Muslim men removed from U.S. flight after pilot refuses to fly them

[kuffki]

Sorry, but I can't agree with the pilots' actions if it all went down as reported in the article.

If these men went through all the security checks, then they should have been allowed to fly. The US is a free country where freedom of religion is a basic right.

The general public is generally afraid of young black men with lots of bling and young white men with shaved heads and tattoos. (This is backed up by several studies.) So do we start banning them from flights, too? None of them has recently tried to blow up a plane, true, but many men of this demographic do violence every day.

If we continue to spiral into demonizing all things Islam, we will push many more Muslims into the camp where they believe Islam is under attack by the West and become soldiers against us.

I agree 100% (if taking the report at face value).

It reports as blatant discrimination and whilst it is not entirely clear what prompted the 'second screening' it sounds as though a few passengers were nervous in the presence of Muslim passengers.

Muslims have understandably been demonised , especially after 9/11, and the Americans are more likely to react in this way. I have felt 'uneasy' on a flight from the UK to the Middle East until I realised that they were unlikely to bomb their own people - maybe I have watched too many movies etc but this is in instinctive reaction. I would have the same reaction if an Apache Indian was walking towards me with a Bowie knife !

No one disputes the pilot's responsibility to take adequate precautions and no one doubts that he was within his legal rights to take the action he took. Whether it was 'right' to do this is another matter. What reason did he have to warrant a second screening? How many second screenings has he authorised prior to this? How many for caucasian passengers?

I share the view that the plane could have been delayed whilst allowing the screening to take place. What happened smacks of a ploy to remove these Muslims to appease other racist passengers. That cannot be right.

I in no way condone what Muslim (or other) extremists have done and I am slightly nervous of the rapid expansion of the Muslim world. However, I cannot see any justification (on the face of it) for the actions of this pilot.

Muslim only planes? This makes apartheid look positively acceptable.

"Muslims have understandably been demonised , especially after 9/11, and the Americans are more likely to react in this way. I have felt 'uneasy' on a flight from the UK to the Middle East until I realised that they were unlikely to bomb their own people"

I am sorry to have to tell you but your feeling of being "uneasy" is fully justified because they have bombed their own.

1981: A Pakistan International Airlines jet is hijacked

February 25, 1982: Kuwait Airways Flight KU561 from Kuwait to Beirut to Libya (return flight to Libya) was hijacked

December 3, 1984: Kuwait Airways Flight 221 Lebanese Shi'a hijackers divert a Kuwait Airways flight to Tehran

1985: Three Palestinian members of the Abu Nidal Organization hijacked on November 23, its Athens to Cairo route, EgyptAir Flight 648

December 25, 1986: 63 people are killed when Iraqi Airways Flight 163 crashes near Arar, Saudi Arabia due to an explosion in the cockpit. The plane was hijacked by 3 hijackers.

1988: Two Kuwaitis are killed in 1988 when Lebanese gunmen hijack a Kuwait Airways Flight 422

1996: Hemus Air Tu-154 aircraft was hijacked

2000: Ariana Afghan Airlines Boeing 727 is hijacked on an internal flight

2000,October 14: Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 115,^[24] flying from Jeddah to London was hijacked

2007: an Atlasjet MD-80 en route from Nicosia to Istanbul was hijacked

2008: a Sun Air Boeing 737 flying from Nyala, Darfur, in Western Sudan to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, was hijacked

[cardholder]

"Muslims have understandably been demonised , especially after 9/11, and the Americans are more likely to react in this way. I have felt 'uneasy' on a flight from the UK to the Middle East until I realised that they were unlikely to bomb their own people"

I am sorry to have to tell you but your feeling of being "uneasy" is fully justified because they have bombed their own.

1981: A Pakistan International Airlines jet is hijacked

February 25, 1982: Kuwait Airways Flight KU561 from Kuwait to Beirut to Libya (return flight to Libya) was hijacked

December 3, 1984: Kuwait Airways Flight 221 Lebanese Shi'a hijackers divert a Kuwait Airways flight to Tehran

1985: Three Palestinian members of the Abu Nidal Organization hijacked on November 23, its Athens to Cairo route, EgyptAir Flight 648

December 25, 1986: 63 people are killed when Iraqi Airways Flight 163 crashes near Arar, Saudi Arabia due to an explosion in the cockpit. The plane was hijacked by 3 hijackers.

