See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Brain Shavings
2. Wizbang
3. brendoman-dot-com
4. Wizbang
5. Page 2 Politics
6. Sadly, No!
7. Mamamontezz's Mental Rumpus Room
8. Mamamontezz's Mental Rumpus Room
9. Houston's Clear Thinkers
10. The Pink Flamingo Bar Grill
11. Procrastination
12. Blogs of War
13. Procrastination
14. 9121-credit report
15. alaska sport fishing

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On July 16th, 2004 at 10:27 pm, Jon said:

   Michelle, you are the first person I thought of when I read this. I am still steaming from the article you wrote a while back about the political correctness that seems to have taken priority over our security. I see no reason why the terrorists would not use the directives of Mineta to their advantage; this is why the article frightened me so much. Whether it is true or not, I can’t help but feel the events described in the article are well within the realm of possibility. I know you are the person to get to the bottom of this.

2. #2
   On July 16th, 2004 at 10:42 pm, Spoons said:

   You know, I have no problem with people exercising healthy skepticism about this. Personally, I find the story credible, but I understand where others might think differently.

   What really steams me, though, is how cavalierly most of the doubters are treating this story. No one — not even I — knows for sure what happened on that flight. Yet, the doubters are so confident that terrorism is imaginary that they respond to this story with scorn and derision.

   Sounds like we still have an awful lot of September 10 thinkers out there.

3. #3
   On July 16th, 2004 at 10:49 pm, Martin aka Blogbat said:

   How does one change a blue-blood Liberal? I have long wondered if they were not indeed hopelessly reprobate. I suppose it would be right to continue to hope for them, but at the same time let me say that our first priority is not their “condition” but our safety. So regardless if the story is correct or not, the dismissive ways of the far Left of such things to me indicates rather sadly, where we all stand.

4. #4
   On July 16th, 2004 at 10:54 pm, Blogingham said:

   What the hell was that about?! I thought I had wondered onto Wonkette.
   Welcome to the far left, where a pithy comment about an out-of-context passage goes a long way!

   If you read between the lines, these people are so afraid of an aware (even a bit afraid) electorate. It’s sickening to read such a compelling story like this and have this reaction, “What if this helps Bush?!”

5. #5
   On July 16th, 2004 at 10:55 pm, Martin aka Blogbat said:

   They are so naked, aren’t they, Blogingham? Gotta love it.

6. #6
   On July 16th, 2004 at 11:11 pm, rockynoggin said:

   Salon.com is skeptical about this? I’m shocked!

7. #7
   On July 16th, 2004 at 11:20 pm, KJC said:

   I’m waiting to see how this develops. One part of the story that struck me as strange, initially, was that one of the Syrians mouthed the word “no.” In Arabic, “La” is no, and “Naam” is yes. I speak Arabic conversationally, so I thought this through further. I’m assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that Annie Jacobsen doesn’t speak Arabic, so, if she saw someone mouth a word, she would try to make sense out if it, something she could understand in English. My point is that she could be accurately relaying what she saw, and what she interpreted. She might not be correct that it was “no” in English, but this does not mean her account is untrue. This guy could have mouthed any number of things, in actuality.
   Anyhow, I thought I’d toss that in there.
   I have no reason to doubt Annie Jacobsen’s account only because I do not find it farfetched, let me be clear on that. We’d have to be morons to laugh this off and feel immune.
   A red flag I did see was a popup survey about racial profiling on flights after reading the article. It made me wonder if this was an internet social experiment, or perhaps an honest question or coincidence?

8. #8
   On July 16th, 2004 at 11:33 pm, KJC said:

   Just a side story:
   I was on a flight on Lufthansa in 1986 or 1987 from Frankfurt to L.A., and it was announced to the cabin before take-off that there were two pieces of luggage that had not been claimed by passengers for loading. (This was in a time when Germany had a number of bombings, including one in 1985 at the Frankfurt airport). Anyhow, one bag was announded to belong to some “Sam Something from Oklahoma, USA.” A large American man jumped up from his seat, saying, “Oops, that’s mine, so sorry, I forgot to claim it!” The other wasn’t claimed and we were told, “The other bag is a black suitcase from Beirut, Lebanon, with no identity, so claim it now or it’s not coming with us.” No one claimed it, and our flight took off without it. (Phew!)

