Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

University Student kicked off plane for speaking Arabic watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)

    But I can't deny that it makes me feel safer to hear they are this cautious.
    Could there be such a thing as too catious considering the probabilities? If we look at the numbers in America you're more likely to be killed by a toddler with a gun, chocking or even a cow than a terrorist.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    There is a big difference between a report of suspicious behaviour being investigated and banning a group of people from something.

    Where has anyone suggested banning anyone who speaks Arabic from flying?
    The person i quoted said it was justifiable that the person was banned given he was speaking arabic thus causing the suspicion afterall we wouldnt want to risk 250+ being blown out. Likewise i argued its justifiable to ban white right wingers from schools and cinema afterall we wouldn't want to risk 1000+ being gunned down.

    Do you follow so far?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mentally)
    thats correct, lets also ban all white right wingers from cinemas, or schools. Would you take the chance and rather have 2500 people shot out of the sky???
    wtf are you on about you cretin
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neal95)
    wtf are you on about you cretin
    Clearly you're too stupid to recognise the satiristic sarcastic remark.
    As to be expected I guess when you have double digit IQ.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mentally)
    The person i quoted said it was justifiable that the person was banned given he was speaking arabic thus causing the suspicion afterall we wouldnt want to risk 250+ being blown out. Likewise i argued its justifiable to ban white right wingers from schools and cinema afterall we wouldn't want to risk 1000+ being gunned down.

    Do you follow so far?
    That is not at all what he said.
    Do you think it is unreasonable for security to investigate reports of suspicious behaviour?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neal95)
    FUUUU commie leftie. you are everything thats wrong with this country. curl up and die.
    *single digit IQ
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mentally)
    *single digit IQ
    yes, thats you
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    It's Islamophobia, plain and simple.

    If the guy had been speaking any other language, he wouldn't have been investigated. If he hadn't been from a Middle-Eastern background, he wouldn't have been investigated.

    He was obviously singled out because they thought that because he was speaking Arabic, he was a Muslim, and because he was a Muslim, he was a terrorist.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    That is not at all what he said.
    Do you think it is unreasonable for security to investigate reports of suspicious behaviour?
    That is what he intrinsically implied even a moron can notice that.

    As I said on the OP i understand why they had to investigate and proceede with ultra cautioun. Its unnecessary if you look at the numbers, you're more likely to be killed by a cow and 1000x times more likely to be killed by a gun user yet I still acknowledged a need for the Airline to respond to show their stance on such accusations.

    YET after he was detained and investigated then
    thoroughly searched by Dogs, even his ****ing genitals were inspected after all that the FBI gave the 'all clear signal', yet the airline still decided to ban him.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mentally)
    That is what he intrinsically implied even a moron can notice that.

    As I said on the OP i understand why they had to investigate and proceede with ultra cautioun. Its unnecessary if you look at the numbers, you're more likely to be killed by a cow and 1000x times more likely to be killed by a gun user yet I still acknowledged a need for the Airline to respond to show their stance on such accusations.

    YET after he was detained and investigated then
    thoroughly searched by Dogs, even his ****ing genitals were inspected after all that the FBI gave the 'all clear signal', yet the airline still decided to ban him.
    Sometimes what people say is what they mean and at no point did he say anything that even implies that you are searching for things that aren't there.

    based on what is said banning him is wrong but you have to realise this is one sides version and I'm not going to say that the airline was wrong as it is possible that the airline was justified with the ban.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Sometimes what people say is what they mean and at no point did he say anything that even implies that you are searching for things that aren't there.

    based on what is said banning him is wrong but you have to realise this is one sides version and I'm not going to say that the airline was wrong as it is possible that the airline was justified with the ban.
    I garuntee that if you get 10 people to read that 9 will easily notice the implicit assumption. You'll be the 1.

    As for the airline if they had a suitable justifiable cause to ban him they would have said, they already released a comment. But you appear to be making the assumption that they even need a reason to ban someone. Ever since after 9/11 tremendous authority were transferred to Stewards/Pilots to ban people as they likewithout needing a reason.
    Im on my phone right now ill quote some examples/ news story tomorrow.
    As for two sides of every story, that is most certainly correct Ive quoted all the evidence/News article feel free to read the entire thing. I even went as far to say given the recent scaremongering in American Media and issues in the middleeast was essential for the Airline as both a Political and a Business move to respond suitably and seriously to show that they care about customer security. This still doesn't justify.bamning them after the FBI gave the 'All clear' signal.

    It looks like you're the only one.here that isn't seeing both sides of the story.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    Oh dear. Hope he got some compensation...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    He isn't even requesting for monetary compensation. All he's asking for is an apology which the airline are yet to give.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's ironic, you'd think that going for a UN convention they could check with authorities there but nah they'd rather shame and evict.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mentally)
    I garuntee that if you get 10 people to read that 9 will easily notice the implicit assumption. You'll be the 1.

    As for the airline if they had a suitable justifiable cause to ban him they would have said, they already released a comment. But you appear to be making the assumption that they even need a reason to ban someone. Ever since after 9/11 tremendous authority were transferred to Stewards/Pilots to ban people as they likewithout needing a reason.
    Im on my phone right now ill quote some examples/ news story tomorrow.
    As for two sides of every story, that is most certainly correct Ive quoted all the evidence/News article feel free to read the entire thing. I even went as far to say given the recent scaremongering in American Media and issues in the middleeast was essential for the Airline as both a Political and a Business move to respond suitably and seriously to show that they care about customer security. This still doesn't justify.bamning them after the FBI gave the 'All clear' signal.

    It looks like you're the only one.here that isn't seeing both sides of the story.
    Have the airline actually shared their full version of events? I haven't seen one just the usual pr.
    Do you feel you have got the whole story here? Personally I don't.
    you are right stewards and pilots make the decision for the plane but the company as a whole they don't.
    'Although Southwest called Makhzoomi the following Monday to inform him that his status was clear to fly' sounds like he is banned that's from your thinkpress link.

    It seems you are not seeing your articles never mind both sides.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Have the airline actually shared their full version of events? I haven't seen one just the usual pr.
    Do you feel you have got the whole story here? Personally I don't.
    you are right stewards and pilots make the decision for the plane but the company as a whole they don't.
    'Although Southwest called Makhzoomi the following Monday to inform him that his status was clear to fly' sounds like he is banned that's from your thinkpress link.

    It seems you are not seeing your articles never mind both sides.
    He was banned after being removed from his flight and searched he wasn't allowed to return so he had to wait until the next flight costing him 9 hours. Do you honestly think after all that on top of being publicly embarrassed and getting his genitals inspected, southwest calls in a week and says youre unbanned now, do you really think he gives a ****. Thats definately the last time hes using that airline

    Also that proves my point. They responded to the inciswnr yet still couldn't do either of 2 thi gs
    1) give an excuse as to why he was banned in the first place. Looks like theyre still thinking of one.
    2) Issued an apology

    Finally the employees symbolically represent the company and its policies. After this incidence given that the company did not condone the actions of the employees it is logically reasonable to assume that they acted within the companies guideline and policies.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alkaline.)
    and this is coming from a community assistant... wow.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    "when they act" when someone says inshaallah and some uneducated prick can't differentiate that from shaheed. OKAY.
    Evidently the standards are slipping over at TSR.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mentally)
    He isn't even requesting for monetary compensation. All he's asking for is an apology which the airline are yet to give.
    I know. Imo he deserves more than that. From the info given, I am struggling to see how this could be defended - and I'd like to see some accountability.

    I'd be interested to see the airline's press release about this - maybe they could provide a defence.

    Hope its a bit more than "no comment" or an "internal investigation".

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.