create more AQ terrorists (as it did). Bush was so caught up in the crusade against Iraq that he lost sight of the real ball.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
However my point in this entire sub-thread was that the administration did not STOP focusing on al-Qaeda

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, they didn't STOP, but on a scale of 1-10 how hard have they been looking and focusing on AQ, now that they are in Iraq. 10 being the highest priority, and precisely where it should be.

They have easily wasted countless resources in Iraq, some of which could have been used in Afghanistan. [ QUOTE ]
Additionally, we maintain troops in Afghanistan

[/ QUOTE ] We may have maintained troops, but thats not good enough. In fact they probably could have used another 20,000 to 30,000 more troops there, instead they are in Iraq.

I will agree with you that they haven't stopped persuing AQ, but the war in Iraq has greatly lowered the effeciency and effectiveness of the pursuit, and I really don't see how that can be argued.

[MMMMMM]

"I agree with the poster who says that the Admin is not focussing on AQ. The activities you mention are all at least third on the list of priorities at the admin (after reelection and iraq). Given that, the focus of the Admin on the AQ is very fuzzy at best."

The U.S. government cannot focus on more than one or two things at once??? What a laughable presumption. That, dear ACPlayer, is one reason the U.S. government has various departments, agencies, deployments, etc.

"If the focus had been on AQ, they would have realized that there strategy of going into iraq would create more AQ terrorists (as it did)."

My take is that going into Iraq mostly just brought more of them out of the woodwork, so to speak. Better to kill them on foreign soil than face their attacks here. Al-Qaeda and their ilk realize what an awful blow democracy in the Middle East would be to their goals of Sharia and to
their eventual dream of restoration of the Caliphate.

[MMMMMM]

"I will agree with you that they haven't stopped persuing AQ, but the war in Iraq has greatly lowered the effeciency and effectiveness of the pursuit, and I really don't see how that can be argued."

That's not what I'm arguing. Since you mention it though, it ought to be rather hard for a layperson to ajudge just how much was diverted in the way of resources, since many of the methods used to fight al-Qaeda are not military, per se (though some are and necessarily so). So where you say "greatly lowered", I question the "greatly" part and perhaps you should too.

Also, it may be that if the democracy experiment in Iraq succeeds, we will have accomplished a great deal in terms of the larger war on terror and reforming the Middle East. If this can help lead to a freer, more democratic Middle East, that in itself may be the biggest victory we shall see in the war on terror in our lifetimes.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
it ought to be rather hard for a layperson to ajudge just how much was diverted in the way of resources,

[/ QUOTE ] well thats just redundant, so you can't really judge either, can you?

[ QUOTE ]
since many of the methods used to fight al-Qaeda are not military, per se (though some are and necessarily so).

[/ QUOTE ] Umm.. to fight AQ in Afghanistan, most of the methods are military.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. government cannot focus on more than one or two things at once??? What a laughable presumption. That, dear ACPlayer, is one reason the U.S. government has various departments, agencies, deployments, etc.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, Bureaucracy is very effecient.

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the airlines seach any passengers.

Airport security and Passenger Searches are handled by the TSA which is a government agency.

I don't think it matters anyways. I don't think a 9/11 scenario can happen again. It will be 4-5 hijackers versus 120 mad passengers. Aren't airline cockpit doors now hardened?

Doubt if passengers will sit quietly, or hijackers be invited into the cockpit with cooperative flight crew, in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't necessarily think that a hijacking is what they have in mind. It seems more likely that several different passengers would try to slip materials past security that could then be assembled into a bomb in the airplanes' lavatory. It would likely be exploded a few minutes before the plane lands because the terrorists know it would then be above a populated area.

By the way, while you can't take weapons as such aboard a plane, this doesn't mean one can't fashion one rather quickly. On another website I picked up a cool tip: A rock hard bar soap (Like Lava) can be placed inside a tube sock, creating an instant weapon that can be used to bash someone's head in. A little Neandertal perhaps, but it will do in a pinch.

[MMMMMM]

The FBI is one organization that is devoting considerable resources to anti al-Qaeda efforts. I can't imagine the FBI's resources were seriously diverted into Iraq.

[MMMMMM]

"Umm.. to fight AQ in Afghanistan, most of the methods are military."

Yes, but to fight al-Qaeda in Afghanistan at this point does not require entire armored divisions or 130,000 troops. What it does require is intelligence, CIA spying and aerial spying with computer tracking, perhaps some Predator strikes, special forces teams, and some ground troops. How many ground troops is a good question, but it is surely not anywhere near 130,000.

[ThaSaltCracka]

How about these two:
The U.S. military
CIA
???

[ThaSaltCracka]

yeah it may be no where near 130,000 but it is certainly higher than what they have there right now. I still cannot fathom how toppling Saddam was more important that catching UBL.

[MMMMMM]

Yes to some extent, certainly, but don't forget that al-Qaeda is playing a cat and mouse game utilizing the border areas in Pakistan, into which our troops are not allowed. If we mass troops along the border, we can't even completely seal it. We can't really use huge armored divisions effectively in Afghanistan at this point. What is better is: aerial strikes and special forces, and enough military on the ground to priovide some muscle if a larger group of al-Qaeda is discovered or encountered.

CIA aerial spying and satellite spying is sufficiently advanced to be able to track many areas simultaneously.

So while I agree that some resources were diverted, 1) the administration didn't "stop" focusing on al-Qaeda, as jokerswild claimed, and 2) I doubt the focus was "greatly" lessened although it was surely lessened to some extent. To precisely what extent is debatable. jokerswild's claim is patently false, and your claim is uncertain and open to debate.

[MMMMMM]

Yes Afghanistan would benefit from more troops now, especially with September elections coming.

If UBL is taking refuge in Pakistan or Iran, just how are we going to "catch" him?

[nicky g]

Looks from this as if the men genuinely were musicians. Perhaps terrorists could learn to play instruments but I think spending years building up a repuation as one of Syria's most popular singers and his backing band is a stretch:

Observer story (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1268788,00.html)

[ QUOTE ]
there was one problem in Jacobsen's account. The 14 men claiming to be musicians were, in fact, exactly that. Nour Mehana, a well-known Syrian singer, had been travelling on the plane along with his entire backing band.

James Cullen of Athem Artists confirmed that Mehana and the band were on the same flight as Jacobsen. The band went on to play a gig on the outskirts of San Diego.

Mehana, who plays a mix of traditional and modern Arab music, is well known in the Middle East. It is likely that he was the man Jacobsen saw sitting in first class wearing sunglasses. Jacobsen says she does not recognise Mehana or any of the band members.



[/ QUOTE ]

[smudgex68]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks from this as if the men genuinely were musicians. Perhaps terrorists could learn to play instruments but I think spending years building up a repuation as one of Syria's most popular singers and his backing band is a stretch

[/ QUOTE ]

The truth is irrelevant

[nicky g]

No, it's out there.

[MMMMMM]

So are the terrorists who actually are scouting airplanes for new attacks.

[nicky g]

Maybe. I was just pointing out that this story appears to have been groundless.

[MMMMMM]

Probably groundless.

[cardcounter0]

Actually it is an important fact. It makes your previous statement totally idiotic and false.

Airlines face large fines and only search two people of middle eastern descent. WRONG! FALSE! BIG LIE!

The airlines don't search passengers. The TSA does. The TSA does not take into account passengers national origin -- so it they were to search more than two passengers of middle eastern descent -- they wouldn't know it -- because the TSA is color blind.

