The linked story concerns an Iraqi-American who was removed from a Southwest Airlines plane because a passenger heard him "talk about martyrdom in Arabic, using a phrase often associated with jihadists."
It was, of course, nonsense, in the sense that the complaining passenger does not know Arabic, so she could not have heard him "talk about martyrdom," even if that was what he was doing.
I would not bother linking to this story, interesting though it is, except for the reaction of Southwest Airlines. Here are the statements it provided to the Times:
“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.”And:
Brandy King, a spokeswoman for Southwest Airlines, said the company was unable to comment on the conduct of individual employees.Oh, really? And who is stopping your company from explaining its outrageous conduct?
I have been reading a book (review coming soon) by a flight attendant about, among other things, the detailed training flight attendants get in how to deal with passengers and their complaints. How difficult would it have been to ask the complaining passenger, "Do you speak any other language than English?"
*And who is stopping your company from explaining its outrageous conduct?*
ReplyDeleteThe person who made the decision to eject the passenger was almost certainly the Captain.
Whose authority is essentially absolute, and beyond question.
Yes, I know that. But what stops Southwest from explaining the behavior of its agents?
ReplyDeleteMore fundamentally, we're deep into this era of jittery passengers. Competent management would have a protocol to deal with alarms.
But, of course, competent management is not something I expect from American businesses.
That is because, at least in this case, you don't understand the problem.
ReplyDeleteLead Flight Attendant tells the Capt that a passenger is making her uncomfortable because of report another passenger made.
Capt ejects the passenger.
The Capt has no need whatsoever to explain his action, because on account of he said so is always the answer.
Now that I have a little time ...
ReplyDelete[OP:] The linked story concerns an Iraqi-American who was removed from a Southwest Airlines plane because a passenger heard him "talk about martyrdom in Arabic, using a phrase often associated with jihadists."
It was, of course, nonsense, in the sense that the complaining passenger does not know Arabic, so she could not have heard him "talk about martyrdom," even if that was what he was doing.
Let's have a little look at this perfect example of unwarranted, unearned, RtO moral preening.
You failed to quote the offending phrase, so let me help:
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.”
First, we have to allow for journalism's typical abuse of facts and concepts, and your professional inability to spot them. The quote from the link isn't a quote from the passenger; it is as certain as Gell-Mann Amnesia that the passenger heard the word "inshallah", and that the passenger — and really, who knows why? — somehow linked that word with people getting blown up, mowed down, and defenestrated.
Given that connection, tenuous granted, because it happens almost the exact opposite of never, the passenger felt compelled to report this suspicion.
Your conclusion is "… she could not have heard him talk about martyrdom …" is so bizarre as to be nearly beyond comprehension, except that this is RtO. Then you follow up by the even more unwarranted, as in really stupid, inability of SWA from explaining its outrageous conduct.
You don't appear to read newspapers, or know much history, so there may be a few things you don't know.
Maj Hassan's suspicious conduct was not reported by anyone, because they feared the near-certainty of being labeled as bigots in compared to the seemingly low likelihood of dead people.
The San Bernardino shooters? Same thing. There were neighbors who were suspicious, but didn't want to run the risk of morally pretentious fools.
Then, you make the mistake of presuming what SWA's response should have been:
Given the extensive association of "inshallah" with Islamic terrorism, only a social retard, or a deliberate provocateur, could fail to see the obvious problems potentially attending his verbal incontinence. See also Clock Boy, Flying Imams, etc.
Perfect explanation, and perhaps why, among other reasons they chose silence over the obvious.
Beats the heck out of what you put up.
But, of course, competent management is not something I expect from American businesses.
This coming from the nearly endless font of irrational hatred, reality abuse and conceptual confusion.
Well, now, if you can explain Southwest's agency, why cannot Southwest?
ReplyDeleteImagine the sh*t-storm that would accompany that explanation.
ReplyDeleteWhich should be so obvious, as well as the the explanation itself, as to make me wonder why you feel cheated not getting it.
What would I care about that? Either Southwest hss a sensible policy or it doesn't. Maybe it does but an untrained employee failed to follow procedures.
ReplyDeleteAs it stands, Southwest looks like a stupid organization without competent management and a serious civil rights problem.
But I suppose it could get worse. Don't see how, but this management has real potential
Either Southwest has a sensible policy or it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteYou are completely resistant to inconvenient facts, aren't you?
Repeating, as if it will do any good:
The person who made the decision to eject the passenger was almost certainly the Captain.
Whose authority is essentially absolute, and beyond question.