1988: Two Kuwaitis are killed in 1988 when Lebanese gunmen hijack a Kuwait Airways Flight 422

1996: Hemus Air Tu-154 aircraft was hijacked

2000: Ariana Afghan Airlines Boeing 727 is hijacked on an internal flight

2000,October 14: Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 115,^[24] flying from Jeddah to London was hijacked

2007: an Atlasjet MD-80 en route from Nicosia to Istanbul was hijacked

2008: a Sun Air Boeing 737 flying from Nyala, Darfur, in Western Sudan to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, was hijacked

Good to see you keeping in context Tufty - I think you will find the 1986 crash was an Iran vs Iraq situation.

[kuffki]

"Muslims have understandably been demonised , especially after 9/11, and the Americans are more likely to react in this way. I have felt 'uneasy' on a flight from the UK to the Middle East until I realised that they were unlikely to bomb their own people"

I am sorry to have to tell you but your feeling of being "uneasy" is fully justified because they have bombed their own.

1981: A Pakistan International Airlines jet is hijacked

February 25, 1982: Kuwait Airways Flight KU561 from Kuwait to Beirut to Libya (return flight to Libya) was hijacked

December 3, 1984: Kuwait Airways Flight 221 Lebanese Shi'a hijackers divert a Kuwait Airways flight to Tehran

1985: Three Palestinian members of the Abu Nidal Organization hijacked on November 23, its Athens to Cairo route, EgyptAir Flight 648

December 25, 1986: 63 people are killed when Iraqi Airways Flight 163 crashes near Arar, Saudi Arabia due to an explosion in the cockpit. The plane was hijacked by 3 hijackers.

1988: Two Kuwaitis are killed in 1988 when Lebanese gunmen hijack a Kuwait Airways Flight 422

1996: Hemus Air Tu-154 aircraft was hijacked

2000: Ariana Afghan Airlines Boeing 727 is hijacked on an internal flight

2000,October 14: Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 115,^[24] flying from Jeddah to London was hijacked

2007: an Atlasjet MD-80 en route from Nicosia to Istanbul was hijacked

2008: a Sun Air Boeing 737 flying from Nyala, Darfur, in Western Sudan to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, was hijacked

Good to see you keeping in context Tufty - I think you will find the 1986 crash was an Iran vs Iraq situation.

I realize that you may have a problem with eyesight, since you can not even get 6 letter word right-my name that is, so i wil not question your "facts" on 1986 situation.

Besides that it WAS muslim killing another muslim. Was it not your fears?

No need to consider other 10 incidents, because that would be going off topic, woud not it?

[Moonrakers]

Google tells me that there are approx 27,000 flights, per day, in the US alone.

To my knowledge, the last time a bomb was found on a plane was 31 Oct 2010, lets call it 210 days. So, since the last time a bomb was found on a plane approx 5.8 million flights have occurred without a bomb in the U.S. alone. If we want think worldwide, we are talking ridiculous numbers.

And these people thought their plane was going to be bombed. What narrow minded idiots!

Actually it was 2 Nov 2010 http://articles.lati...europe-20101102 and the latest one even though not a plane but in the airport

24 January 2011 suicide bomber in Domodedovo International Airport http://en.wikipedia....Airport_bombing

People aboard all the planes on 9/11 i guess were also idiots because back then there was even less of a chance.

And i guess the ones working in Twin Towers, were even bigger idiots, since there never was an airplane crashing into a highrise, day light, in the heart of the city.

Hang on.

I may not want to be involved with this narrow minded nonsense, but you are not getting away with that.

I tried to use statistics within the US, you have now decided to take incidents outside of the US in an effort to make your point.

So, let's now take all of the WORLDWIDE flights and then figure the odds from there...... The figures are now so large that I am not even going to try to work it out, but I think it's fair to say that they have not adjusted in your favour. You've really just shot yourself in the foot.

And as to the rest of what you said..... come again? It just doesn't make sense.

[Moonrakers]

Google tells me that there are approx 27,000 flights, per day, in the US alone.