Here are some facts: The head of the TSA is appointed by the President. GW has been in office for 4 years. If he doesn't like the job the TSA (which was created during his term) he can appoint a new head. The head of the FAA is appointed by the President. If GW doesn't like the job the head of the FAA is doing, he has had 4 years to change it.

Security matters of the FAA and TSA both report to the Dept. of HomeLand Security (an organization that GW created, and whose head he appointed). So if there is a problem with the performance of the FAA, the TSA, or how the Dept. of Homeland Security is handling airline security, it is a real big stretch to blame it on Clinton or Hillary. I'm sure you will be able to do it.

[cardcounter0]

Yes, those Syrian Bands can do tremendous damage.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Still have not addressed the point -- Since 9/11 cockpit doors have been hardened. Flight crews will not comply with hijackers wishes as they did before. Passengers will not sit quietly while a hijack takes place.

This reduces turning a plane into a huge flying weapon, into simply being able to blow up a single plane (with a lot of effort).

Obviously, now there are softer targets with a potential to create much more damage with less effort out there, than airlines.

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, those Syrian Bands can do tremendous damage.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Still have not addressed the point -- Since 9/11 cockpit doors have been hardened. Flight crews will not comply with hijackers wishes as they did before. Passengers will not sit quietly while a hijack takes place.

This reduces turning a plane into a huge flying weapon, into simply being able to blow up a single plane (with a lot of effort).

Obviously, now there are softer targets with a potential to create much more damage with less effort out there, than airlines.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be easier to blow up a random building, but I believe these bastards are still obsessed with bringing down an airliner, because they know if they pull it off they can virtually destroy the airline industry and thus a large part of our economy. Blowing up a building or some such nonsense will certainly wreak havoc in the local area, but not disrupt business as usual in most of the nation. And since these jerk offs figure (Correctly I believe) that the welcome mat for Arabs might get yanked after the next large scale terrorist attack they want to make it count.

[MMMMMM]

Your whole "point" about the correction is largely besides the point.

The main point is that politically correct regulations prohibit searching more than 2 middle eastern males pre-boarding on any US flight, which IMO is a foolish, irresponsible and potentially dangerous restriction..

Whether the airlines or the TSA do the searching is very much besides the point.

If I had stopped to think about it before writing the post, I would have realized that I spoke in error regarding the airlines themselves doing the searching.

So Bush may have picked a nitwit as director of the TSA. That is besides the point.

Thge point is that the restriction on how many middle eastern men can be searched is stupid and dangerous.

If you cannot see what constitutes the MAIN point here, and what is a minor correction, then there is obviously NO point in continuing the discussion.

[MMMMMM]

There have been other reports of groups scouting airliners for weaknesses.

Somehow I get the impression you are not really on the side of the USA. Sad.

[cardcounter0]

As I pointed out, THERE IS NO SUCH REGULATION. Doesn't exist. Sorry. Thanks for playing. Maybe you will have a better time with half-truths and skewed facts some other time. There is nothing that stipulates how many middle eastern men can be searched. One more time --- No regulation stipulates only two middle eastern men may be searched.

[adios]

I participated in a project studying airport security for the FAA in the mid nineties. High vulnerability to insiders (airline employees and such) was found to be the case at the time. On 9/11 I thought that insiders had probably planted weapons in the planes and the hijackers picked them up as I thought they must have had guns. Of course I was wrong and it was far easier to hijack a plane than at least I thought possible. I don't have any idea as to how this vulnerability has been addressed. The point about the cockpit doors is a good one I think and the point about suicide hijackers flying planes into building being part of the conciousness now is a good point. However, this does not preclude hijackings per se and blowing up airplanes can't be good for the airline industry or the U.S. either as another poster indicates. I'm not totally familiar how El Al is able to thwart terrorist threats and any info would be appreciated.

[MMMMMM]

(excerpt)"Just 10 days after September 11, in fact, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta made it clear that airlines may not discriminate on the basis of race during security checks. In addition, Mrs. Jacobsen reports, "During the 9/11 hearings last April, 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman stated that '...it was the policy [before September 11] and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory.' " This isn't a hollow regulation: In the three years following September 11, United Airlines, American Airlines and Continental Airlines settled discrimination cases with the Department of Transportation for a combined $3.5 million. When it comes to keeping a closer eye on men of Middle Eastern descent — who have been almost exclusively responsible for attacks on airliners over the past two decades — the airlines have their hands tied." (end excerpt)

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040722-083848-1042r.htm


So...they can't even have more than two of them in secondary questioning!!! PDC nitwism run amok.

(I'll leave it to you to ballyhoo the fact that "search" isn't synonymous with "questioning"--as if that impacts the MAIN POINT of the matter, which is such politically correct policies are endangering us all. And if they can't subject more than two to secondary questioning, do you really think they can search more than two? Doesn't questioning generally come before searching?)

[adios]

You might find this article regarding El Al intereting.

Unfriendly skies are no match for El Al (http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/10/01/elal-usat.htm)

from the article:

Despite their current anxieties, Americans also might balk at El Al-style ethnic profiling. Staff scrutinize the passengers' names, dividing them into low-risk (Israeli or foreign Jews), medium-risk (non-Jewish foreigners) and extremely high-risk travelers (anyone with an Arabic name). These people automatically are taken into a room for body and baggage checks and lengthy interrogation. Single women also are considered high-risk, for fear they might be used by Palestinian lovers to carry bombs.

[cardcounter0]

What a bunch of half-truths and lies.

No. Actually you are searched before questioning. What idiot would move someone to a private secure area for questioning before searching them for weapons?

Two - The airlines being sued for discrimination have nothing to do with TSA and security. Lawsuits I am familar with are airline personal kicking innocent people off planes in a discrimitory manner.

Three - The airlines hands aren't tied. They have no hands to tie. The TSA is responsible for airline security, questioning, and searches. So the reporter trying to tie lawsuits and fines with security rules and regulations is a lie.

[MMMMMM]

As I understand it, one primary reason EL Al is so good at thwarting hijacking attempts is precisely beause they are experts at profiling and interrogation. Their interogation techniques are designed to provoke emotional reactions which they are trained to interpret. They try to determine a person's sympathies and ideologies, as well as uncovering any inconsistent or suspicious facts (say logistical or identity related facts).

If El Al were institute politically-correct regulations that huge edge would be largely nullified.

El Al also has reinforced locking cockpit doors if I recall correctly.

The PC-correct approach to airport security is absurd IMO especially when dealing with people who are not US citizens. Profiling has been shown to be a very effective (though controversial) law enforcement tool. This however is not a matter of law enforcement but national security. I say if foreigners want to visit they should be subject to profiling and various security procedures to which U.S. citizens are not subjected. If they want to apply for citizenship they can fill out a form.

[MMMMMM]

"What a bunch of half-truths and lies."

What Transportation Secretary Mineta and 9/11 Commissioner Lehman said is right there in black and white. Argue with the interpretation if you like but don't classify it all as half-truths and lies.

"No. Actually you are searched before questioning. What idiot would move someone to a private secure area for questioning before searching them for weapons?"

You may be confusing "searched" with "frisked".

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it may be that if the democracy experiment in Iraq succeeds, we will have accomplished a great deal in terms of the larger war on terror and reforming the Middle East. If this can help lead to a freer, more democratic Middle East, that in itself may be the biggest victory we shall see in the war on terror in our lifetimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if the "democracy experiment" in Iraq results in replacing Sadam Hussein with Al Zarqawi (Spelling?), which at this point, seems to be at least as likely as its success, we will have made the middle east much more dangerous. Instead of the terrorists being based in poor, backward Afghanistan, with some under-the-table support from Saudi Arabians, they will have Iraq's oil revenues to fund them.

