Terrorist Dry Runs....?
 

Just to let you know I dont condone any type of profiling against any race but
raising suspicion and being cautious is a different issue.


http://womenswallstreet.com/WWS/arti...&articleid=711

If you don't feel like reading the above link its basically a woman reporters account of boarding a plane with 14 Arab men who started acting suspicious
during the flight, getting up and going back and forth to the bathroom with a
McDonalds bag in their hand and other object and talking amongst themselves
in Arabic and nodding their head. I wouldnt have been been comfortable on that flight at all. Turns out they were a band but still, you dont act like that on a plane, moving around in groups and things...thats just too nerve racking


________________________________________________________________
Flight crews and air marshals say Middle Eastern men are staking out airports, probing security measures and conducting test runs aboard airplanes for a terrorist attack.
At least two midflight incidents have involved numerous men of Middle Eastern descent behaving in what one pilot called "stereotypical" behavior of an organized attempt to attack a plane. No doubt these are dry runs for a terrorist attack," an air marshal said.
Pilots and air marshals who asked to remain anonymous told The Washington Times that surveillance by terrorists is rampant, using different probing methods.
"It's happening, and it's a sad state of affairs," a pilot said.
A June 29 incident aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 327 from Detroit to Los Angeles is similar to a Feb. 15 incident on American Airlines Flight 1732 from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to New York's John F. Kennedy Airport.
The Northwest flight involved 14 Syrian men and the American Airlines flight involved six men of Middle Eastern descent.
"I've never been in a situation where I have felt that afraid," said Annie Jacobsen, a business and finance feature writer for the online magazine Women's Wall Street who was aboard the Northwest flight.
The men were seated throughout the plane pretending to be strangers. Once airborne, they began congregating in groups of two or three, stood nearly the entire flight, and consecutively filed in and out of bathrooms at different intervals, raising concern among passengers and flight attendants, Mrs. Jacobsen said.
One man took a McDonald's bag into the bathroom, then passed it off to another passenger upon returning to his seat. When the pilot announced the plane was cleared for landing and to fasten seat belts, seven men jumped up in unison and went to different bathrooms.

I wonder how this reporter managed to get such a detailed acount of events without arousing notice from those men she was supposedly tracking.

Isn't that a job requirement for reporters?

Never been on a plane full of Chinese people then I presume? ;)

Try flying on Emirates... thats normal for the people on board. I've spent enough time in the above mentioned culture to be able to say this is normal...

My 2 cents.

That sounds more like a statistic. Do cops deliberately single out white males between 28 and 40 for body searches?

this is bull.


they didnt let my dad on an airplane due to "new regulations" and he had to buy another ticket and flew out three days late. i dont give a damn what she says, racial profiling is racism, and racism is wrong.

Edit: i never new linux questions didnt have a swearfilter.

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

the washington times is a giant rightist propaganda machine. its like using foxnews as your source.

Yeah so can you go back and edit out your slang that is really unecessary. There use to be a swear filter, its not enabled currently, but we'd appreciate it if you did watch the type of language you use, especially yours and the way its being used. I'm sure you can find other non-abrasive words to describe your opening.

Regards.

Definitely a difficult one.

I've read about the "racial profiling concern's" and whether this type of behaviour is either justified, or racism.

There's a very fine line, or so it seem's to me. Because of the differences, both physical and mental between those of different colour's, cultures and creed's.

Now I try very hard to keep an open mind on such matters, and often treat such stories, i.e. the linked one with a very large "pinch of salt".

But is the "tone" of the article justified? Well, if the lady who wrote that particular piece is from, oh what's the phrase? Oh yes, "WASP" background, then possibly paranoid?, but only on the basis that she hadn't spent any/much time in the company of people whose appearance is Arabic.

Was she just being cautious and sensible? or paranoid? I don't know.

One thing I have noticed is that if you are somewhere where you come into contact with group's of people who are different from yourself, then it's quite easy to feel uncomfortable. Say, like in London, where certain group's of a particular racial origin have chosen to make their homes. Maybe, say Southall and Newham, both of which have large Asian communities (as opposed to oriental, that is).

I've spent times in both area's, and noticed that these communities have the same problem's as the one's in which I've lived, though sometimes, for reason's of culture and maybe language, I've felt a little intimidated when there's been group's of youth's around wherever/whatever I'm doing. They aren't doing anything differently from a white community i.e. the kid's hanging around the street corner etc, but the oppressive feeling seem's to stem from unfamiliarity with groups of people like this, and not that they are any different from myself other than possibly their faith and skin colour.

