I don’t read many conservative blogs. I enjoy some quasi-conservative libertarian-types — Marginal Revolution, Daniel Drezner, Balloon Juice, The Volokh Conspiracy. (Even if libertarian policy principles are kind of crazy, they are often smart and provocative.) But the hard-core rightosphere, places like Little Green Footballs and Powerline and Michelle Malkin, I just find creepy. (But I must point out that I’m box office at The Free Republic: see here, here, here, and here. Freepers find me fascinating.)
It’s truly a different world, and worth an occasional glance, just to be reminded that the set of “important news stories” can be entirely distinct from what I might think. For example, I’d been completely ignorant of the menace of the flying imams, the subject of literally hundreds of breathless blog posts. Not being an aficionado of modern religions myself, at first I thought they had something to do with yogic flying, but it turns out that’s something else entirely.
The story is that six Muslim clerics were removed from a US Airways flight from Minnesota to Phoenix a couple of weeks ago, accused of acting suspiciously. They were led away in handcuffs before being questioned and released, while their flight left without them. US Airways refused to let them travel on a different flight the next day; they eventually flew home on other airlines.
As far as I can tell, the suspicious behavior consisted of the following:
- Praying.
- Speaking Arabic.
- Saying “Allah” out loud, several times.
- Remarking unfavorably about US policy in Iraq.
- Sitting in seats “reminiscent of a 9/11 hijackers seating configuration.” I think that means they weren’t all sitting together — some were even in first class!
- Requesting seat-belt extenders, even though they weren’t really all that overweight.
- Moving about the airplane, before takeoff, to talk with each other.
That’s about it.
To me, it sounds like the US Airways flight crew overreacted a bit. The seat-belt extender business is apparently suspicious because they could potentially be used as weapons. Picture in your mind’s eye, six imams (one of whom was blind) swinging their seat-belt extenders like nunchucks, overpowering a planeload of pasty Midwesterners. The “moving around” also has a relatively prosaic explanation — one of the imams who had upgraded to first-class decided to offer his seat to his blind colleague, who declined the offer. See, if they had been cold-hearted atheists who didn’t have religion to tell them to be nice to each other, all of this could have been avoided.
But, ultimately, I don’t place too much blame on the flight crew for reacting as they did. A situation unfolding in real time is always unclear, and caution is warranted; better to inconvenience a few people than put an entire flight at risk. Although I don’t think the situation was handled well, it was an understandable overreaction, and should be something we can put behind us. Mistakes were made, sorry about that, can’t be too careful, etc.
The bloggers who jumped all over the original reports, though — they don’t think that way. They can’t think that way. It must have been a real threat, or their entire worldview is in jeopardy.
Debbie Schlussel is outraged that the imams haven’t been banned from flying on airplanes for all eternity. (For what, exactly?) Instapundit thinks that anti-Muslim sentiment is their fault. Michelle Malkin claims that one of the imams admitted supporting Osama Bin Laden! Okay, the alleged support was against the Russians in the early 1990’s, and was encouraged by the CIA at the time. But still! Pajamas Media thinks it must have been a “dry run.” Apparently, it eventually dawned on some people that praying loudly and shouting “Allah” would probably not be recommended doctrine if you actually did want to sneak onto an airplane and stage a surprise mid-air coup, so all that praying and talking in Arabic must have been part of a coordinated campaign to soften up security personnel before the next actual attack. Or something like that; I can’t keep all the theories straight.
The entire incident is reminiscent of the time in June 2004 when journalist Annie Jacobsen freaked out at the presence of a group of Middle Eastern men on a plane. Not only were the men completely harmless Syrian musicians, but it turns out that Jacobsen’s own behavior had potentially put the flight in danger, in the opinion of air marshals.
What would you do, if you were Annie Jacobsen? Realize that you had overreacted just a tad, and examine how deep-seated fears can lead to unwarranted conclusions? No, if you were Annie Jacobsen you would write a book about how we’re not nearly afraid enough of dark-skinned people on our airplanes.
