Thursday, March 15, 2007

Prepearing the Way for Another 9/11

How do Muslim terrorists work to avoid scrutiny on flights from crews and passengers?

The answer is a multi-pronged approach. First Muslim passengers repeatedly engage in suspicious behavior and test crew procedures and weaknesses, including coming within inches of actually breaking into the cockpit.

These serve two purposes. First they actually test possible approaches for another hijacking and identify weak spots in the security. And since these are dry runs that don't culminate in an attack, they also dull crew alertness by crying wolf so many times that when the real attack comes, no is paying attention anymore.

Secondly, when the detentions and interrogations come to nothing (since any real pressure of a Muslim during interrogation has been identified by our liberal moral voices as the worst atrocity in human history) and the Muslims involved promptly run to the newspapers crying discrimination. Sometimes they file lawsuits.

This has the effect of intimidating airlines into making apologies for their own security. The ultimate intent is to pressure airlines into warning their own crews to have a high tolerance for suspicious behavior from Muslims and not to react to anything short of outright assault. In other words to return to the state of affairs before 9/11. A necessary state of affairs for Muslim terrorists who have found post 9/11 alertness too much of an obstacle to a successful operation.

"The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is advising the imams, is also calling for congressional hearings and promoting federal legislation to "end racial profiling" in air travel. If the legislation passes, airport personnel who disproportionately question passengers who are Muslim or of Middle Eastern origin could be subject to sanctions."

If they can get the congressional hearings they want and with a Democratic congress, they just might- they can let their liberal friends on Capitol Hill use a nationwide bully pulpit to threaten airlines with various political consequences. Airlines who care more about profit than airline security, like JetBlue, will quickly climb on board.

With the crew taken out, that leaves the passengers, which Flight 93 demonstrated, should not be counted out. That's why the famous Flying Imams lawsuit will target the passengers who reacted to their suspicious behavior.

"But the most alarming aspect of the imams' suit is buried in paragraph 21 of their complaint. It describes "John Doe" defendants whose identity the imams' attorneys are still investigating. It reads: "Defendants 'John Does' were passengers ... who contacted U.S. Airways to report the alleged 'suspicious' behavior of Plaintiffs' performing their prayer at the airport terminal."

Who are these unnamed culprits? The complaint describes them as "an older couple who was sitting [near the imams] and purposely turn[ed] around to watch" as they prayed. "The gentleman ('John Doe') in the couple ... picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray," then "moved to a corner" and "kept talking into his cellular phone."

In retribution for this action, the unnamed couple probably will be dragged into court soon and face the prospect of hiring a lawyer, enduring hostile questioning and paying huge legal bills. The same fate could await other as-yet-unnamed passengers on the US Airways flight who came forward as witnesses.

The imams' attempt to bully ordinary passengers marks an alarming new front in the war on airline security."

Using their massive legal resources and with the aid of organizations like the ACLU, they can intimidate passengers who might otherwise notice any suspicious behavior. The message is, "Speak Up and Get Sued." This is the final step of reverting to a pre 9/11 mentality by conveying the message that the safest thing is to just be quiet.

If the passengers and crew on a plane can be intimidated, then once again Muslim hijackers can expect a free hand, while the authorities bend over backward to avoid giving the appearance of discriminating against them. And they will have successfully paved the way for another 9/11.


Keli Ata said...

Oh, they're slick, I'll give them that! Desensitizing pilots and passengers, threatening legal action against passengers who express concerns. They are hitting us on several fronts.

Even the opening episode of Little Mosque on the Prairie has a scene in which a passenger over hears an imam on a cell phone making disturbing comments and before she hears all of it goes to find a security officer.

In other words, if we overhear a conversation like this at an airport, we should just relax and not make fools of ourselves:

New imam Amaar Rashid is on his cell phone at the airport.

"It's not like I dropped a bomb. If Dad thinks it's suicide so be it. This is Allah's plan for me."

Anyone hearing those words at an airport from a muslim would become alarmed and probably report it. But no. Little Mosque conveys the message that this and other "misperceptions" are just that. In this case, the imam is merely talking about his plans to go to the prairies in Canada to run a mosque, giving up his law practice.

In another scene Yassir and Amaar are up on a roof with a telescope to see the sunset so they'll know when ramadan starts. Minutes later, we see (through the crosshairs on the telescope) the anglican preacher coming. They think he's going to evict them.

Yassir quickly hides and tells Amaar to "sue him." It's said so fast it sounds like "shoot."

But of course, anyone in a real life situation overhearing that would be nuts and overreacting to contact police.

From my initial understanding of the case against the imams, the imams were acting suspiciously. It had little to do with their attire or praying in a foreign language. They were changing seats, positioning themselves in similar stragic seats as the 9/11 hijackers used.

Intimidating witnesses from coming forward by dragging them into lawsuits...they know full well that such action will make them targets of Muslims worldwide.

Mark Farn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mark Farn said...

They should not be allowed to remain in the west. Yes, I mean all muslims must go.
After 9 11 they are not trustworthy.
It is proven their mosques are hotbeds of spy intrigue and terror plotting.
They must leave the country.
Dutchmen are standing up to them at last.

Post a Comment