9. #9
   On July 16th, 2004 at 11:34 pm, Martin aka Blogbat said:

   From what I have gathered so far about the site is that it claims to also be a financial news site. As such, that would explain why they want you to register in order to get the full Monty. It would probably also explain why they are doing a readers’ poll. Someone correct me here, but I certainly am under the impression that one of their spiels is the good ol’ nachrichtsgeschäft.

10. #10
    On July 16th, 2004 at 11:43 pm, ForNow said:

    I notice that Drudge has not linked to the story.

    I felt a bit of doubt about the Syrian’s mouthing “No” to his fellow Syrians & mentioned it in another context at Lucianne.com but without mentioning my associated doubt.

    To some of the other criticisms I could think of responses — maybe the reason that she remembers it all well despite having been terrified is that her husband was there too, he was perhaps calmer than she, & they both told their story soon afterwards to officials. Then a lot of those memories would really be as organized by him. What about him? Will he be willing to speak about this?

    But now my guard is up. An “Internet social experiment.” Who knows.

11. #11
    On July 16th, 2004 at 11:44 pm, foo said:

    and truthfully, when was this email written? on a friday? mightn’t these people be a bit busy responding to this stuff?

    i want everyone to investigate these stories. all of them. there are way too many of them, that’s the point. start listening to pilots.

12. #12
    On July 16th, 2004 at 11:55 pm, Kimberly said:

    Blogingham - “It’s sickening to read such a compelling story like this and have this reaction, “What if this helps Bush?!” ”

    I agree 100%. Let us not forget that, in addition to fighting our enemies, we are fighting American citizens who would be perfectly happy with a disaster as long as Bush could somehow be blamed, and who are sorrowful when a tragedy is averted if one possible outcome is that people might take Bush’s ideas more seriously.

    I’m still waiting for some of these Bush-haters to tell me what they’d do differently, and how they’d solve the problems we currently face. I never get any answers, just incoherent rants about “Dubya” and “dumbest president” and “BUSH LIED!” and so forth. Bush Derangement Syndrome permeates to the very core of a left-winger’s being, and the flippant/obnoxious left-wing reactions to this story are not surprising.

13. #13
    On July 17th, 2004 at 12:02 am, KJC said:

    Blogingham and Kimberly, I couldn’t agree more. I heard perhaps one of the most disgusting things on the radio last week. A man called in on a radio show lamenting that a terrorist attack before the election would be UNFAIR because it would help Bush. I wanted to vomit. Never mind the deaths, the destruction, and all of the loss. It was like that didn’t even cross his mind, he was just shrieking how UNFAIR it would be to DEMOCRATS.
    My blood pressure is going up all over again just remembering this.

14. #14
    On July 17th, 2004 at 12:19 am, K. said:

    Liz Roewe is being ridiculously impatient with WomensWallStreet. The editor of the website was on John and Ken’s Los Angeles radio show this afternoon (Friday). I’m sure they can’t immediately respond to every demanding little e-mail that they are receiving.

    One of the things that I found odd about Annie Jacobsen’s account is her assertion that a flight attendant asked Annie’s husband to write a description of one of the suspicious passengers. Wouldn’t the marshalls be responsible for things like that? Why would it be necessary for anyone to write a description in flight, if law enforcement would be there upon landing? I also wondered why her husband would be asked to search the restrooms (this may have been mentioned on the radio only).

15. #15
    On July 17th, 2004 at 12:45 am, a reader said:

    Thanks much for getting on the phone with Adams on this, Michelle… that first external verification proved that the story was not an intentional hoax. I’d still like more external verification before buying all its details and implications, however.

    For the “PC profiling” issue, one tactic that could help would be for any of us, next time we’re searched in an airport, to loudly start yelling “Why are you picking on me, just because I’m a Muslim!?” Doesn’t matter what you look like, you can claim whatever faith you want, claim the discrimination just as easily as anyone else. If enough of us did this, then…?

16. #16
    On July 17th, 2004 at 1:15 am, bdfaith said:

    Michelle, since you noted in an earlier post that Donald Sensing was among the skeptics on this, I’ll make sure you know he’s added more thoughts in a second post at http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/07/gaps-that-need-filling.html. He notes, among other things that “We know that even if these 14 Arab men were entirely innocuous, on another airliner somewhere, somewhen, there seem certain to be other Arab men who intend destruction. The enemy is still out there and he still wants to kill us.”

