Stupid Arab Diplomat released after making ShoeBomb joke on flight
 

BBC News - Qatari diplomat released after incident on US plane

Ping: SackAttack: Told ya so.

I hope they make Qatar pay for the cost of scrambling the jets, alert crews, etcetera. (and in my secret heart of hearts, I'm disappointed, as one of my key lines in life is "Stupidity should be painful" and it looks like this idiot is not going to feel any as a result.)

Mistake?

umm, no. It was arrogant, stupid and irresponsible. He is lucky there weren't any overzealous passengers on board who may have attempted to be a hero.

I would have whole heartedly supported any of the passengers if they felt the need to beat the living shit out of that guy.

So a joke like that in an airport terminal or on a plane from someone without diplomatic immunity is a felony, but from a diplomat from a pissant little Arab country, it's a mistake?

I get that they can't prosecute without a waiver from Qatar, but I really wish they would've at least PNG'ed him. And perhaps the rest of the Qatari diplomatic staff for good measure.

Let Qatar send a new set of diplomatic staff, but PNG'ing the existing staff ought would at least have sent some kind of message.

I think it's cool that he was in Denver to visit an Al Qaeda prisoner.

I can tell you first-hand that diplomatic immunity is abused left and right where I live, and I assume it's like that everywhere. Here in Hungary, I worked for a regional (ie East Central Europe) non-profit where even low level administrators have enjoyed tax-free lifestyles for more than a decade, laughing at their parking tickets, speeding around town with their diplomatic plates, skipping through customs lines. What a joke. But it's just like government pay-scales: if the people who make the rules are enjoying perks, there's no way in hell the rules will ever change.

You can't say bomb on an airplane!

Are you a pothead Focker?

What a dumbass. The sense of entitlement for some people amazes me.

However, what's the point of scrambling two fighter jets as an escort?

Probably to prevent the airplane from being used as something other than an airplane.

What we need now is more security measures so this won't happen in the future. Maybe create a new agency to screen me and ask me if I am planning on making any jokes on the plane.

I guess, but it seems a waste of resources given that the guy was under control and there was no real threat. I'm just not a big fan of security theatre.

This is automatic now, since you cannot guarantee what info you are getting from the plane until it lands and you board it.

As it should be...They should bill Qatar for the cost of their "mistake"

A friend of mine was flying back from Vancouver last year after working on a television show. The conversation at Customs went something like this:

Customs Agent: "What were you doing in Canada?"

Friend: "I shot a pilot."

Customs Agent: "Do you want to rethink your answer?"

Friend: "Umm...no."

Customs Agent: "Maybe there is another way you could describe what you were doing?"

**lightbulb goes off**

Friend: "Oh...I helped film a television show."

I wonder if I'm the only person who figures the guy most likely just picked a clothing part to say he was burning & didn't even think about any possible connection to shoes & shoe bombers? He could just as easily have said "I was burning my tie" instead.

When I'm leaning toward the benefit of the doubt to a guy who was apparently headed to visit a terrorist we've got in custody, well, any time I represent the voice of reason the situation is probably FUBAR.

wasn't he trying to smoke in the bathroom? that's what i heard...

I just don't see that as an effective response. It looks good, but I don't think it accomplishes much of anything. For me it's in the same league as 3.4 oz fluids and no nail clippers.

I thought he was smoking in the bathroom, not just trying, but either way that's what makes his response make sense to me. Someone says "sir, what were you doing in the bathroom, what's that burning smell" and being flippant (knowing they can't touch him because of immunity) he says something like, "Oh that smell? I was trying to burn my shoes". Even makes sense to me, what would be the worst smelling article of clothing if you burned it? Most likely the shoes, because of the leather/rubber/etc they're made of.

oh okay...he was smoking in the bathroom...gotcha

i guess that kinda makes sense Jon. I mean it really does make a lot of sense.

Why not? If it turns out something is happening, the cockpit gets a warning off, then tries to say everything is under control, how do you believe them? Keep in mind the risk here is another 3000+ dead when they ram another skyscraper.

And what's the cost? If it turns out to be nothing, the pilots still got some good training out of it for when it is real and they do need to shoot down an airliner.

As a result, it's the default response as soon as something amiss happens on an airliner, because by the time you know for sure, you may have a burning hole in the ground. It doesn't hurt anything, and it may well be a HUGE help when really needed.