The Iraq venture was based on two very questionable assumptions:

1. That we could establish a democratic government in Iraq and make it stick.

2. That this will result in demcracy spreading to other middle east countries.

To make matters worse, the Bush administration had no realistic, workable plan to accomplish number one. They went in assuming that once they got rid of Saddam, the Iraqui people would be so greatful that they would cooperate completely.

When reality blew up their pipe dream, they had no idea what to do. I think we still have a chance to establish a stable, non-hostile, and possibly even democratic government in Iraq, but I don't think Bush and company are capable of getting it done.

[MMMMMM]

"And if the "democracy experiment" in Iraq results in replacing Sadam Hussein with Al Zarqawi (Spelling?), which at this point, seems to be at least as likely as its success,..."

At least as likely? I doubt that.

"When reality blew up their pipe dream,..."

It didn't, and it's far from over yet.


I think you are extrapolating too much and concluding too much too quickly.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
And if the "democracy experiment" in Iraq results in replacing Sadam Hussein with Al Zarqawi (Spelling?), which at this point, seems to be at least as likely as its success, we will have made the middle east much more dangerous. Instead of the terrorists being based in poor, backward Afghanistan, with some under-the-table support from Saudi Arabians, they will have Iraq's oil revenues to fund them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yours is a thoughtful post but I think this statement is absurd. I'm surprised nicky hasn't told you so yet /images/graemlins/smile.gif. The chances of Zarqawi and/or al Qaeda ruling Iraq are zero. However, you may mean that an Iraqi government that is more hospitable to terrorism may result. If that's the case then that's an interesting and good point IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
The Iraq venture was based on two very questionable assumptions:

1. That we could establish a democratic government in Iraq and make it stick.

2. That this will result in demcracy spreading to other middle east countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reasons you present here are a lot different than others have posted. I'm not so sure that they were assumptions of certainty but I'm sure there were probabilities assigned to each. But nonetheless your points are interesting and FWIW I think valid.

[ QUOTE ]
To make matters worse, the Bush administration had no realistic, workable plan to accomplish number one. They went in assuming that once they got rid of Saddam, the Iraqui people would be so greatful that they would cooperate completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure about no realistic plans but I think overly optimistic yes that's probably true. I do think a great many Iraqis are glad to be rid of Hussein and the insurgency represents a small portion of the Iraqi population.

[ QUOTE ]
When reality blew up their pipe dream, they had no idea what to do. I think we still have a chance to establish a stable, non-hostile, and possibly even democratic government in Iraq, but I don't think Bush and company are capable of getting it done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok fair enough and I appreciate your comments. What about point number 2 though? Good post IMO.

[astroglide]

Probably groundless

boooo

[MMMMMM]

Probably groundless in this one incident.

There is no doubt that terrorists are scouting airlines for weaknesses and that they would like to again attack using airplanes in some manner.

[cardcounter0]

probably going to use bombs hidden in their shoes too, right?
/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[MMMMMM]

Should the flight incident be so readily dismissed because Nour Mehana and his entourage turned out to be a traveling musicians?

Does it matter that he praised suicide bombers in a popular song, or that 13 of his entourage had expired paperwork and acted strangely during the flight?

Here is a great little article written by Heather Wilhelm. Those with open minds may enjoy it, and hopefully it will provoke further thought and discussion.


http://www.heatherwilhelm.com/Heather_Wilhelm_dot_com--Nour_Mehana.html

"Nour Mehana, the "Syrian Wayne Newton," has finally hit the big time. After
days of fevered speculation, Mehana has been outed as the mysterious Syrian
music-maker who, along with his band, set Northwest Airlines Flight 327 into a
tizzy over a feared terrorist "dry run."

For many, this discovery was a massive relief. In fact, one look at Mehana's
publicity photos set many minds at ease. This man, a terrorist? A man who
sings with a goofy Syrian band, plays in shady casinos, and has a cheesy
porn-style mustache? That silly woman Annie Jacobsen! Aren't we all so silly
and paranoid?

Mr. Mehana has a nice little song on his recent CD, by the way. It's
called "Um El Shaheed."

In English, that's "Mother of a Martyr."

I noticed "Um El Shaheed" on Nour Mehana's web site. "Shaheed," I knew,
meant "martyr," but that was as far as my Arabic could go. Since
martyrdom seemed an odd topic for a casino crooner, I called the Middle East
Media Research Institute. I spoke with Aluma Dankowtiz, who is fluent in
Arabic, to find out exactly what Mr. Mehana has to say.

"Mother of a Martyr" glorifies the death of a young Palestinian. Mehana sings
to a grieving mother that she should not be sad, because her son, who died as
a martyr, is a hero. She should be happy that her son is gone, Mehana croons,
because freeing Palestine and the Golan Heights are heroic goals. The song,
which starts slow and solemn, ends with a triumphant chorus, celebrating the
martyr's glorious death: "Allahu Akbar...Allahu Akbar...Allahu Akbar!"

Feel better? Somehow, after "Mother of a Martyr," that Wayne Newton porn-
style mustache becomes slightly less comforting. Hey, is anyone ready to jump
onto a plane with Mr. Mehana and his wacky band?

Come on, don't be shy!

Nour Mehana is, apparently, a religious man; according to one website
biography, he spent his pre-singing years reciting the Holy Koran. And
if "Mother of a Martyr" is any indication, Mehana also supports the Palestinian
intifada--and, along with it, martyrdom doctrines.

"Mother of a Martyr" does not, in any sense, prove that Mr. Mehana is involved
with terrorists. It does not mean that he was making a dry run on Flight 327.
However, it does suggest that Mr. Mehana embraces certain ideals of
martyrdom--similar to the very ideals that drove the 19 hijackers into the
World Trade Center.

Break out those tambourines!

Contrary to the protestations of America's chattering classes, the ideals of
martyrdom and jihad do not exist only on the Islamic fringe. Rather, these ideals
have generated a surprising amount of support in some regions of the Muslim world.
This support is broadcast loud and clear on Al Jazeera, in dozens of newspapers, and by
singers like Nour Mehana, whose glorification of martyrdom somehow doesn't
seem to bother those monitoring our friendly skies.

Johnelle Bryant, an official with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, met up
with Mohammed Atta several times before September 11. After Atta threatened
to slit her throat, talked about blowing up major United States cities and
landmarks, and came back to her in a disguise pretending to be someone else,
Ms. Bryant had this to say: "I felt that he was trying to make the cultural
leap from the country that he came from. I was attempting, in every manner I
could, to help him make his relocation into our country as easy for him as I
could."

Doesn't the condescending reaction to the "cheesy" Syrian band seem
disturbingly similar? Of course those Syrian band members were milling
about the plane--they didn't know any better! Plus, they play at casinos--they
must be truly clueless! In the blink of a news cycle, Nour Mehana was
transformed into a cartoonish, hapless non-threat, despite the fact that
his support for martyrdom doctrines is literally broadcast to the world.

American authorities say they checked Nour Mehana and his band out. But
as recent news reports have announced, authorities couldn't even catch the
fact that almost every single member of this travelin' band had fishy paperwork.
Thirteen of the Syrians who boarded Flight 327 has expired visas. No one
seemed to notice. Something is seriously wrong with this picture, and it goes
far beyond some questionable lyrics.

I traveled to Turkey about seven months after September 11, 2001. While
wandering through Istanbul's grand bazaar (where my husband, regrettably,
decided to wear an Indiana Jones-style hat, subjecting us to countless "Hey
Cowboy! Hey American!" catcalls), I found a beautiful bracelet for my mother.
"What does the writing on the bracelet mean?" I asked the man behind the
crowded counter.

He pulled an English-speaking colleague over to help me. The man handed
me the bracelet, smiling. "Ah," he said, as I smiled back. "It is beautiful,
isn't it?" He grinned even wider. "It says that there is no god but Allah…and that
he shall lead us to the victory!"

I dropped the bracelet back into his hands, shaking my head. He laughed.
"Ah! You," he said, pointing at me, "are not ready for the victory!" His smile
was wry. I laughed with him, agreed that I certainly was not ready for the
victory, and headed back into the bazaar.

My discussion with the vendor in Istanbul was a joke. We laughed together,
recognizing the absurdity of the situation. We were both, it turns out, on the
same page. I had a wonderful experience in Turkey. Sadly, however, our
joke could just as easily have been a sincere conversation.

Britain and France have recently started to deport controversial Islamic clerics.
A town in Michigan recently held a vote as to whether a mosque could play its call
to prayer over the city. The Nour Mehana saga has sliced open a problem that
will challenge America for years to come. America is, after all, a country of free
speech. We celebrate diversity. Essentially, because of what America stands for,
we have to let foreign musicians who sing about the glory of Palestinian martyrs
onto our airplanes, no questions asked.

Or do we?

It's worth thinking over. Whether it was a dry run or not, I still believe Annie
Jacobsen's story. Many strange things occurred on that flight, and one
of the strangest was that no one had the guts to ask the harmless Partridge
Family to sit down.

Nour Mehana, despite his affinity for Palestinian martyrs, may happen to be
a really nice guy. But it shouldn't be controversial to check him carefully, enforce
the rules, and make his band sit down when the "Fasten Seatbelt" sign turns on.
If I'm right, the implications are huge. If I'm wrong, I've insulted Syria's Wayne
Newton. I'm willing to take that risk.

**
Heather Wilhelm is a freelance writer. She is writing her Master's thesis
on Islamic fatwas, martyrdom doctrines, and the need to view
Al Qaeda through a religious lens. "

[cardcounter0]

For some one who doesn't have enough cognitive ability to figure out that FOX NEWS has a right wing bias, you sure do look at other things with a fine tooth comb.

Gee, a popular Syrian Musician writes songs that are popular with Syrian causes? OOOOOOOHHHHHHH!!!! WOOOOOOO!!!
Mommy, I'm scared.

His songs are similar to Travis Tritt, or any other "country" star, who sings songs like "I'm an American, and if you don't like it I'll kick your ass." or whatever cowboy macho is popular right now.

Should these people be banned from flying safe, secure, search-before-you-get-on, sky marshals may be on board, passengers pre-screened airplanes in what is supposed to be the land of freedom and of free speech?

[cardcounter0]

And I also see over the weekend, the Administration pumped up the fear factor with more vague undefined "threats". Surprised they waited until the day after the Democratic Convention, I thought they would have broke into the closing speeches with their announcement.

[nicky g]

"Does it matter that he praised suicide bombers in a popular song"

Please identify the section in this article that says he praised suicide bombers.

[MMMMMM]

I never suggested they should be banned from flying, just that the incident cannot be automatically dismissed merely because they are traveling musicians. There are a number of suspicious factors here and the whole thing doesn't warrant a blanket dismissal.

[cardcounter0]

You aren't saying? So WTF are you saying? What are you "suggesting"? What is your point?

You sound like the nosey old woman peeking thru the curtains. "Now, I don't want to say anything about the neighbors, but some things seem to be awful strange, but don't tell any one I said anything".

Tom Ridge and HomeLand Security needs you. Their vague fear mongering warnings of unknown threats are pretty weak, maybe you could help spruce them up a bit.

[MMMMMM]

So now we're going to nitpick over "praised"? It is clear that he is championing suicide bombing. But if you insist on nitpicking, try substituting "glorify" for "praise".

And try this too:


"Syrian music star sings praise of suicide bombers


By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


The Syrian singer of a band that was detained by the FBI's Terrorism Task Force for suspicious activity during a recent flight to Los Angeles has written about the "glorification" of suicide bombers to liberate Palestine.
Singer Nour Mehana's latest album includes the song "Um El Shaheed," or "Mother of a Martyr," said Aluma Dankowitz of the Middle East Media Research Institute.

The song tells the story of a woman who mourned her son's death until she realized that "he died for a good cause and he should be glorified for what he did," said Miss Dankowitz, who translated the song for The Washington Times.
Mr. Mehana, widely known as the Syrian Wayne Newton, sings to the mother that her son's goals are heroic and she should be happy he is dead.
"The song opens with the depiction of a mother crying over her son. He has said goodbye to his friends and family and is not going to come back. He went with a weapon in one palm and his heart in another palm and he's not going to come back," Miss Dankowitz said. "He went to fight to free Palestine, Golan Heights and South Lebanon."
The song ends with chants of "Allahu akbar," or "God is great," a common Muslim expression. Those were the last words shouted by a September 11 hijacker before the plane crashed into a Pennsylvania field and have been the last words of many suicide bombers in Israel.
Mr. Mehana's 14 Syrian band members were detained by officials June 29 upon deplaning Northwest Flight 327 from Detroit to Los Angeles, for acting in a suspicious manner that concerned the flight crew and air marshals on board.
Meanwhile, federal officials were summoned to Capitol Hill yesterday to brief Senate and House Judiciary Committee staff in response to reports of the incident, and the Federal Air Marshals Association requested a meeting with top officials in the Homeland Security Department.
Passenger Annie Jacobsen reported earlier this month in Women's Wall Street that the Syrians consecutively filed in and out of restrooms, stood nearly the entire flight in congregations of two and three, carried a McDonald's bag into the lavatory and passed it to another Syrian, and carried cameras and cellular phones to the restroom.
Just before landing, seven of the men jumped up in unison and went inside the restrooms. Upon returning to his seat, one man mouthed the word "no" as he ran his finger across his throat.
The men were flying on a one-way ticket via Northwest, and returning on a one-way ticket aboard JetBlue.
An Immigration Customs Enforcement official said Monday the men had overstayed their visit and should have returned on June 10, but a Homeland Security Department spokesman said they learned late Tuesday that an extension had been granted through July 15.
Officials called to Capitol Hill included Randy Beardsworth, director of Homeland Security's Operations, Border and Transportation Security Office; Thomas Quinn, director of the Federal Air Marshals Service; and Willie Hulon, deputy assistant director of the FBI's counterterrorism division.
One staffer who attended the briefing said officials were "very cagey" on details, which he described as "very frustrating."
However, the officials confirmed air marshals found the activities unusual and suspicious.
"They are trying to have it both ways and say yes, our people are smart enough to see something and that's why they called for authorities, but they deny it was as scary as it has been portrayed," the staffer said.
Homeland Security officials say they have no intelligence that terrorists are conducting dry runs on airplanes.
Federal air marshals and pilots also back Mrs. Jacobsen's account as similar to other incidents, and say terrorists constantly are probing security.
The Federal Air Marshals Association yesterday requested a meeting with top Homeland Security officials to discuss the issue of terrorist dry runs.
"A test run for terrorism is not to be ignored," said Bob Flamm, director of the association. "When a citizen stands up and speaks out in regard to air safety, it is the responsibility of law-enforcement officials involved to seek out the truth and not bury it."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040728-111758-3815r.htm

[MMMMMM]

I already made my point. Sorry if you missed it. Try rereading, that might help. My point was simple and expresly made clear.

