"It's still the same old story, a fight for love and glory.......".
No, wrong song.
Fox News has another hum-drum story about a Muslim woman kicked off a plane for acting suspicious. Airline clears things up. Apology given. Not good enough. CAIR is launching another lawsuit.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/06/muslim-woman-suing-southwest-for-kicking-her-off-san-jose-bound-flight/?test=latestnews
What do you think? Racial or religious profiling? Would the woman have been hassled and taken off the plane had she not been overheard (apparently erroneously) saying, "It's a go.? I think not. If she was hassled just because she was Muslim, why did they let her on the plane in the first place? Do you think Muslim passengers are being given just a tad more scrutiny? I wonder why.
In fact, here's a hypothetical scenario. Suppose on September 11, 2001, those 19 hijackers had been discovered with box-cutters and denied boarding by security personnel. Do you think CAIR would have launched a lawsuit? Imagine their case; 19 young Muslim men denied boarding-all with box-cutters. Clear case of profiling, Your Honor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I think many of us should start flying Southwest. And let them know why.
This woman didn't have any boxcutters.
If they are that worried about cell phone communications, they should either require cell phones to be in checked lugguage, or jam all cell phones on the plane.
I can picture what could have been going through the flight attendant's mind -- I've read an account of 9/11 which has the leader of the hijackers notifying other teams by cell phone, from a plane about to take off, that the operation is on.
But "I though I heard her say 'It's a go' is far too speculative to pull a passenger off a plane. And to everyone who thinks its reasonable to give extra scrutiny to a woman wearing a hijab I have one answer: Richard Reid.
Not an equivalent comparison.
A group of Male Arab/Muslim passengers with box-cutters is not equivalent to a lone Female Arab/Muslim passenger with a cell phone.
Only bigotry can lead one to such an incongruous juxtaposition.
It was what they thought they heard her say on her cell phone that led to her being removed. better safe than sorry. How many times have ordinary people been detained for questioning at airports because they made some joke at the security checkpoint?
Anonymous,
It is not because of Jews like Pollard and Madoff or any others that we have to undergo all these security controls at airports.
Gary Fouse,
It is not because of Arabs/Muslims like Bin Laden and Awlaki or any others that we have to undergo all these security controls at financial markets and intelligence agencies.
Sounds like a conspiracy theorist
Yes.
I suppose there is a certain potential for reverse psychology... the al Qaeda cell knows that the Americans expect them to send clean-shaven operatives in western clothes, so this time, sending a lone woman in a hijab just might fool them... that's why TSA told my sister (who looks more Jewish than Arab) that they had to do a gloved search of her thighs since she was wearing a skirt. Apparently women should wear slacks on flights.
There is a certain amount of non sequitir in the back and forth here.
Starting or stopping a Bernie Madoff or Jonathan Pollard is not a matter of minutes. Also, both were native-born citizens, so immigration was not an issue.
Nobody said they were the reason for hightened scrutiny of airline passengers. The attempted analogy concerned profiling.
It IS "because of Arabs/Muslims like Bin Laden and Awlaki" that we have our current level of airport scrutiny.
You're all wrong. And Findalis would be in for a rude shock if she ever flew Southwest -- she strikes me as a woman who expects better service that they offer.
Another non sequitir Gary. Neither of the gentlemen you mention was wearing a hijab. Which is why I mentioned Reid in the first place, come to think of it.
Are you sure you teach English? Do your students come out of class knowing how to communicate clearly, succinctly, and accurately, so they will be understood by their audience?
Is it because I left out the word "think" (that reid and Abdulmetallub were dumb?)
My students come from all ove rhe world and have their cultural ways of expressing themselves clearly.
Actually, they do better than you.
The word "think" alters nothing. Anony Mouse didn't say the hijackers were dumb. Anony Mouse said you are dumb if you think that al Qaeda et al. would send an agent in a hijab to carry out an operation.
I don't agree, in substance, with Anony Mouse. I have pointed out that both you and Anony Mouse were indulging in non sequitirs, muddling both of your points. So, when you indulged yet another non sequitir, I thought it appropriate to dissect why it was a non sequitir.
If you can't tell the difference, then whatever your students have accomplished in the way of writing skills they deserve great credit for, because your writing at this site does not evidence that they can look to you to raise their standards.
Siarlys,
Unlike you and Lance, i don't deal with "non sequitirs" and "strawmen" in my arguments. I deal in the real world and deal with it as I see it.
Unfortunately Gary, what you see bears no resemblance to the real world. Even more unfortunately, the terms "straw man" and "non sequitir" have precise meanings, which help guide correct use of the English language, and you haven't a clue about either one -- except that you find them inconvenient when you are trying to feel good about your late utterance. Very sad for someone our youth look to as a source of guidance in learning to use the English language for effective communiation.
non sequitir, the term I was using, is defined in the American Century Dictionary as "statement or remark that does not follow from the previous conversation." [L: It does not follow.]
In short, while Anony Mouse may be wrong, your statements do not show it, because you are responding to something Anony Mouse never said.
Although I am almost always right, your statements have no capacity to test whether maybe I'm wrong, because, again, your statements do not respond to anything I said either.
What DO you teach your students? Teaching them that non sequitirs are ineffective and do not lead one anywhere close to the truth should be fundamental to teaching English.
I'll let Lance offer a definition of "straw man" and authority for same, if he ever finds it worth his while to make an appearance. I hear he's given up on you as hopeless.
Post a Comment