Cindy Sheehan Arabic T-Shirt “Profiling” Protest

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Friday, September 1st, 2006 at 6:12 pm. You can leave a response.

35 Responses to “Cindy Sheehan Arabic T-Shirt “Profiling” Protest”

1. 1sttofight
   September 1st, 2006 at 6:24 pm

   How long will it be before the snag offs herself? I say before the end of the year.

2. stevierae54
   September 1st, 2006 at 7:00 pm

   Since 9/11, I often take the opportunity to ask Arabic people who’ve been pulled aside for additional questioning (or whatever it is the gate agents/security do in private) if they are resentful of it.

   Not once–not ONCE (and I travel often) has one stated that he (it’s usually a “he”) feels resentful. In fact, they usually go on about how impressed/grateful they are that such a system is in place to ensure EVERYONE’S safety—-and many if not most of those Arabic individuals are Americans—-and their loyalty lies with America.

   My daughters, both in their 20s (who have naturally light-golden skin, and who often hit the tanning booths, making them appear more “olive skinned” than they are naturally–I could see how they’d be mistaken for Middle-Eastern women) are always pulled aside for security reasons/extra questioning/luggage searches when they travel. They don’t resent it, either–it’s all about keeping our nation safe.

3. SG
   September 1st, 2006 at 7:08 pm

   I simply don’t believe for a minute that any profiling goes on at airports.

   Would that it did. But it doesn’t and it won’t. At least not until the next tragedy.

   Israel is famous for profiling at their airports. And when was the last time they had a problem?

4. Gila Monster
   September 1st, 2006 at 7:44 pm

   Treasonous federal law breaking b*tch, pure and simple. Next time she leaves the country, revoke her passport and let the “b*tch in da’ ditch” establish her own caliphate in the ME. Stupid asshat!!

5. stevierae54
   September 1st, 2006 at 7:52 pm

   I don’t know that I’d call what I’ve seen “profiling.” I’d call it “due diligence” or “taking need steps to ensure optimal safety for everyone.” In any event, it’s necessary–and I can’t see why anyone in his or her right mind would object to it. It’s for the good of all, by whatever name it’s known.

   The only reason I notice it is because, since 9/11, I’ve made it my business to look for it being done (it’s usually done very surreptitiously, so as not to call attention to or embarrass the person being asked to step aside) so that I can talk to the individual once he is cleared to pass through security or (when it happens at the gate) to get on the plane. I always get on the plane last, so that I can observe the goings-on, and because I hate all the hurry-up-and-wait that ensues on the plane as one tries to get to one’s assigned seat (all the people trying to pack loads of baggage that should not have been carried on in the first place into the overhead bins.)

   For that matter, I always go to the extra trouble at airports to look for men and women in uniform–so that I can have the honor of going up to them, shaking their hands, and thanking them for their service.

6. robinboyd
   September 1st, 2006 at 8:33 pm

   Dontcha love how the media called Jarrar an “arab peace activist” - makes me wanna puke. Jarrar is not only a Sheehanite - he’s the head of the Iraq Project at Global Exchange (medea’s socialist organization). He is also “fasting” with the rest of the girls. AND his mother was one of the Iraqi women that CodePinko shipped over here to tell how our American heroes were tearing their country apart. I forgot this little tidbit - Jarrar met with the CodePinkos in Jordan when the delivered the $$ to the terrorists in Fallujah.

   This was no “accident” - it was a damned deliberate attempt to stir up some media exposure for the she-bitch. Go read some of this butthead’s comments on his blog… One of my personal favorites:

   “Because most of the people who support the occupation are violent assholes. That’s why. They are intimidating violent gangsters backed up by the bush administration. They should be held accountable for each murder done by the illegal occupation of Iraq. Everyone who supports the occupation is personally responsible for the death of every Iraqi who is killed because of the illegal US invasion. Supporting the occupation is not a club for proving your patriotism, it’s an action affecting the lives of millions of people, and it’s an action affecting the lives of the troops themselves”

7. robinboyd
   September 1st, 2006 at 8:34 pm

   BTW - Cindy is looking more and more manly. GEEZ DB - now I gotta go take some TUMS.

8. sheehanjihad
   September 1st, 2006 at 8:37 pm

   Dontcha love how the media called Jarrar an “arab peace activist”

   Yeah, and they call Kofi Annan a leader too…same thing. I would enjoy asking ol Jarrar what the hell he is doing here? If his country is that important to him….get the hell over THERE and make a difference. Doesnt matter what t shirt you wear there….but your vest is special! Get going Jarrar! Save your country! Sic em boy! Oh, you can borrow the snag’s leash.

9. DEZ
   September 1st, 2006 at 9:29 pm

   Al Sindy will not be silent.
   I’ll take that bet, SJ pass me a tater stick.

10. 1sttofight
    September 1st, 2006 at 9:35 pm

    That picture at the top of this thread just makes me want to knock the hell out that bitch.

    Could be the meds but I dont think so.

11. DEZ
    September 1st, 2006 at 9:43 pm

    I think its the snag effect.
    Her face has the following affect on rational human beings.
    Revulsion, Severe abdominal cramps and vomiting.
    Followed by an irresitable desire to use her head for batting practice.

12. johnx
    September 1st, 2006 at 9:45 pm

    I would like to add that Raed Jarrar’s mother is a Sunni and was a engineer during Saddam’s rule. As such there is no doubt that she was a Baath party member. Jarrar’s father is a Palestinian, whom during Saddam’s rein were called “Saddam’s chosen people.” Being Sunni, Baath and Palestinian was like winning the trifecta into the elite ruling class. Why Raed and his brothers could have been Saddam’s henchmen if the war hadn’t ruined everything for them. This family was not oppressed in Iraq, they were the oppressors.

    Alas, now they are refugees living in exile to escape Shiite death squads who would love to get even with with their former rulers. Is it any wonder they hate Bush and the US for the ruin of their elite status and lifestyle? Or that the whole family now devotes all their time to writing anti-American screeds? A shame the media won’t tell you about this families obvious pro Saddam bias.

13. NotStuckOnStupid
    September 1st, 2006 at 11:22 pm

    I simply don’t believe for a minute that any profiling goes on at airports. Would that it did. But it doesn’t and it won’t.

    I fly occasionally… several times a year… but I’ve damn sure never seen any profiling. It pisses me off no end, too. I’m taking a trip in October, and now I can’t carry a lousy bottle of drinking water on the plane with me. *I* am a white, middle-aged woman. Last time I checked, no white, middle-aged women have blown up cars, buildings, or airplanes in the name of jihad.

    All muslims aren’t terrorists, but all 21st century terrorists ARE muslim. Why is that so hard to understand, and WHAT is so offensive about profiling muslims????

14. NotStuckOnStupid
    September 1st, 2006 at 11:29 pm

    Oh, and as for you, Cindy, you crazy snag bitch… you talk like an effin’ gay man. I’ve never seen any woman manage that little trick before, but leave it to you to reach new heights of lefty weirdness.

15. nodems
    September 1st, 2006 at 11:35 pm

    My daughter is blond and blue eyed and young. She ALWAYS gets pulled over and her luggage checked. It is for drugs, not terrorism. She doesn’t moan and groan about it cause she knows she isn’t a drug user. If you’re not, why worry and have to b*tch about it?

    If I see some one wearing one of those t-shirts on MY flight, I’m going to throw a big hissy fit — so big they will have to escort me out of the airport. I will NOT be on a plane with anyone so idiotic. Especially Arab/Palestian/Sunni boy.

16. stevierae54
    September 2nd, 2006 at 12:27 am

    If I see Cindy SHEEHAN on my flight,no matter what she’s wearing) I plan to throw a big hisssy-fit–and I am not the hissy-fit type.

    I don’t think anyone–particularly any veteran–should have to ride on a plane with a known seditionist. I also don’t think any American should have to board a plane with someone who has publicly professed her hatred for America and validated it by trysting with and giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

    I saw somewhere–probably on KOS–some idiot going on and on about how Shee-hag was standing in front of her in line at the Southwest counter at Oakland Airport, and how she (the poster) was kicking herself over and over for not “thanking Cindy for all she has done.” Please……..

17. morninggloryseed
    September 2nd, 2006 at 12:44 am

    I consider many of C. Sheehan’s actions (such as meetings with enemy dictators) to be true acts of treason. I don’t have any problem with profiling Arabic men at airports instead of 70 year old Grandma.

