Languish.org

Talk about humiliating...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/03/man-removed-easyjet-flight-luton-prayer-message-phone

QuoteA British man was removed from a plane by armed police at Luton airport after a fellow passenger read a message on his mobile phone about "prayer" and reported him as a security threat.

Laolu Opebiyi, 40, from London, said he was forced to hand over his phone and supply his password in order to establish his innocence after he tried to arrange a conference call prayer with friends using WhatsApp.

A detective subsequently questioned and cleared Opebiyi but the pilot refused to allow him back on to the easyJet flight to Amsterdam last Thursday and he was forced to wait more than three hours for the next scheduled departure.

The Nigerian-born Christian believes the passenger next to him assumed he was a Muslim and jumped to the conclusion that he may be a terrorist.

"That guy doesn't know me and within two minutes he's judging me," he told the Guardian. "Even if I was a Muslim, it was pretty unfair the way I was treated. I don't think anyone, irrespective of their religion should be treated in such a way.

"If we keep on giving into this kind of bigotry and irrational fear, I dare say that the terrorists will have achieved their aim."

Opebiyi, a business analyst, said that as they awaited the plane's 6.45am departure, his fellow passenger asked him: "What do you mean by 'prayer'?" Taken aback that he had been reading over his shoulder, Opebiyi explained that he was arranging to pray with friends.

About two minutes later, the male passenger went to the front of the plane and began a conversation with the cabin crew, Opebiyi said. The man was taken to the door of the cockpit and returned 15 minutes later, telling Opebiyi that he was getting off the plane because he felt unwell. A few minutes later, two armed officers entered the plane. They asked Opebiyi for his phone and told him to remove his belongings and accompany them off the plane and into the terminal building.

After an officer confirmed that he was being questioned because of what happened with the other passenger, Opebiyi explained that he was a Christian, showing them a copy of the Bible in his bag. "They asked me which church I attend and how long I have been going there," he said. "They also ask if I have ever thought about changing my religion to which I replied 'no'."

They also asked him about the name of the conference call prayer group, which was "ISI men" – an acronym for "iron sharpens iron", from the Bible quote "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another". The Guardian understands that the passenger who reported Opebiyi may have misread this as "Isis".

An officer eventually told Opebiyi that he was in the clear but that the pilot had said he should take another flight. He suffered further humiliation when an officer accompanied him to the easyJet desk to help him get on the next flight and seven other passengers from the 6.45am flight, who had left the plane because of security fears, also joined the queue.

Opebiyi said one of them spotted him and said: "If he is on the next flight, I am not getting on the flight." He said the officer took the female passenger aside and explained the situation. Before Opebiyi boarded the 10.25am flight, the officer shook his hand and expressed sympathy for his ordeal, he said.

But he now fears he is on a terrorist watchlist because when he returned the next day from his business trip, the electronic passport gate did not let him through and he had to speak to an immigration officer before proceeding.

"Someone felt I was a terrorist because they saw the word 'prayer' on my phone and now I stand in uncertainty about my freedom of movement in and out of the United Kingdom," he said.

A Bedfordshire police spokeswoman confirmed that its officers removed an individual from the flight but "were satisfied that there was no concern around the passenger travelling".

An easyJet spokesman said: "The safety and security of its passengers and crew is our highest priority which means that if a security concern is raised we will always investigate it as a precautionary measure. We would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused to the passenger."

That's Easyjet for you.

Meanwhile, in Southampton, a schoolboy is interrogated by police for viewing an extremist website :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/school-called-police-because-boy-visited-ukip-website-on-class-computer-a6899641.html

:lol: or should that be  :( :mad:

Must be the EU's fault. This will all go away when Britain leaves the community. :P

Wow, you are really so precious, you have to arrange a conference call to pray while mid-flight?

Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2016, 08:07:04 AM
Wow, you are really so precious, you have to arrange a conference call to pray while mid-flight?

Sending text messages while waiting for takeoff is precious?  :huh:

Mart prefers semaphore or smoke signals.

That's messed up.  Once it was clear he was Christian they should have left him alone.

True. Only Muslims pray for stuff that poses a danger to aviation.

Quote from: Martinus on March 04, 2016, 08:07:04 AM
Wow, you are really so precious, you have to arrange a conference call to pray while mid-flight?

Dude it is a prayer group. It is hard to get everybody on those things consistently.

Quote from: Norgy on March 04, 2016, 09:42:53 AM
True. Only Muslims pray for stuff that poses a danger to aviation.

No shit.

So it is almost certain that he was targeted because the guy saw "ISI men" and thought it was "ISIS men". If I saw that, I would be concerned as well.

Let's not let that ruin a good story though, and just say he was targeted because he was praying.

What a non-story.

I wish he was targeted for praying. That's nuts.

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 11:40:23 AM
So it is almost certain that he was targeted because the guy saw "ISI men" and thought it was "ISIS men". If I saw that, I would be concerned as well.

Let's not let that ruin a good story though, and just say he was targeted because he was praying.

What a non-story.

:huh:

I think it is rather problematic what can happen to a person if
1) you happen to have the 'wrong' skin color
2) some busybody decides to look over your shoulder while you are texting
3) you get taken off the flight for security to re-check you, then after security clears you, pilot still won't let you on
4) then when wrongfully bounced from a flight then you have to deal with other passengers who call you out as a safety hazard even though you never were

I guess with something that has little chance of ever happening to you, you can find it easy to gloss over.

Note: I don't think the prayer bit is really relevant to the story as when I first clicked on article I had thought it would be about someone kicked off for praying on a plane. I don't think though that makes the circumstances any less concerning.

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 12:14:25 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 11:40:23 AM
So it is almost certain that he was targeted because the guy saw "ISI men" and thought it was "ISIS men". If I saw that, I would be concerned as well.

Let's not let that ruin a good story though, and just say he was targeted because he was praying.

What a non-story.

:huh:

I think it is rather problematic what can happen to a person if
1) you happen to have the 'wrong' skin color
2) some busybody decides to look over your shoulder while you are texting
3) you get taken off the flight for security to re-check you, then after security clears you, pilot still won't let you on
4) then when wrongfully bounced from a flight then you have to deal with other passengers who call you out as a safety hazard even though you never were

I guess with something that has little chance of ever happening to you, you can find it easy to gloss over.

Note: I don't think the prayer bit is really relevant to the story as when I first clicked on article I had thought it would be about someone kicked off for praying on a plane. I don't think though that makes the circumstances any less concerning.

Well, remember religion is an affront to human dignity, the fact he was in a prayer group is reason enough for public humiliation and degrading treatment.

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 12:14:25 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 11:40:23 AM
So it is almost certain that he was targeted because the guy saw "ISI men" and thought it was "ISIS men". If I saw that, I would be concerned as well.

Let's not let that ruin a good story though, and just say he was targeted because he was praying.

What a non-story.

:huh:

I think it is rather problematic what can happen to a person if
1) you happen to have the 'wrong' skin color

No evidence in this story that it had anything to do with that.

Quote
2) some busybody decides to look over your shoulder while you are texting

People look over other peopls shoulders all the time. Dickish move, but so what?

Quote
3) you get taken off the flight for security to re-check you, then after security clears you, pilot still won't let you on

Shrug. Sucks to be sure, but I think at the end of the day it is the pilot's discretion, and I certainly would not argue that they ought not to have that discretion.

Given that they do, it is pretty easy to imagine that the pilot is

A) Not going to have the time to go check out the story himself, what with being busy getting ready to take off, and
B) Going to simply err on the side of "Let someone else deal with it who has more time than I do".

Again, it sucks, but it is hardly evidence that there is some systemic problem.

Quote
4) then when wrongfully bounced from a flight then you have to deal with other passengers who call you out as a safety hazard even though you never were

He didn't have to deal with that at all. The fact that there are other stupid people in the world is not a systemic problem, or certianly not one that we can fix.

Quote
I guess with something that has little chance of ever happening to you, you can find it easy to gloss over.

Since I don't pray at all, I guess that is true.

I am sure there could be some set of circumstances however under which I would or could be mis-correctly identified as a danger and forced to miss a flight. Boo hoo.

Of wait - I miss flights all the time through no fault of my own. They are delayed, mechanical problems, they lose my luggage, my ticket is over-booked, etc., etc. So you are wrong - I get inconvencied when travelling with the exact same practical effect as this guy all the time. I miss a flight, and have to take a later one. Call the newspapers!

Quote
Note: I don't think the prayer bit is really relevant to the story as when I first clicked on article I had thought it would be about someone kicked off for praying on a plane. I don't think though that makes the circumstances any less concerning.

Some guy did something perfectly innocent that someone else (for good reasons or bad) mis-interpreted and he missed a flight as a result of the rather draconian security checks we have in place. Cry me a river.

Total non-story.

I hope SJWs take on those horrible busybodies who report people leaving their luggage unattended at airports next.

Btw, garbon, would your take on this change if, rather than this being found out by a "busybody looking over a shoulder", the passenger wore a badge or otherwise announced to fellow travellers that he is a member of the "ISI men" prayer group?

Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 11:44:16 AM
I wish he was targeted for praying. That's nuts.

Why? It is a great way to focus your intentions and drop your bullshit.

Could we also address the obvious elephant in the room and say that, sorry but a dark-skinned devout-looking young-to-middle-aged man on a flight is going to attract attention more than most other demographics, because dark-skinned devout-looking young-to-middle aged men are generally more likely to blow up planes than other people?

Yes, it sucked for this guys, but that's reality. Just as it sucks to be, say, a guy with visible tatoos applying for a job at a bank, or a middle-aged single socially awkward guy applying for a job at a kindergarden.

Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2016, 12:47:53 PM

Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 11:44:16 AM
I wish he was targeted for praying. That's nuts.

Why? It is a great way to focus your intentions and drop your bullshit.

