Must be All Wingnuts’ Day

Another drone in the endless parade of cognitively impaired racists at Stop the ACLU has posted a complaint about the awarding of $240,000 to a man who was forced by TSA officials to cover his T-shirt before boarding a flight from New York to Oakland because it featured a message written in Arabic.
The point here isn’t so much whether this kind of incident is commensurate with a third of a million dollars, but that American citizens have a right to not be treated the way Raed Jarrar was. And given that no one involved was even capable of interpreting the writing on the shirt (translated, “We will not be silent”), this is exactly the kind of move that kindles the fear-bred ignorance of the massive redneck arm of the United States populace.
Moreover, this “William Teach” jackhole (who also wrote a post similar to Gribbit’s about the alleged implications of the recent rise in sea ice levels) has no problem engaging in just the sort of “reasoning” that domonstrates that Stop the ACLU commenters are not trying to accomplish anything; they’re just using their lumbering pisspot of a blog to preach to the decerebrate choir. I mean, stuff like this?

See, he was stopped from going on the plane because many other passengers were a wee bit scared shatless about flying with a guy wearing a t-shirt with Arabic script on it.

That’s good to know. The next time I fly and see someone I decide is too fat or too ugly or anyone with small children apt to make noise, I’m going to lobby to officials to have them removed from the manifest. I don’t give a fuck if they paid as much as I did for their tickets–MY comfort’s at stake here!

I can’t for the life of me figure out why, because there is no evidence that Muslims hijack airplanes, is there? And certainly no evidence that virtually every hijacking has been done by Muslims.

I’d like to see Mr. Teach provide statistics on the percentage of Muslim fliers who have hijacked airplanes over the years. I bet it’s not much more than 50 percent. As for his second statement, its intended sarcasm falls flat (note to nuts: avoid employing literary devices, you suck at them) because there is, in fact, no such evidence, the presence of domestic Muslim terrorists like Ted Kaczynski and Tim McVeigh notwithstanding.
I’d like to know the fraction of white Christians from the U.S. South who belong to the Ku Klux Klan compared to that of U.S. Muslims who actively support the goals of Idslamic extremist. My guess is that it would be no contest. Therefore, all white men south of Maryland and east of New Mexico should be jailed.

Gee, what about our right not to have the plane hijacked and flown into a building?

Excellent point. This constitutionally granted right is clearly violated by the presence of Muslims with the temerity to wear clothing with Arabic letters on it. Considering that this tool can’t even use his own first language properly, why is he so concerned about others? (That’s a rhetorical question; unlike some of his peers at Stackloo, Mr. Teach knows full well that he’s full of shit and is only seeking validation via the most primitive of approaches.)

Advertisements
  1. #1 by DDeden on January 6, 2009 - 6:41 pm

    winguts?

  2. #2 by DDeden on January 6, 2009 - 6:41 pm

    winguts?

  3. #3 by Kevin Beck on January 6, 2009 - 6:43 pm

    This has not been a banner typing day for me, not that any days qualify.

  4. #4 by Mike on January 6, 2009 - 7:01 pm

    I sometimes wonder if things might not be better if we had compensatory damages paid to the victim and punitative damages awarded to a public fund to be used for victim rights, greater enforcement, etc.

  5. #5 by jay on January 6, 2009 - 8:31 pm

    If I were going to hijack a flight I certainly would not wear anything attention getting.
    As for someone actually winning a fight with the TSA thugs…. cheers for him whomever he is.

  6. #6 by Joshua Zelinsky on January 6, 2009 - 8:51 pm

    Um, the fellow did say hijackings and neither Ted Kaczynski or Timothy McVeigh attempted to hijack an airplane. This guy is clearly an idiot who we would be better off without but that isn’t an excuse to be sloppy.
    A better response might be to note that yes, a substantial fraction of hijackings (possibly most hijackings) have been by Islamic terrorists. D.B. Cooper’s are rare. But that is in no way a reason to not let Muslims on to planes and certainly not a reason to not let someone with a tshirt on because its in Arabic. What makes the Western world so great is that we don’t pull shit like that (or at least that used to be what made us great. After 8 years of Bush I’m not sure anymore).

  7. #7 by Kevin Beck on January 6, 2009 - 8:57 pm

    I know that Kaczynski and McVeigh didn’t perpetrate their crimes in the air, and trust that others know this as well. But the greater contention of this Teach guy and his cohorts is that Islamofascists/Muslims (interchangeable terms, I guess, kind of like “Despots/leaders”) are responsible for virtually every act of terrorism on U.S. soil in recent times. I was therefore merely expanding the discussion to its real scope, not trying to snow anyone.

  8. #8 by natural cynic on January 7, 2009 - 12:47 am

    ‘d like to see Mr. Teach provide statistics on the percentage of Muslim fliers who have hijacked airplanes over the years. I bet it’s not much more than 50 percent.