    I understand the reluctance of the federal air marshals to blow their cover, but maybe it’s time to think about placing one uniformed armed marshal on each flight (in addition to at least one or two coverts), and giving that person the authority and duty to ask appropriate questions and take appropriate steps, including requesting a fighter escort and ordering the aircraft the nearest suitable airfield, when the situation warrants.

17. #17
    On July 17th, 2004 at 1:32 am, Martin aka Blogbat said:

    Hm, interesting idea, bdfaith has. It certainly would allow for the government to protect the true identities of key operatives to have a single uniformed guy, as you say, do all of the dirty work. But it also has its drawbacks, I’m sure. I say that not to discourage further review of the concept, though. The fact of the matter is, nothing beats a well-informed and proactive traveling public. It wasn’t someone on the federal dole who sounded the war cry of our American folk that resounds from September 11th onward, but a regular Joe who gave us the immortal phrase, “Let’s roll”.

18. #18
    On July 17th, 2004 at 1:41 am, Slartibartfast said:

    A couple of thoughts.

    1)The Syrians story may have checked out, even if they had malicious intentions. If this was a “dry run” why would they carry items that may incriminate them and tip off a future mission.

    2)A previous poster above found it odd that the husband was asked to write a description of the suspects and not the air marshal. A possible reason would be that the air marshals job is to remain hidden until the aircraft or passengers are in imminent danger. If he or she were to identify himself directly or act in a way to that brings attention to him or herself then the suspects now know who is a threat to them and their mission and takes steps to take them out first.

    3) If this was a “dry run” it is conceivable that the suspects were acting in an overly suspicious manner with the intent to draw out security, learn how the crew would react along with the passengers. They had no intent on taking over the airline or blowing it up that day. They knew they would be confronted after the fact, but so what? They in reality did nothing wrong nor had items that would lead authorities to arrest or detain them for a long period of time. All they needed to do was get on, get off. Most of the information they needed was obtained except maybe who the air marshal or marshals were.

    4) When one thinks of it the suspects had nothing to lose and everything to gain, and gain they may have already.

    In some circles Annie Jacobsen is already being played as an overly imaginative dingbat who saw a terrorist in every seat. That now leaves the possibility that someone witnessing a true act of terror taking place fearful they will be vilified if they say something about it paralyzing them from action when it may be needed most.

    We don’t really know what the intentions of these men were. They could have just been a bunch of band members just going to the next gig. But maybe not. We just don’t know.

    Unfortunately those who think Mrs. Jacobsen is a kook may find themselves someday sitting next to a suspicious looking man of Arabic decent trying to light a wick sticking out of his shoe with a match and think nothing of it until a piece of the seat they are sitting in is passing through their cranium at a very high rate of speed.

    Even then its iffy if they will have figured it out.

19. #19
    On July 17th, 2004 at 1:41 am, Blogingham said:

    With all respect to the KVI listener, that’s not the impression I got at all. I know my notes from the liveblog are a little messy, but I’m not a court reporter and I can’t produce an entire transcript. Regardless, let me take a stab at it.

    This was on drivetime Seattle radio, and it’s the hosts job to give his listeners a proper context for the interview. It was a very brief interview: most of it was spent not so much “leading the witness” but establishing the context of the story for the audience.

    The only time she said “I don’t know” was on things that she couldn’t possibly know. Was the plane searched? She couldn’t speculate on how to rememdy this “problem,” which is a reasonable answer, I think.

    Again, this story, with enough interest, will report itself over the next couple of weeks. Like I said in my blog, I never thought the conventional media would run with this. I’m reserving judgement until I’m able to ascertain the “spin.”

    BTW, I’m in a mini-argument with the World O’ Crap blogger. Bleh. I’m going to bed.

20. #20
    On July 17th, 2004 at 3:39 am, tesseract said:

    Sorry Michelle, I have to disagree with your KVI listener as well. The show being discussed is the John Carlson Show. I listened as well, and Jacobsen sounded perfectly credible to me. John didnt need to prompt her, in fact she was busily laying out her story in some detail when John would interject, i think mostly to keep it a conversation rather than a monologue.

21. #21
    On July 17th, 2004 at 4:07 am, Tim said:

    It seems to me, whether the article is true or not, that it has awakened a lot of dormant concern about the reluctance of the authorities to “profile”. I’m sure all of us have regarded Middle-Eastern people on flights with concern and distrust. It’s my belief that the TSA and the airlines need to get in the lead here, not us amateurs, and quit with PC quotas and so on. Otherwise, the potential for unwarranted nastiness on flights against innocent Arabs and so on will become worse.