I was being facetious. :P

Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 12:49:09 PM
Could we also address the obvious elephant in the room and say that, sorry but a dark-skinned devout-looking young-to-middle-aged man on a flight is going to attract attention more than most other demographics, because dark-skinned devout-looking young-to-middle aged men are generally more likely to blow up planes than other people?

I think we did directly address this :unsure:

Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 12:49:28 PM

I was being facetious. :P

Ah sorry :blush:

I can never tell on this site.

Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2016, 12:51:03 PM

Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 12:49:09 PM
Could we also address the obvious elephant in the room and say that, sorry but a dark-skinned devout-looking young-to-middle-aged man on a flight is going to attract attention more than most other demographics, because dark-skinned devout-looking young-to-middle aged men are generally more likely to blow up planes than other people?

I think we did directly address this :unsure:

I don't think so.

Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 12:39:06 PM
I hope SJWs take on those horrible busybodies who report people leaving their luggage unattended at airports next.

Do we actually have reports that such has actually prevented an attack? I recall the analysis on New York's "If you see something, say something" policy was that it has actually just wasted a whole of time and resources with little positive effect.

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 12:36:57 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 12:14:25 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 11:40:23 AM
So it is almost certain that he was targeted because the guy saw "ISI men" and thought it was "ISIS men". If I saw that, I would be concerned as well.

Let's not let that ruin a good story though, and just say he was targeted because he was praying.

What a non-story.

:huh:

I think it is rather problematic what can happen to a person if
1) you happen to have the 'wrong' skin color

No evidence in this story that it had anything to do with that.

:lmfao:

When you start like that, well I know it isn't worth the minutes off my life to read the rest of your post.

Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 12:52:03 PM

Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2016, 12:51:03 PM

Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 12:49:09 PM
Could we also address the obvious elephant in the room and say that, sorry but a dark-skinned devout-looking young-to-middle-aged man on a flight is going to attract attention more than most other demographics, because dark-skinned devout-looking young-to-middle aged men are generally more likely to blow up planes than other people?

I think we did directly address this :unsure:

I don't think so.

Devout looking?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.onlinenigeria.com%2Fthumbnail.php%3Ffile%3Dimages%2FLaolu_Opebiyi_765316601.png%26amp%3Bsize%3Darticle_large&hash=9a7e324b81079799cee70b095a19f825fb07cd52)

He does look like a preacher  :hmm:

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 01:15:35 PM

Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 12:39:06 PM
I hope SJWs take on those horrible busybodies who report people leaving their luggage unattended at airports next.

Do we actually have reports that such has actually prevented an attack? I recall the analysis on New York's "If you see something, say something" policy was that it has actually just wasted a whole of time and resources with little positive effect.

I am not talking about there being evidence of this preventing attack - but that's not the question. The question is whether the people in the scenario have acted reasonably.

Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2016, 01:19:26 PM
He does look like a preacher  :hmm:

Wearing a suit = looking like a preacher?

Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 12:41:59 PM
Btw, garbon, would your take on this change if, rather than this being found out by a "busybody looking over a shoulder", the passenger wore a badge or otherwise announced to fellow travellers that he is a member of the "ISI men" prayer group?

Wore a badge? As in a badge that said 'ISI men'? Yes, I would find it very troubling/sad if people thought he was a terrorist because he wore a badge.

If he announced on the flight that he was part of 'ISI men', I think that would be different as normally passengers who are not mentally impaired...well they typically don't make announcements on planes.

Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 01:20:33 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 01:15:35 PM

Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 12:39:06 PM
I hope SJWs take on those horrible busybodies who report people leaving their luggage unattended at airports next.

Do we actually have reports that such has actually prevented an attack? I recall the analysis on New York's "If you see something, say something" policy was that it has actually just wasted a whole of time and resources with little positive effect.

I am not talking about there being evidence of this preventing attack - but that's not the question. The question is whether the people in the scenario have acted reasonably.

And as I think I've made clear, I don't think they did act reasonably...and by they, I mean the initial busybody - the pilot who refused to let the passenger back on after security cleared him (although perhaps there is more there than story lets on given that we later see that there were passengers who refused to stay on the plane so perhaps he just felt it would be too disruptive to keep the innocent man on board) and then the those same passengers mentioned in my parenthetical.

THe only story here is "Journalists exaggerate and lie to create news, and suckers buy it hook, line, and sinker".

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 12:36:57 PM
They are delayed, mechanical problems, they lose my luggage, my ticket is over-booked, etc., etc. So you are wrong - I get inconvencied when travelling with the exact same practical effect as this guy all the time.

Distingushing between issues related and unrelated to a person is relevant in alleged discrimination cases like this. None of the reasons you enumerated is related to you personally, whereas the person in this story was offboarded because of issues related to his person.

Quote from: Zanza on March 05, 2016, 01:53:22 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 12:36:57 PM
They are delayed, mechanical problems, they lose my luggage, my ticket is over-booked, etc., etc. So you are wrong - I get inconvencied when travelling with the exact same practical effect as this guy all the time.

Distingushing between issues related and unrelated to a person is relevant in alleged discrimination cases like this. None of the reasons you enumerated is related to you personally, whereas the person in this story was offboarded because of issues related to his person.

But garbon's point was that we should feel terrible about the horrible experience he went through.

He was a victim of a bunch of circumstances beyond his control where he got screwed by the system. We all get screwed by the system all the time, and sometimes that means we miss a flight, and some people are douchebags. Sometimes we miss a flight *because* some people are douchebags.

There is no element of that story *that actually resulted in him getting removed from the flight* that made me think "THAT is a problem that we need to change the system to make sure doesn't happen again!"

And more to the point, the entire article is basically a lie - the issue was not about him praying, but about someone mistakenly thinking he had something on his phone that suggested he had something to do with ISIS.

It is just an unfortunate "shit happens" kind of thing. I wish less shit happened, and I even wish in his particular case that this paricular shit did not happen.

But do I want to take away a pilots power to refuse to allow someone they are not sure about on their plane? No.

Do I want to tell security personnel to ignore when dumbasses tell them something like "Hey, I saw the guy next to me texting to someone who looked like they might be terrorists?" No.

Do I want to tell journalists to stop fucking ignoring the obvious driving elements in a story in favor of sensational headlines that will convince people to click on their story? Yes.

Quote from: Zanza on March 05, 2016, 01:53:22 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 12:36:57 PM
They are delayed, mechanical problems, they lose my luggage, my ticket is over-booked, etc., etc. So you are wrong - I get inconvencied when travelling with the exact same practical effect as this guy all the time.

Distingushing between issues related and unrelated to a person is relevant in alleged discrimination cases like this. None of the reasons you enumerated is related to you personally, whereas the person in this story was offboarded because of issues related to his person.

That's why it's not a problem.  Now if the government put court order out to look at smartphone as part of a murder investigation, well, Berkut has a smartphone!  That's an egregious violation of liberty.  We just don't understand freedom.

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 02:13:04 PM
He was a victim of a bunch of circumstances beyond his control where he got screwed by the system. We all get screwed by the system all the time

Ah yes, all screwings are equal.

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 02:46:24 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 02:13:04 PM
He was a victim of a bunch of circumstances beyond his control where he got screwed by the system. We all get screwed by the system all the time

Ah yes, all screwings are equal.

Not at all - but you have not provided any reason to believe this one was less equal, or that there is some kind of problem with the system itself.

To the extent that there is *any* story here, or any claim to racism, it is limited to individuals, and you don't even know if race was a part of it at all.

Other than, of course, the guy is black, so I guess if something bad happens to him it is automatically racist.

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 02:58:35 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 02:46:24 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 02:13:04 PM
He was a victim of a bunch of circumstances beyond his control where he got screwed by the system. We all get screwed by the system all the time

Ah yes, all screwings are equal.

Not at all - but you have not provided any reason to believe this one was less equal, or that there is some kind of problem with the system itself.

To the extent that there is *any* story here, or any claim to racism, it is limited to individuals, and you don't even know if race was a part of it at all.

Other than, of course, the guy is black, so I guess if something bad happens to him it is automatically racist.

Oh white people. It must be so lovely. :(

As you said in the other thread, there really isn't much for us to discuss if you take no issue with the events as they went down. Finger strain for both of us for no real purpose.

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 03:11:15 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 02:58:35 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 02:46:24 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 02:13:04 PM
He was a victim of a bunch of circumstances beyond his control where he got screwed by the system. We all get screwed by the system all the time

Ah yes, all screwings are equal.

Not at all - but you have not provided any reason to believe this one was less equal, or that there is some kind of problem with the system itself.

To the extent that there is *any* story here, or any claim to racism, it is limited to individuals, and you don't even know if race was a part of it at all.

Other than, of course, the guy is black, so I guess if something bad happens to him it is automatically racist.

Oh white people. It must be so lovely. :(

It has its perks!

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 03:11:15 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 02:58:35 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 02:46:24 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 02:13:04 PM
He was a victim of a bunch of circumstances beyond his control where he got screwed by the system. We all get screwed by the system all the time

Ah yes, all screwings are equal.

Not at all - but you have not provided any reason to believe this one was less equal, or that there is some kind of problem with the system itself.

To the extent that there is *any* story here, or any claim to racism, it is limited to individuals, and you don't even know if race was a part of it at all.

Other than, of course, the guy is black, so I guess if something bad happens to him it is automatically racist.

Oh white people. It must be so lovely. :(

That is rather astoundingly racist of you. Well played?

:jaron:

Is that not the definition of the very racism you decry? An assumption that my views and opinion is informed by my race - that I am not capable of simply disagreeing with you on the merits of the story, rather than because I am white?

The irony is that the story makes no mention of his race at all - it doesn't say that the person complained because of his race, or that security made a comment about his race, or gave any indication whatsoever that the outcome was dependent on his being not white.

I guess the demand here is that I *must* conclude that none of this would have happened had he not been black, otherwise I am just a amusing, funny blind white person. You know, because I am white.

