Furthermore, they contend Petruna wasn't on the plane (he was originally scheduled to be on that flight, but they say his connecting flight was late - typical). Petruna evidently isn't giving interviews, but Chaplain Dr. Keith Robinson is giving dozens and has personally responded to emails from NER confirming his story.  NER is also in possession of an email from another passenger confirming the story. Here is the AirTran rebuttal (in bold) to the original Petruna email (in italics):

I was in first class coming home. Eleven muslim men got on the plane in full attire. Two sat in first class and the rest peppered themselves throughout the plane all the way to the back.

The full party was 13 individuals. Their religion is not known to anyone at AirTran. The individuals in this party proceeded to their seats throughout the aircraft and were dressed like any other passenger.

As the plane taxied to the runway, the stewardesses gave the safety spiel we are all so familiar with. At that time, one of the men got on his cell and called one of his companions in the back and proceeded to talk on the phone in Arabic very loudly and very aggressively. This took the first stewardess out of the picture for she repeatedly told the man that cell phones were not permitted at the time. He ignored her as if she wasn't there.

There have been no reports of any individual phoning any other individual on the flight. Furthermore it would be extremely difficult to know who someone is calling. If they are calling someone in the back of the plane, the person listening in on this conversation would not be able to hear the person in the back of the plane nor know where the call was going to.

The second man who answered the phone did the same and this took out the second stewardess. In the back of the plane at this time, 2 younger muslims, one in the back aisle, and one in front of him, window, began to show footage of a porno they had taped the night before, and were very loud about it.

It would be impossible to know what people were allegedly watching or whom they were speaking with in the back of the plane from Business Class. Furthermore, how would anyone know what was on this alleged videotape or when it was made?

Now, they are only permitted to do this prior to Jihad. If a Muslim man goes into a strip club, he has to view the woman via mirror with his back to her (don't ask me, I don't make the rules, but I've studied). The third stewardess informed them that they were not to have electronic devices on at this time. To which one of the men said, "Shut up, infidel dog!" She went to take the camcorder and he began to scream in her face in Arabic.

While the flight attendants did ask an individual to discontinue the use of portable electronic devices, there are no reports of screaming or shouting insults to our Crew Members.

At that exact moment, all 11 of them got up and started to walk to the cabin. This is where I had had enough! I got up and started to the back where I heard a voice behind me from another Texan twice my size say, "I got your back." I grabbed the man who had been on the phone by the arm and said, "you WILL go sit down or you Will be thrown from this plane!"

There are no reports of any passenger standing up in a threatening manner. At NO time was there any physical altercation between passengers. Upon returning to the gate, the individual on the phone and his party were asked to de-plane and did so in full compliance of Crew Members' instructions.

As I led him around me to take his seat, the fellow Texan grabbed him by the back of his neck and his waist and headed out with him. I then grabbed the second man and said, "You WILL do the same!"

This is simply untrue. At NO time was there any physical altercation between passengers.

He protested but adrenaline was flowing now and he was going to go. As I escorted him forward, the plane doors open and 3 TSA agents and 4 police officers entered.

At no time did any law enforcement or Transportation Security Administration (TSA) official enter the aircraft. Two TSA inspectors came to the gate to assess the situation and spoke with the individual involved and his party.

Me and my new Texan friend were told to cease and desist for they had this under control. I was happy to oblige actually. There was some commotion in the back, but within moments, all 11 were escorted off the plane. They then unloaded their luggage.

The entire party complied fully with Crew Members' instructions to exit the aircraft in order to ascertain the situation. Their bags were not removed at any time.

We talked about the occurrence and were in disbelief that it had happened, when suddenly, the door opened again and on walked all eleven!!

After determining none of the individuals posed a security threat to the aircraft, the party was allowed to re-plane.

Stone faced, eyes front and robotic (the only way I can describe it). The stewardess from the back had been in tears and when she saw this, she was having NONE of it! Being that I was up front, I heard and saw the whole ordeal. She told the TSA agent there was NO WAY she was staying on the plane with these men.