    If the individual has a clear background, is not a convicted criminal, has no terrorist ties, and (after being searched) is deemed not to be a threat to the flight. I feel it is a violation of the constitution to keep that individual from flying on a plane because the shirt has Arabic text saying “We shall not be ignored.”

    I am not speaking of this case in particular. I understand there is more to this incident than stated in the interview. I am speaking against unconstitutional censorship.

    And please don’t dismiss me as an anti-american, anti-Bush, pro terrorist dupe. You would be very mistaken.

18. Phredd
    September 2nd, 2006 at 12:55 am

    Some of you arent going to like this…
    As much as many people didnt want to see this jerks t-shirt, it only said “we will not be silent”. Not ‘Go Osama Go’ or ‘Kill the Infidels’ or some other truly inflammatory BS. If you think about it, “we will not be silent” can be interpreted many ways or used as a slogan by any number of groups, benign and malicious. Telling him to change his shirt was an overreaction on both the part of the TSA and Jetblue. And unfortunately, now this a##hat gets his 15 min of horn time while we have to listen to it and now we’re pretty much guaranteed a bunch of copycat/sympathizers at our airports.

    simple solution: dress codes. If they can be enforced at restaurants and amusement parks, airlines could easily adopt a policy that would prevent this.

19. SG
    September 2nd, 2006 at 1:09 am

    “I am speaking against unconstitutional censorship.”

    Where do you see that?

20. SG
    September 2nd, 2006 at 1:12 am

    “Telling him to change his shirt was an overreaction on both the part of the TSA and Jetblue.”

    JetBlue has a right to refuse service to anyone they want for whatever reason.

    “simple solution: dress codes. If they can be enforced at restaurants and amusement parks, airlines could easily adopt a policy that would prevent this.”

    How would that read? No t-shirts with writing on them?

    JetBlue doesn’t need to adopt anything. Again, they can refuse to serve whomever they want.

    It’s a free country.

21. johnx
    September 2nd, 2006 at 1:46 am

    Here are some passengers who said “we will not be silenced.”
    Mutiny as passengers refuse to fly until Asians are removed

    British holidaymakers staged an unprecedented mutiny - refusing to allow their flight to take off until two men they feared were terrorists were forcibly removed.

    The extraordinary scenes happened after some of the 150 passengers on a Malaga-Manchester flight overheard two men of Asian appearance apparently talking Arabic.

    Passengers told cabin crew they feared for their safety and demanded police action. Some stormed off the Monarch Airlines Airbus A320 minutes before it was due to leave the Costa del Sol at 3am. Others waiting for Flight ZB 613 in the departure lounge refused to board it.

    The incident fuels the row over airport security following the arrest of more than 20 people allegedly planning the suicide-bombing of transatlantic jets from the UK to America. It comes amid growing demands for passenger-profiling and selective security checks.

    It also raised fears that more travellers will take the law into their own hands - effectively conducting their own ‘passenger profiles’.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pag.....ge_id=1770

22. Arctain
    September 2nd, 2006 at 3:45 am

    Phredd,

    Good Point. Unfortunately the premise this guy starts with, is wrong. Most likely, JetBlue officials were being sensitive to the British holidaymakers refusal to fly - effectively throwing the airline schedule off. I doubt that the guy wearing the shirt was ‘profiled’ in the way that he thinks he was. Most likely, it came down to JetBlue’s sensitivity to the other paying customers on the flight - that they were thinking “You moron, wearing that shirt is going to torque some people off, and it’s going to cause others to refuse to fly, and rather than wait for the incident to reach British holidaymakers levels, we’ll ask you to remove your shirt, and replace it with one that we bought.” The guy’s constitutional right to free speech wasn’t violated - JetBlue has the right to refuse service based upon anything they deem inappropriate. If I decide to fly with a shirt that says (in Arabic, Japanese, or Vulcan) “Airline pilots are incompetent”, JetBlue has the right to refuse service to me and tell me that I can’t fly. They can offer me an option “remove your shirt and replace it with one that we deem more appropriate”, but they don’t have to offer me that option.