Also, you might try not getting so worked up. It doesn't help analysis.

[nicky g]

It is anything but clear and it has nothing to do with nitpicking about praised. Neither of these articles show he even mentioned suicide bombings. They say he praised a "martyr". All of the people who have died in the intifada are considered martyrs by religious Muslim Palestinians. Less than 150 of them have been suicide bombers. Your inference is equivalent to saying that praising an Israeli soldier who died fighting for his country is the same as praising Barcuh Goldstein or soldiers who ahve committed war crimes.

[cardcounter0]

"The song ends with chants of "Allahu akbar," or "God is great," a common Muslim expression. Those were the last words shouted by a September 11 hijacker before the plane crashed into a Pennsylvania field and have been the last words of many suicide bombers in Israel. "

>>>>> What total misdirection and lies

So now we should be afraid of any one that says "Allahu akbar"? Or the phrase "Allahu akbar" is suspect? LOL.
"Allahu akbar" is similar to the phrase "AMEN" or "PRAISE JESUS". I wonder how many villages were burnt to the ground and innocents slaughtered by Middle Age Crusaders right after they said the words "AMEN"? Shouldn't we also fear any one who sings songs with these words also?

Gee, a bunch of religious fanatics say their religion's and language's equivilent of "AMEN" right before they blow themselves up? What a F'cking revelation!

[cardcounter0]

Obviously your point is you DON'T KNOW SQUAT!

Better go back to watching Fox News, you aren't required to think while doing that.

[AndysDaddy]

Without commenting on any of the merits of anyone arguments to any of the side issues arrising from the original poster, I offer this web site as a reasonable source indicating that Mrs. Jocobsen accounts of the flight are a misinterpretation at best:
Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/skyterror.asp)
Maybe there are scouts aboard airlines, maybe there aren't. But this article is not a good indication of anything other than our fears and prejudices.

[cardcounter0]

Undercover federal air marshals on board a June 29 Northwest airlines flight from Detroit to LAX identified themselves after a passenger, "overreacted," to a group of middle-eastern men on board, federal officials and sources have told KFI NEWS.

The passenger, later identified as Annie Jacobsen, was in danger of panicking other passengers and creating a larger problem on the plane, according to a source close to the secretive federal protective service.

"The lady was overreacting," said the source. "A flight attendant was told to tell the passenger to calm down; that there were air marshals on the plane."

[MMMMMM]

"Alluhah Akbar!" is also a phrase sometimes shouted by Palestinian suicide bombers in the instant before they detonate themselves.

[MMMMMM]

The term "shaheed" (martyr) very frequently refers to Palestinian suicide bombers and has a strong connotation in that sense. It is likely that this is included in what he was referring to, given the context of the song.

"Alluhah Akbar!" is a phrase commonly shouted just before suicide bombes detonate themselves.

[MMMMMM]

Other articles have indicated that the concern was justified.

Furthermore it is NOT mere prejudice to assign a greater than average chance likelihood of terrorist threat to a group 14 young/middle-ages Syrian males traveling without proper documentation.

[cardcounter0]

"Gee, a bunch of religious fanatics say their religion's and language's equivilent of "AMEN" right before they blow themselves up?"

What part didn't you understand? Why would this behavior surprise you? So, no one should use their language or speech for "Praise God" because some suicide bombers have uttered the phrase? Oh, wait a minute you didn't say that. You just want to cast suspicions on a Band because one of their songs contains that common phrase.

Sounds like Fox News trying to claim the rights to the words "Fair and Balanced". YOU can never post anything that is "Fair and Balanced" because Fox owns the rights to those words.

Aren't there some beds you could be looking for commies under?

[cardcounter0]

Once again you show your cognitive defects.

I don't care what "other articles" say. You see, Fox News and its minions can repeat each other's lies ad infintium.

I choose to believe the FEDERAL MARSHALS on the flight, and the FEDERAL OFFICIALS that were quoted.

AND AGAIN YOU HAVE FAILED TO DISCOVER: The "proper documentation" lie. They had proper documentation. The FEDS screened them on landing and checked it all.

There was no phoney documents. There was no improper documentation. Repeat that a couple of times, you seem to have a problem with comprehension.

[AndysDaddy]

I know I'm going to regret commenting any more on this thread, but to defend my original post:
1) Mrs. Jacobsen had no knowledge of their documentation status when she was speaking to airline or security personel.
2) There is at least some doubt that there were any problems with their documentation (see the explantion of the term "Expired Visa" earlier in this thread)
3) The other articles I have seen defending Mrs Jacobsen quoted directly from her original, or from her directly. I have seen no independent articles saying that her fears were justified.
4) Assigning a "greater than average chance" to an event and acting to near the point of hysteria about it (to wit: writing an article in a nationaly published magazine) are two very different things.

[cardcounter0]

I think Mrs. Jacobsen should be forced to write an article entitled "Chicken Little Revisited", and maybe take some racial discrimination classes.

[MMMMMM]

What I'm saying is that all the pieces of the puzzle, taken together, justify increased suspicion. You are trying to break things dowm in isolation, but the fact is that taken as a whole, the overall picture is somewhat more suspicious than the elements taken in isolation, and therefore warrants increased attention.


You are also overly concerned about possible prejudice, to the point of being somewhat unwilling to entertain analysis and discussion which is both relevant and important.

[MMMMMM]

No.

"An Immigration Customs Enforcement official said Monday the men had overstayed their visit and should have returned on June 10, but a Homeland Security Department spokesman said they learned late Tuesday that an extension had been granted through July 15."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040728-111758-3815r.htm

This means that when their papers were first discovered to seem out of date, it was reasonable to assume they were out of date, until later information was discovered.

That is a delay of a day or so before it was discovered that the dates were extended OK after all. That is just ONE reason why enhanced security precautions should have been taken with these men.

And since you are so keen on what federal officials say, try this one on for size:

Federal air marshals and pilots also back Mrs. Jacobsen's account as similar to other incidents, and say terrorists constantly are probing security.

The Federal Air Marshals Association yesterday requested a meeting with top Homeland Security officials to discuss the issue of terrorist dry runs.

"A test run for terrorism is not to be ignored," said Bob Flamm, director of the association. "When a citizen stands up and speaks out in regard to air safety, it is the responsibility of law-enforcement officials involved to seek out the truth and not bury it."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040728-111758-3815r.htm

[cardcounter0]

Every piece of the "puzzle" was bogus. Therefore, what ever you "put together" is WRONG.

Gee, a bunch of musicians traveling together on a long flight. Oh, they get out of their seats and talk to each other. Oh my. They (along with half the rest of the plane) periodically get things out of the overheads. They (along with half the rest of the plane) occasionally use the restrooms. They eat food. They drink drinks. Being native Syrians they speak to each other in their own language. They try to feign sleep on the long flight. Etc., Etc., Etc.

Yep, I would be holding them at gun point after I put together all those "pieces".

Like I said, aren't there some beds somewhere that you can look for commies under?

[MMMMMM]

There were other causes for concern; the documentation was not necessarily the most important factor.

A group of 14 middle-eastern males in the 20-45 age group falls in the highest demographic risk group for terrorists or jihadists.

Their behavior on the plane was suspicious. What do you make, especially, of the mouthed "No" and the finger across the throat?