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 03:11:15 PM
Oh white people. It must be so lovely. :(

Do you think a ledger entry "ISI men" wouldn't have aroused suspicion if he was white?

It's really easy to find racism if you're unwilling to write anything off as just bad luck.

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 01:44:43 PM
THe only story here is "Journalists exaggerate and lie to create news, and suckers buy it hook, line, and sinker".

I agree.  Pretty much the same as the panic over the idea that Apple has to assist law enforcement.   Total non-story, other than the suckers buying it hook, line, and sinker.

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 02:46:24 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 02:13:04 PM
He was a victim of a bunch of circumstances beyond his control where he got screwed by the system. We all get screwed by the system all the time

Ah yes, all screwings are equal.

Yep.  If I go into a bakery and get in line, and the bakery owner tells the guy ahead of me to "get out of here, nigger!  We don't serve coons!" and then, when I get to the counter, tells me that he is all out of the raisin bread I came to buy, the other customer and I have encountered identical inability to purchase, and so the harm we have suffered is identical.

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 03:11:15 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 02:58:35 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 02:46:24 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 02:13:04 PM
He was a victim of a bunch of circumstances beyond his control where he got screwed by the system. We all get screwed by the system all the time

Ah yes, all screwings are equal.

Not at all - but you have not provided any reason to believe this one was less equal, or that there is some kind of problem with the system itself.

To the extent that there is *any* story here, or any claim to racism, it is limited to individuals, and you don't even know if race was a part of it at all.

Other than, of course, the guy is black, so I guess if something bad happens to him it is automatically racist.

Oh white people. It must be so lovely. :(

I doubt it.  They sunburn really easily.  :(

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 04:49:09 PM
Is that not the definition of the very racism you decry? An assumption that my views and opinion is informed by my race - that I am not capable of simply disagreeing with you on the merits of the story, rather than because I am white?

The irony is that the story makes no mention of his race at all - it doesn't say that the person complained because of his race, or that security made a comment about his race, or gave any indication whatsoever that the outcome was dependent on his being not white.

I guess the demand here is that I *must* conclude that none of this would have happened had he not been black, otherwise I am just a amusing, funny blind white person. You know, because I am white.

Stop trolling garbon.

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 01:22:17 PM

Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 12:41:59 PM
Btw, garbon, would your take on this change if, rather than this being found out by a "busybody looking over a shoulder", the passenger wore a badge or otherwise announced to fellow travellers that he is a member of the "ISI men" prayer group?

Wore a badge? As in a badge that said 'ISI men'? Yes, I would find it very troubling/sad if people thought he was a terrorist because he wore a badge.

So how exactly is the fact that a "busybody [was] looking over his shoulder" in any way relevant to assessment of the situation?

The only question is whether the personnel acted reasonably. I believe they acted cautiously but within the reasonable framework. Personally I'd rather have aircraft personnel err on the side of safety, rather than fear of offending someone.

I thought everything was reasonable except the pilot not letting back on.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2016, 07:45:11 PM
I thought everything was reasonable except the pilot not letting back on.

I am inclined to agree. It would be good to know more about the reasons for this, though. It is possible letting him back on would have caused further delay which was not acceptable (eg. the plane missing its departure spot etc.)

Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2016, 07:51:23 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2016, 07:45:11 PM
I thought everything was reasonable except the pilot not letting back on.

I am inclined to agree. It would be good to know more about the reasons for this, though. It is possible letting him back on would have caused further delay which was not acceptable (eg. the plane missing its departure spot etc.)

Yeah, there is no way to know - and given that we DO know that the author of the story is perfectly willing to mislead his readers, I am skeptical that there wasn't any more detail around the pilot's actions either.

But given a lack of information, I think the safe assumption is RACISM!

We don't actually have information that the author is "perfectly willing to mislead", but hey, that didn't stop you.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2016, 09:22:56 PM
We don't actually have information that the author is "perfectly willing to mislead", but hey, that didn't stop you.

You're right. It could be the editor.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2016, 07:45:11 PM
I thought everything was reasonable except the pilot not letting back on.

Yeah. It appears several passengers were cunts about it, too, which might have influenced his decision.

Once the guy was cleared he should've had no further issues, but I can't fault airport security for being extra-cautious.

Damned busybodies.  And Berkut needs to check his privilege.

Ugh, someone please bring me a towel so I can clean the white privilege out of this thread.

Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2016, 05:06:58 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 01:44:43 PM
THe only story here is "Journalists exaggerate and lie to create news, and suckers buy it hook, line, and sinker".

I agree.  Pretty much the same as the panic over the idea that Apple has to assist law enforcement.   Total non-story, other than the suckers buying it hook, line, and sinker.

If nothing else, that story seems to have attracted a lot more suckers. This one...not so much.

Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2016, 05:10:10 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2016, 02:46:24 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2016, 02:13:04 PM
He was a victim of a bunch of circumstances beyond his control where he got screwed by the system. We all get screwed by the system all the time

Ah yes, all screwings are equal.

Yep.  If I go into a bakery and get in line, and the bakery owner tells the guy ahead of me to "get out of here, nigger!  We don't serve coons!" and then, when I get to the counter, tells me that he is all out of the raisin bread I came to buy, the other customer and I have encountered identical inability to purchase, and so the harm we have suffered is identical.

That analogy works really well if in this case someone kicked him off the plane and told him "We don't let black people fly our airline!".

Or maybe that is the point you are making? Not sure, might be blinded by my white privilege.

Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2016, 03:07:42 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2016, 05:10:10 PM
Yep.  If I go into a bakery and get in line, and the bakery owner tells the guy ahead of me to "get out of here, nigger!  We don't serve coons!" and then, when I get to the counter, tells me that he is all out of the raisin bread I came to buy, the other customer and I have encountered identical inability to purchase, and so the harm we have suffered is identical.

That analogy works really well if in this case someone kicked him off the plane and told him "We don't let black Muslim people fly our airline!".

Or maybe that is the point you are making? Not sure, might be blinded by my white privilege.

Exactly.  They didn't refuse to allow him to fly because he was "black," btw, it was because they thought he was Muslim.  Other than that, you are correct, the analogy works really well.  Thanks.

Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2016, 03:15:38 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2016, 03:07:42 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2016, 05:10:10 PM
Yep.  If I go into a bakery and get in line, and the bakery owner tells the guy ahead of me to "get out of here, nigger!  We don't serve coons!" and then, when I get to the counter, tells me that he is all out of the raisin bread I came to buy, the other customer and I have encountered identical inability to purchase, and so the harm we have suffered is identical.

That analogy works really well if in this case someone kicked him off the plane and told him "We don't let black Muslim people fly our airline!".

Or maybe that is the point you are making? Not sure, might be blinded by my white privilege.

Exactly.  They didn't refuse to allow him to fly because he was "black," btw, it was because they thought he was Muslim.  Other than that, you are correct, the analogy works really well.  Thanks.

No, they didn't refuse to allow him to fly at all, they just refused to allow him to fly without investigating whether he was a member of ISIS.

So the analogy ends up not working well, since nobody said any of the things you claimed would need to be said for the analogy to work - something akin to "get out of here nigger, we don't serve coons!".

Since nobody said anything even remotely similar, your analogy is Marty like in its terribleness.

I'd guess the pilot was a pussy rather than anything about race/ethnicity/religion

Quote from: LaCroix on March 06, 2016, 04:52:57 PM
I'd guess the pilot was a pussy rather than anything about race/ethnicity/religion

The article doesn't give enough detail to say. For all we know the pilot was asked with 30 seconds before take off, and just didn't have time to evaluate it.

But it is most likely RACIST, of course, and we should just assume that unless we want to be accused of being overly white.

Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2016, 04:24:15 PM
No, they didn't refuse to allow him to fly at all, they just refused to allow him to fly without investigating whether he was a member of ISIS.

:huh:  You say this as though no one at all was allowed to fly without being investigated to find out whether they were a member of ISIS.  He was on a plane, and was forced to leave the plane, because some racist thought he looked Muslim, and so the TSA had to investigate.

QuoteSo the analogy ends up not working well, since nobody said any of the things you claimed would need to be said for the analogy to work - something akin to "get out of here nigger, we don't serve coons!".

Since nobody said anything even remotely similar, your analogy is Marty like in its terribleness.

So now we are changing the goalposts?   :lol:

They told the guy to get off the plane because they thought he looked like a Muslim terrorist, and so they had to confirm that he wasn't.  Had he been "white" this would never have happened.  So, my analogy holds:  you getting inconvenienced by weather is NOT the equivalent of this guy getting inconvenienced by racism. Your analogy was the Marti-like one.  Goalposts remain where they originally were.

Quote from: LaCroix on March 06, 2016, 04:52:57 PM
I'd guess the pilot was a pussy rather than anything about race/ethnicity/religion

I'd guess he knew fully well that the airline would take the heat, and not him, so he took the easy way out.  I doubt he ever knew much about the specifics of the case.

Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2016, 05:07:27 PM
The article doesn't give enough detail to say. For all we know the pilot was asked with 30 seconds before take off, and just didn't have time to evaluate it.

But it is most likely RACIST, of course, and we should just assume that unless we want to be accused of being overly white.

Rage on, you crazy rager!  :lol:

Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2016, 09:08:14 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2016, 04:24:15 PM
No, they didn't refuse to allow him to fly at all, they just refused to allow him to fly without investigating whether he was a member of ISIS.

:huh:  You say this as though no one at all was allowed to fly without being investigated to find out whether they were a member of ISIS.  He was on a plane, and was forced to leave the plane, because some racist thought he looked Muslim, and so the TSA had to investigate.

You have no idea what the person who saw him texting "ISI men" thought. Your analogy claims that they came right out and said something akin to "no coons!" but of course they did not, so your conclusion is just speculation, and speculation of the nastiest sort.