22. #22
    On July 17th, 2004 at 10:16 am, K. said:

    A follow-up: Slartibartfast suggests that air marshals cannot write down descriptions of suspicious passengers during flights because it would reveal that they are air marshals. So I guess that tells us that the ones writing down descriptions are NOT the air marshals. Does that make sense?

23. #23
    On July 17th, 2004 at 10:32 am, P Graham said:

    Perhaps the husband was given a “job” to keep him busy, a tactic used in times to calm people down. I don’t know about the truth of this but applaud others for tracking it down. Even people who appear to be “hysterical” can be telling a truth. In fact, if this truly went down as she described, you cannot imagine her not being “hysterical”. If true, this was a rehearsal or a very bad joke from some musicians with vile senses of humor.

24. #24
    On July 17th, 2004 at 11:05 am, Slartibartfast said:

    K.
    I see your point, but I would also think that air marshals are placed tatically throughout the airliner and not seated randomly. If that is correct then having the air marshal go around getting descriptions from other passengers would require him or her to leave their position and distract them from observing what the suspects are doing. And as I said above its possible that air marshals going around asking questions of other passengers could call attention to themselves.

    None of this I know to be fact. They are just my opinions.

25. #25
    On July 17th, 2004 at 11:06 am, Mooner said:

    Liz Roewe wants WWS editors to tell her “the NAME of the casino, the NAME of the musicians, and the booking agent” - helloooo, what makes her think that the FBI shared all these details with Jacobsen?

26. #26
    On July 17th, 2004 at 11:13 am, Slartibartfast said:

    Dang!

    I misread K’s last post. I dont think there would be anything preventing an air marshal from writing down a discription other then maybe it being distracting to his or her purpose. If the suspects were acting in the manner as Mrs. Jacobsen has suggested then its may be that the air marshal had a full plate already.

    Sorry about that.

27. #27
    On July 17th, 2004 at 12:02 pm, tjs said:

    Those satire masters at scrappleface.com has just posted their version of “terror in the skies”…linked here: http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001766.html

28. #28
    On July 17th, 2004 at 12:08 pm, foo said:

    or maybe he was in the actual row with the guy and the air marshal wasn’t.

    here’s what i don’t get. whether or not all of Ms. Jacobsen’s report is perfectly accurate, and whether or not the 14 arabs were in fact terrorists, it is FACT that there were enough terrified people on that plane that multiple AGENCIES met the plane when it landed.

    Whether that was the fear of the Jacobsen’s, other passengers, flight attendants, pilots, it was a lot of people to make that happen.

    that means that their behavior was at best, to purposely to psychologically manipulate/terrify the plane, and at worst, do more.

    that’s enough for me to be angry. Very angry. and I ask again: if the people on the flight are so afraid that there are multiple govt agencies called to meet the plane at the landing point, WHY let the plane fly that long AT ALL?

    even if they WEREN’T terrorists, ground the flight, interview them, and then let them go. But why do I have to suffer through that terror for 4 hours? what purpose does that SERVE?

29. #29
    On July 17th, 2004 at 2:31 pm, Jerseygirl said:

    Having travelled in the Middle East, it sure looks to me like prayer time. Muslims pray 5 times a day at specific times, and before they pray they do ablutions(wash up). That’s why they all needed to use the lav. The nods and eye contact were acknowledging to each other that it was time to pray. They may have been trying to be discreet about their prayers, by gathering together in 2’s and 3’s, but ironically this caused more nervousness among the passengers. The rolled up cloth object sounds like a prayer rug. And yes, many Arab musicians travel around the US to perform in cities with big Arab populations. I’ve got a CD of Simon Shaheen, a famous Syrian musician, recorded live in the US. But I’m going to give Annie the benefit of the doubt and say she is not racist, and I have many friends who would have jumped to the same conclusion, sadly. I really don’t expect the average American to know this stuff. But perhaps the flight attendants could use some training. Striking up a conversation is a good idea, but the husband should have done it. A Muslim man is not likely to respond with a big smile to some strange blonde woman who is obviously travelling with her spouse.

