6 December 2009: It was January 1, 2009 when passengers aboard an AirTran flight 175 departing from Reagan National Airport became alarmed by a conversation they overheard between two other passengers, dressed in Muslim attire, talking about the safest place to sit on board an aircraft in the event a bomb was aboard. The two Muslim passengers were among a party of nine traveling together from Washington DC to Orlando, Florida to attend an Islamic conference.
According to one witness report at the time, the content of the conversation not only seemed suspicious, but “deliberately loud or at least loud enough to be over heard by a number of other passengers seated nearby. Those alarmed passengers reported their concerns to the AirTran flight crew, who subsequently caused all 104 passengers, including the 9 Muslims, to deplane while an investigation was conducted. All passengers were rescreened and permitted to re-board, except those nine-(9) Muslims at the center of controversy who were traveling together.
At that time, AirTran made a decision not to allow the Muslims back onto the aircraft. Although the FBI reportedly concluded their investigation of the Muslim passengers, the investigation into the incident itself was not yet fully complete. Concurrent investigations were incomplete at the time, according to airline sources. To their credit, acting within their rights and in consideration to the safety of all of their passengers, AirTran denied the controversial party boarding back onto the already disrupted flight.
In the end, none of the remaining 95 passengers made it to their ultimate destinations on time, AirTran refunded some tickets and made other booking arrangements due to the incident, which cost the airline dearly in time, money, and passenger goodwill.
What happened next, however, just might serve to explain the alleged misrepresentation of facts and AirTran’s strong response to the most recent incident- Flight 297 just eleven months later.
Within hours of the incident, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a press release accusing the airline of violating the civil rights of the Muslim passengers and filed a complaint against the airline with the U.S. Department of Transportation. Under threat of litigation, CAIR, named in federal court documents as an unindicted co-conspirator in an unrelated terror financing case, demanded the airline apologize to the offended Muslims and undergo what can be described as sensitivity training to avoid such future incidents.
In its DOT complaint, CAIR wrote:
“It is incumbent on any airline to ensure that members of the traveling public are not singled out or mistreated based on their perceived race, religion or national origin. We believe this disturbing incident would never have occurred had the Muslim passengers removed from the plane not been perceived by other travelers and airline personnel as members of the Islamic faith.”
It certainly appears that a well organized media blitz by the Muslim passengers, facilitated by CAIR, ultimately caused the facts of the incident to be altered. Important elements of the alarming conversation that overheard by passengers of Flight 175 were either omitted from news reports in the major media or significantly downplayed. The Muslim passengers accused of making the statements were given center stage by the media, where they admitted talking about the safest place to sit onboard the aircraft, but flatly denied making any alarming comments. Instead, they suggested that the other passengers overreacted, stating “people hear what they want to hear sometimes.”
The essence of the remarks made by the Muslim passengers was further misrepresented in subsequent media reports. AirTran and the concerned passengers who clearly heard the suspicious comments were made to look like the villains of the story. Soon, the media was reporting that the word “bomb” was never even mentioned.
Much like the most recent AirTran incident and similar incidents involving other airlines since 9/11, differing accounts of the event were introduced almost on cue in what appeared to be an effort to obfuscate the salient facts of the event, with Muslim advocacy groups such as CAIR positioned accordingly to compel all those in their path to submit to their demands or face the prospect of costly litigation, which, of course, they could facilitate. To assist them in that endeavor, they have even published a handy pocket guide to assist Muslim travelers who feel “stigmatized” by airline and airline security personnel.
As reported in 2006 by Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times, Muslims traveling [to Saudi Arabia for the hajj] have been urged to complain if they feel discriminated against by the airlines. The solicitation to complain about the slightest perception of discrimination by the airline security screening process, whether traveling abroad or domestically, is widespread.
It is important for people to understand exactly what is taking place in America and throughout the West, and recognize the tactics that are being employed to attack and weaken the security of airline travel by claims of discrimination. People must recognize the agenda of those who are attempting to weaken our resolve through accusations of discrimination, threats of lawsuits, and public ridicule.
Like it or not, we are involved in asymmetrical warfare. This is but one tactic of that war.