Which means if the Capt decides he doesn't want someone on the plane, not CAIR, nor any number of moral preeners can do the first darn thing about it.
SWA management is in no position to explain the decision, because it isn't theirs to make.
I saw that happen first hand once. During boarding, Lead came onto the flight deck, and told the Capt a passenger was bugging her. Response: tell him to knock it off; get back to me if he doesn't. A few minutes later, she came back. Capt turns to me: get on the radio, call security. I want that guy right the heck off my plane.
Do you get it now? It isn't that hard.
The idiocy is yours, and apparently ineradicable.
I see. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
ReplyDeleteSomebody or other said that once
I see. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
ReplyDeleteYour willful blindness prevents you from seeing the obvious, and your overweening intellectual arrogance awards you far more knowledge than you deserve.
Here is how it very likely worked out: Less than 10 minutes to push, and this fool, probably with a bad case of cell-yell, says a word easily recognized, and conspicuously associated with Muslims blowing people up, shooting them, or lopping off their heads.
Why you can't see that as the equivalent of yelling fire in a theater, I don't know.
So, with very little time left before everyone on the plane starts getting late, the Capt decides to eject the passenger rather than take the time to ascertain whether TSA has missed anything.
Lesson to passenger: don't be an ass.
Lesson to Harry: don't make grand pronunciamentos anytime, but especially about things of which your ignorance is nearly total.
P.S. When I refer to perfectly ignorant pronunciamentos, I mean this:
ReplyDeleteAnd who is stopping your company from explaining its outrageous conduct?
It wasn't the company's conduct, you clearly have no idea whether it was outrageous, and even less consideration for the consequences -- that have already happened -- for going SJW on someone.
Like, say, those who got excoriated by people like you for the Clock Boy affair.
Gee, you Clock Boy might have had an ulterior motive? And willing tools to implement it?
Napolitano? You have signed up with the Brigade of Kooks, haven't you?
ReplyDeleteDo I think the boy had a hidden motive? No evidence for it, so, provisionally, no. However, do I think that, eg, Oathkeepers have unacknowledged motives? Yes.
Actually, of course, it was the company' sconduct, through its agent.
I will bet that, when you are flying your airplane and something abnormal happens, you look at the instruments for a clue instead of just taking arbitrary action. That's how adults go about their duties.
Napolitano? You have signed up with the Brigade of Kooks, haven't you?
ReplyDeletePerfect, absolutely stunning, example of an ad hominem argument. When you can't play the ball, you play the man.
I noticed you didn't contradict a single thing in the cite.
No evidence for it, so, provisionally, no.
So, sister coaching Clock Boy. Clock Boy having invented nothing, except a pretext to cause people to react. Clock Boy's dad.
Whole incident incites mindless SJW's such as yourself, making people far more reluctant to report suspicious behavior, as has already happened w/ Maj Hassan and the SB shooters, on account of mindless SJW's such as yourself.
Actually, of course, it was the company' sconduct, through its agent.
Actually, exactly the opposite of that. You really need to stop stampeding your stupendous ignorance.
I will bet that, when you are flying your airplane and something abnormal happens, you look at the instruments for a clue instead of just taking arbitrary action.
And I will bet that when you make such an atrocious analogy as this, you have completely abandoned reason for hatred.
Hatred? The only hatred possibly on display here was the hysterical ignorant passenger, which Southwest's agents chose to use as their standard for action.
ReplyDeleteFirst line of defense: TSA. Second line: any random ignorant nut.
This does not inspire confidence in management.
Here are some pro-tips:
ReplyDeleteWhen someone who has, compared to you, infinite knowledge and experience in something, then telling them they don't know what they are talking about -- This does not inspire confidence in management. is at least the third instance -- is both supremely arrogant, and betrays powerful immunity to reality.
Someone who admirably cites Dr. Zoom, then says Napolitano? You have signed up with the Brigade of Kooks, haven't you? gives the impression of trying to set a new, and unbeatable, record for hypocrisy.
The only hatred possibly on display here was the hysterical ignorant passenger
It's amazing how much wrong you pack into one sentence.
Hatred, suspicion, or concern?
Hysterical? Your evidence for that is?
Ignorant, because she didn't speak Arabic?
Oh, wait.
A Southwest Airlines passenger who overheard a college student’s conversation also spoke Arabic and perceived the comments to be threatening, according to a new Southwest Airlines statement released Monday afternoon.
The new detail sheds light on the removal of 26-year-old Khairuldeen Makhzoomi from an Oakland-bound flight earlier this month. His removal from Flight 4620 gained national attention over the weekend following a story published in The Daily Californian newspaper.
