Delta Flight 253 on the Amsterdam-Detroit route was disrupted a total of three times, first on Christmas Day by the Underwear Bomber Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab and again on the next day. The third time was Tuesday, January 12 when four males, speaking Arabic, were talking loudly on the flight.
Two air marshals who understand Arabic said that the men were making “inappropriate jokes about terrorism”. After being considered a potential threat, the Arabic speakers were interviewed by Transportation Security Administration officials but no arrests were made.
This certainly appears to be just more fallout from the Underwear Bomber incident. But it is much more. Because this incident is part of a pattern that brings to mind the case of The Flying Imams, four Islamic preachers who say they were discriminated against after they were removed from US Airways Flight 300 from Minneapolis to Phoenix on November 20, 2006.
Those Imams had initially attracted attention by praying loudly in the departure lounge before boarding the plane. Then several passengers and crew members felt that the imams were acting suspiciously on the plane before its departure. That behavior included refusal by the imams, including Omar Shahin, to sit in their assigned seats; requests for large metal seatbelt extenders even though they did not appear to need them; three of the imams traveling without checked baggage and with one-way tickets; and speaking to each other in Arabic about bin Laden and condemning America for “killing Saddam” (Hussein, the Iraqi leader)
The takeoff was delayed and the men were escorted off the plane after they refused to leave. The imams were detained, questioned and released.
A US Airways spokesperson said, “We’ve done what we typically do in a situation where there is a removal or some kind of customer service at issue…. We talked with crew members and passengers and those on the ground…. We found out the facts are substantially the same, and the imams were detained because of the concerns crew members had based on the behavior they observed, and from reports by the customers…. We’re looking at it as a security issue and as a customer-service issue and where we might need to do outreach.”
On March 12, 2007, the Flying Imams’ lawyer filed a lawsuit on their behalf. The suit targeted US Airways and the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, along with some passengers on the flight who had reported on the imams’ behavior to the flight crew.
So notice how the imams and their lawyers not only targeted the airline, but other passengers too. This is a classic strategy of intimidation, much like the strategy of Jesse Jackson and other black leaders to make any critic of black behavior to be seen as racist. This is a tactic of shutting down debate and criticism, just as the Islamists are trying to incrementally shut down scrutiny of potential terrorists to soften up the airlines for another attack.
Shahin had been involved in a similarly provocative incident previously when two members of his mosque were removed from an America West flight after acting recklessly on a flight. The students filed racial-profiling lawsuits against America West, which is now part of US Airways, with Shahin as their defense attorney. Shahin also had been quoted after 9/11 saying that Muslims could not have perpetrated the attacks because more than 1,200 Muslims died in the World Trade Center attack (which is false).
The Flying Imams settled out of court with US Airways.
What do these incidents mean?
Well, everything. Because any rational and decent person knows that in this age of terror, that you should behave yourself on airline flights because the system is under so much stress. That is why Americans who have become drunk or unruly are often handcuffed and charged with crimes.
But the January 12 incident, along with the actions of the Flying Imams and especially Shahin, is part of an ongoing scheme to constantly test the limits of the American airline system. This is how it works: Innocent Middle Eastern imams, young Muslim males, and Arab-speakers get onto flights and create a stir. Then when the stir is noted and acted upon, the fliers cry “discrimination” and are immediately defended by Islamist lawyers, along with American leftists. The settlement, like the one awarded to the Flying Imams, then becomes a warning to other airlines.
This all is intended to do one thing – to make the airlines less likely to even to take note of any suspicious activities by Middle Eastern males, Arabic speakers etc. This is to instill fear in the airlines, just as members of our own US Army were afraid to act on years of obviously radical Islamic rantings by the Fort Hood murderer – an Army psychiatrist – for fear of appearing ‘discriminatory’ or ‘racist’.
So bit by bit, we are being intimidated into ignoring suspicious behavior so that suspicious behavior can morph into violent behavior when the moment is right. This is a long-term process that is being joined backhandedly by the Obama administration in its soft approach to terrorism. And it is setting us up for another 9/11.
By dint of the fact that our attorney general Eric Holder is going to pursue CIA agents for their tactics in questioning terrorist detainees while seeking to give civilian trials to alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed shows that we indeed are pursuing a policy of “moral equivalence” in which both sides are treated equally.
Normally we might think that “equivalence” seeks to level the playing field. But it does not. It tilts the field way over in favor of terrorists. Because we have seen many instances where unruly white passengers are handcuffed and arrested – or CIA agents are prosecuted – while Islamic passengers who act suspiciously are escorted to a lawyer’s office to file a lawsuit against the airline. Or the Underwear Bomber is allowed to board Flight 253 in Amsterdam despite many red flags.
This is called “moral INequivalence”. Because we know that the white passengers and our CIA guys are not involved in terror, but that the people always involved are Islamists, either peripherally, as interested parties, or intimately. This presents us with a clear and present danger that we must heed or pay a very big price down the road.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can print out for free my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.