We’re very proud, in this country, of our commitment to equality, liberty, and the rule of law. But a lot of Americans are living in fear right now, and are willing to sacrifice much of the freedom that makes this country what it is in order to combat that fear. How far are they willing to go? Newt Gingrich is campaigning against the First Amendment. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress (and the guest of honor at the conference the flying imams were attending), is accused by Dennis Prager of undermining American civilization because he will take the oath of office on a Koran instead of a Bible. When radio host Jerry Klein suggested — as a spoof — that American Muslims should be forced to wear identifying tattoos or armbands, reminiscent of Nazi measures against Jews, he was disgusted to hear many audience members call in to express their full-throated support for the idea.
This fear is real, and politicians will take advantage of it, shamelessly and unapologetically. I’m not worried that the U.S. will descend into actual authoritarian rule, as these things are understood worldwide. But encroachments on liberty in the name of security can be pernicious and severe even if they come very gradually. That’s a much bigger threat to our society than terrorism will ever be.
Suppose we justify the freak-outs by ‘the current situation’ (no doubt to everyone the situation is different), should we not apologise for a misunderstanding to the ‘imams’ After the air is clear?
About the stunt theory (JoAnne, #21) It indeed was a very strange choice of ‘commanders’ for the ‘operation’. A blind man in the ‘gang’!
I strongly think that people has been MADE panaroid about the ‘other’. That is the problem with political nationalism, as Shaw would tell you, it tends to surely find one (or more) ‘other’ to contrast with ‘us’.
Racism just won’t die, will it?
Rob Knop: Maybe you’re being overly analytical in wondering if you’re being overly complacent in thinking that Coturnix is overly alarmist.
I suppose you think those people who fought back on flight 93 were out of line. Six muslims all get up during the plane we should let them be.
Er, you left something out.
Try: six muslims all get up during the plane flight and hijack it.
Those last three words were the crucial part.
Now, suppose that word got out on 9/11 via cellphones, and on other flights people started tying up or killing any muslims present. That would have been out of line.
Rob Knop: Maybe you’re being overly analytical in wondering if you’re being overly complacent in thinking that Coturnix is overly alarmist.
Do you think it would be overly defensive of me to wonder if you’re being overly critical? 🙂
-Rob
Al Qa’ida operatives always prepare their terror attacks by studying the security measures. I think that if they are going to conduct another 9/11 style attack then in the moments before the attack they won’t pray nor speak Arabic.
Maybe they’ll use a few persons dressed like imams who will behave like the persons who were removed from the US Airways flight to divert attention 🙂
After 9/11 the increased security measures have made it almost impossible to replicate the events on 9/11. But large scale attacks ae still posible. E.g. if I were Bin Laden, I would send a few my followers to medical school for a few years. They would then use their knowledge to implant explosives in the abdominal cavities of suicide bombers. These explosives can be set off remotely via a device that looks like a mobile phone.
You could have many hundreds of these suicide bombers right now ready to board planes, and no one would notice anything suspicious.
Apparently it all comes down to this: if you are criticizing the American war in Iraq and happen to be a Muslim cleric, that’s enough ‘reason’ for others to suspect you are going to blow the plain to smithereeens. Pretty understandable reaction, isn’t it? Only in a country afflicted by a deep-seated paranoia.
If you have ‘liberals’ thinking this is enough reason for the crew to be suspicious, what can you expect from ‘conservatives’?
Rob #9: “When that descent starts…”
*When* …?! It has already begun. The Bush Administration’s Total State approach was clear to me in 2001 when they started redefining common words.
Quote from F. Hayek, pg. 172-173, _Road to Serfdom_, 1944:
“The most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language, the change of meaning of the words by which the ideals of the new regimes are expressed.”
“The worst sufferer in this respect is, of course, the word “liberty.” It is a word used as freely in totalitarian states as elsewhere. Indeed, it could almost be said — and it should serve as a warning to us to be on our guard — that wherever liberty as we understand it has been destroyed, this has almost always been done in the name of some new freedom promised to the people. […]”
“But “freedom” or “liberty” are by no means the only words whose meaning has been changed into their opposites to make them serve as instruments of totalitarian propaganda. We have already seen how the same happens to “justice” and “law,” “right” and “equality.” The list could be extended until it includes almost all moral and political terms in general use.”
At a time when tariq ramadan is being banned for supporting terrorists as a government policy, what better should we expect?
This discussion about the “flying Imans” is very deeply entangled with the demographic consequences of post-1965 immigration policy. And one of the consequences of post-1965 immigration policy has been the expansion of the Muslim population in America.
If the 1965 immigration reform act had not been passed, the probabilty of 9/11 happening would have been very close to 0.
Or to put it another way, if America had maintained her national origins immigration policy, there would be a much smaller muslim population in America then there is today. And the probability of 9/11 would have been very close to 0.
Even if there had been no change in a US foriegn policy- that obviously pissess off millions of muslims- a national origins immigration policy that excluded muslim, would have significantly reduced the probability of 9/11 hapenning.
Liberals,leftists and corporatists-Republican and Democratic politicians-lecuture ordinary Americans about the blessings of diversity. Ordinary Americans are voting with their feet against the blessings of diversity. 9/11 was a consequence the mad pursuit to change the demographic composition of America.
If we are honest,this is the context in which the “flying Imans” should be understood. The consequence of changing America’s demographics through legal immigration was 9/11. The public reaction to “the flying imans” was 9/11
It is a much better idea to develop home grown scientific talent than to import it from the muslim world or other nations. This would have reduced significantly the probability of 9/11 happenning. It also would have meant paying ordinary Americans a higher wage.
How about banning Tariq Rammadan on national origins grounds?
If he is allowed in, he can get a geen card and eventually US citizenship which would enable him to vote for more muslim migration to America.
The so called nice law abiding muslims are demographic transforming America street by street, town by town and city by city. If you want a few examples of this islamic demographic transformation taking place, just let me know.
Re Tariq Ramadan, Daniel Pipes claims:
“He has praised the brutal Islamist policies of the Sudanese politician Hassan Al-Turabi. Mr. Turabi in turn called Mr. Ramadan the “future of Islam.”
Mr. Ramadan was banned from entering France in 1996 on suspicion of having links with an Algerian Islamist who had recently initiated a terrorist campaign in Paris.
Ahmed Brahim, an Algerian indicted for Al-Qaeda activities, had “routine contacts” with Mr. Ramadan, according to a Spanish judge (Baltasar Garzón) in 1999.
Djamel Beghal, leader of a group accused of planning to attack the American embassy in Paris, stated in his 2001 trial that he had studied with Mr. Ramadan.
Along with nearly all Islamists, Mr. Ramadan has denied that there is “any certain proof” that Bin Laden was behind 9/11.
He publicly refers to the Islamist atrocities of 9/11, Bali, and Madrid as “interventions,” minimizing them to the point of near-endorsement.
Intelligence agencies suspect that Mr. Ramadan (along with his brother Hani) coordinated a meeting at the Hôtel Penta in Geneva for Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy head of Al-Qaeda, and Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh, now in a Minnesota prison.
Mr. Ramadan’s address appears in a register of Al Taqwa Bank, an organization the State Department accuses of supporting Islamist terrorism.”
Rob #9 “Is Coturnix being overly alarminst? I hope so. I sort of think so. ”
I didn’t read that post before, but I just skimmed it now. Gosh, no. He is not being an alarmist. You are reading the opinion of one who lived through a totalitarian regime. Do you know how many people in former totalitarian governments all over the world are saying the same as Coturnix? Please understand that such people have a sensitivity to the words and the actions of the start of a total state, they are the pidgeons that detect the gas leak in the coal mine. The beginning steps of a total state were always the same. And it is identical to the steps of the U.S. federal government of the last half-decade. (p.s. speaking as a child of a 1945 Latvian refugee)
Arun, your arguments are inherently faulty. Go through them once more.
Great!
See this. It’s not that they’re the devils. It’s that they’re not obidient to his highness Bush II. That is why they’re colored all so black. And about brutal policies, as far I am aware, he’s not responsible of any genocide, let alone for the killing of 2(or 6) million people anywhere in the world.
The ones that preceded them, they murdered, they looted, they extorted, they were involved in drug trafficing…. You have absolutely no problem with that. (My skin’s safe anyway.) Stop being afraid whenever Islam is named. You will feel better.
Al-Qaeda and Suspicion! Again! I’m sick!
As far as I am aware, it is a fact that Al Qaeda has not been convincingly proved to be involved in 911. Despite all the claims. I am yet to come across hard evidence other than “he made a call to him”, “he rented his home for six months”, “they were seen together once in paris” that sort of thing. It basically assumes one thing: undeniably the criminals has link with Al-Qaeda, which itself is not proven.
Neither has he said ‘I think Al Qaeda is the greatest gift to mankind’.
Fact is fact, face it. When he said there was no proof, he did not mean Al Qaeda is an angel.
The court of the United states has looked into it. They found not a single of his writings or lectures can be called provocative.” Not even in the sense of attacking or demeaning other civilisations.
I susptect King Bush II had been meeting bin-Laden in his backyard discussing next election. This election(if you don’t remember) he’s done a great job by releasing a video message just before the elections. That indeed carried king Bush II’s rheotics a distance.
Intelligence agencies suspect. I don’t believe what media says about intelligence. Intelligence is not foreign policy that you go around beating drums about what you have found out. Whenever I see some ‘intelligence’ on newspaper (or tv or net) I become suspecious.
A lot of allegations have been brought forward against Ramadan. Including doublespeak. But nobody ever provides evidence or example!
It’s for those who want to believe all Islamists are evil. They require no proof.
No it’s not that. It is because Ramadan is dangerous. He is well versed in history. He is reasonable. He’s eloquent. In short he’s more dangerous than all the criminals in Al-Qaeda put together.
I would suggest you watch these two documentaries (here and here).
You will be less touchy when you hear ‘Islam’ next time.
I find it disturbing how many people are falling into the bait which these guys so obviously pulled. It wasn’t a mistake, they wanted to make a scene and a statement. I see it at every protest rally i’ve ever been too. Usually you have some iratating lefty Marxist guy with a buddy with a film camera, and he goes up and purposefully nags and taunts police officers, while his friend pushes the cameras up in their face.
He *wants* them to arrest him, or to tell him to leave, or do something rash, b/c then it adds fuel to his world view and makes a spectacle that he can then use against them. Police brutality, blah blah blah.
In this particular case, everything happened as it should, they were stopped, asked to leave and finally not prosecuted (actually the airline should have banned them from flying with them). Good! I’m glad. I don’t want the situation where we have people pushing the envelope of security to its logical grey areas, just to test out reactions or to make political statements. The guys were jerks and as such, I would just assume not fly with them (and im sure the passengers would agree). Its not a right, its a priviledge in a free society.
Suggested reading:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
Funny, the report is more about the rise and talks of Al-Qaeda and it’s leaders than being objective and providing proof. It talks about what the Al-Qaeda has said about America and all that. But I am yet to find any hard evidence. Can Arun point out page number of the report that gives hard evidence?
It does not really look like a serious document. It is more like a subjective personal discussion. Do people really write official reports like this in the USA?
Haelfix,
this attitude doesn’t work. If the authorities just follow rules and don’t use their brains, you’ll get nonsensical cases like this.
Some time ago there was trouble about a French pilot who made a joke about a shoe bomb. He was not allowed to fly the plane, which was ridiculous, because a pilot doesn’t need a bomb, he could just fly the plane into a building.
Many more facts on our imams who see their role in life to cause grief for the country in which they enjoy vast benefits, and for which they have nothing but hate. Must be a fun life. Just gotta love these “religious imams.”
http://www.startribune.com/191/story/866867.html
John
What a thoroughly disingenuous link about libertarians(“Even if libertarian policy principles are kind of crazy”)! Though coming from an apparently typical Republocrat, its not all that surprising I guess. Stick to the Cosmic Variance, stay away from the politics, you’ll be much more enjoyable to read.
Paranoia?
http://www.meforum.org/article/603
Inconvenient truths can be scary and creepy, but not as scary if on already knows them.
We have to refuse to be intimidated, if someone makes someone report them for weird behavior, then that person should be sued by the passengers for causing them distress with their behavior.
These Imams were faking and goofing on the passengers, and were probably trying to get tossed off the plane just so they could play the victim card and go to court and make a scene. Any judge who allows this is garbage.
absurd thought –
God of the Universe says
pretend to be terrorists
scare people on a plane
get thrown off claim racism
.