[nicky g]

It refers to all people who die in the conflict. There is no specific reason to believe he is referring to a suicide bomber here.

[MMMMMM]

I think you should stop worrying so much about racial discrimination and start looking at facts and risk factors.

The highest risk group for terror attacks, BY FAR, demographically speaking, is 20-45 year old Middle Eastern males.

A group of 14 with ONE-WAY tickets (another risk factor), and ACTING STRANGELY on the flight should indeed have put crew and passengers on alert.

[MMMMMM]

I don't think every bit of it was "bogus". It appears strange still. Add the fact that the Syrian "Wayne Newton" glorifies Palestinian martyrdom in song, and if you can't see a greater risk there than with a group of, say, AARP citizens traveling, you are just wearing blinders, that's all.

[MMMMMM]

"It refers to all people who die in the conflict. There is no specific reason to believe he is referring to a suicide bomber here."

There's no reason to think he wasn't, either. And the "Alluhah Akbar!" chant at the end of the song fits perfectly with suicide bombing.

[cardcounter0]

Actually, there probably wasn't any 'strange behavior'.
It was all perfectly normal behavior that all passengers do.

The strangness was in the hysterical woman's cognitive disfunction similar to yours. If the flight was any longer she would have probably started seeing ghosts leaping out of overhead bins, and flames shooting from engines, and large white rabbits running down the aisle saying "I'm late, I'm late."

[cardcounter0]

You need to fire more than one neuron in your brain at a time.

BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID! THE BROWN SKINNED PEOPLE ARE EVERYWHERE!

[nicky g]

It fit perfectly with being a Muslim. Let me put it you like this. The vast majority of "martyrs" in th Palestinian conflict aren;t even combatants, let alone suicide bombers. Therefore a reference to a martyr is much more likely than not to be to a non-suiicide bomber. Of the millions upon millions of the utterences of Allahu Akbar every year, a vanishingly small fraction of them relate to terrorist acts. Therefore to suggest that the utterance has is as likely to have something to do with suicide bombing as not is absurd.

[cardcounter0]

"What do you make, especially, of the mouthed "No" and the finger across the throat? "

I don't know. What does a mouthed "No" look like? I thought these guys were strange because they spoke Arabic? So they speak Arabic, but mouth English?

Hmmmmmmm..... Suppose there was a mouthed "NO"? Could it be his traveling companion asked him if he would like a nice after dinner mint? Another pillow perhaps? And the guy mouthed "NO"? I have to watch what I mouth to my traveling companions -- if the word "NO" is something to fear.

Finger across the throat? Are you sure? Hysterical woman sees finger across the throat? Maybe he had an itch. Maybe he was saying "I've had it up to here with this crazy woman".

[cardcounter0]

"A group of 14 with ONE-WAY tickets (another risk factor), and ACTING STRANGELY on the flight should indeed have put crew and passengers on alert."

What is strange about ONE-WAY tickets? Whooops! the 9/11 hijackers used them. Wouldn't you think the real terrorists realizing what a red herring that now is would buy round trip tickets?

Don't you think a group of 14 one-way tickets was checked out at the time of purchase? Whooops, that's right - you don't think.

ACTING STRANGELY? ACTING STRANGELY? Please give me some strange behavior. Their actions were all quite normal, except in the eyes of a hysterical woman.

[cardcounter0]

Please don't let facts get into the way of Chicken Little in his search for commies under the bed.

[AndysDaddy]

I'll grant that if the actual events onboard the plane occured as Mrs. Jacobsen described them they would be "suspicious". As would "14 middle-eastern males in the 20-45 age group" flying on the same plane. Which is why I am also quite sure the group were quite thuroughly investigated before the flight, and may even be why an air marshall was on the flight in the first place.

My point is that being suspicious of something and then taking it to the level of writing an alarmist article about it without doing a minimal amount of fact checking is irresponsible. This is basically what the Snopes.com piece is saying.

[cardcounter0]

Your post brings up higher levels of thought that I don't think MMMMMM is capable of comprehending.

It seems he is in more of a "Middle Easterners, BAD! Alarmist Article, GOOOOD!" mode.

[MMMMMM]

It's not at all absurd, Nicky. The song as a whole fits perfectly with suicide bombing and Palestinian suicide bombing fits pefectly with the context of the song.

I'm not saying it is 100% that is what he was referring to; as you point out, it might not be. But one cannot rightly suppose it more likely that he wasn't, IMO.

[cardcounter0]

Some fools are smart enough to keep their mouth shut and not prove to every one what a fool they are.

[MMMMMM]

I really think you greatly overreact to any perceived possibility of prejudice, cardcounter0.

[cardcounter0]

Again, you miss the point. You must be a FOX NEWS watcher, where the simple one-dimensional point of view is repeated over and over, until even the most thick-headed picks up on it.

[MMMMMM]

"Some fools are smart enough to keep their mouth shut and not prove to every one what a fool they are."

Please either discuss/debate the issues on their own merits or don't discuss them at all. You are adding nothing to the discussions with your repeated personal attacks.

[MMMMMM]

It is too bad that you seem unable to differentiate between attempted objective analysis, and bigotry.

[cardcounter0]

There really are no "issues" that have any merit. At least anything you have brought up. It has either been FALSE, WRONG, or analyzed at such a simplistic level that it is laughable. Your ignorance of the way airlines work, middle eastern culture, and practically every other silly thing you have brought up is astounding.

[MMMMMM]

Sorry, but you are wrong. I don't own a TV and hence rarely watch Fox.

[cardcounter0]

There is nothing objective, nor analytical, in any of your weak positions that you post. Your attempts to differentiate have failed.

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again you show your cognitive defects.

I don't care what "other articles" say. You see, Fox News and its minions can repeat each other's lies ad infintium.

I choose to believe the FEDERAL MARSHALS on the flight, and the FEDERAL OFFICIALS that were quoted.

AND AGAIN YOU HAVE FAILED TO DISCOVER: The "proper documentation" lie. They had proper documentation. The FEDS screened them on landing and checked it all.

There was no phoney documents. There was no improper documentation. Repeat that a couple of times, you seem to have a problem with comprehension.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. So Federal Officials never lie. I can't see any reason why Federal Air Marshalls would be under pressure from their bosses to cover up anything that might have happened, can you? The only people who truly know were those on board.

If you wish to be led to the slaughter for the sake of political correctness, I have no quarrel with that. I for one will not hesitate to exit a plane where a group of Arab men board. When the Federal Govt that you trust so much allows airlines to take the measures that will make flying safe (Racial Profiling) I will relax this position somewhat.

I could care less if this makes me a racist by the way you define the word. I think you are a racist and hate people who think rational thoughts. Whether the woman on the plane was correct or not, if a group of Arab men behaved in this way on a flight you were taking and it did not bother you you must either be 1. Completely oblivious or 2. Certifiably insane.

BTW, Since GWB is a Federal Official, does that mean you believe everything he says as well?

[MMMMMM]

I'm glad you feel that way.

[cardcounter0]

The passengers behaved in a manner just like all normal passengers behave.

The next attack won't be with an airplane. BIG SURPRISE!

[MMMMMM]

"The passengers behaved in a manner just like all normal passengers behave."

The article cited in B-Man's title post in this thread contradicts your assertion:


"The men were seated throughout the plane pretending to be strangers. Once airborne, they began congregating in groups of two or three, stood nearly the entire flight, and consecutively filed in and out of bathrooms at different intervals, raising concern among passengers and flight attendants, Mrs. Jacobsen said.