    For this guy to complain is just moronic - If I were to walk into the Democratic Convention (shudder!) with a shirt that says “Paula Jones was FRAMED!” or a shirt that read “Joe Wilson is a hen-pecked dupe!”, the Convention has the right to kick me out. My constitutional rights to free speech do not extend to privately sponsored occasions. For example, I have the right to wear a shirt to work that says “My Company sucks eggs”, but my company (which rocks!, btw) has the right to fire me for wearing it. IMO, this guys whole premise is just silly - it approaches downright criminally moronic thinking.

23. Kilmeny
    September 2nd, 2006 at 7:57 am

    There are things in life that, while you may have every right to do, common sense tells you will cause trouble if you do them.

    You don’t yell “Fire” in crowded movie theaters.
    You don’t show up in insanely ritzy restaurants wearing shorts and a wife beater.
    You don’t light up a cigarette while pumping gas.
    You don’t wave guns around in front of policemen.

    And you don’t get on a plane and be deliberately provocative just to see what kind of reaction you’ll get. Common sense should tell you that the airline WILL cover its ass and ask you to either knock it off or get off. People like these aren’t merely “exercising their free speech”. They’re doing it on purpose to get attention. That they don’t like it once they get it should hardly be the fault of the airline or the other passengers.

24. CKO1986
    September 2nd, 2006 at 9:39 am

    Of course Cindy won’t be silent…she doesn’t know how. ;)

25. Conservationist
    September 2nd, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    Every time I see Osindy bin Latte and Crone Pink, I say to myself “Bring it, girls!” Nothing will force the re-orientation and focus of the democratic party quite these spectacularly self-marginalizing whing-dings.

26. groovygrl
    September 2nd, 2006 at 4:37 pm

    I agree with most posters. JetBlue has the right to refuse service. Non-stop to San Jose is not a constitutional right. I admire JetBlue for doing that and will try to fly them whenever I can which isn’t much of a trial for me since I already fly them as much as I can anyway. GO JETBLUE!

    BTW—airlines already ask people to remove inflammatory clothing. Some woman was asked to change a while back for the F-bomb on a t-shirt. It was, of course, against Bush.

27. 1sttofight
    September 2nd, 2006 at 5:05 pm

    I actually remember when folks dressed up to travel.
    God, I am getting old.

28. doingwhatican
    September 2nd, 2006 at 6:58 pm

    Well, you’re not alone, 1st. Wearing a suit to fly was what was done way back when.

    When do we rid ourselves of this vile woman? I’m still waiting for her to “off herself”. I said some time back she would grant us with that, but I’m getting impatient. Additionally, I’ve grown increasingly tiresome of the media’s adoration of their innumerable whores.

29. sheehanjihad
    September 2nd, 2006 at 10:40 pm

    I think I will send the snag a T shirt with Arabic writing on it, telling her it says Bush Sucks….or something like that. However, it will really say, ” Christianity thinks Islam is for PIGS”….and send her back to the middle east.

    Better yet, call in that the woman in the black t shirt with arabic writing on it has explosives stuffed way way up her exit door, and that she was mumbling when she left about a woman doing a man’s job. I will have to remind the inspectors that indeed, she does look and act like a man, and had just had a vasectomy on her upper lip, but they need to use a back hoe to find the bomb. and a fork lift to hold the thighs up.

30. morninggloryseed
    September 2nd, 2006 at 11:52 pm

    I have to admit,

    In looking back, if it was Jet Blue’s decision to now allow him on the flight…then I stand with them; JetBlue has the right to refuse service.

    I would take issue if it was the TSA that would not allow him to fly just because his shirt had arabic on it. I do feel that would be a violation of free speech. And opinions are like assholes…we all know the rest.

31. SG
    September 3rd, 2006 at 4:54 am

    MGS, it seems like the reports and this guy’s accounting purposefully try to confuse exactly who said what.

    But even if it was TSA’s decision, I would still tend to back them. People should have the right to board a plane without feeling threatened.

    And as you know, the right to free speech is regulated all the time. There are “free speech zones” near political conventions, for instance.

    Similarly, I think someone muttering about hijacking a plane while it is in mid-air would also not be a right.

    Though, it’s obviously of a different magnitude from wearing a t-shirt. But there is the general concept that the passengers have a right to travel without any unnecessary fear or intimidation.

32. sheehanjihad
    September 3rd, 2006 at 8:54 am

    Yes, the conspiracy theorists will agree with me, and no, I am not being paranoid, and yes, I just go up, and no, I am not flying anywhere soon, but…..

    I think that the various “cells” and “operatives” are being instructed to test our systems from every angle to see how vigilant American or western passengers are, and what they look for when they fly. Each time an incident is reported, they make a note of it and remember that that particular method wont work.

    They are incredibly patient, and I am firmly of the belief that once they get a person on board in some innocuous way, and repeat it a couple of times, that is when they will load up and blow up. They are depending on our insistence that all terrorists be given the same courtesy and rights as Americans, and the fact that zero profiling makes it so much easier. They are working as hard as they can to murder Americans….while we are working as hard as we can to insert our craniums in our rectums.

    They will succeed too! Britain has proven that they are not the place to launch a murder jihad, so it stands to reason that the terror groups will go to the United States, where they will be protected by liberals and the left, and especially democrat vote seekers as they figure out a way to murder hundreds and most likely thousands of innocent Americans.

    Perhaps I am being a bit over stated, but this psuedo pattern I am seeing is a worrysome affair at the very least. I take comfort in the fact that if I can see it, then hopefully those in charge of protecting us can see it too. I just hope they arent arrested for trying to figure out who is going to kill us next….or sued for a hate crime by liberal lawyers….ass as in ass…hat as in hat. Asshats.

33. nodems
    September 3rd, 2006 at 10:35 am

    People are refusing to get on the plane if they feel threatened….and some are even getting off planes where there were two men who seemed “suspicious.” This happened by some British citizens.

    When it was reported in the news, the comments on the article were in support of the potential terrorists! With people like those who commented and Liberals and the ACLU, they are going to get us killed!!!

34. mathews
    September 4th, 2006 at 12:02 am

    Update: Bush supporter James Vergauwen chases Sheehan out of Crawford and back to D.C. with sign reading “The Price of Freedom Is Not Free.”
    GIVE THE MAN A METAL and sincere thanks.
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s.....SECTION=US
    Bush Protesters Moving Operation to D.C.
    By ANGELA K. BROWN
    Associated Press Writer
    CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — About 100 war protesters ended a monthlong vigil near President Bush’s ranch with a rally on their campsite Saturday, and planned to move the demonstration close to the White House.

    “We wanted to try to build momentum and needed something to move the focus back to Washington,” said retired Army Col. Ann Wright, who resigned as a U.S. diplomat in 2003 to protest the war with Iraq.

    The two-week “Camp Democracy” demonstration starts Tuesday on the mall in Washington, centering on issues including the war, environment, health care and attention to Hurricane Katrina victims, organizers said.

    Cindy Sheehan, whose oldest son Casey died in Iraq in 2004, started the Crawford protest camp in early August on a 5-acre lot she bought in July. About 50 demonstrators have camped on the land, and a previous weekend’s cookout drew more than 100.

    Attendance was significantly lower than last summer’s protest, when more than 10,000 people streamed into Crawford over Sheehan’s 26-day vigil in ditches off the rural road leading to Bush’s ranch. But protesters said they were not disappointed.

    “I think behind everyone who’s here are dozens of people,” said Allie Light, 71, of San Francisco, who also attended last summer’s protest. “I feel the message has gone farther. There are more people she speaks for.”

    Bush supporter James Vergauwen sat in a convenience store parking lot in downtown Crawford on Saturday afternoon, under a tent with a sign reading “The Price of Freedom Is Not Free.”

    The Vietnam veteran from Windthorst, near the Oklahoma line, said he and his wife been staying in his RV in the parking lot the past few weeks to counter Sheehan’s protest. Tourists and other supporters stop by or sit with him and thank him, he said.
    “She has the right to say whatever she wants, and she does, but she doesn’t have the right to slander,” said Vergauwen, who added he was also supporting Bush in Crawford last summer.

    Sheehan, who had a hysterectomy last week, said Saturday that she was recovering and would not be able to attend the Washington protest.

35. SolitaryVoice
    March 20th, 2007 at 2:22 pm

    I think we should start calling Cindy Sheehan “Kenny Sheehan”. She looks more like a Kenny than a Cindy.

Leave a Reply

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.