    Wikipedia has a list of notable highjackings
    from the 1960s-2000s and you might lose. The list has 16 non-Muslim highjackings, 18 Arab Muslim highjackings, 11 non-Arab Muslim highjackings and 3 unknown. The list seems to only have politically inspired highjackings since it doesn’t include DB Cooper’s escapade or any other ones that were might have been for money alone. The non-Arab Muslims included were Indonesian, Pakistani & Afghani and I included two Sudanese in the Arab group. I also included simultaneous highjackings as separate incidents [4 on 9/11, 3 in Sept 1970 by Palestinians and two unknowns in India]

  9. #9 by Kevin Beck on January 7, 2009 - 12:54 am

    Mayhap I wasn’t clear, natural cynic–I was referring not to the percentage of hijackings perpetrated by Muslims, but to the percentage of all Muslim airline passengers who have hijacked planes, which turns out to be roughly 29 divided into some much larger number.
    Perhaps my sarcastic use of “not much more than 50 percent” distracted you. Had I been asked to guess at the percentage of hijackings undertaken by Muslims I would have pegged it at around two-thirds to three-fourths, and apparently that is a good guess.

  10. #10 by natural cynic on January 7, 2009 - 1:12 am

    Just to get you off the hook on that bet, I checked the list of highjackings both to and from the US and Cuba, Wikipedia lists 99. Most of these were for political reasons. There have also been 8 Indian highjackings, some not included in my previous article: 21 Korean highjackings listed here; and 18 Turkish highjackings listed here, most of these would be included in the non-Arab Muslim category.
    And I heartily agree with your feelings about the pettiness of the incident that set this off.

  11. #11 by natural cynic on January 7, 2009 - 1:12 am

    Just to get you off the hook on that bet, I checked the list of highjackings both to and from the US and Cuba, Wikipedia lists 99. Most of these were for political reasons. There have also been 8 Indian highjackings, some not included in my previous article: 21 Korean highjackings listed here; and 18 Turkish highjackings listed here, most of these would be included in the non-Arab Muslim category.
    And I heartily agree with your feelings about the pettiness of the incident that set this off.

  12. #12 by natural cynic on January 7, 2009 - 1:12 am

    Just to get you off the hook on that bet, I checked the list of highjackings both to and from the US and Cuba, Wikipedia lists 99. Most of these were for political reasons. There have also been 8 Indian highjackings, some not included in my previous article: 21 Korean highjackings listed here; and 18 Turkish highjackings listed here, most of these would be included in the non-Arab Muslim category.
    And I heartily agree with your feelings about the pettiness of the incident that set this off.

  13. #13 by Kevin Beck on January 7, 2009 - 2:05 am

    I appreciate the support and the research, sir, but again, that was not actually the bet I was “making.” Interesting data, though. See, sometimes a token throwaway rant about an obvious doofus can lead to knowledge when one’s commenters are intrepid.

  14. #14 by Anonymous on January 7, 2009 - 4:43 am

    Natural cynic beat me to it…
    The whole hijacking business as we know it started in the US in late 60s. None of those were militant Muslims.

  15. #15 by Anonymous on January 7, 2009 - 4:43 am

    Natural cynic beat me to it…
    The whole hijacking business as we know it started in the US in late 60s. None of those were militant Muslims.

  16. #16 by Anonymous on January 7, 2009 - 4:43 am

    Natural cynic beat me to it…
    The whole hijacking business as we know it started in the US in late 60s. None of those were militant Muslims.

  17. #17 by FastLane on January 7, 2009 - 10:43 am

    I’m an aircraft structures engineer. I build computer models of airplanes and virtually crash them to ensure they comply with the FAA standards for safety.
    You wold be right to be much more afraid of sitting next to, or indeed, anywhere in front of, someone of erm…larger… stature. The FAA still specifies old standards for seat designs. Standards that call for the passenger weight to be 170 lbs. So if the average weight of passengers for any row of seats is greater than 170, those seats will not be structurally sufficient to maintain their integrity in the event of an emergency landing. (Obviously, most outright crashes, all bets are off!)
    So I would much rather sit next to the man with Arabic script, assuming he’s of smaller build, than the typical American.
    Cheers.

  18. #18 by abb3w on January 7, 2009 - 4:26 pm

    Hmmm… perhaps there would be a market for T-shirts with the First Amendment translated into Arabic?
    لا يصدر الكونغرس أي قانون واحترام مؤسسة دينية ، أو يمنع الممارسة الحرة لذلك ، أو الانتقاص من حرية الكلام أو الصحافة ، أو حق الناس في التجمع السلمي ، وتقديم التماس إلى الحكومة للانتصاف من المظالم .
    (Courtesy Google Language Tools….)

  19. #19 by abb3w on January 7, 2009 - 4:28 pm

    Drat it, that worked in preview….

%d bloggers like this: