4 Bearded Asians Removed From A Flight

Should be banned forever from flying, jailed in Turkey and fined.

Why wait for the aircraft to land?

Just imaging how passengers felt.

Four friends who were removed from a flight after it landed in Turkey after being accused of 'playing a song about bombs' have claimed they were ejected from the plane because they are 'bearded Asians'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3824019/Four-friends-thrown-Manchester-flight-lands-Turkey-playing-song-bombs-say-picked-bearded-Asians.html#ixzz4MIQOUmfs
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Bit stupid to play a song about bombs if you're on a plane whether you're Asian or not.

They were probably on their way to join isis...

Tommy Monk wrote:They were probably on their way to join isis...

I have heard that some bearded Asians like to go on holiday occasionally like non-bearded, non-Asian people do.
Don't know if that's true.

Yeah... right...

You don't think bearded Asians go on holiday?

You don't think bearded Pakistani Muslims go to Turkey to cross the border into Syria to join isis...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

You don't think bearded Pakistani Muslims go to Turkey to cross the border into Syria to join isis...?

I sure do. But you didn't answer my question.

Well of course they go on holidays sometimes... bit of a stupid question... and they were particularly stupid in their behaviour and even more stupid if they thought anyone was going to believe their bullshit lies in trying to deny it all...

Tommy, if stupidity were a crime you'd have been locked up long ago.

Well there is no denying they were stupid. Why would the airline staff make it up?

Ben Reilly wrote:Tommy, if stupidity were a crime you'd have been locked up long ago.

How am I stupid...!?


Give us some examples of things I've said that are stupid...?

I think it's time we had undercover marshals on flights.
Air cabin staff are not really qualified or equipped to deal with people who act like fools on planes.

I think they should have ejector seats to throw off any idiots... with no parachutes!

Tommy Monk wrote:

I think they should have ejector seats  to throw off any idiots... with no parachutes!

I realised a couple of years ago how unprepared cabin staff are when a nutter is onboard.
We had a charmer a couple of rows in front who started off threatening his wife, he took his belt off and was threatening to hit her.
The stewardess moved her and her 2 children to the back of the plane.
He then started on passengers, he was going to bite my OH's nose off, he was calling the Asian man sat behind a black B...., he got up to start on them. Me and another woman stood up and blocked his path, we were both scared our husbands would defend themselves and possibly end up in trouble.
Throughout all this no steward was available...one eventually came and sat next to him, he wasn't restrained and free to go to the loo unescorted..
When we did land police escorted him off to jail.
The airline took statements from a couple of us we never heard anything though.

Thomas Cook airlines? Shoulda flown Imil Schwartz. What's with these (dare I say it?) fly-by-night airlines?

At first they are accused of saying the word 'bomb' and then they were accused of playing a song on the phone, which did not have WiFi?? Can't the stews at least get together and work out their lies?

Apparently, they weren't even disruptive:

Daily Mail wrote:Pamela Clarke, 55, from Sheffield, who was sitting six rows away, said: 'I never heard anything about bombs. There was no bad behaviour or anything like that from them. There was a group of women in front of them who were extremely drunk and loud but not them.'

So, it was a classic case of profiling, nothing more. This is what you get under the leadership vacuum of the Right. Just make up any story and call the cops. When lies compete with the truth for equal legitimacy, people just make up stories...no need to bother with facts.

Sitting 6 rows away...?


No wonder she never heard anything... it's hard enough to hear what someone sitting next to you is saying...

Original Quill wrote:Thomas Cook airlines?  Shoulda flown Imil Schwartz.  What's with these (dare I say it?) fly-by-night airlines?  

At first they are accused of saying the word 'bomb' and then they were accused of playing a song on the phone, which did not have WiFi??  Can't the stews at least get together and work out their lies?  

Apparently, they weren't even disruptive:

Daily Mail wrote:Pamela Clarke, 55, from Sheffield, who was sitting six rows away, said: 'I never heard anything about bombs. There was no bad behaviour or anything like that from them. There was a group of women in front of them who were extremely drunk and loud but not them.'

So, it was a classic case of profiling, nothing more.  This is what you get under the leadership vacuum of the Right.  Just make up any story and call the cops.  When lies compete with the truth for equal legitimacy, people just make up stories...no need to bother with facts.

That's not a very logical remark is it?
Sitting 6 rows away in a crowded plane would make it impossible to see much less hear whats going on.
The cabin crew are in a much better position to judge how passengers are behaving not a woman sat 6 rows away.
Odd that no other people sitting alongside them, or 1,2,3,4,5 rows away didn't come to their defence?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Tommy, if stupidity were a crime you'd have been locked up long ago.

How am I stupid...!?


Give us some examples of things I've said that are stupid...?

The positions of the stars in the sky have shifted, homosexuality is unnatural, gravity isn't a universal force, climate change is a hoax, there are significant genetic differences between people of different races, the UK will be allowed to trade in the single EU market without allowing free movement ... that's just off the top of my head.

Ben Reilly wrote:Tommy, if stupidity were a crime you'd have been locked up long ago.

This thread isn't about Tommy. Isn't it about time you followed your own rules re "disruption"?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Tommy, if stupidity were a crime you'd have been locked up long ago.

This thread isn't about Tommy. Isn't it about time you followed your own rules re "disruption"?

I'm not disrupting a damn thing and you know it. Stop disrupting this thread with your claims that I'm disrupting it.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


How am I stupid...!?


Give us some examples of things I've said that are stupid...?

The positions of the stars in the sky have shifted, homosexuality is unnatural, gravity isn't a universal force, climate change is a hoax, there are significant genetic differences between people of different races, the UK will be allowed to trade in the single EU market without allowing free movement ... that's just off the top of my head.

Off topic. You're clearly disrupting this thread in order to defend possible terrorist sympathisers.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


How am I stupid...!?


Give us some examples of things I've said that are stupid...?

The positions of the stars in the sky have shifted, homosexuality is unnatural, gravity isn't a universal force, climate change is a hoax, there are significant genetic differences between people of different races, the UK will be allowed to trade in the single EU market without allowing free movement ... that's just off the top of my head.

Off topic. You're clearly disrupting this thread in order to defend possible terrorist sympathisers.

Anyone is a possible terrorist sympathiser, that's the worst label you could possibly have come up with. For all the rest of the world knows, you or I could be terrorist sympathisers.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Off topic. You're clearly disrupting this thread in order to defend possible terrorist sympathisers.

Anyone is a possible terrorist sympathiser, that's the worst label you could possibly have come up with. For all the rest of the world knows, you or I could be terrorist sympathisers.

I delayed joining here because of a video you put up...I thought that's exactly what you were.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Off topic. You're clearly disrupting this thread in order to defend possible terrorist sympathisers.

Anyone is a possible terrorist sympathiser, that's the worst label you could possibly have come up with. For all the rest of the world knows, you or I could be terrorist sympathisers.

You are - you supported the IRA!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Off topic. You're clearly disrupting this thread in order to defend possible terrorist sympathisers.

Anyone is a possible terrorist sympathiser, that's the worst label you could possibly have come up with. For all the rest of the world knows, you or I could be terrorist sympathisers.

You are - you supported the IRA!

Say it one more time.

What happens if she does?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Thomas Cook airlines?  Shoulda flown Imil Schwartz.  What's with these (dare I say it?) fly-by-night airlines?  

At first they are accused of saying the word 'bomb' and then they were accused of playing a song on the phone, which did not have WiFi??  Can't the stews at least get together and work out their lies?  

Apparently, they weren't even disruptive:



So, it was a classic case of profiling, nothing more.  This is what you get under the leadership vacuum of the Right.  Just make up any story and call the cops.  When lies compete with the truth for equal legitimacy, people just make up stories...no need to bother with facts.

That's not a very logical remark is it?
Sitting 6 rows away in a crowded plane would make it impossible to see much less hear whats going on.
The cabin crew are in a much better position to judge how passengers are behaving not a woman sat 6 rows away.
Odd that no other people sitting alongside them, or 1,2,3,4,5 rows away didn't come to their defence?

The seat pitch on low cost carriers can be as low as 28 inches (71 cm). Seating 6-rows away, considering seat-back to front-of-seat, or that is 5 rows, or 140-inches away, puts Ms. Clarke less than 15-feet, or 4.57 meters away from the men.

Compare that to cabin staff, who are usually half a plane away, tucked around the corner in the kitchen cabin, or leaning in between the muffling seats, concerned with other passengers ordering meals, etc., I would have to say it's understandable that the stews were making up their stories.

These low-budget airlines pay low-rent wages, so it's understandable that they are going to get UKIP-type employees. I think we can all see what this story is about.

eddie wrote:You don't think bearded Asians go on holiday?

I do, To Rochdale. lol

Ben Reilly wrote:Tommy, if stupidity were a crime you'd have been locked up long ago.

If asslicking, being pro Muslim was a crime you would be have been locked up long ago.

How can you stick up for Muslims after 911? Ben, you should invent a rule about it.

Hang on a minute! I don't see anyone here defending Muslims. What the fuck are you all on about?
These men were stupid enough to play a song about bombs on a plane - allegedly - and now it's turned into a slanging match about being terrorists supporters???

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

That's not a very logical remark is it?
Sitting 6 rows away in a crowded plane would make it impossible to see much less hear whats going on.
The cabin crew are in a much better position to judge how passengers are behaving not a woman sat 6 rows away.
Odd that no other people sitting alongside them, or 1,2,3,4,5 rows away didn't come to their defence?

The seat pitch on low cost carriers can be as low as 28 inches (71 cm).  Seating 6-rows away, considering seat-back to front-of-seat, or that is 5 rows, or 140-inches away, puts Ms. Clarke less than 15-feet, or 4.57 meters away from the men.

Compare that to cabin staff, who are usually half a plane away, tucked around the corner in the kitchen cabin, or leaning in between the muffling seats, concerned with other passengers ordering meals, etc., I would have to say it's understandable that the stews were making up their stories.

These low-budget airlines pay low-rent wages, so it's understandable that they are going to get UKIP-type employees.  I think we can all see what this story is about.

I don't have to google the size and distance  of a Thomas Cook plane seating area to know it's IMPOSSIBLE to see much less hear whats going on six rows in front Quill...I have been on plenty to know by experience.

Blaming the air stewards who have to put up with pompous crap at best downright dangerous fools at worse is ridiculous, but to be expected from you sadly.

eddie wrote:Hang on a minute! I don't see anyone here defending Muslims. What the fuck are you all on about?
These men were stupid enough to play a song about bombs on a plane - allegedly - and now it's turned into a slanging match about being terrorists supporters???

By the same token, I don't think we need to be offending Muslims either.  I seriously question whether the men were playing any songs...they didn't have any WiFi connection.  The neutral passengers say they were not rowdy.  Indications are they were profiled by low-lifes who still believe in that stuff.

I think there's better than a 70-30 shot the whole thing was made up.  All the facts point away from the story told by the stews and crew.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Hang on a minute! I don't see anyone here defending Muslims. What the fuck are you all on about?
These men were stupid enough to play a song about bombs on a plane - allegedly - and now it's turned into a slanging match about being terrorists supporters???

By the same token, I don't think we need to be offending Muslims either.  I seriously question whether the men were playing any songs...they didn't have any WiFi connection.  The neutral passengers say they were not rowdy.  Indications are they were profiled by low-lifes who still believe in that stuff.

I think there's better than a 70-30 shot the whole thing was made up.  All the facts point away from the story told by the stews and crew.

I meant to say "Muslim terrorists"

They deny playing a song about bombs and say they were targetted for being Asian.   It's happening all the time.   The world is becoming more and more racist and lowlifes like Major are the reason, egged on by politicians who stir the ignorant up.

sassy wrote:They deny playing a song about bombs and say they were targetted for being Asian.   It's happening all the time.   The world is becoming more and more racist and lowlifes like Major are the reason, egged on by politicians who stir the ignorant up.

Again more antagonistic/inciting name calling from protected species Sassy and condoned by management by their silence, as usual

Major wrote:

sassy wrote:They deny playing a song about bombs and say they were targetted for being Asian.   It's happening all the time.   The world is becoming more and more racist and lowlifes like Major are the reason, egged on by politicians who stir the ignorant up.

Again more antagonistic/inciting name calling from protected species Sassy and condoned by management by their silence, as usual

Hey listen, I am one of the few on here who ever call people "label names" yet I think you are quite racist at times.

Major wrote:

sassy wrote:They deny playing a song about bombs and say they were targetted for being Asian.   It's happening all the time.   The world is becoming more and more racist and lowlifes like Major are the reason, egged on by politicians who stir the ignorant up.

Again more antagonistic/inciting name calling from protected species Sassy and condoned by management by their silence, as usual

I agree with eddie.  Wasn't it just yesterday you were calling Wolf a lowlife down in Misc, Major?  Apparently, it wasn't an offending name when you used it.

Sassy is merely expressing her views, that the level is dropping what with racism, xenophobia and lower-class RW ideologies.

Who are you addressing? Eddz

"who ever", don't get it.

OQ maybe you should take off your blinkuz and read the entire thread if you are capable.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Hang on a minute! I don't see anyone here defending Muslims. What the fuck are you all on about?
These men were stupid enough to play a song about bombs on a plane - allegedly - and now it's turned into a slanging match about being terrorists supporters???

By the same token, I don't think we need to be offending Muslims either.  I seriously question whether the men were playing any songs...they didn't have any WiFi connection.  The neutral passengers say they were not rowdy.  Indications are they were profiled by low-lifes who still believe in that stuff.

I think there's better than a 70-30 shot the whole thing was made up.  All the facts point away from the story told by the stews and crew.

You don't need WiFi to play songs on a mobile device.

Major wrote:Who are you addressing? Eddz

"who ever", don't get it.

She was addressing you. I happened to agree with her. There's no misunderstanding.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

By the same token, I don't think we need to be offending Muslims either.  I seriously question whether the men were playing any songs...they didn't have any WiFi connection.  The neutral passengers say they were not rowdy.  Indications are they were profiled by low-lifes who still believe in that stuff.

I think there's better than a 70-30 shot the whole thing was made up.  All the facts point away from the story told by the stews and crew.

You don't need WiFi to play songs on a mobile device.

You need something.  Unless, that is, the old man in the sky is humming.

They denied any songs were being played.  The stews were in no position to hear anything. At first, they said the men were speaking the word 'bomb'.  People less than 15-feet away said they didn't hear anything.  Then the stews changed their story and said it was music. It was a low-rent airline.  Do the math.

The men were being profiled. The music was made up.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't need WiFi to play songs on a mobile device.

You need something.  Unless, that is, the old man in the sky is humming.

They denied any songs were being played.  The stews were in no position to hear anything.  People less than 15-feet away said they didn't hear anything.  It was a low-rent airline.  Do the math.

The men were being profiled.

You have no evidence of that - you're merely going on what they claimed.

I can play songs without using WiFi - not everything needs to be connected to the internet.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You need something.  Unless, that is, the old man in the sky is humming.

They denied any songs were being played.  The stews were in no position to hear anything.  People less than 15-feet away said they didn't hear anything.  It was a low-rent airline.  Do the math.

The men were being profiled.

You have no evidence of that - you're merely going on what they claimed.

It was perception testimony.

On the other hand, what the stews said seemed to change from moment to moment.  So they cannot be trusted to tell the truth, or when they are telling the truth if they are.  The point is that all evidence points to the profiling theory, and the music or saying of the word 'bomb' was a fictitious ruse by the airline employees.  It all fits.

In any case, they've admitted they were being a "bit loud". One shouldn't be loud in confined spaces where there's no escape for others - it's rude.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You have no evidence of that - you're merely going on what they claimed.

It was perception testimony.

On the other hand, what the stews said seemed to change from moment to moment.  So they cannot be trusted to tell the truth, or when they are telling the truth if they are.  The point is that all evidence points to the profiling theory, and the music or saying of the word 'bomb' was a fictitious ruse by the airline employees.  It all fits.

There's no evidence of that at all. You don't seem to know what evidence is. What you said is pure conjecture.

An USA Texas pro Muslim site, ya could not make it up.

Raggamuffin wrote:In any case, they've admitted they were being a "bit loud". One shouldn't be loud in confined spaces where there's no escape for others - it's rude.

Be serious. The loud ones, according to the story, were the women in front of them. Apparently, they were just tossing some jokes or quips back to them...all in good spirits.

The allegation of any wrongdoing came from the crew, who seemed not to like Muslims. Everybody else was having a fine time. End of...

We've seen it all before.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:In any case, they've admitted they were being a "bit loud". One shouldn't be loud in confined spaces where there's no escape for others - it's rude.

Be serious.  The loud ones, according to the story, were the women in front of them.  Apparently, they were just tossing some jokes or quips back to them...all in good spirits.

The allegation of any wrongdoing came from the crew, who seemed not to like Muslims.  Everybody else was having a fine time.  End of...  

We've seen it all before.

Well whoever was being loud should have been reprimanded at once. There's far too much noise pollution around.