One man took a McDonald's bag into the bathroom, then passed it off to another passenger upon returning to his seat. When the pilot announced the plane was cleared for landing and to fasten seat belts, seven men jumped up in unison and went to different bathrooms.

Her account was confirmed by David Adams, spokesman for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), who said officers were on board and checked the bathrooms several times during the flight, but nothing was found. "The FAMS never broke their cover, but monitored" the activity, Mr. Adams said. "Given the facts, they had no legal basis to take an enforcement action. But there was enough of a suspicious nature for the FAMS, passengers and crew to take notice."

Note too that the federal official, David Adams, said the activities were of a suspicious nature.


Since you say you believe what FEDERAL OFFICIALS say, here is more from the same article:

"Flight crews and air marshals say Middle Eastern men are staking out airports, probing security measures and conducting test runs aboard airplanes for a terrorist attack.

At least two midflight incidents have involved numerous men of Middle Eastern descent behaving in what one pilot called "stereotypical" behavior of an organized attempt to attack a plane.

"No doubt these are dry runs for a terrorist attack," an air marshal said.

Pilots and air marshals who asked to remain anonymous told The Washington Times that surveillance by terrorists is rampant, using different probing methods.

"It's happening, and it's a sad state of affairs," a pilot said."


You next wrote:

"The next attack won't be with an airplane. BIG SURPRISE!"

Well maybe or maybe not. Anyway here is what a JANUARY FBI MEMO says:

"A January FBI memo says suicide terrorists are plotting to hijack trans-Atlantic planes by smuggling "ready-to-build" bomb kits past airport security, and later assembling the explosives in aircraft bathrooms. On many overseas flights, airlines have issued rules prohibiting loitering near the lavatory."

Also from the same article:

"A second pilot said that, on one of his recent flights, an air marshal forced his way into the lavatory at the front of his plane after a man of Middle Eastern descent locked himself in for a long period.

The marshal found the mirror had been removed and the man was attempting to break through the wall. The cockpit was on the other side.
The second pilot said terrorists are "absolutely" testing security. "There is a great degree of concern in the airline industry that not only are these dry runs for a terrorist attack, but that there is absolutely no defense capabilities on a vast majority of airlines," the second pilot said."

[MMMMMM]

Any chance you used to go by the name "jokerswild"?

[MMMMMM]

"What is strange about ONE-WAY tickets? Whooops! the 9/11 hijackers used them. Wouldn't you think the real terrorists realizing what a red herring that now is would buy round trip tickets?"

One-way tickets are still regarded by airlines and TSA as one potential danger flag.


"ACTING STRANGELY? ACTING STRANGELY? Please give me some strange behavior. Their actions were all quite normal, except in the eyes of a hysterical woman."

Try rereading the original post by B-Man in this thread. Apparently you missed this, and missed the fact that federal officials concurred that it was strange behavior:

"The men were seated throughout the plane pretending to be strangers. Once airborne, they began congregating in groups of two or three, stood nearly the entire flight, and consecutively filed in and out of bathrooms at different intervals, raising concern among passengers and flight attendants, Mrs. Jacobsen said.

One man took a McDonald's bag into the bathroom, then passed it off to another passenger upon returning to his seat. When the pilot announced the plane was cleared for landing and to fasten seat belts, seven men jumped up in unison and went to different bathrooms.

Her account was confirmed by David Adams, spokesman for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), who said officers were on board and checked the bathrooms several times during the flight, but nothing was found. "The FAMS never broke their cover, but monitored" the activity, Mr. Adams said. "Given the facts, they had no legal basis to take an enforcement action. But there was enough of a suspicious nature for the FAMS, passengers and crew to take notice."

If anything I think you may be the one who is getting hysterical /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[cardcounter0]

"The men were seated throughout the plane pretending to be strangers."

Gee, that must mean since they had been assigned seats seperately, that they didn't yell and wave at each other -- "Hey ABDUL, I'm sitting over here!"

"Once airborne, they began congregating in groups of two or three"

Gee, that pretending to be stranger gig, didn't last long. Seems like they stopped as soon as they were airborne, and did what people traveling together and getting assigned seperate seats do -- Congregate together!

"stood nearly the entire flight,"

Yep, when was the last time you flew coach? I stood on my last trip to Vegas almost the entire time, to save my knees. (and I congregated with another guy a couple of rows up, who also stood most of the trip).

"and consecutively filed in and out of bathrooms at different intervals,"

Ever seen an airline bathroom? Now it would be really strange if two or three got into it at the same time! You have to use it consecutively.

"raising concern among passengers and flight attendants, Mrs. Jacobsen said."

As we have learned the concern of the flight attendants was the hysterics of Mrs. Jacobsen blowing flight marshall's cover. The concern of the passengers was probably that they were flying with a crazy lady, or they were Fox News listeners.

"One man took a McDonald's bag into the bathroom, then passed it off to another passenger upon returning to his seat."

Drugs? After Shave? Who knows? Maybe he just wanted the other guy to throw it away? Taking a paper bag to the restroom -- WOW!

"When the pilot announced the plane was cleared for landing and to fasten seat belts, seven men jumped up in unison and went to different bathrooms."

SAME EXACT THING Happens on every flight I have flown. As I already pointed out, all 7 couldn't have gone to the same bathroom, now could they.


THIS BEHAVIOR IS A WEAK CASE. AND YOUR FALSE DOCUMENTATION WAS FALSE ALSO. Do you cry "Fire!" in crowded theaters if some one lights a cig?

[cardcounter0]

"The men were seated throughout the plane pretending to be strangers."

Gee, that must mean since they had been assigned seats seperately, that they didn't yell and wave at each other -- "Hey ABDUL, I'm sitting over here!"

"Once airborne, they began congregating in groups of two or three"

Gee, that pretending to be stranger gig, didn't last long. Seems like they stopped as soon as they were airborne, and did what people traveling together and getting assigned seperate seats do -- Congregate together!

"stood nearly the entire flight,"

Yep, when was the last time you flew coach? I stood on my last trip to Vegas almost the entire time, to save my knees. (and I congregated with another guy a couple of rows up, who also stood most of the trip).

"and consecutively filed in and out of bathrooms at different intervals,"

Ever seen an airline bathroom? Now it would be really strange if two or three got into it at the same time! You have to use it consecutively.

"raising concern among passengers and flight attendants, Mrs. Jacobsen said."

As we have learned the concern of the flight attendants was the hysterics of Mrs. Jacobsen blowing flight marshall's cover. The concern of the passengers was probably that they were flying with a crazy lady, or they were Fox News listeners.

"One man took a McDonald's bag into the bathroom, then passed it off to another passenger upon returning to his seat."

Drugs? After Shave? Who knows? Maybe he just wanted the other guy to throw it away? Taking a paper bag to the restroom -- WOW!

"When the pilot announced the plane was cleared for landing and to fasten seat belts, seven men jumped up in unison and went to different bathrooms."

SAME EXACT THING Happens on every flight I have flown. As I already pointed out, all 7 couldn't have gone to the same bathroom, now could they.

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU HAVE FLOWN?

[cardcounter0]

One more time, viewed Non-Hysterically.

"The men were seated throughout the plane pretending to be strangers."

Gee, that must mean since they had been assigned seats seperately, that they didn't yell and wave at each other -- "Hey ABDUL, I'm sitting over here!"

"Once airborne, they began congregating in groups of two or three"

Gee, that pretending to be stranger gig, didn't last long. Seems like they stopped as soon as they were airborne, and did what people traveling together and getting assigned seperate seats do -- Congregate together!