There was no TSA or law enforcement agent ever on the plane.

The agent told her they had searched them and were going to go through their luggage with a fine tooth comb and that they were allowed to proceed to Houston.

There was no TSA agent on the plane and there was no additional screening of anyone's bags.

The captain and co-captain came out and told the agent, "we and our crew will not fly this plane!" After a word or two, the entire crew, luggage in tow, left the plane. Five minutes later, the cabin door opened again and a whole new crew walked on.

The crews were swapped. This is a common occurrence in the aviation industry for any number of reasons. If a Crew Member cannot or will not continue a flight, we must replace that Crew Member.

Again, this is where I had had enough!! I got up and asked, "What the hell is going on?" I was told to take my seat. They were sorry for the delay and I would be home shortly. I said, "I'm getting off this plane." The stewardess sternly told me that she could not allow me to get off.

Now I'm mad! I said, "I am a grown man who bought this ticket, who's time is mine with a family at home and I am going through that door, or I'm going through that door with you under my arm!! But I am going through that door!!"

At no time did any AirTran Crew Member refuse to allow a passenger off the plane. Had any passenger threatened a Crew Member, we would have taken appropriate action, including contacting law enforcement.

And I heard a voice behind me say, "So am I." Then everyone behind us started to get up and say the same. Within 2 minutes, I was walking off that plane where I was met with more agents who asked me to write a statement. I had 5 hours to kill at this point so why the hell not. Due to the amount of people who got off that flight, it was cancelled. I was supposed to be in Houston at 6pm. I got here at 12:30am.

After offering all passengers the opportunity to de-plane the aircraft, 12 individuals decided to not take this flight and opted to be re-booked. AirTran officials did not request any passenger to complete an official statement.

The flight was not cancelled and did continue to Houston-Hobby.

Look up the date. Flight 297, Atlanta to Houston.

The flight was not cancelled and did continue to Houston-Hobby.

If this wasn't a dry run, I don't know what one is. They wanted to see how TSA would handle it, how the crew would handle it, and how the passengers would handle it.
I'm telling this to you because I want you to know. The threat is real. I saw it with my own eyes.

The flight was not cancelled and did continue to Houston-Hobby.
 

The TSA determined this was a customer service issue. The party continued on the flight to Houston-Hobby that evening without further incident.

Though several points made in Petruna's email are given variation by others on that flight and there are discrepancies. This is to be expected from eyewitness accounts. AirTran is obviously trying to avoid lawsuits that may originate from either the Muslim passengers involved (now unlikely) or the other passengers (possible). The airlines says they did not re-check the men's bags. Did they re-check their carry-ons? How would they know they didn't leave something on-board? Shouldn't they have gone through the plane with sniffer dogs or something before allowing that plane to take off?  Was AirTran negligent of the other passengers' safety because they were trying to avoid a lawsuit by the troublemakers?

Secondly, AirTran was involved in an incident last January in which a large Muslim family (nine people) was removed from a flight due to passenger fears after they were overheard discussing the safest place to sit were a bomb on board. The airline apologized and probably paid an out-of-court settlement. Was AirTran targetted because of this earlier incident?

And not in the usual way. Rod Liddle in The Spectator:

[W]e have the BBC’s reaction to the referendum in which 57 per cent of Swiss people voted to ban the building of any more minarets in their country. This was, according to someone called Roger Hardy, the corporation’s ‘Islamic Affairs Analyst’ an example of European ‘Islamophobia’ and sent a signal to Switzerland’s Muslims that they simply were not wanted in the country. Swiss People Racist and Wrong, his neutral and objective article could have been entitled. Rog recently contributed towards a blog in which he denied that the almost complete and utter lack of democracy in Islamic states was anything to do with them being, uh, Islamic states. Just coincidence, then.