30. #30
    On July 17th, 2004 at 4:53 pm, Tim Keller said:

    Question: If I’m a passenger on a plane where a bunch of the passengers are becoming unreasonably fearful of how some guy is eating his McDonalds Happy Meal & it looks like they’re about to play “Let’s Roll” on some unsuspecting fellow passengers who happen to be Brown, what should I do?

    Opinions?

    Tim

31. #31
    On July 17th, 2004 at 5:20 pm, Mooner said:

    Um, Tim? Wouldn’t you be the least bit suspicious of someone who takes their Happy Meal inside of an airplane lavatory to eat it? Not in any way odd behavior there?

32. #32
    On July 17th, 2004 at 5:34 pm, Tim Keller said:

    I wouldn’t become fearful that he was conspiring with half the plane’s passengers to build a bomb in there, that’s for sure. Seriously, because of this story I’m much more fearful of my fellow American passengers than I was a few days ago.

    I can only imagine what it must be like to be a Muslim these days. There are extremists in every religion, but why are we all up in arms over these guys but nobody’s gunning for Methodists because Christian Zionists are trying to trigger Armageddon over in Israel, apparently with the blessing of both their & our governments? Do -you- want to actually live through the Left Behind series?

    Tim

33. #33
    On July 17th, 2004 at 5:51 pm, Mooner said:

    Who said anything about building a bomb? I would merely find it odd that someone would choose to eat their lunch in an airplane toilet. Or take their camera to the toilet, for that matter. I seriously doubt you have to worry about an unwarranted “let’s roll” scenario, since none of the passengers would even so much as confront any of the Syrian fellows with a simple question like, “Hey, ya get a nice shot of the john with your camera just now? Bet that’s a keeper for the ol’ scrap book.”

    When Methodists start flying planes into buildings and beheading non-believers, then I’ll start worrying about them…

34. #34
    On July 17th, 2004 at 5:54 pm, K. said:

    In my opinion, the most valuable points in Annie Jacobsen’s article relate to the lack of questioning, inspections, and screening at the airport. Jerseygirl calls Jacobsen “some strange blonde woman,” but if Jacobsen mentioned her hair color anywhere in the article, I must have missed it. Jerseygirl’s point seems to be that if we ignorant Americans see groups of men with Syrian passports lining up together to use the restrooms; taking items into the restrooms such as cameras, phones, and food; blocking the aisles and conferring; and making eye contact with each other, then of course they’re practicing their faith and we have no business being suspicious . . . .

35. #35
    On July 17th, 2004 at 7:48 pm, Dean Cooper said:

    To me, the power in Annie’s article is that it re-ignites that very real fear we have that the terrorists are going to strike again. I presume Annie’s fears and all the others on that flight were unfounded and the group of Arab men really were musicians going on their next gig. I presume also that the Syrians noticed her fears (and the fears of others) and that invariably caused them to look and act even more suspiciously.

    But even so, every one of us (except the crazy left-wing people over on Salon) know we might just of well have thought and felt the same things Annie did. And that’s plain scary!

    The thing is that in general, this is no joke. There really are radical Muslims out there planning to kill us — and massively so. Some of us one day may well run into one of them. And we have ever reason to be scared.

    And to me, that’s what we are feeling when we read a story like Annie’s. We’re feeling the terror that all of us really live with now — and only time has covered it temporarily with a veil of forgetfulness.

    Annie’s story makes us remember — the terror really is out there.

36. #36
    On July 17th, 2004 at 9:11 pm, Bruce Hinton said:

    As I have kept trying to get across to folks, (http://jaatireport.com/Terrorism.htm), starting at; “Another Radical Concept”, it seems that our own authorities cannot stop thinking of us as just another probable enemy, instead of grokking that we are a huge force to be utilized AGAINST our radical enemies. We are motivated toward, and our spirit directed at, the preservation of our country, our citizens’ safekeeping, and maintaining our values).

37. #37
    On July 18th, 2004 at 12:31 am, Jerseygirl said:

    I read about the blonde hair on another blog where someone had checked out who Annie J was. I’m just trying to let you know that there can be a simple explanation for behavior that looks strange to us.

38. #38
    On July 18th, 2004 at 4:20 am, sara said:

    I would merely find it odd that someone would choose to eat their lunch in an airplane toilet. Or take their camera to the toilet, for that matter.

    He may have taken his McDonald’s sack to the restroom to throw some of the trash away — I’ve done that before. And if you don’t trust your seat mates, you take your camera and other valuables to the restroom with you.