That's all I could think of when I read it.

I can only hope and assume this is satire otherwise somebody has been listening to Rudy Giuliani speak one too many times. So either bravo or :eek: .

Seriously? Exactly how do YOU want to handle a problem with a plane in the air? The only thing we've got is scrambling fighter planes, and given that the pilots can use the flight time anyway, what is the issue with this?

It never ceases to amaze me how many people on here don't realise how much the world changed with 9/11. Or how much it already changed, but that managed to drive home the point. Next time it's going to take a nuke in a city to wake people up again at this rate...

I will answer three different ways...

1. Doomsday answer: Let's suppose he was in the bathroom trying to light his shoes on fire to blow up the plane. So his objective is to try to blow up the plane? How does scrambling fighter jets to blow up the plane help with this problem? Besides making you somehow feel safer this doesn't really make any sense. The school I teach at suspends kids for skipping school, again how does this address the problem or prevent it from happening again in the future? I would welcome another answer but the fighter jet answer doesn't really address the issue at hand at all. And you did respond to JPhillips talking about nail clippers and mini shampoos. Would love to hear how this zero tolerance strategy is going... No 9-11 like attacks? How many were there before 9-11?

2. Realistically: This shit costs money. Not even getting into wars and politics just the security, just the cost of the TSA and homeland security. Someone has to pay for it. (In both ticket fees, lost airline jobs, lost productivity) I think it is an incredibly expensive facade.

3. Honestly I think this is one of those things like abortion, health care, lesbian proms, etc. I don't see either of us changing each other's opinion. I freely welcome a discussion but am skeptical that we both haven't already made up our minds. If you want to know what my solution would be... quit meddling in the Middle East and the fuckers won't want to come blow themselves and us up. I am sure energy prices would go up but that would be the cost of security that seems more sensible than what we have now.

You're missing the point entirely. The people on the ground don't know what really is going on in that plane. Just because the pilot states that the guy was trying to blow up the plane with his shoes, doesn't mean its true. A person will say anything if he's got a gun to his head, and the lives of hundreds of passengers in his hands. Or maybe the bomb gives off some kind of gas that disables everyone on the plane, unless they are wearing a gas mask. You just don't know.

I always assumed that there are fighter jets constantly flying around over our airways just in case another 9/11 occurs. If these guys are up in the air anyway, and something like this happens where there may be ven the slightest chance of danger, why not have them escort the plane until it lands safely? We are paying for the salaries and the planes and the fuel when they are doing manuevers anyway, so what do you have to lose by being extra cautious?

panerd your solution is akin to ignoring a difficult situation because it's too inconvenient to keep a handle on. Whether it's important or not is irrelevant because it's too much trouble to be effective. Parenting is a lot like that too. Sometimes you spend hours on the little stuff and it doesn't seem worth it at all. But if you don't do it, or give up, the magnitude of your failure, by quitting, becomes even more apparent.

IMO, jets are scrambled to provide first hand information to the people who make the hard decisions. The can see what's happening. Pilots inside the jet can also communicate with fighters to see the condition of the airliner if something has happened. An extra set of eyes outside can really give you a better feel when you can't see it all from up front. Fighters scrambled on 9/11 could have made a significant impact. The shoot-down option is always there, but hard to get to.

The cost of scrambling 2 fighters jets to intercept a jet is pretty small as a function of the amount of money that the military spends on aviation fuel and airplane maintenance. The idea that "we keep a police force that patrols, but if something actually happens it's not worth it to send them out" doesn't really make any sense.

Its kind of like when you accidently call 911, and then tell the dispatcher "I'm sorry I didn't mean to call. Everything is fine." They still send out a police officer just in case.

Thread winner!

This. The Air Force runs regular training flights anyway, and these make good training. This is all aside from the TSA, I doubt that having to scramble fighter jets once a month or so is going to add anything to the Air Force's budget, as those pilots / planes would have been flying anyway.

And you just have no idea what is actually going on, so you send the planes along in case it all goes to pot and you need to save folks on the ground.

So it's no extra money, provides a training service to pilots, and may possibly save a life (or a thousand) on the ground. Really, where is the con in all this?

The TSA we can have a whole separate discussion on, I doubt it's at all effective, costs a ton of money, and (along with airline behavior) has all but guaranteed I'll never get on a plane again.