If anything, the Swiss vote was a riposte not to Switzerland’s Muslim population (which is a ‘small’ 320,000, according to Rog), but a riposte to Rog himself, or the many berks like him. In the last ten years the people of Europe have begun to revolt against what, at one extreme, they see as the ‘Islamification’ of their countries, or else they hold the more moderate position of being disquieted by the high number of Muslim immigrants they have been forced to receive, most of whom are antithetical to the indigenous way of life and have cultural values that do not accord with the resident majority. That they are told to shut up and stop being racist and Islamophobic by the EU, their own leftish politicians and the likes of Rog and Angus, only tends to inflame the rebellion.

The revolts have differed in their temperament, tenor and choice of target. The earliest and most ferocious occurred in Holland, where the talented and popular filmmaker Theo van Gogh, a descendant of the painter, was shot dead by a Muslim nutter who then attempted to decapitate his victim and affixed a note, containing one of those vainglorious adolescent rants with which you will be familiar from pre-suicide videos, to his chest with a knife. The population, already unhappy, decided it had had quite enough and started voting for Pim Fortuyn en masse and, indeed, for the likes of Geert Wilders. It came as a surprise to commentators over here — and presumably Rog and Angus — that Europe’s most liberal country could be the most antithetical to Islam. A fabulous misapprehension: Holland was the most antithetical to Islam because it was the most liberal. Its people looked at the corpse of van Gogh and saw what Islam could be like. ‘Education by death’ is how one liberal Dutch commentator wryly described it to me.

The protests in Denmark coalesced around those now famous cartoons of Mohammed — the furore over which was reported over here, although only two publications in Britain dared to test the Islamists’ medieval limits of freedom of speech with published cartoons of their own (Gair Rhydd, a student paper from Cardiff, and The Spectator. Private Eye? Nah, not a chance.) In France they moved to ban the burka, a concession to public disquiet and antagonism. In Belgium they began to worry about Eurabia, a crescent of towns and cities from Metz and Lille in the south through Zeebrugge and Antwerp to Rotterdam and Aarhus in the north where the Muslim populations had already reached 30 per cent or above. The irritation and sometimes fury spread: Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain and now Switzerland. Across Europe, opposition to Muslim immigration runs at a steady 60 to 65 per cent; the people of the Continent didn’t want the immigration in the first place, are not happy with the way in which the incomers have failed to integrate and do not want any more, regardless of what Rog, Angus and their political leaders might choose to think or how often they, the general public, might be written off as Islamophobic. In his recent study of Islamic immigration into Europe (Reflections on the Revolution in Europe), Christopher Caldwell wrote: ‘If Europe is getting more immigrants than its voters want, then it is a good indication that its democracy is malfunctioning.’ Precisely.

Banning minarets is, on the face of it, a fabulously inept and crude means of expressing disquiet about a growing alien minority within one’s country, rather like the Malaysian fundamentalist Islamists PAS banning McDonald’s and KFC from the state of Kelantan because they do not much care for America. It does not really get to the heart of the problem, any more than does the suggested banning of the burka in France, or Jack Straw moaning about Muslim women attending his surgery while covered from head to toe in hessian sacking. In all of these cases it is of course symbolic, a crie de cœur — and in the case of the Swiss, the only course of action which was allowed to them under the law. Nobody should be remotely surprised at the result of the poll. The Turkish government has whined about it, as you might expect (but then try building a Christian church anywhere east of Istanbul and see how far you get).

Bankers are not the most popular people at the moment. Nevertheless, the City of London is a major contributor to our economy - all those leftists and arty types would be the first to complain if their theatre or library had to close because there was no tax revenue to support it - and it is not surprising, therefore, that the thieving Eurocrats want to clobber it. The French, in particular, are waging a war through Brussels. From The Spectator:

Boris has his head screwed on. City bankers earn huge sums, but they work punishing hours and take risks. Eurocrats, who "earn" comporable amounts, simply leech off the taxpayer, particularly the British taxpayer. Is it really in their interest to kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

Andrew Gilligan in The Spectator:

The main evidence that Mr Balls [our aptly named Schools Secretary] has made a massive blunder is a chapter in a Hizb ut Tahrir pamphlet, ‘Education and Identity’, written by one Farah Ahmed. Mrs Ahmed is the head teacher of one of the two schools, and also a trustee of the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation (ISF), which runs them both. If I were a Muslim parent, I would not let my child within 20 miles of her.

In her chapter ‘The Western Education System and the British National Curriculum’, Mrs Ahmed attacks the religious studies elements of the national curriculum for ‘primarily push[ing] ...the idea of “religious tolerance”.’ This, she says, ‘further aids distancing the Muslim child from the concept of Islam being the only reference point.’

She criticises the curriculum’s ‘systematic indoctrination’ of Muslim children ‘to build model British citizens’ and to ‘integrate all individuals into the fabric of secular society and develop them as personalities who uphold the values adopted by the society around them’.

‘Naturally,’ she says, ‘such a system [secular capitalism] will not be suitable to the needs of Muslim students as the aqeedah [belief system] of the Muslim is in complete contradiction to this.’

She decries ‘attempts to integrate Muslim children’ into British society as an effort ‘to produce new generations that reject Islam’. She describes English as ‘one of the most damaging subjects’ a school can teach and attacks fairy tales, saying these ‘reflect secular and immoral beliefs that contradict the viewpoint of Islam’.

Mrs Ahmed attacks the ‘obvious dangers’ of Shakespeare, including ‘Romeo and Juliet, which advocates disobeying parents and premarital relations’ and ‘Macbeth, which questions the concepts of fate and destiny’. She describes democracy as a ‘corrupt tradition’, and Western education as ‘a threat to our beliefs and values’.

In another chapter, co-authored with Hizb ut Tahrir’s women’s spokesman, Dr Nazreen Nawaz, Mrs Ahmed goes into great detail about how the education system would work in Hizb’s ‘caliphate’, the global Islamic superstate that is the party’s ultimate goal. (By extraordinary coincidence, some of the same themes are found in the ISF schools’ own curriculum document.)

‘Any topic or subject that emanates from a culture or viewpoint of life that differs from the Islamic aqeedah should not be taught at any level,’ continues this chapter. ‘Subjects such as ... foreign history, foreign languages and foreign literature should be taught only at the higher level of education with the view of refuting their ideas and exposing their falsehood.’

Accusing the Tories of ‘smearing’ Mrs Ahmed’s school, Mr Balls wrote earlier this week: ‘Parents are being told that “fanatics” are teaching their children — presenting a propaganda victory for extremists on the Muslim community and racist organisations on the far-right.’

But Mrs Ahmed’s words are those of a fanatic: a publicly funded fanatic; a fanatic in charge of more than 100 impressionable children; and a fanatic newly strengthened by her endorsement from Gordon Brown’s right hand.

I disagree. Those are not the words of a fanatic, but of a true follower of Islam. The examples of British decadence that she picks - Shakespeare, foreign languages, history and literature - are telling. Islam, we are told by Muslims and their apologists, is an alternative to the binge-drinking, sluttish, "reality"-TV-driven culture of modern Britain. In fact, Islam is as hostile to the convent as to the brothel - more so, when you think of Muta, or "temporary marriage", which is prostitution by any other name. Islam is as hostile to Shakespeare as it is to Girls Aloud, and threatens the sober-clad violinist playing at the Albert Hall as much as the "dancing slag" in the night club.

"Do you have a mental health problem," asks Laura Deely, in a Times column headed by this picture:

I can't speak for myself, but I think Ms Deely does - she has chocolate on the brain.

Some might say the war in drugs in general is a lost cause and that all effort spent trying to stop drugs from being distributed and consumed by Americans is a colosal waste of time, taxpayer's money and lives - especially those of police officers who have been killed in this ultimately futile pursuit.