Quote

QuoteSo the analogy ends up not working well, since nobody said any of the things you claimed would need to be said for the analogy to work - something akin to "get out of here nigger, we don't serve coons!".

Since nobody said anything even remotely similar, your analogy is Marty like in its terribleness.

So now we are changing the goalposts?   :lol:

Uhhh, no, we are pointing out that nobody said anything that made it clear they took action based on racism (not that "Muslim" is a race anyway), as your analogy would demand.

Quote
They told the guy to get off the plane because they thought he looked like a Muslim terrorist,

No, they told him to get off the plane because someone mistook his messaging for indication that he might be a terrorist. Zero evidence that the way he looked had anything to do with it, unlike your fake analogy where someone is convenient enough to state it.

Quote
and so they had to confirm that he wasn't.  Had he been "white" this would never have happened.

Again, pure speculation.

Quote
So, my analogy holds:  you getting inconvenienced by weather is NOT the equivalent of this guy getting inconvenienced by racism.

Except that you have no evidence that there was any racism here, and being Muslim is not a race anyway, nor was he Muslim anyway.

Quote
Your analogy was the Marti-like one.  Goalposts remain where they originally were.

Goalposts swaying about like crazy, since nobody ever said anything like what your analogy demands.

Someone thought he was texting with ISIS. Kind of stupid, but no reason to assume it is racist, other than a desire to be outraged.

Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2016, 09:11:09 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2016, 05:07:27 PM
The article doesn't give enough detail to say. For all we know the pilot was asked with 30 seconds before take off, and just didn't have time to evaluate it.

But it is most likely RACIST, of course, and we should just assume that unless we want to be accused of being overly white.

Rage on, you crazy rager!  :lol:

Uhhh no, I am the one NOT raging here, actually. The raging is the article writer and OP who are want us to be all worked over RACISM, whether it exists or not.

Notice that I am not the one bringing other posters own race into the discussion.

Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2016, 01:23:46 AM

Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2016, 09:11:09 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2016, 05:07:27 PM
The article doesn't give enough detail to say. For all we know the pilot was asked with 30 seconds before take off, and just didn't have time to evaluate it.

But it is most likely RACIST, of course, and we should just assume that unless we want to be accused of being overly white.

Rage on, you crazy rager!  :lol:

Uhhh no, I am the one NOT raging here, actually. The raging is the article writer and OP who are want us to be all worked over RACISM, whether it exists or not.

Notice that I am not the one bringing other posters own race into the discussion.

Sure.  You keep shouting about "RACISM" but are not raging.  Ummm hmmm.

Is grumbler ever a pleasure to debate with? I don't recall.

Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2016, 07:25:41 AM
Is grumbler ever a pleasure to debate with? I don't recall.

Is Berkut? 

What I like about both Berkut and grumbler is they really listen to your arguments and grow as a result.

Both are very pleasant fellows when it comes to a spirited debate.

There really isn't any debate happening here. Just conjecture on the motives of people we have no idea about, since they weren't cooperative enough to say something like grumbler's analogy demands.

To the extent that the first person even potentially exhibited racism, even that is kind of bogus. He might have been engaging in some profiling, but that isn't necessarily racist per se.

Like many of these discussions, how people involve themselves is considerably more interesting that the actual fake outrage of the original article.

It is interesting how fast people will use loaded language, for example - terms like "white privilege" and such if someone has the audacity to simply question rather incredible assumptions about the motives of people we know nothing about.

We have zero information about the people involved other than the victim. No quotes, no interview, the "journalist" didn't bother talking to anyone else and seeing the story from their side at all. The only view we have into the views of others is through the victims eyes.

Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2016, 07:25:41 AM
Is grumbler ever a pleasure to debate with? I don't recall.

It's never a pleasure for you, that's for sure!  :lol:

Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2016, 10:41:40 AM
There really isn't any debate happening here. Just conjecture on the motives of people we have no idea about, since they weren't cooperative enough to say something like grumbler's analogy demands.

To the extent that the first person even potentially exhibited racism, even that is kind of bogus. He might have been engaging in some profiling, but that isn't necessarily racist per se.

We don't have enough evidence to support your analogy, which is what my hypothetical was pointing out.  My hypothetical was about your analogy, not about what happened to the British guy.

Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2016, 10:44:27 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2016, 10:41:40 AM
There really isn't any debate happening here. Just conjecture on the motives of people we have no idea about, since they weren't cooperative enough to say something like grumbler's analogy demands.

To the extent that the first person even potentially exhibited racism, even that is kind of bogus. He might have been engaging in some profiling, but that isn't necessarily racist per se.

We don't have enough evidence to support your analogy, which is what my hypothetical was pointing out.  My hypothetical was about your analogy, not about what happened to the British guy.

Given a lack of evidence, it is reasonable to assume that people acted, well, reasonably and without malice.

So my analogy, while based on some assumptions, is based on reasonable assumptions giving people the benefit of the doubt. If we do that, then in fact this guy got screwed by an unfortunate set of circumstances that were essentially random, and not motivated by malice.

Your analogy requires someone to make explicit racist remarks as justification for their actions. Obviously, if anyone involved had done that, my analysis would change.

So no, your analogy pretty much sucks, since it cannot be supported by what actually happened. Mine simply asks the reader to not assume that everyone involved is a member of the KKK. I might be wrong, but it seems like a reasonable sin given that nobody was wearing a white robe at the time.

I think you are making the mistake that it has to be racism as in hatred. I think it is more racism in terms of fear. Guy who looks like he could be a muslim and typing to ISI men leading to terror.

Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2016, 10:52:18 AM
I think you are making the mistake that it has to be racism as in hatred. I think it is more racism in terms of fear. Guy who looks like he could be a muslim and typing to ISI men leading to terror.

You can be racist in all kinds of not hateful ways. Just presuming somebody is great at sports because they are black is not hatred.

Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2016, 10:52:18 AM
I think you are making the mistake that it has to be racism as in hatred. I think it is more racism in terms of fear. Guy who looks like he could be a muslim and typing to ISI men leading to terror.

I think it is entirely possible that in the exact same circumstance, where all the details are the same except that the guy is white, the outcome is the same.

It is also possible that the outcome would be different, as well - that the guy being black was a necessary condition to what followed.

We simply do not know.

There is some level of profiling going on all the time though - and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. We do that constantly. Had the circumstances been identical, but the victim was a 8 year old girl for instance, it is almost impossible to imagine it coming out the same, because the odds of a 8 year old girl being a member of ISIS are so low that the person in question would almost certainly assume that whatever he saw had nothing to do with terrorism.

My point is simply that there are a huge number of assumptions that have to be made to get from the facts of the story to valid outrage at some kind of systemic injustice happening, rather than just a unfortunate sequence of events that resulted in some guy missing his flight. I don't doubt that there is actual racism happening out there, and actual injustice. I don't think it serves anyones purpose to manufacture it where there isn't any real evidence to support it.

Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2016, 11:03:23 AM

Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2016, 10:52:18 AM
I think you are making the mistake that it has to be racism as in hatred. I think it is more racism in terms of fear. Guy who looks like he could be a muslim and typing to ISI men leading to terror.

You can be racist in all kinds of not hateful ways. Just presuming somebody is great at sports because they are black is not hatred.

Is it still racism if a stereotype is statistically significant?

Is it racist to assume that a Native American is alcohol intolerant?

Sam Harris had a pretty interesting podcast talking to some crazy chick about profiling....

The Sam Harris who thinks it just might be okay to kill people for thinking the wrong thing? Man, no wonder Berkut has been loopy lately.

No, not that Sam Harris.

I don't know of any other Sam Harris besides the Athiest one who believes in Psychic powers.

Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2016, 01:18:21 PM
Is it still racism if a stereotype is statistically significant?

Is it racist to assume that a Native American is alcohol intolerant?

It's logical contradictions like this that render the current usage of "racist" meaningless.  Which is why I've always been pushing my preferred alternative, bigot, taken to mean someone who wishes a racial or ethnic group ill.

Course I'm explaining this to a person who uses homophobe to describe anyone who disagrees with him.

Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2016, 01:14:26 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2016, 10:52:18 AM
I think you are making the mistake that it has to be racism as in hatred. I think it is more racism in terms of fear. Guy who looks like he could be a muslim and typing to ISI men leading to terror.

I think it is entirely possible that in the exact same circumstance, where all the details are the same except that the guy is white, the outcome is the same.

Lots of things are possible but not probable.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2016, 01:39:13 PM

Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2016, 01:18:21 PM
Is it still racism if a stereotype is statistically significant?

Is it racist to assume that a Native American is alcohol intolerant?

It's logical contradictions like this that render the current usage of "racist" meaningless.  Which is why I've always been pushing my preferred alternative, bigot, taken to mean someone who wishes a racial or ethnic group ill.

Course I'm explaining this to a person who uses homophobe to describe anyone who disagrees with him.

Not any more.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2016, 01:39:13 PM
It's logical contradictions like this that render the current usage of "racist" meaningless.  Which is why I've always been pushing my preferred alternative, bigot, taken to mean someone who wishes a racial or ethnic group ill.

A bigot is someone who continues to hold intolerant beliefs even after the facts have been explained to him.  There is an overlap between the populations of racists and that of bigots, but they aren't synonyms.

"Racial bigot" might work, though.

Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2016, 01:18:21 PM
Is it still racism if a stereotype is statistically significant?

I think so :unsure: but then I am not really sure the extent that stereotypes based on race are racist.

Besides just because a disproportionate amount of great athletes are black does not mean a majority of black people are great athletes. I mean it may mean that but I have never seen it studied :P

it's racist because you're making an assumption about someone based on the rest of his race. but, like yi said, just because something is racist doesn't mean it's bigotry. similar to sexism my comment in another thread

Quote from: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 04:04:51 PM
it's racist because you're making an assumption about someone based on the rest of his race. but, like yi said, just because something is racist doesn't mean it's bigotry. similar to sexism my comment in another thread

Ah ok that makes sense.