To my knowledge, the last time a bomb was found on a plane was 31 Oct 2010, lets call it 210 days. So, since the last time a bomb was found on a plane approx 5.8 million flights have occurred without a bomb in the U.S. alone. If we want think worldwide, we are talking ridiculous numbers.

And these people thought their plane was going to be bombed. What narrow minded idiots!

Actually it was 2 Nov 2010 http://articles.lati...europe-20101102 and the latest one even though not a plane but in the airport

24 January 2011 suicide bomber in Domodedovo International Airport http://en.wikipedia....Airport_bombing

People aboard all the planes on 9/11 i guess were also idiots because back then there was even less of a chance.

And i guess the ones working in Twin Towers, were even bigger idiots, since there never was an aeroplane crashing into a high-rise, day light, in the heart of the city.

+1 , glad we see the obvious.

Imagine NOW going to an airport and no security. They say, fuc_k you, get on with it. Would you have a pleasant flight OR would you be scared shit less cos they never checked for the bomber, cos for sure if that happened you would be attacked by the fundlementalist who wants his future with many virgins.

But there are security checks though aren't there? So your point is?

Edited May 8, 2011 by Moonrakers

[cardholder]

Besides that it WAS muslim killing another muslim. Was it not your fears?

No.

On a flight from Heathrow to the Middle East I only feared them wanting to kill the white man.

Blow themselves to <deleted> pieces as far as I care

[kuffki]

Google tells me that there are approx 27,000 flights, per day, in the US alone.

To my knowledge, the last time a bomb was found on a plane was 31 Oct 2010, lets call it 210 days. So, since the last time a bomb was found on a plane approx 5.8 million flights have occurred without a bomb in the U.S. alone. If we want think worldwide, we are talking ridiculous numbers.

And these people thought their plane was going to be bombed. What narrow minded idiots!

Actually it was 2 Nov 2010 http://articles.lati...europe-20101102 and the latest one even though not a plane but in the airport

24 January 2011 suicide bomber in Domodedovo International Airport http://en.wikipedia....Airport_bombing

People aboard all the planes on 9/11 i guess were also idiots because back then there was even less of a chance.

And i guess the ones working in Twin Towers, were even bigger idiots, since there never was an airplane crashing into a highrise, day light, in the heart of the city.

Hang on.

I may not want to be involved with this narrow minded nonsense, but you are not getting away with that.

I tried to use statistics within the US, you have now decided to take incidents outside of the US in an effort to make your point.

So, let's now take all of the WORLDWIDE flights and then figure the odds from there...... The figures are now so large that I am not even going to try to work it out, but I think it's fair to say that they have not adjusted in your favour. You've really just shot yourself in the foot.

And as to the rest of what you said..... come again? It just doesn't make sense.

What is the difference if US or outside the US?

Is there a limit to where terrorist act takes place?

Is that what you like to tell to family's of all those killed worldwide? "Oh but statistically it was not suppose to happened"

Since 9/11 to 2009, they have killed over 26,000 and wounded over 150,000 in terrorist attacks worldwide, is that not enough for you?

Thats 8.9 people killed every single day for 8 years

and 51 wounded every single day for 8 years

Edited May 8, 2011 by kuffki

[kuffki]

Besides that it WAS muslim killing another muslim. Was it not your fears?

No.

On a flight from Heathrow to the Middle East I only feared them wanting to kill the white man.

Blow themselves to <deleted> pieces as far as I care

Not that it makes any difference, but this is NOT what you said in your original post on the matter. Well they have bombed their own people!

Muslims have understandably been demonised , especially after 9/11, and the Americans are more likely to react in this way. I have felt 'uneasy' on a flight from the UK to the Middle East until I realised that they were unlikely to bomb their own people - maybe I have watched too many movies etc

[Moonrakers]

Google tells me that there are approx 27,000 flights, per day, in the US alone.

To my knowledge, the last time a bomb was found on a plane was 31 Oct 2010, lets call it 210 days. So, since the last time a bomb was found on a plane approx 5.8 million flights have occurred without a bomb in the U.S. alone. If we want think worldwide, we are talking ridiculous numbers.

And these people thought their plane was going to be bombed. What narrow minded idiots!

Actually it was 2 Nov 2010 http://articles.lati...europe-20101102 and the latest one even though not a plane but in the airport

24 January 2011 suicide bomber in Domodedovo International Airport http://en.wikipedia....Airport_bombing

People aboard all the planes on 9/11 i guess were also idiots because back then there was even less of a chance.

And i guess the ones working in Twin Towers, were even bigger idiots, since there never was an airplane crashing into a highrise, day light, in the heart of the city.

Hang on.

I may not want to be involved with this narrow minded nonsense, but you are not getting away with that.

I tried to use statistics within the US, you have now decided to take incidents outside of the US in an effort to make your point.

So, let's now take all of the WORLDWIDE flights and then figure the odds from there...... The figures are now so large that I am not even going to try to work it out, but I think it's fair to say that they have not adjusted in your favour. You've really just shot yourself in the foot.

And as to the rest of what you said..... come again? It just doesn't make sense.

What is the difference if US or outside the US?

Is there a limit to where terrorist act takes place?

Is that what you like to tell to family's of all those killed worldwide? "Oh but statistically it was not suppose to happened"

Since 9/11 to 2009, they have killed over 26,000 and wounded over 150,000 in terrorist attacks worldwide, is that not enough for you?

So then.

Your flawed argument is pointed out so you opt for the straw man argument. My point remains.....

In fact, google tells me that there are about 80,000 flights worldwide daily (actually more, but lets keep it simple).

No bombs found on planes for about 200 days

80,000 x 200 = 16,000,000.

So 16 million flights (scheduled only) have occurred since the last bomb was found on board, yet you STILL insist that their actions were justified?

That's 1 in 16 million. Do you understand just how remote a probability is?

[sarahsbloke]

I would be quite happy to use flights with no security.

I'm old, I don't fear death, but I do fear boredom, inconvenience and not being able to carry a soft drink into the departure lounge.

[Moonrakers]

Since 9/11 to 2009, they have killed over 26,000 and wounded over 150,000 in terrorist attacks worldwide, is that not enough for you?

Thats 8.9 people killed every single day for 8 years

and 51 wounded every single day for 8 years

And another thing.

This is a discussion about airline safety, yet you choose to include all incidents regardless of whether or not they were airline based. Again you are using irrelevant data to distort the topic.

[kuffki]

So then.

Your flawed argument is pointed out so you opt for the straw man argument. My point remains.....

In fact, google tells me that there are about 80,000 flights worldwide daily (actually more, but lets keep it simple).

No bombs found on planes for about 200 days

80,000 x 200 = 16,000,000.

So 16 million flights (scheduled only) have occurred since the last bomb was found on board, yet you STILL insist that their actions were justified?

That's 1 in 16 million. Do you understand just how remote a probability is?

I do not see the relevance of how many flights there are or were.

Point is ,terror attacks do happen and people do die, stats have been provided for you.

Even if its 1 in a million chance, it is still a chance that people should have to gamble with their lives for the sake of 2 people.

It could be flight 5 or flight 79999, would you want to be the "lucky" one on that flight?!

Perhaps if pilots and airport security took matters more serious before, then less people be dead.

Again, its irrelevant if the attack took place on the airplane or airport, or train or bus or cafe or school, what is relevant is that it did take place!

Just like no one could even foresee airplanes smashing to twin towers and yet it did happened.

Edited May 8, 2011 by kuffki

[kuffki]

Since 9/11 to 2009, they have killed over 26,000 and wounded over 150,000 in terrorist attacks worldwide, is that not enough for you?

Thats 8.9 people killed every single day for 8 years

and 51 wounded every single day for 8 years

And another thing.

This is a discussion about airline safety, yet you choose to include all incidents regardless of whether or not they were airline based. Again you are using irrelevant data to distort the topic.

as per post 102.

The only distortion is your denial of the fact that attack can take place any place, any time, in any country, at any time!

Being aware/afraid is natural human reaction, ignoring all the signs is the most foolish thing to do.

[Moonrakers]

Again, its irrelevant if the attack took place on the airplane or airport, or train or bus or cafe or school, what is relevant is that it did take place!

That's funny. I could have sworn this was a discussion about airline safety.

[Moonrakers]

Since 9/11 to 2009, they have killed over 26,000 and wounded over 150,000 in terrorist attacks worldwide, is that not enough for you?

Thats 8.9 people killed every single day for 8 years

and 51 wounded every single day for 8 years

And another thing.

This is a discussion about airline safety, yet you choose to include all incidents regardless of whether or not they were airline based. Again you are using irrelevant data to distort the topic.

as per post 102.

The only distortion is your denial of the fact that attack can take place any place, any time, in any country, at any time!

Being aware/afraid is natural human reaction, ignoring all the signs is the most foolish thing to do.

Where is this denial?

[kuffki]

Again, its irrelevant if the attack took place on the airplane or airport, or train or bus or cafe or school, what is relevant is that it did take place!

That's funny. I could have sworn this was a discussion about airline safety.

Since you want to insist on your rather comical argument, i suggest you read the link provided.

November 2, was on one of the two U.S.-bound aircraft from Yemen.

[sarahsbloke]

I think the whole point is there aren't that many suicide bombers around.

So what if they took out 100 flights in the first year.

After that no need for security as all the nutters have been used up.

More risk crossing the road than flying in a plane with no security.

You are letting your government use unreasonable fear to control you.

What was it the teacher at the suicide bomber training camp said.

"Now watch carefully chaps, I am only going to demonstrate this once."

Edited May 8, 2011 by sarahsbloke

[Moonrakers]

Again, its irrelevant if the attack took place on the airplane or airport, or train or bus or cafe or school, what is relevant is that it did take place!

That's funny. I could have sworn this was a discussion about airline safety.

Since you want to insist on your rather comical argument, i suggest you read the link provided.

November 2, was on one of the two U.S.-bound aircraft from Yemen.

Marvellous

What point are you trying to make now?

[kuffki]

Since 9/11 to 2009, they have killed over 26,000 and wounded over 150,000 in terrorist attacks worldwide, is that not enough for you?

Thats 8.9 people killed every single day for 8 years

and 51 wounded every single day for 8 years

And another thing.

This is a discussion about airline safety, yet you choose to include all incidents regardless of whether or not they were airline based. Again you are using irrelevant data to distort the topic.

as per post 102.

The only distortion is your denial of the fact that attack can take place any place, any time, in any country, at any time!

Being aware/afraid is natural human reaction, ignoring all the signs is the most foolish thing to do.

Where is this denial?

Airline hijacking stats for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

[kuffki]

Again, its irrelevant if the attack took place on the airplane or airport, or train or bus or cafe or school, what is relevant is that it did take place!

That's funny. I could have sworn this was a discussion about airline safety.

Since you want to insist on your rather comical argument, i suggest you read the link provided.

November 2, was on one of the two U.S.-bound aircraft from Yemen.

Marvellous

What point are you trying to make now?

no doubt you are a smart man who can connect few strings together

[JUDAS]

I think the whole point is there aren't that many suicide bombers around.

So what if they took out 100 flights in the first year.

After that no need for security as all the nutters have been used up.

More risk crossing the road than flying in a plane with no security.

You are letting your government use unreasonable fear to control you.

What was it the teacher at the suicide bomber training camp said.

"Now watch carefully chaps, I am only going to demonstrate this once."

You might find the following of interest regarding suicide bombing statistics http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2009/jan/27/suicide-bombings-pakistan-afghanistan though conflicting figures can be found elsewhere.

[Steely Dan]

Taking a step back let's look at the probable series of events. Two Imans attempt to fly to attend a conference discussing Islamophobia in America. What with the recent death of a bearded gentleman the appearance of two similar bearded types scares the sh1t out of other passengers who inform the captain of this. The captain errs on the side of caution and asks for a second security screening, which may or may not have resulted in a confrontation with said Imans, but they don't make the flight. There has to be a joke there somewhere.

It's not as if it aint happened before either.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/21/imams-airline-settle-lawsuit/

I've got half a mind to convert to Islam try and look suspicious and fly frequently in the hope of suing someone's butt off. Stranger things have happened.

[Moonrakers]

Airline hijacking stats for you

http://en.wikipedia....raft_hijackings

Would seem the last incident was January, although there was actually no bomb.

So let's say 150 days x 80,000 flights a day = 12,000,000

That's 12 million flights have gone without incident. Do you not think these odds are still rather remote?

Edited May 8, 2011 by Moonrakers

[kuffki]

Airline hijacking stats for you

http://en.wikipedia....raft_hijackings

Would seem the last incident was January, although there was actually no bomb.