Of course there are different arguments against different drugs because of the varying level of danger attributed to each. The arguments for maintaining the prohibition against marijuana are certainly the weakest and originate more in rationalization (the "gateway" drug) than reason.

Marijuana has proven to be one of the least harmful drugs known to man. It is a plant that is simply cultivated, the buds dried and trimmed, sometimes it is aged, and then smoked. Though all smoke effects the lungs, because modern strains of marijuana are stronger than that smoked in Marilynn Monroe's day, must less smoke is now inhaled. There are also tinctures available that allow one to bypass smoking altogether. It is worth repeating that no one in all of history has ever died from an overdose of marijuana. See here for the death rates from marijuana (including as a suspected contributing factor) 1997-2005 vs. death rates from 17 other FDA approved drugs. (Deaths directly attributed to marijuana - 0, Viagra - 2, 254)

It is good to see the government is beginning to respond to the will of the people and is backing off prosecution of medical marijuana in states where it is allowed. The beneficial uses of marijuana, including as therapy for alcoholism, are just now beginning to be explored as more states follow the lead of California, Alaska, Oregon and Colorado. Currently 13 states have already legalized medical marijuana and 2 more, Alabama and Maryland have laws favorable to medical marijuana, but have not totally legalized its use. 15 more states have laws pending which, if passed, would legalize the use of marijuana as medicine.

The marijuana wars may not be over, but the tide is definitely turning in favor of the plant. Were it not for the sheer cowardliness of our elected officials, who are as afraid to be labeled "soft on drugs" as they are of being labeled "Islamophobes," marijuana would probably have been legalized years ago. As it is, the next twenty years will probably see the gradual repeal of the marijuana prohibition in America.

Honesty has many enemies, and sentimentality is one of them. It has invaded our courts.

In the trial of the Liverpool and England footballer Steven Gerrard, the Scottish ex-footballer and ex-manager Kenny Dalglish testified that the accused was a humble man who had remained true to his roots. Well, Uriah Heep was humble, and the Kray twins were true to their roots, so even as a character reference this was of doubtful value. But the question in any case was not what kind of man Gerrard was, but whether he had attacked someone without lawful excuse. We can only hope that his humility and truth to his roots had nothing to do with his acquittal.

Judges at murder trials are now required to sit through victim impact statements by a close relative or friend of the murdered man or woman, and then, as they are specifically enjoined to do, ignore it altogether in their sentencing. It must be an exquisite torture to them, for two reasons: first, it is precisely the purpose of the law to remove highly emotional considerations from the administration of justice, and second, the inevitable emotional kitschiness of the statements themselves.

They invariably involve eulogies of the deceased: his lovely smile, his infectious laugh, his long eyelashes etc. They are very similar in this respect to the self-descriptions of people in the personal columns of newspapers or on internet dating sites. No doubt this is inevitable: the genre itself, which should not exist, calls it forth.

This official promotion of sentimentality — a sop to a public so ill-served by the criminal justice system — serves to obscure an important elementary truth about murder: that it is not heinous because it extinguishes a lovely smile or a playful sense of humour etc, but because it is the unlawful killing of someone. It is not permissible to kill the humourless and unsmiling ugly whom no one will miss.

Our policemen now go in for this sentimentality too, at least in their public pronouncements (in private, they are more robust). They pay nauseating, unctuous tribute to the victim of murder, as if he fell in devotion to a cause, or they say that such and such was a senseless murder, as if there were sensible ones of people who deserved it. Sometimes, they say that a murder took place in the course of a robbery that went tragically wrong — instead, presumably, of going happily right.

They seem like the mother of a youth who had just been convicted for the 250th time (meaning, if he were averagely competent at evading the police, his 5,000th offence). Interviewed on the radio, she said, "He's a good boy, really."

(Originally posted at Standpoint)

h/t: Debbie Schussel and thanks to Dorrie O'Brien. Dr. Robinson's account in pdf form is here.

Radio Talk Show Host Steve Gill Interviews AirTran Flight 297 Passenger Chaplain Dr. Keith A. