>>>>>>>Those Imams in US went little bit off, so probably they had to be warned publicly by captain and that's about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They refused to return to their seats when asked.
>>>>>
>>>>>I highly doubt this is true.
>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15856333/site/newsweek/
>>>>
>>>>In fact, it may turn out that he is telling the truth, but I think I'll wait a bit before assuming everybody is lying but him.
>>>
>>>I don't see a heck of a lot in this version about ALL of them taking unassigned seats and ALL of them refusing to go to their assigned seats "when asked".
>>>I don't see in this version that they ALL asked for belt-extenders and then left them unused.
>>>This story says 2 of them were "upgraded". Could be that the airline did so... the final outcome being somewhat odd if so. And I can see, if having newly-assigned seats, that there may be something I needed to tell one of my co-travellers and so went and found him to tell him.
>>>
>>>By the way, an "upgrade" by the airline would make good sense - less chance that these boys would drink any free booze.
>>>
>>>There are always at least 2 sides to every story, and usually somewhere between them there is the truth. The original story was designed to support the on-going paranoia that exists in the minds of many (not only airline passengers) these days. And to support stereotyping and racial profiling.
>>>Many many many people win BIG by all the fear promulgated by our gvernments. This (first) article was simply another one that keeps that flame alive for selfish purposes.
>>
>>Like I said, there is his version and there is the crews', polices', and passengers' version. I will wait before assuming everyone else is lying but him. If he and his fellow imams did deliberately cause this, then why would you assume he is above lying about it?
>>
>>Unlike you, Jim, I was not there to see what really was going on.
>
>This statement really is silly beyond compare and I'd like to know, given what I wrote above, how you can come to such a crazy "conclusion"?
>The original article cited in this thread contained just too much as to be believable. So much so that, in my opinion, if it was all true then they indeed had been setting things up for a de-planing. Now it appears that the "facts" may not be as described in the original. Yet somehow you make this the official conclusions of the crew, passengers and police? I just don't see how you can do this.

Ok then. You weren't there and I wasn't there. You took the reports and decided they simply were not true. Now you say the facts may not be as described - why. Because the subject of the suspicion says they aren't true. If I had a nickel for every guilty person who says he's innocent, I'd have retired long ago.

Now, maybe the reports were lies, and maybe he is telling the truth, but I choose to wait and see. Until then, I have no reason to disbelieve the reports.

>
>Fear is driving people to make accusations where none are warranted and officials are only too happy to oblige. This climate of fear is ruining what otherwise was a pretty good system.
>You have intense airport security, hardened-steel pilot cabin doors and passengers ready to jump anyone who does something foolish yet it's reasonable for someone to "suspect" a fellow passenger?
>That's paranoia and results in a severe infringement of the suspected person's RIGHTS.
>The terrorists will win if this kind of thing is allowed to continue. It's as simple as that.

Here we go again. Somebody complained and immediately the crew jumped up and kicked 6 people off the plane without any reason. I'll need to see proof of that. Clearly, you don't.