"stood nearly the entire flight,"

Yep, when was the last time you flew coach? I stood on my last trip to Vegas almost the entire time, to save my knees. (and I congregated with another guy a couple of rows up, who also stood most of the trip).

"and consecutively filed in and out of bathrooms at different intervals,"

Ever seen an airline bathroom? Now it would be really strange if two or three got into it at the same time! You have to use it consecutively.

"raising concern among passengers and flight attendants, Mrs. Jacobsen said."

As we have learned the concern of the flight attendants was the hysterics of Mrs. Jacobsen blowing flight marshall's cover. The concern of the passengers was probably that they were flying with a crazy lady, or they were Fox News listeners.

"One man took a McDonald's bag into the bathroom, then passed it off to another passenger upon returning to his seat."

Drugs? After Shave? Who knows? Maybe he just wanted the other guy to throw it away? Taking a paper bag to the restroom -- WOW!

"When the pilot announced the plane was cleared for landing and to fasten seat belts, seven men jumped up in unison and went to different bathrooms."

SAME EXACT THING Happens on every flight I have flown. As I already pointed out, all 7 couldn't have gone to the same bathroom, now could they.

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU HAVE FLOWN?

[MMMMMM]

To all of the above, add the fact of the finger drawn across the throat and mouthed word "no". Add the fact that they initially pretended not to know each other.

Add the fact that the lead singer wrote a song glorifying Palestinian martys and ending with the common suicide bomber exclamation just before detonation, "Alluhah Akbar!". Add the fact that they are all in the highest demographic risk group for terrorism.

Put it all together and to me it looks considerably less than "perfectly normal". But it might be. I have an open mind about it. Apparently, though, your mind is already made up.

[MMMMMM]

What a waste of space.

[cardcounter0]

"To all of the above, add the fact of the finger drawn across the throat and mouthed word "no". Add the fact that they initially pretended not to know each other."

I already addressed this noise. Mouthed word 'No'? I thought they spoke arabic? But they mouth in English? Fellow passenger could have asked if he wanted a magazine, and he mouthed "no" in response. More hysteria.

Finger across the throat? Isn't that a common gesture for musicians? Are you sure? Maybe it was an itch. More Hysteria.

"Add the fact that the lead singer wrote a song glorifying Palestinian martys and ending with the common suicide bomber exclamation just before detonation, "Alluhah Akbar!".

Repeatedly proven false. You are really stretching here. No such thing. "Alluhah Akbar" is a common phrase much like "fair and balanced". Sorry thanks for playing, please try again.

"Add the fact that they are all in the highest demographic risk group for terrorism."

This seems to be their only true "crime".

[MMMMMM]

You are apparently incapable of putting all of the above small facts together to come up with a higher than average risk assessment. Good luck to you.

[cardcounter0]

Passengers did not act strangely to a normal human observer.
Passengers did not write songs glorify suicide bombers.
Passengers did not have false identification.
Passengers were on legitimate business trip.

Aren't there some beds you can hunt commies under?

[MMMMMM]

"Passengers did not act strangely to a normal human observer."

So the federal officials' characterization of it as "strange" should be completely discounted.

"Passengers did not write songs glorify suicide bombers."

Believe what you want. I'd lay odds that that pop song he wrote which glorified Palestinian martyrs was inclusive of suicide bombers. Furthermore you cannot claim that it wasn't, only that it might not have been.

"Passengers did not have false identification."

There was ample reason for initial concern because the visas appeared to be expired.

"Passengers were on legitimate business trip."

Maybe that is the whole story. Maybe they were "probing for weaknesses" too, or something else.

"Aren't there some beds you can hunt commies under?"

Yeah, yours probably.

[Rushmore]

Having read the entire thread, what I'm most concerned about is not whether this woman was right or wrong in her fears, but about the guy trying to pry the mirror off in the bathroom.

I cannot find anything to corroborate this story.

If this story is untrue, the entire theory about "dry runs" is in question.

If the story is true, why haven't I heard it elsewhere?

If the story is true, and I haven't heard it elsewhere, then is there an effort being made to keep it quiet?

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]

"Aren't there some beds you can hunt commies under?"

Yeah, yours probably.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, the commies are under MY bed, and you can't have them! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Second: I am willing to bet that I am the ONLY person you will ever speak to who was ever accused by a foreign government of terrorism. That's right, I was pulled off a plane at gunpoint in 1991 (I think that is correct, it was during the tail end of the first Iraq war) by two solders holding Uzis in England. After I was thrown in jail, they accused me of being a member of the IRA. Apparently there is a known IRA criminal with my exact name (which is really odd since I have two first names... what's the odds of that happening?). To make a long story short they apologized after they discovered it was not me, but deported me for 5 years anyway because they found work related material that I traveled with (yep - can't bring work to the UK when you are on holiday... its true!).

So now here comes the punch line. 24 hours after I left, John Major's apartment was hit my a mortar shell allegedly fired by the IRA. I no longer hold any grievance against the British government, I understand they were just trying to protect their citizens.

Third: Now that I am qualified to understand the psyche of a foreign group of people who are (understandably) scared that they will be accused of being terrorists by inbreed rightwing Americans, they decided to separate from each other before they got on the plane to avoid discrimination while being searched. That's right, they were probably ADVISED to avoid each other before they got on the plane to make sure they got their flights. If they were really scoping things for a future attack, our government would not have let them go so easily. Sounds like a clear case of bigotry and profiling to me... an understandable case since our nations allegedly under attack, but this is the exact same reason why the CIA is in trouble now...

[jokerswild]

This has demonstrated again that M knows very little. He does hate Islam. He advocates invading Iran. I would say that he doesn't read Zogby because he is Arab-American, but that would be giving M too much credit. He gets his news from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the Drudge Report.

He probably would support Arab-American concentration camps.

[MMMMMM]

The only part you got right is that I think invading Iran might be a good idea; not sure yet. Depends on further developments, actually.

[MMMMMM]

Interesting story, thanks for posting it.

Your theory may be correct; maybe they wanted to avoid attracting unwished-for attention preboarding.

I would like to point out is that there is a distinction between profiling and bigotry. Profiling is a very effective law enforcement tool, although like many tactics, it carries the potential for abuse. Profiling can also be quite useful in security matters.

It is bad when profiling spills over into abuse, and steps should be taken to reduce the chance of that occurring. It is also bad if attempts to avoid perceived bigotry go so far as to negatively impact legitimate and potentially vital security concerns.

[Luv2DriveTT]

um... I wish I could have said that myself. You got my point exactly. Profiling is an unfortunate but necessary tool in trained law enforcement. However it crosses the line because the stewardesses are untrained in these matters. Obviously when they landed the athorities conducted their investegation and let these people free... which tells us the flight crew need better training.

On a related note, Americans have got to stop think Arabs will be the ones who next attack America. There are more African and Asian followers of Islam than Arabs, in fact the country with the largest radical populous is Indonesia. The real war against terrorism should have been supporting the Philipines who are about to enter into a holy civil war, and educating the poor and the teachers in existing Madrassas in Pakistan, Indonesia, Mylasia, Ubekistan, etc. Iraq was a waste, the new enemey lives in other countries and are acting alone. The days when a nations leader is held accountable for terrorist actions are dwindling, we are now fighting organised individuals - we need to start thinking like them and fighting like them! /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Knockwurst]

Check Fox News or The NY Post, I'm sure they have additional information.