Because with that scenario, I would normally feel more comfortable if say that youth's where white, so my discomfort is irrational.

Now, given that "people of Arabic appearance" probably out number American national's quite considerably, was the lady who wrote the linked article's attitude also irrational?

I feel that from the outside point of view that while the US security authorities seem to be doing about as much as is reasonably practical, occasionally, there seem to be some thing's that arise that boarder on the paranoid but given the US constitution, then there are something's that certain group's would feel justified, while a different group of people would feel discriminatory.

Let's face it, post 9/11, any terrorist group intent on carrying out an atrocity is probably going to pick people who more closely resemble the indigenous population of wherever they've chosen to carry out their "thing".

It'd be pretty unlikely that they'd pick person's who are "very Arabic" in appearance, dressed in traditional robes/head-wear etc. Because let's face it, large part's of the populations of Spain, Italy, Southern France, Greece, etc etc could be described as being "of Arab appearance".

So given that, I'm trying to work out why "she" wrote that article in the first place. Was it a scare story designed to sell paper's? Was it a genuine concern? Possibly both, possibly neither. I can't say. I'm certainly not familiar with the "flavour's" of politic's used by the various US newspaper's and TV stations, hence I'll remain "on the fence".

Is it not also the case that nuka_t has justification for those remark's (i.e. previous experience of some sort of prejudcial treatment)? Yes, racism is wrong. Very wrong, but that's not to say, that if people from a given group who have a history of causing problem's, then singling out everyone from that group is automatically discriminatory.

Yes, it's certainly "using a large hammer, to crack a small nut", I for one, don't feel that it's right to "tar everyone with the same brush" but given the recent decision by Britain's highest court (the House of Lords) when deciding in the matter of retention of DNA profiles AFTER you've been cleared of any wrong doing, I understand that theirs was that police authorities can now retain DNA information for use in future investigation's, and that they felt that this is more important than protecting the human right's of every man and his dog!

Personally, I do see it as an infringement of my human rights, but have to concede that the judges who made this decision are probably the best people for the job, and in making that decision they weighed up all the possible factor's, and that the retention of such info is for our countries so called "good" (but that's also not forgetting that it's a decision that may also be over turned by the European Court of Human Right's).

At the same time, it open's up a whole "can of worm's" in respect of civil liberties, when considering the possibilities of very large databases of such info. Perhaps's it should be possible, but at the same time, we could have very, very draconian punishment's available for those who may abuse such information, with no-one being exempt from prosecution for any such abuses (as in politician's, police, companies, etc etc and member's of such organisations being personally liable).

Oh, I don't know. How do you try to be fair, and unbiased in your treatment of people, whatever their creed, colour, background, social status, etc etc. As I said in my first sentence, definitely a difficult one!

p.s. It would be nice to see this thread continue with considered answers, but as BajaNick has already pointed out, these subject's can easily mutate into flamers (and no I don't think he meant Burger King product's :D)

Eh. This article looks no different from any of the other scare-stories that have been flying around since 9/11 about all the far-fetched ways that terrorists might strike next. To me it seems pretty ridiculous to live in mortal terror from day to day; I'm far more likely to be killed by the airbag in my car than by terrorists. George W. Bush has killed more civilians than Osama Bin Laden has; it's him we should be worried about.

Can't agree more. And living in paranoia and hysteria would only play right into the terrorists' trap. That's exactly the kind of psychological effect they want to achieve.

RE:
 

true enough Wapcaplet...or rather killed by a drunk driver. But you know we all play into the fear factor even myself when its blown up. You hear that a plane goes down due to engine malfunction and all of sudden people are scared to fly. You hear about the number of people who die from cancer caused by smoking and people just say "I need to quit" LOL!! I guess immediate death is just that much more frightening that slow death cause by smoking and bad diet habits.

Our nation was created from many diverse nationalities. Of course, once two nationalities interact there will be racism and suspicion - it's as old as mankind itself. The difference is that for most of our recent history we have had laws designed to protect against racism, while now profiling seems to be acceptable to our government to protect our citizens. When we legislate out of fear and suspicion, we tear down the foundations of our democracy and put our rights and freedoms in jeopardy.

Besides, the other day I read that terrorist groups are actively recruiting Western appearing agents for attacks in the US. Perhaps we should now screen any blond, blue-eyed tourists?

the idea of racism being wrong has only occured since the government has made it illeagal. it has been going on for thousands of years. just because the government says racism is illeagal, doesnt mean you have to agree with it. think for yourself and question authority. the gov't banned booze in the early 1900's and we all know what happened..... the government isnt always right.