So let's say 150 days x 80,000 flights a day = 12,000,000

That's 12 million flights have gone without incident. Do you not think these odds are still rather remote?

as i have said already numerous times, even if its 1 in a trillion, it would be absolutely and utterly foolish to ignore the signs and take a risk

[Moonrakers]

Airline hijacking stats for you

http://en.wikipedia....raft_hijackings

Would seem the last incident was January, although there was actually no bomb.

So let's say 150 days x 80,000 flights a day = 12,000,000

That's 12 million flights have gone without incident. Do you not think these odds are still rather remote?

as i have said already numerous times, even if its 1 in a trillion, it would be absolutely and utterly foolish to ignore the signs and take a risk

So you are saying that no Muslim should ever be allowed on flights then?

Edited May 8, 2011 by Moonrakers

[kuffki]

Airline hijacking stats for you

http://en.wikipedia....raft_hijackings

Would seem the last incident was January, although there was actually no bomb.

So let's say 150 days x 80,000 flights a day = 12,000,000

That's 12 million flights have gone without incident. Do you not think these odds are still rather remote?

as i have said already numerous times, even if its 1 in a trillion, it would be absolutely and utterly foolish to ignore the signs and take a risk

So you are saying that no Muslim should ever be allowed on flights then?

What i am saying is that pilot did the right thing if he felt uncomfortable in any way what so ever.

How many of those 12 000 000 flights had imams on them? do you have that stats?

Being dressed in generally accepted attire would certainly help, but if they chose to dress as they did, there is no one to blame for peoples reaction.

Western women are forced to cover their face and head when in public in most Arab countries. I am sure Imams would not die if they wore a suit instead of whats mainly perceived as islamist look/attire.

Following what you trying to say is that muslims get kicked off all the flights for being Muslim, which is simply not true. Only the ones who are dressed in certain way or act in certain way that get thrown off.

Its really as simple as that! If they wore another attire, people would not even know they were muslim

[Moonrakers]

My stance from the beginning is that the people on the plane were extremely narrow minded and ignorant to object to certain passengers just because they are Muslim.

If how they are dressed is a deciding factor, then surely that just reinforces my opinion.

[kuffki]

My stance from the beginning is that the people on the plane were extremely narrow minded and ignorant to object to certain passengers just because they are Muslim.

If how they are dressed is a deciding factor, then surely that just reinforces my opinion.

You would need to forgive the narrow minded people, their perceptions have been made up from what they have seen and that is terrorists being dressed same way when they issue threats and everything else along the lines.

So it is NOT people who should be accommodating Muslim Imams in USA but Muslim Imams should be accommodating people.

Just like Westerners have to respect Arab traditions when they are in Arab country, i do not see a reason why Arabs should not do the same when in USA.

Dress as a bum and go to Porche or Bentley dealership, unless you are a well known person, chances are you will be thrown out and police will be called.

Its called appropriate attire! Person does not go to black & white ball wearing bikini and expect to be treated "normally"

[dave_boo]

Sorry, but I can't agree with the pilots' actions if it all went down as reported in the article.

If these men went through all the security checks, then they should have been allowed to fly. The US is a free country where freedom of religion is a basic right.

The general public is generally afraid of young black men with lots of bling and young white men with shaved heads and tattoos. (This is backed up by several studies.) So do we start banning them from flights, too? None of them has recently tried to blow up a plane, true, but many men of this demographic do violence every day.

If we continue to spiral into demonizing all things Islam, we will push many more Muslims into the camp where they believe Islam is under attack by the West and become soldiers against us.

Actually there is no 'freedom of religion'. The actual bill states that the government can "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Notice there is no provision in there that everybody in the US has to respect your religion.

Actually not demonizing all things Islam is political correctness run amuck. How can it be established that Islam is afforded a protected status from ridicule or questioning? Is it the violence? Should the US not have attacked the Japanese Navy (almost Goodwin'd the whole thread!) because it may have made the Japanese 'on the fence' decide we really were evil?

If I started a religion that stated that everyone that followed it were a special people who lived by special rules and everyone else had to acquiese to those rules or we'd kill them would you support my right to that religion?

[JUDAS]

I'm lost for words, I really am.