Imam Antics, And Disseminating The Information

I hadn't planned on jumping into this today, but it seems a bit more important than what I was planning on addressing. The kids have done a good job of going over the information thus far. Marcie's piece yesterday was right on target. Thomas's dissemination of the police report backs up the witnesses that have come forward thus far, including the now-famous "Pauline" interviewed by Richard Miniter, who is blogging at Pajamas Media now.

The question that is on everyone's mind is "What were these guys doing, and why did they do this?" I am hoping I can add a bit of insight into this. From a lawyers point-of-view, I would say that the antics of these six men is two-fold. I must concur with Thomas: This wasn't a "dry run." The 9/11 hijackers were much more disciplined in their dry runs for the attacks on that fateful day. No one really took notice of their painstaking intel work to form fit their plans.

The surveillance flights are addressed in the Commission's report starting on page 241. The goal of taking down the Towers was no easy task, and in addition to the hijacker-pilots needing to know how to fly, they also needed to know what sort of resistance they would be dealing with, the number of the flight crew, the accessibility to the cockpit, and if they could smuggle their necessary weapons--box cutters, screwdrivers, small knives, etc.--on board the flights; this means they had to find a way to get them past airport security. Not as daunting a task as some would believe because many of those things were still allowed on planes pre-9/11. We should recall in the both of their posts regarding the recent revelations about this incident that no mention of weapons, of any sort, were made. It's not in the police report, nor was it addressed by any of the other witnesses, including "Pauline."

Another purpose of the flights the 9/11 hijackers took was to "renew" their visa status; showing that they were constantly travelling so that it would remove suspicion from them, and show up-to-date visa status for them to remain in the US until they carried out their attacks. By then, their visa status would be a moot point that would be addressed by investigators, and not the victims or rescue workers. That is also not apparently the reason for this flight. Mr. Faja, as Thomas pointed out today, informed police that he and his associates had travelled to Minneapolis to attend an imam conference, and were flying back to Phoenix. Nothing to raise eyebrows about there. What did bring suspicion on them was how they acted once they got on the plane. Thomas astutely pointed out that praying is hardly a rationale for making people take notice of these men. It is their actions while boarding, and once they were on the plane that drew attention to them.

Below is a list of things these men did that is corroborated by police, FBI, and first-hand witnesses surrounding this incident:

--The men all boarded at once--when the call for first-class passengers to board was made. Onlt two of these men were in first-class.

--They did not take their assigned seats. No one has said how full the plane was, but by this we can gauge it was not a full flight.

--The seats they took were at the front, the middle, and the rear of the plane, giving them access to all entry and exit points of the aircraft; similar to the way the 9/11 hijackers positioned themselves on that Tuesday morning.

--Their talk on board was in Arabic and in English. Several times they invoked bin Laden's name, and criticized the US for "killing" Saddam Hussein. This was corroborated by a passenger sitting next to them who spoke Arabic.

--While the pilot delayed take-off, waiting for authorities to arrive, a couple of people tried to strike up small talk with the men. None were willing to speak back to those people, and one in particular left his first-class seat to go back and speak with his comrades.

--At least one of the imams asked for a sea belt extender, and according to passengers and the flight attendant, he was not overweight; he didn't need it.

It's also noted by the pilot that while the press is crowing that the singular note given to him by one of the flight attendants from a passenger regarding their suspicions, his decision wasn't based on that one note. Others, including the gate attendant, and another flight attendant informing him of other passengers concerns factored in his decision to delay the flight, contact an air marshal in the terminal, and call for authorities to remove the men.

But we are still stuck with the question "why?" Why did they do this? This isn't typical behavior by any airline passenger, Muslim or otherwise. It almost seems as though they wanted to be noticed. They wanted to make people uneasy. We might now have our answer, via USAToday:

One of six Muslim imams who were removed from a US Airways flight Monday in Minneapolis after another passenger expressed some sort of concern about them in a note sent to the crew returned to the airport today. He called for a boycott of the airline after a ticket agent refused to sell him another ticket, the Star Tribune reports.

Also today, the Council on American-Islamic Relations called for an investigation into the behavior of airline staff and airport security.

In addition to that, the men at Power Line note that the forum these six men attended was also attended by newly-elected representative Keith Ellison, who is a Muslim, and wants to criminalize any sort of profiling against Muslims in airports. This spectacle reeks of a publicity stunt.

Muslims in this nation that are CAIR supporters, and voices against such discrimination are willing to do whatever it takes to turn themselves into victims. This was a theme Thomas touched on this morning, but I don't think he went far enough with it. We only need to look to the North and abroad to see how these people are forcing governments to cave into their demands. "Islamophobia" is becoming a consistent charge filed by these people when they invoke the suspicion of others. And while a minority of those suspicions may be unfounded, I'm guessing a good majority of them are raised because of overt actions.

In addition, we look to the media, and how they willingly help these people paint themselves as victims. The plot emanating from London where a number of Muslims were getting ready to launch an attack on the US is a prime example. As is the plot earlier this year in Canada where a number of jihadists were planning attacks on major landmarks. In each case, these people immediately played the victim card. In my opinion, that is what this is about, and with a newly-elected representative sympthetic to his "brother's plight," it would make an excellent springboard to launch his legislation from. This is as much about Rep. Ellison as it is about these people. They are perpetuating an image that they are the persecuted ones, and without any sort of warrant or merit.

Indeed, they could make that statement, but that would be utterly insane. We have been the target of these people for many years. And the London case shows us that they're not done trying to use airliners as weapons. Were this a true surveillance flight or a dry run, I doubt these men would have been so clumsy in attracting that much attention to themselves. Terror teams are rarely this untactful and oafish. The men and women caught in London and Canada were caught through solid intel work by the respective governments coordinating with intel provided by the US and other nations. No one picked up on the 9/11 hijackers. and with awareness as heightened as it is today from the general populace, a team would be even more cautious when attempting such a flight. It is even feasible that they would alter their strategies and tactics for seizing an airliner.

If it is one thing we must give credit to our enemy it is that they adapt their tactics quickly. To utilize such a feeble strategy--one that air marshals, law enforcement, and flight crews are aware of--makes them an even bigger target for suspicion. Which takes us back to the why, and the possibility that Rep. Ellison could use this incident to push forward new ideas regarding how Muslims are treated at airports. We already treat these people with kid gloves as it is, and this could simply push us in a more politically-correct position, making us weaker at our airports. Which, no offense to the airport people, isn't exactly a strong point now, as it is.

From my point-of-view, this was no surveillance trip. This was another chance for them to cry "victim," and for lawyers to embark on a crusade to put a stop to ever questioning a Muslim on an airliner again. And I'm sure there is some crazy, activist judge out there who will buy this load of hogwash, ad render a decision based on that rather than the law.

Sabrina McKinney