Privilege? Check.

There is a difference between profiling, and racism, even though profiling often looks racist.

Profiling, at its basic level, is simply acknowledging statistics.

If you are looking for NFL starting corner backs, for example, it would be stupid to think that out of a given population of black people, one should expect any of them to be a NFL caliber cornerback.

However, since it is factually true that nearly all NFL cornerbacks are in fact black, then if you are trying to find NFL cornerbacks, and you have a mixed population of people to sift through, it makes perfect sense to simply not look at those who are not black. It reduces your set of people you do need to look at - does that mean you think your resulting set are all NFL cornerbacks? Of course not.

There is other kind of profiling that goes on all the time of course, that nobody has any problem with. If the police are looking for a serial killer, do you think they look at suspects who are men or women? Men - because while very, very few men are serial killers, just about all serial killers are men. So why waste time looking at women? Or 10 year olds? Or any other group that you know has an exceedingly low chance of actually containing the people you are looking for?

Now, it is certainly the case that one could take that too far, and end up hurting yourself, and the context matters. It isn't a case where since profiling works sometimes, it works all the time, or even the case that it is necessarily true that doing so is useful enough to justify the pushback.

Airport screening is the common example. If you are looking for potential terrorists, should you be completely profile neutral? There are good arguments either way.

Pretty much what Berkut said. That's why I changed my views on sexually active gay men donating blood - I don't think it is unreasonable to ban them because the chance of them having HIV is not statistically insignificant.

When we are talking about a minor inconvenience (as opposed to access to basic rights or fundamental services, say), efficiency trumps people feeling good about themselves or not getting offended.

I'm not even sure what is being discussed at this point. I don't think the busybody passenger was engaged in profiling. I agree there would be nothing to this story at all, if a security agent had seen the passenger writing to ISI men if in the security line.

More racism. :(

Quote'Violent' air passenger wanted to do yoga, officials say
Katia Hetter-Profile-Image
By Katia Hetter, CNN
Updated 1814 GMT (0114 HKT) March 31, 2016

(CNN)A United Airlines passenger accused of becoming violently disruptive on a flight from Honolulu to Japan has been charged with interference with the performance of a flight crew.

United Airlines Flight 903 was about an hour and a half into a nearly nine-hour flight to Tokyo's Narita International Airport on Saturday when Hyongtae Pae, 72, refused to follow flight attendants' orders to stay seated, screamed at them in Korean and became violent, according to the criminal complaint and affidavit filed in federal court by the U.S. Attorney's Office on Monday.
Pae told FBI officials that he didn't want to sit while flight attendants served a meal, preferring to do yoga and meditate. He said he had not slept in 11 days.
Pae, who was seen pushing his wife several times, was invited to the aircraft's aft galley to calm down and sat down in the middle of the galley, the complaint stated.
After Pae kept yelling and refused to return to his seat, other passengers -- including five U.S. Marines on the flight -- were asked to help put restraints on him and take him back to his seat.
Pae threatened to kill one of the people placing him in restraints, according to two unnamed Marines interviewed in the affidavit; he also tried to head-butt and bite one of the Marines.
Both Pae and his wife told the FBI, who conducted the interview in Korean with an agency linguist, they knew that they needed to follow the directions of the flight crew but didn't know that disobeying them was illegal.
A United Airlines spokeswoman confirmed that the flight returned to Honolulu due to a disruptive passenger and was met by law enforcement but referred all other questions to local authorities.

11 days is nothing. My neighbors have a great sex life.

Do you think you are clever? :hmm:

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2016, 10:21:16 AM
Do you think you are clever? :hmm:

Don't question me.

Or what?

Quote from: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 04:04:51 PM
it's racist because you're making an assumption about someone based on the rest of his race. but, like yi said, just because something is racist doesn't mean it's bigotry. similar to sexism my comment in another thread

Sounds fair. I think the problem is the word racism is so inherently associated with negative racism.

Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2016, 10:24:52 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2016, 10:21:16 AM
Do you think you are clever? :hmm:

Don't question me.

Stop being a terrorist.

Quote from: Tyr on April 04, 2016, 11:00:06 AM

Quote from: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 04:04:51 PM
it's racist because you're making an assumption about someone based on the rest of his race. but, like yi said, just because something is racist doesn't mean it's bigotry. similar to sexism my comment in another thread

Sounds fair. I think the problem is the word racism is so inherently associated with negative racism.

Positive racism?

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2016, 10:21:16 AM
Do you think you are clever? :hmm:

I think he's easily the most clever poster here.

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2016, 11:06:35 AM

Quote from: Tyr on April 04, 2016, 11:00:06 AM

Quote from: LaCroix on March 07, 2016, 04:04:51 PM
it's racist because you're making an assumption about someone based on the rest of his race. but, like yi said, just because something is racist doesn't mean it's bigotry. similar to sexism my comment in another thread

Sounds fair. I think the problem is the word racism is so inherently associated with negative racism.

Positive racism?

Well, problems like this come from the regressive left seeing any opinion based on race as racism - even when objectively true and statistically significant.

Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2016, 05:02:32 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2016, 10:21:16 AM
Do you think you are clever? :hmm:

I think he's easily the most clever poster here.

Marti?

People generally assume you're responding to the previous poster when you don't use a quote.

Great :)

Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2016, 05:02:32 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2016, 10:21:16 AM
Do you think you are clever? :hmm:

I think he's easily the most clever poster here.

Thanks. I think.

Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2016, 05:17:53 AM
Well, problems like this come from the regressive left seeing any opinion based on race as racism - even when objectively true and statistically significant.

:lol:

A similar incident has occured on a Southwest flight

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2016/04/college-student-removed-from-southwest-flight-after-speaking-arabic-on-plane.html/

QuoteCollege student removed from Southwest flight after speaking Arabic on plane

by Claire Z. Cardona
Published: April 17, 2016 7:57 pm

A college student who came to the United States as an Iraqi refugee was removed from a Southwest Airlines flight in California earlier this month after another passenger became alarmed when she heard him speaking Arabic.

The student, Khairuldeen Makhzoomi, a senior at the University of California Berkeley, was taken off a flight from Los Angeles International Airport to Oakland on April 6 after he called an uncle in Baghdad to tell him about an event he attended that included a speech by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

"I was very excited about the event so I called my uncle to tell him about it," he said.

He told his uncle about the chicken dinner they were served and the moment when he got to stand up and ask the secretary-general a question about the Islamic State, he said. But the conversation seemed troubling to a nearby passenger, who told the crew she overheard him making "potentially threatening comments," the airline said in a statement.

Makhzoomi, 26, knew something was wrong as soon as he finished his phone call and saw that a woman sitting in front of him had turned around in her seat to stare at him, he said. She headed for the airplane door soon after he told his uncle that he would call again when he landed, and qualified it with a common phrase in Arabic, "inshallah," meaning "God willing."

"That is when I thought, 'Oh, I hope she is not reporting me,' because it was so weird," Makhzoomi said.

That is exactly what happened. An Arabic-speaking Southwest Airlines employee of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent came to his seat and escorted him off the plane a few minutes after his call ended, he said. The man introduced himself in Arabic and then switched to English to ask, "Why were you speaking Arabic in the plane?"

Makhzoomi said he was afraid, and that the employee spoke to him "like I was an animal."

"I said to him, 'This is what Islamophobia got this country into,' and that made him so angry. That is when he told me I could not go back on the plane."

Zahra Billoo, executive director of the San Francisco Bay Area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said there had been at least six cases of Muslims being pulled off flights so far this year. The conduct of Southwest Airlines was of particular concern, she said, after another Muslim passenger was removed from a flight in Chicago last week.

"We are concerned that Muslims are facing more and more scrutiny and baseless harassment when they are attempting to travel," Billoo said.

Brandy King, a spokeswoman for Southwest Airlines, said the company was unable to comment on the conduct of individual employees. Efforts Saturday to contact the employee in Los Angeles, whose name was provided by Makhzoomi, were unsuccessful.

"We regret any less than positive experience a customer has onboard our aircraft," the company said in a statement. "Southwest neither condones nor tolerates discrimination of any kind."

Law enforcement officials arrived shortly after Makhzoomi accused the airline employee of anti-Muslim bias, he said. He was brought into the terminal and searched in front of a crowd of onlookers while half a dozen police officers, including one with a dog, stood watch.

Three agents from the FBI arrived and brought him into a private room where they questioned him, he said. They asked about his mother, who lives with him and his younger brother in Oakland. They also asked about his father, Khalid Makhzoomi, a former Iraqi diplomat who was jailed in Abu Ghraib prison by Saddam Hussein and later killed by the dictator's regime, according to Khairuldeen Makhzoomi. His family came to the United States in 2010.

Makhzoomi said an FBI agent told him the Southwest Airlines employee who was upset by the allegation of anti-Muslim bias said a passenger reported hearing him talk about martyrdom in Arabic, using a phrase often associated with jihadis. He denied the charge and was allowed to return to the terminal, he said, where the same Arabic-speaking employee refunded his ticket.

A spokeswoman for the FBI in Los Angeles, Ari Dekofsky, confirmed that agents responded to the airport that day but had found there to be no threat. "We determined that no further action was necessary," she said Saturday.

Makhzoomi was able to book a new flight on Delta Air Lines and arrived in Oakland eight hours after he originally planned. He said he has no plans to pursue legal action against Southwest Airlines, but he does want the company to apologize for the way its employees treated him.

"My family and I have been through a lot, and this is just another one of the experiences I have had," he said. "Human dignity is the most valuable thing in the world, not money. If they apologized, maybe it would teach them to treat people equally."

I'm glad they note a dog watched him.

I am conflicted on this. On one hand it's an overreaction and an inconvenience for the passenger, clearly. On the other hand I can see how "better safe than sorry" is a policy one would employ when dealing with dozens of people potentially getting killed.

Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2016, 02:30:19 PM
I am conflicted on this. On one hand it's an overreaction and an inconvenience for the passenger, clearly. On the other hand I can see how "better safe than sorry" is a policy one would employ when dealing with dozens of people potentially getting killed.

Sure. With that you can then target any 'violent' minority group.

Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2016, 03:11:33 PM

Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2016, 02:30:19 PM
I am conflicted on this. On one hand it's an overreaction and an inconvenience for the passenger, clearly. On the other hand I can see how "better safe than sorry" is a policy one would employ when dealing with dozens of people potentially getting killed.

Sure. With that you can then target any 'violent' minority group.

That would be bad, if your motives were to "target minority groups". One should react very strongly to any evidence that there is an effort underway to do such a thing for it's own sake.

Quote from: Berkut on April 18, 2016, 03:12:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2016, 03:11:33 PM

Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2016, 02:30:19 PM
I am conflicted on this. On one hand it's an overreaction and an inconvenience for the passenger, clearly. On the other hand I can see how "better safe than sorry" is a policy one would employ when dealing with dozens of people potentially getting killed.

Sure. With that you can then target any 'violent' minority group.

That would be bad, if your motives were to "target minority groups". One should react very strongly to any evidence that there is an effort underway to do such a thing for it's own sake.

You're right. No harm in policies that oppress minorities as long as that wasn't their intention.

Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2016, 03:15:42 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 18, 2016, 03:12:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2016, 03:11:33 PM

Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2016, 02:30:19 PM
I am conflicted on this. On one hand it's an overreaction and an inconvenience for the passenger, clearly. On the other hand I can see how "better safe than sorry" is a policy one would employ when dealing with dozens of people potentially getting killed.

Sure. With that you can then target any 'violent' minority group.

That would be bad, if your motives were to "target minority groups". One should react very strongly to any evidence that there is an effort underway to do such a thing for it's own sake.

You're right.

Yeah, that is generally the case.

Quote
No harm in policies that oppress minorities as long as that wasn't their intention.

An odd assertion to make. Do you have any evidence or reason to support such a notion?


And what does it have to do with your earlier comment about people targeting minority groups intentionally and for it's own sake?

Sorry but no I'm not interested in second hand grumbles tricks.

I don't think it is self-evident which option is "safe" and which is "sorry".

Quote from: Maximus on April 18, 2016, 03:28:17 PM
I don't think it is self-evident which option is "safe" and which is "sorry".

Obviously the safe option is more false positives and fewer false negatives.

Edit: I don't agree that is obvious.

Quote from: Maximus on April 18, 2016, 03:41:44 PM
Edit: I don't agree that is obvious.

It's not readily apparent to you which has greater disutility, getting blown out of the sky, or having to book another flight?

Agree with Yi. "Safe" isn't always the better option, but it is the one with the smaller downside.

I regularly talk about Odin on airplanes and I have yet to be thrown out.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2016, 03:45:52 PM
It's not readily apparent to you which has greater disutility, getting blown out of the sky, or having to book another flight?

I think that's a simplistic question. It would be helpful to consider the relative probabilities, secondary effects and other possible courses of action.

I think it is clear that a world where airplanes are blown out of the sky regulary and a world where people are regularly pulled off flights for spurious reasons are both worse than the world we live in. So I would argue that the optimal world would be somewhere between the two and which is safe and which is sorry depends on which side of the line you're on.

garbon, Maximus, in your view, what level of probability should be sufficient for an airplane staff member to decide a passanger may pose a security risk and should be asked off a plane? "Beyond reasonable doubt", "reasonable doubt"? Should the test be objective or can it be subjective?

Quote from: Maximus on April 18, 2016, 03:54:46 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2016, 03:45:52 PM
It's not readily apparent to you which has greater disutility, getting blown out of the sky, or having to book another flight?

I think that's a simplistic question. It would be helpful to consider the relative probabilities, secondary effects and other possible courses of action.

I think it is clear that a world where airplanes are blown out of the sky regulary and a world where people are regularly pulled off flights for spurious reasons are both worse than the world we live in. So I would argue that the optimal world would be somewhere between the two and which is safe and which is sorry depends on which side of the line you're on.

Clearly both are not equivalent, though. So in your view, what would be the acceptable level for the trade off? How many passengers can be asked off a plane and have to catch a different plane to prevent a single plane blowing up for this to be acceptable in your view? 10? 100? 10000? A million?

Quote from: Maximus on April 18, 2016, 03:54:46 PM
I think that's a simplistic question.

It's the one you professed to respond to.  Better safe than sorry is a formulation about danger.  An innocent person being pulled off a plane experiences inconvenience, not danger.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2016, 04:02:07 PM

Quote from: Maximus on April 18, 2016, 03:54:46 PM
I think that's a simplistic question.

It's the one you professed to respond to.  Better safe than sorry is a formulation about danger.  An innocent person being pulled off a plane experiences inconvenience, not danger.

Yeah, it seems to me that Maximus is operating from the line of reasoning that would be appropriate if someone was advocating shooting these passengers on the spot - and not asking them off the plane and having them catch a separate plane with a full refund...

Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2016, 03:59:03 PM
garbon, Maximus, in your view, what level of probability should be sufficient for an airplane staff member to decide a passanger may pose a security risk and should be asked off a plane? "Beyond reasonable doubt", "reasonable doubt"? Should the test be objective or can it be subjective?

I don't have that answer. I was objecting to the bumper-sticker decision-making process, not the conclusion.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2016, 04:02:07 PM
It's the one you professed to respond to. 

It's the one I objected to.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2016, 04:02:07 PM
An innocent person being pulled off a plane experiences inconvenience, not danger.

I suppose we could be arguing from different understandings of safety and danger. IMO, not all danger involves immediate violence or destruction.

If your definition of safety is restricted to immedate physical danger, then I would disagree with the maxim "better safe than sorry".

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2016, 04:02:07 PM

Quote from: Maximus on April 18, 2016, 03:54:46 PM
I think that's a simplistic question.

It's the one you professed to respond to.  Better safe than sorry is a formulation about danger.  An innocent person being pulled off a plane experiences inconvenience, not danger.

And if everyone is pulled off every plane, they will be safe from the dangers of flying.  This line of reasoning gets absurd, fast.

Now, if you can state a standard for the removal of people, there is something to debate.  But just "removal is better" isn't logically tenable, because that includes everyone.

Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2016, 02:30:19 PM
I am conflicted on this. On one hand it's an overreaction and an inconvenience for the passenger, clearly. On the other hand I can see how "better safe than sorry" is a policy one would employ when dealing with dozens of people potentially getting killed.

You mean like prohibiting gays from working in a hospital because they have a significantly higher chance of having AIDs?

If there is a policy for kicking people off the plane, it will be misapplied in some instances. I don't think that's reason enough to not have such a policy.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2016, 04:28:02 PM
If there is a policy for kicking people off the plane, it will be misapplied in some instances. I don't think that's reason enough to not have such a policy.

Yes, and false positives and false negatives are those misapplications. To say that one is categorically better than the other is to imply that they are not misapplications.

Quote from: Maximus on April 18, 2016, 04:33:00 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2016, 04:28:02 PM
If there is a policy for kicking people off the plane, it will be misapplied in some instances. I don't think that's reason enough to not have such a policy.

Yes, and false positives and false negatives are those misapplications. To say that one is categorically better than the other is to imply that they are not misapplications.

I don't think there is any such implication at all.

Clearly, this is a case where there was a false positive, and there was a misapplication.

Noting that the result of a false positive (inconvenience to someone, possibly serious inconvenience) is categorically better than a false negative (a plane crashes and everyone dies and terrorists get a "win" and all the costs that go with that) is rather obvious, I think, and hardly implies that the former is ok in any and all cases.

Quote from: Maximus on April 18, 2016, 04:33:00 PM
Yes, and false positives and false negatives are those misapplications. To say that one is categorically better than the other is to imply that they are not misapplications.

Which would you prefer, a system where there is 1 false positive and 1 false negative over 1 million passengers, or one where there are 10 false positives and 0 false negatives over the same span? If you pick the second, isn't that implying the false positive is categorically better?

Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 08:54:58 AM
More racism. :(

Quote'Violent' air passenger wanted to do yoga, officials say
Katia Hetter-Profile-Image
By Katia Hetter, CNN
Updated 1814 GMT (0114 HKT) March 31, 2016

(CNN)A United Airlines passenger accused of becoming violently disruptive on a flight from Honolulu to Japan has been charged with interference with the performance of a flight crew.

United Airlines Flight 903 was about an hour and a half into a nearly nine-hour flight to Tokyo's Narita International Airport on Saturday when Hyongtae Pae, 72, refused to follow flight attendants' orders to stay seated, screamed at them in Korean and became violent, according to the criminal complaint and affidavit filed in federal court by the U.S. Attorney's Office on Monday.
Pae told FBI officials that he didn't want to sit while flight attendants served a meal, preferring to do yoga and meditate. He said he had not slept in 11 days.
Pae, who was seen pushing his wife several times, was invited to the aircraft's aft galley to calm down and sat down in the middle of the galley, the complaint stated.
After Pae kept yelling and refused to return to his seat, other passengers -- including five U.S. Marines on the flight -- were asked to help put restraints on him and take him back to his seat.
Pae threatened to kill one of the people placing him in restraints, according to two unnamed Marines interviewed in the affidavit; he also tried to head-butt and bite one of the Marines.
Both Pae and his wife told the FBI, who conducted the interview in Korean with an agency linguist, they knew that they needed to follow the directions of the flight crew but didn't know that disobeying them was illegal.
A United Airlines spokeswoman confirmed that the flight returned to Honolulu due to a disruptive passenger and was met by law enforcement but referred all other questions to local authorities.