Makhzoomi, an Iraqi refugee and senior at the University of California Berkeley, was removed from an April 6 flight from Los Angeles to Oakland after another passenger told crew she overheard “potentially threatening comments.” Makhzoomi’s comments came during a conversation with his uncle.
Southwest said its crew’s response followed company protocol and federal law, which requires “potential threats to civil aviation” be investigated and reported to law enforcement.
What this thread fills me with is confidence that RtO is an endless source of ignorance, hatred, credulity, and self-defeating nonsense.
None of which, oddly enough, management ever explains.
I can hardly wait to see how you are going to move the goalposts on this one.
Clearly, this is a fitting addition to Harry's Big Bag of Bollocks.
ReplyDeleteI thought you said Southwest couldn't comment on its agent's actions.
ReplyDeleteI thought you said Southwest couldn't comment on its agent's actions.
ReplyDeleteOh, really? Where?
And if you think SWA management is in no position to explain the decision, because it isn't theirs to make amounts to that, then your reading comprehension is worse than I imagined.
SWA's management is in no position to comment until they get an explanation from the Capt. Then, depending upon the explanation, they can either deliver it, or not.
I, unlike you, understand that these things can take a few days to sort out. Therefore, I unlike you, am unwilling to call people ignorant, or hysterical, or power corrupted. And am similarly unwilling to vent my spleen on management because it just might be that all the facts aren't in yet.
So, and please, no goal post moving: why has RtO repeatedly libeled people rather than learn more about the situation?
You are the management. I'd hate to think you are incompetent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/05/07/ivy-league-economist-interrogated-for-doing-math-on-american-airlines-flight/
ReplyDeleteSomewhat better performance by management this time, although the latest victim noted:
"Menzio for his part says he was 'treated respectfully throughout,' though he remains baffled and frustrated by a 'broken system that does not collect information efficiently.' He is troubled by the ignorance of his fellow passenger, as well as 'A security protocol that is too rigid–in the sense that once the whistle is blown everything stops without checks–and relies on the input of people who may be completely clueless.' ”
"Completely clueless" seems about right.
You might want to re-read your last comment about the Southwest explanation. It doesn't make sense, if Southwest is even approximately telling the truth, that the same suicidal man was let on another fight a few hours later, does it?
You might want to re-read your last comment about the Southwest explanation. It doesn't make sense, if Southwest is even approximately telling the truth, that the same suicidal man was let on another fight a few hours later, does it?
ReplyDeleteMy comment is completely consistent with the facts. Here is SWA's statement in full:
A passenger onboard flight 4620 requested that our Crew investigate what were perceived to be threatening comments made by another passenger onboard. Both passengers involved in the situation spoke a shared language, Arabic. Our Crew responded by following protocol, as required by federal law, to investigate and report to law enforcement agencies any potential threat to civil aviation. It was the content of the passenger’s conversation, not the language used, that prompted the report leading to our investigation. Once the report was made, an Arabic-speaking Southwest Manager at LAX participated in the decision to request the passenger leave the aircraft and continue the conversation in the gate area. We provided the passenger an immediate refund of his unused ticket. Federal law enforcement agents became involved and conducted their own investigation. We would like the opportunity to speak with Mr. Makhzoomi further about his experience and have reached out to him several times.
Emphasis added.
... that the same suicidal man ...
This whole kerfuffle pivots around that word "suicidal", doesn't it?
Someone heard something they thought suspicious, and in your hate-filled mind, they are just supposed to shut up and color.
I guess that's the way progs like people: as sheeplike as possible.
Still waiting for an explanation from management to explain this post's incompetence.
ReplyDelete'This whole kerfuffle pivots around that word "suicidal", doesn't it?'
ReplyDeleteIt sure does.
Which is where you immediately went off the tracks. A guy says things that *might*, according to someone who was there and heard what he said (as opposed to you, whose ignorance remains impenetrable), have indicated another Islamist horror show in progress.
ReplyDeleteAccording to you, shut up and color is the answer. Progs prefer sheep.
You learned nothing from Hassan and San Bernardino.
And still no explanation from management.
ReplyDeleteSigh. We don't know what he said. It seems there was minimal, if any, vetting of the alarmist claim (like, "Do you speak Arabic?' and, if yes, "Which dialect?") before freaking out.
ReplyDeleteWe do know that after hours of interrogation the man was allowed to make a trip on a plane.
Sigh. We don't know what he said.