This story sucks. If I'm 1.5 hours into a 9 hour flight and some dumbass makes us turn around, I'm not going to be happy. Put the guy in a strait jacket and finish the flight.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2016, 04:45:47 PM
Which would you prefer, a system where there is 1 false positive and 1 false negative over 1 million passengers, or one where there are 10 false positives and 0 false negatives over the same span? If you pick the second, isn't that implying the false positive is categorically better?

Not at all; that just implies that in this particular data set the outcome is the same. To say that more false positives are always better is to say that an optimal solution is to classify everything is positive.

Quote from: Maximus on April 18, 2016, 05:03:00 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2016, 04:45:47 PM
Which would you prefer, a system where there is 1 false positive and 1 false negative over 1 million passengers, or one where there are 10 false positives and 0 false negatives over the same span? If you pick the second, isn't that implying the false positive is categorically better?

Not at all; that just implies that in this particular data set the outcome is the same. To say that more false positives are always better is to say that an optimal solution is to classify everything is positive.

A single false positive is always better than a single false negative. A thousand or a million false positives... probably not. The false positive shouldn't carry the same weight, but it is still optimal to try to keep them low.

Quote from: Berkut on April 18, 2016, 04:44:20 PM

Quote from: Maximus on April 18, 2016, 04:33:00 PM
Yes, and false positives and false negatives are those misapplications. To say that one is categorically better than the other is to imply that they are not misapplications.

I don't think there is any such implication at all.

Well it's demonstrable.

Quote

Clearly, this is a case where there was a false positive, and there was a misapplication.

Noting that the result of a false positive (inconvenience to someone, possibly serious inconvenience) is categorically better than a false negative (a plane crashes and everyone dies and terrorists get a "win" and all the costs that go with that) is rather obvious, I think, and hardly implies that the former is ok in any and all cases.

Sure, if you compare them one-to-one, one of them appears to be better. However that's not really useful. You also need to consider prior probabilities.

And we're still not taking cascading effects into account.

Back in the day, say the 80s, there was a lot more terrorism, a lot fewer flights, and a lot less security. We got by. What is going on now is overkill.

9/11 was bad because the hijackers took over planes and flew them into buildings. Problem solved by locking pilots away (and arguably new problems created, say for example with that flight that crashed via suicide pilot in France).

Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2016, 04:16:27 PM

Now, if you can state a standard for the removal of people, there is something to debate. 

There should be some sort of stated standard, which wouldn't have to be 100% objective, IMO.  But any reasonable standard would certainly not be met merely by speaking Arabic.

Quote from: dps on April 18, 2016, 05:45:34 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2016, 04:16:27 PM

Now, if you can state a standard for the removal of people, there is something to debate. 

There should be some sort of stated standard, which wouldn't have to be 100% objective, IMO.  But any reasonable standard would certainly not be met merely by speaking Arabic.

...which is rather obviously NOT the standard, since people speak arabic on airplanes all the time and are not removed.

Inshallah was the trigger.  Allahu Akbar would be a better one, but by that time it's probably too late to do anything. :D

Quote from: dps on April 18, 2016, 05:45:34 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2016, 04:16:27 PM

Now, if you can state a standard for the removal of people, there is something to debate. 

There should be some sort of stated standard, which wouldn't have to be 100% objective, IMO.  But any reasonable standard would certainly not be met merely by speaking Arabic.

Agreed.  If anyone saying the word inshallah is removed from airplanes, I imagine it is tough to buy a ticket to Inshallah International Airport in Oregon!

Ending with inshallah is supposedly obligatory among Muslims when making a promise, to acknowledge that God might have other plans.

Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2016, 08:19:12 PM

Quote from: dps on April 18, 2016, 05:45:34 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2016, 04:16:27 PM

Now, if you can state a standard for the removal of people, there is something to debate. 

There should be some sort of stated standard, which wouldn't have to be 100% objective, IMO.  But any reasonable standard would certainly not be met merely by speaking Arabic.

Inshallah International Airport in Oregon!

Never heard of that one, where is it?

Quote from: The Brain on April 18, 2016, 03:54:37 PM
I regularly talk about Odin on airplanes and I have yet to be thrown out.

People probably assume you are talking about Marvel comics.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2016, 05:09:01 PM

Quote from: Maximus on April 18, 2016, 05:03:00 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2016, 04:45:47 PM
Which would you prefer, a system where there is 1 false positive and 1 false negative over 1 million passengers, or one where there are 10 false positives and 0 false negatives over the same span? If you pick the second, isn't that implying the false positive is categorically better?

Not at all; that just implies that in this particular data set the outcome is the same. To say that more false positives are always better is to say that an optimal solution is to classify everything is positive.

A single false positive is always better than a single false negative.

The wrongfully convicted will likely disagree with that broad statement.

I was talking about suspected terrorists on planes.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2016, 09:07:01 PM
I was talking about suspected terrorists on planes.

Yes.  Don't you think it would be better for a false positive to occur in the case of serious crimes?  You would risk a mass murderer going free?   ;)

The point is your logic is a very old excuse for extreme, disproportionate responses to perceived risks. 

Sure, once you divorce it from the context and alter the meaning it could be used that way.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2016, 09:41:41 PM


The point is your logic is a very old excuse for extreme, disproportionate responses to perceived risks. 

If this were an example of an extreme, disproportionate response to a perceived risk, then that would be a reasonable point.

And when someone uses the excuse of terrorism to engage in activities that are clearly NOT about terrorism, then it would be perfectly reasonable for people to point that out - but the details actually matter. Just because it it possible that something might be mis-used, is not an argument that a particular case is an example of something being mis-used.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2016, 04:21:51 PM

Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2016, 02:30:19 PM
I am conflicted on this. On one hand it's an overreaction and an inconvenience for the passenger, clearly. On the other hand I can see how "better safe than sorry" is a policy one would employ when dealing with dozens of people potentially getting killed.

You mean like prohibiting gays from working in a hospital because they have a significantly higher chance of having AIDs?

...Which can be checked with an easy medical test (I assume people who work at a hospital get those regularly). On the other hand, I am fine with prohibiting gays from donating blood.

By the way, it's AIDS, not AIDs (it's not a plural of AID). :contract:

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 18, 2016, 09:41:41 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2016, 09:07:01 PM
I was talking about suspected terrorists on planes.

Yes.  Don't you think it would be better for a false positive to occur in the case of serious crimes?  You would risk a mass murderer going free?   ;)

The point is your logic is a very old excuse for extreme, disproportionate responses to perceived risks.

That's like arguing whether "the end justifies the means" is always right or wrong in abstracto. Outside of a high school debate class, it is rarely a fruitful way to spend time.

Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2016, 12:07:03 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2016, 04:21:51 PM

Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2016, 02:30:19 PM
I am conflicted on this. On one hand it's an overreaction and an inconvenience for the passenger, clearly. On the other hand I can see how "better safe than sorry" is a policy one would employ when dealing with dozens of people potentially getting killed.

You mean like prohibiting gays from working in a hospital because they have a significantly higher chance of having AIDs?

...Which can be checked with an easy medical test (I assume people who work at a hospital get those regularly). On the other hand, I am fine with prohibiting gays from donating blood.

By the way, it's AIDS, not AIDs (it's not a plural of AID). :contract:

That's not an answer.  If people are more at risk by having gays work in a hospital, should gays be allowed to work in hospitals?

But that's not a comparable analogy - noone is arguing that people who speak Arabic should not be allowed on planes. Instead, we are arguing whether the airport staff have acted reasonably by wanting to check a man who was heard saying a popular terrorist catch phrase before allowing him back on a plane.

So, in your analogy, if a very thin gay man, with sunken eyes, and weird leshions applies to work at a hospital, it is not unreasonable for the hospital staff to first run some blood tests before letting him assist with surgery. And even after they have run such tests, it is not out of the realm of possibility that some patients may be alarmed without being homophobic.

It's not a catch phrase, it's a common expression.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 19, 2016, 02:47:59 AM
It's not a catch phrase, it's a common expression.

Yeah but it is one that terrorists often use. It does not mean anyone who uses the phrase is a terrorist but is a red flag.

Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2016, 04:05:55 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 19, 2016, 02:47:59 AM
It's not a catch phrase, it's a common expression.

Yeah but it is one that terrorists often use. It does not mean anyone who uses the phrase is a terrorist but is a red flag.

Terrorists also often use "you," "the" and "maybe."  Should everyone who says those words in Arabic on airplanes be removed?  Inshallah is not a red flag.  It can't be.  It is way too common.

Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2016, 04:54:54 AM

Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2016, 04:05:55 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 19, 2016, 02:47:59 AM
It's not a catch phrase, it's a common expression.

Yeah but it is one that terrorists often use. It does not mean anyone who uses the phrase is a terrorist but is a red flag.

Terrorists also often use "you," "the" and "maybe."  Should everyone who says those words in Arabic on airplanes be removed?  Inshallah is not a red flag.  It can't be.  It is way too common.

Agreed, it is almost the same as saying that speaking Arabic is a red flag.

Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2016, 04:05:55 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 19, 2016, 02:47:59 AM
It's not a catch phrase, it's a common expression.

Yeah but it is one that terrorists often use. It does not mean anyone who uses the phrase is a terrorist but is a red flag.

That is nuts. It is a common one that Muslims use all the time.

Now, it isn't terribly surprising that someone might not know that, and react totally incorrectly to hearing it, and go and say something to the flight attendant.

*In general* we probably want the public to be willing to say something when they see something they think is concerning. However, that means we are going to see a LOT of false alarms.

The question is, what should the people in the "first line of defense" do when someone comes up to them and says "I heard that person over there say something in Arabic, and I think it might have had something to do with terrorism..."?

This is not an easy question to answer. If we ask the public to "see something, say something" then we know that most the time they say something, it is likely because they saw something that is completely harmless. So how do we apply reasonable filters so that we aren't yanking people off of planes for no good reason?

Now, this is a particular example, and we don't even know at all whether this was the system working as intended, or actually a mistake. Perhaps stuff like this happens all the time, and a competent flight attendant would say "Thanks for your letting me know, but that term is really not indicative of a problem - I will go chat with them though. Thanks!". Then they go have a quick innocuous chat with the person, realize it is nothing, and everyone goes about their day. Maybe this happens 50 times, and this is the 1 time that the flight attendant was new, or uncomfortable, or whatever, so it escalated further than it should have...? Who knows?

Maybe this happens all the time, and it is a serious problem with people being needlessly harassed. I suspect if that was the case, there would be a lot more stories like this - instead we get one offs everyone once in a great while.

Whatever system we have, there will be cases where the system works as intended, but we get a result we don't want, in which case the system needs to be tweaked. But how do you tell if a particular story is the system working as intended, or the system NOT working properly? Especially given the media's known dishonesty in how they often report this kind of thing?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 18, 2016, 09:46:23 PM
Sure, once you divorce it from the context and alter the meaning it could be used that way.

Your argument is that a false positive is always better than a false negative when trying to find a terrorist.

But that kind of logic is how we get to a person who is clearly not a terrorist being removed from a flight despite all the evidence to the contrary.  It is the battle cry for those who excuse over reactions.  While it is undoubtedly better to always catch a terrorist, your simplistic formulation ignores the fact that there can be a whole range of options which reduces the chances of false positives and reduces the degree of inconvenience for those people who are the victims of false positives.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 19, 2016, 09:10:28 AM
Your argument is that a false positive is always better than a false negative when trying to find a terrorist.

But that kind of logic is how we get to a person who is clearly not a terrorist being removed from a flight despite all the evidence to the contrary.  It is the battle cry for those who excuse over reactions.  While it is undoubtedly better to always catch a terrorist, your simplistic formulation ignores the fact that there can be a whole range of options which reduces the chances of false positives and reduces the degree of inconvenience for those people who are the victims of false positives.

That wasn't an argument at all. And strictly speaking, it's not my claim either. More like, a false positive is always better than a false negative when determining if someone can board a plane. There may even be edge cases where it's not true(guy denied passage turns to terrorism and plans an even bigger attack), but close enough to 100% to say it's categorically better.

It is not any kind of logic, it is a premise. If you take the additional premises that it's better for terrorists to be removed than not and that it's better for innocent passengers to be allowed to keep their seats than not, than yes, logically you'll remove more non-terrorists from flights. Likewise, if you make an alternate premise, such as that a false negative is better, or that the system should try to keep false negatives and false positives equal, logically it will result in fewer people being wrongly removed and more terrorists getting through.

Of course, the situation you're describing is one in which my premise is kept, but the premise that it is also better for innocent passengers to be allowed to keep their seats is ignored. Obviously, it's a balancing act.

Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2016, 01:43:16 AM
But that's not a comparable analogy - noone is arguing that people who speak Arabic should not be allowed on planes. Instead, we are arguing whether the airport staff have acted reasonably by wanting to check a man who was heard saying a popular terrorist catch phrase before allowing him back on a plane.

So, in your analogy, if a very thin gay man, with sunken eyes, and weird leshions applies to work at a hospital, it is not unreasonable for the hospital staff to first run some blood tests before letting him assist with surgery. And even after they have run such tests, it is not out of the realm of possibility that some patients may be alarmed without being homophobic.

I think has to do with far more with profiling then what one idiot thought  a person said.  I doubt they would mistake you or I saying that.  If we should take precautions with one group why not another?  A blood test for AIDS can't be done and processed every morning for a gay person.  The safest course would be to keep them out of the hospital all together, wouldn't it?

So here's another one - at least they didn't have to miss their flight.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/uk-muslims-ordered-plane-isil-accusation-160823134350659.html

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aljazeera.com%2Fmritems%2Fimagecache%2Fmbdxxlarge%2Fmritems%2FImages%2F2016%2F8%2F23%2F6e429f8c9cc44900bc631e84ebb6d4cb_18.jpg&hash=8d8daed7dfcb11650c248a21ae82d716098535c3)

QuoteUK: Muslims ordered off plane after ISIL accusation
Sisters and brother interrogated on London airport runway after fellow passengers claimed seeing Arabic text on phone.

Three British Muslim siblings were left traumatised after being escorted off a plane in London and interrogated on the tarmac as armed police kept watch, after fellow passengers accused them of being members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) group.

Sakina Dharas, 24, her sister Maryam, 19, and their brother Ali, 21, were on board EasyJet flight EZY3249 from London's Stansted Airport to the Italian city of Naples on August 17.

Sakina told Al Jazeera on Tuesday that as the plane was about to take off, a crew member ordered the siblings off the aircraft and escorted them down the staircase to the tarmac, where they were met by armed police and an MI5 agent who questioned them for one hour.

Earlier, two passengers - also travelling to Naples - had told authorities that the siblings had been looking at a mobile phone screen that showed either Arabic text or the words "praise be to Allah", Sakina said.

"A passenger on your flight has claimed that you three are members of ISIS," the MI5 agent said to the siblings, according to Sakina, a clinical pharmacist.

"The minute that I saw police standing there, I was extremely emotional," she said.

"We had nothing at all [on our phones]. We don't even speak Arabic, we're [of] Indian [origin]."

Sakina added that her brother had not looked at his phone during their time at Stansted.

The only Arabic in her smartphone is within an app featuring verses from the Quran, she said, which "wasn't open" throughout their time in the airport.

During their one-hour interrogation on the tarmac, Sakina said she was asked to explain - page by page - the details of various entry stamps on her passport. She also showed the MI5 agent recent WhatsApp messages. The siblings provided answers relating to their personal lives and were questioned on their home addresses, workplaces, social media history and parents' professions.

Sakina said the agent told them that he had already performed checks on the family and was simply verifying the information, before warning her that he would be "doing more research on you, and if anything comes back, I'll be here waiting on your return".

The siblings, who are from northwest London. were then allowed back on the plane, which had been delayed.

'Nervous and embarrassed'

"I was extremely nervous and embarrassed," said Sakina, who also wrote an account of the event on her Facebook page.

"I thought, shouldn't they [the agent and police officers] be coming up [on the plane] with us, to show the other passengers that we hadn't done anything wrong, to say, 'Don't worry, it was a misunderstanding?'

"Our holiday in Italy was ruined. It played on our minds the whole time."

EasyJet confirmed the incident to Al Jazeera.

"Following concerns raised by a passenger during the boarding of flight ... a member of ground staff requested the assistance of the police who took the decision to talk to three passengers at the bottom of the aircraft steps, before departure," the company said.

"The safety and security of ... passengers and crew is our highest priority which means that if a security concern is raised we will always investigate it as a precautionary measure.

"We would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused to the passengers."

Sakina said she and her siblings were victims of "racial profiling".

"I'm still very annoyed that someone [the accusing passengers] can get away with a blatant lie," she said, adding that she would take legal action "if I knew a way to do so".

The incident comes at a time of rising Islamophobia in the UK.

Sakina said before the plane experience, that she had received "the odd racist remark about my headscarf".

"With the way things are spun in the media and the climate we're in, we're growing accustomed to it, and desensitised ... More education is the best way to battle ignorance," she added.

Muslims around the world are increasingly subject to discrimination as Islam is conflated with "terrorism".

'Humiliating public interrogations'

Rights groups said that while security was important, efforts should be made to protect innocent people.

"It's absolutely right that security is a foremost priority for airlines, and that genuine causes for concern are properly investigated to guarantee the safety of passengers," Rosie Brighouse, a legal officer at the UK-based rights group Liberty, told Al Jazeera.

"However, it is also important that innocent people aren't subjected to humiliating public interrogations, and it is therefore incumbent on the authorities to use their common sense, and subject reported concerns to basic credibility checks, before deciding how to respond."

Yasmine Ahmed, director of Rights Watch UK, said the Dharas' case raised "serious human rights concerns".

"It is completely unacceptable that young, British Muslims are subject to this treatment," she told Al Jazeera.

"The government must immediately explain under what powers they acted, and how it is necessary and proportionate, on the basis of a spurious claim by a fellow passenger, to demand that three young British Muslims disembark an aircraft and be subject to questioning by an MI5 officer and told that the officer may be waiting for them on their return."

Such action carried a "risk [of] having a counterproductive effect by alienating and isolating young, British Muslims," she said.

"Incidents such as these, which unfortunately are all too familiar, raise very serious questions about whether the government is genuinely committed to upholding the very British values that it espouses in its counter terrorism strategy and whether the government's counter terrorism strategy is driven by efficacy or popularism."

Oh yeah that crew sure looks like some hard core ISIS types.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2016, 11:35:18 AM
I think has to do with far more with profiling then what one idiot thought  a person said.  I doubt they would mistake you or I saying that.  If we should take precautions with one group why not another?  A blood test for AIDS can't be done and processed every morning for a gay person.  The safest course would be to keep them out of the hospital all together, wouldn't it?

Appropriate profiling is that if somebody is an associate of known terrorist groups or groups that support and fund terrorist activities. Which, as far as I know, is pretty uncontroversial.

Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2016, 02:53:48 PM
Oh yeah that crew sure looks like some hard core ISIS types.

I'd do both sisters at the same time.

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 24, 2016, 06:47:06 PM
I'd do both sisters at the same time.

And how, PBUH.

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 24, 2016, 06:47:06 PM

Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2016, 02:53:48 PM
Oh yeah that crew sure looks like some hard core ISIS types.

I'd do both sisters at the same time.

I was just going through the replies, thinking "how long until someone suggests the ménage à trois?"  :P

It is the will of Allah, PB&J.

I'd stick in their jelly. I'd hit it like Mosul.

I'd hit it like an arms deal cancellation, just to slip it in later on.

I would covertly ship my HAWK missile into them.

I'd hit them with Bob McFarlane, a bible and a cake.  Not necessarily in that order.

I miss The 80's.  :(