ReplyDeleteNo, we don't. I don't. You don't. But that complete, bottomless ignorance didn't stop you from characterizing a woman as hysterical and ignorant, despite the apparent fact that she knows a great deal more than you suspected.
And SWA management had a far more detailed explanation than you were aware of.
So, for RtO: Fail. Fail. And still, despite repeatedly trotting out your hatred, resting on a foundation of absolutely nothing, the explanation from the RtO management is: [crickets].
It seems there was minimal ...
Seems? Seems to whom? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Invoking "seems" is the passive-aggressive route to freighting your words with meaning they can't possibly sustain.
Face it: you wrote a flagrantly ignorant post, and have been compounding your error ever since.
We do know that after hours of interrogation the man was allowed to make a trip on a plane.
We also know, based on your repeated demonstrations, that you know less about what you are talking about here than my dog does about the electoral college.
Let me help. Think of breakfast. Chickens are involved, pigs are committed.
When it comes to flying, people are committed. Therefore, and you really should have been able to figure this out for yourself, taking off with doubts, whether they be mechanical, meteorological, personnel, etc, must be dealt with on the ground.
Yes, after interrogation, the man was allowed to continue his journey.
Because, at that point, all doubts, which he may very well have had an active (although perhaps unintentional) roll in creating were dispelled.
Only someone completely deaf to reality, and ideologically blind, could fail to take that on board.
I take it there will be no explanation from management about this posts manifest shortcomings.
ReplyDeleteYou went off on a tirade that never dealt with my objection, which was that the company said it could not explain the behavior of its agent.
ReplyDeleteAs it developed later, it could although not persuasively.
Cutting trough the noise is, I recognize, a genuine problem; which there is little evidence to show that common carriers are dealing with.
There are 2 influences here, one insuperable, one avoidable:
1. A meaningful fraction of air travelers (and a smaller, we hope, fraction of crews) are head cases.
2. People who claim to know about these things (a dubious but vehement) claim, are working to inflame the head cases.
Every once in a while, someone pulls away the veil in convincing fashion:
http://www.eurweb.com/2016/05/former-nbaer-etan-thomas-blows-racist-woman-amtrak/
You went off on a tirade that never dealt with my objection, which was that the company said it could not explain the behavior of its agent.
ReplyDeleteMy "tirade" was the result of your profound ignorance, and your overt unwillingness to rectify it. So, again, let me help: At the time, SWA was unable to comment because it had no information at the time upon which to comment; further, the individual employee in question had no requirement to provide any explanation whatsoever. That should be obvious enough.
However, your mendaciousness plumbs even greater depths:
Oh, really? And who is stopping your company from explaining its outrageous conduct?
I'm going to type this very slowly. Perhaps you can keep up this time. It. Was. Not. The. Company's. Conduct.
Got it? Since there is no disputing this point, I expect an update to the post explaining your error. (Actually, the exact opposite of that.)
In case you can't remember your own OP:
The linked story concerns an Iraqi-American who was removed from a Southwest Airlines plane because a passenger heard him "talk about martyrdom in Arabic, using a phrase often associated with jihadists."
It was, of course, nonsense, in the sense that the complaining passenger does not know Arabic, so she could not have heard him "talk about martyrdom," even if that was what he was doing.
Emphasis added to point out the steaming heap of bovine excreta. You were dead wrong, have not corrected your glaring mistake, and haven't offered any explanation. Yet you feel entitled to traffic in your baseless criticisms of SWA?
1. A meaningful fraction of air travelers (and a smaller, we hope, fraction of crews) are head cases.
A perfect example of a meaning-free assertion. What evidence do you have that anyone involved is a head case? (Hint: it is exactly the same amount of evidence behind asserting the passenger didn't speak Arabic. Were you this bad as a journalist?)
BTW, your link is as perfect an example of irrelevance as is possible to come up with, absent a great deal of thought.
As I tried to explain to Skipper at RtO, buying Humvees in Ohio, shipping them to Afghanistan and cutting them up for scrap is not actually real economic activity.
ReplyDeleteI've asked you many times, and I'm going to ask again. Do not ascribe to me anything without a link. I strongly suspect the reason you never do is that you are completely aware that what you are typing is a complete lie.
Of course, you could prove me wrong with a link.
I'm betting you won't.
There's a reason for that.
It's called Harry's Big Bag o' Bollocks.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/27/world/la-fg-afghanistan-armor-20131227
ReplyDeleteThis happens to concern even more expensive MRAPs, so it makes my point even more forcefully. It is done with Humvees, too, but really, life is too short to confirm stories that everyone who has followed our military defeats already knows
Instead of mendacious goal post shifting, how about responding to this.
ReplyDeleteAnd I can't help but note you do not have a link to this.
You are trolling your own blog.
Sigh.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/03/14/u-s-must-demolish-thousands-of-its-vehicles-in-afghanistan/
You do that a lot, challenge RtO, then when I go to the trouble of finding what readers of daily newspapers already know, dismissing evidence. I began this blog in a daily and it continues there. I assume my readers read a daily paper. If any are not in the habit, I suggest they start
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou do that a lot, challenge RtO ...
ReplyDeleteIndeed, I do. Your posts are frequently odious, factually bankrupt, and conceptually challenged.
This post is a perfect example: nastiness predicated on pure ignorance, compounded by debilitating weakness on basic concepts. As if that isn't enough, when provided with real information, you -- in as good a definition of both irony and hypocrisy as one could hope for -- completely fail to update your post or explain your abject failure.
And when faced with substantiating a slimy accusation, you instead shift the goal posts. The first time might have been a failure of memory, now it is certain you are either delusional, or a liar.
So, instead of continuing to introduce complete irrelevancies and snotty passive-aggressive nonsense, how about explaining your festival of errors in this post, and your lie?
BTW, I hope those words sting.
ReplyDeleteThey bloody well ought to.
Nope. Sticking with reality
ReplyDeleteWhich reality?
ReplyDeleteThis: It was, of course, nonsense, in the sense that the complaining passenger does not know Arabic, so she could not have heard him "talk about martyrdom," even if that was what he was doing.
Or this: A Southwest Airlines passenger who overheard a college student’s conversation also spoke Arabic and perceived the comments to be threatening, according to a new Southwest Airlines statement released Monday afternoon.
Unfortunately, that obvious question risks obscuring a far deeper philosophical issue. When a habitual liar says "Nope. Sticking with reality." what does that mean?
We do not know what happened and Southwest is not telling, but reasoning backward from the fact that the passenger was cleared to fly a little later, the probability is very high that no one heard any martyrdom threats in any language.
ReplyDeleteNo, Harry, we do know, and SWA did tell. What SWA told is that your initial premise for the post had no basis in reality.
ReplyDeleteReasoning backward, your irrational hatred has divorced you from reason.
Also, besides the obvious, that the passenger was cleared to fly later meant only that the passenger had no means available to threaten an airplane. Concluding that the probability is very high that no one heard any martyrdom threats in any language is a perfect example of assuming facts directly contradicted by evidence: It was the content of the passenger’s conversation, not the language used, that prompted the report leading to our investigation.
Oh, that's right. Since you stick with reality, everyone else, especially those who only have first hand experience to go on, is wrong.
Bollocks.
This is the totality of what Southwest has revealed about the overheard conversation:
ReplyDelete"Both passengers involved in the situation spoke a shared language, Arabic."
This is just silly. It is as if two people, one who speaks only Romanian and one who speaks only Portuguese, are said to share a language.
Did they share a mutually intelligible variety of Arabic? We don't know. Southwest may know but it has not yet revealed enough information to assess whether the alarmed passenger was in a position to know anything or not. That the Southwest manager was able to converse with the removed passenger in Arabic is a red herring; that tells us nothing.
Harry, you started this post with a purely ignorant statement, followed it up with incurable incomprehension, then seasoned the mix with tendentious "reasoning".
ReplyDeleteDid they share a mutually intelligible variety of Arabic? We don't know.
Everyone with a grasp on the glaringly apparent knows: the listener understood what the speaker said. The spoke a language they shared, that language is called Arabic.
You don't get to have your own facts.
We don't know that. How do you think you know that?
ReplyDeletea) Because SWA's statement says so
ReplyDeletewhich trumps
b) your evidence free assertion otherwise.
You started this whole thing from profound ignorance, and you haven't learned a thing since. Your evidence that the listener was unable to understand the speaker is what, exactly?
Ripped out of today's headlines:
ReplyDeleteMateen then called someone on the phone and began speaking in Arabic. Robert Abell says that’s when the salesman became suspicious.
“He just made the mistake of asking for an armor that wasn’t normal,” he said. “And then on the phone conversation was another key that you might need to step back and look at this. Our guy made the right decision at the time. I’m not selling him anything.
“As soon as we said we didn’t have the bulk ammo he walked out the door.”
Abell says they denied the sale, which they have the right to do. But before they could get his name and information, Mateen left the store.
The gun shop owner says they immediately alerted the FBI about the suspicious man who wanted to purchase body armor. But the feds never followed up and visited the store.
I guess that gun store is just as awful as SWA.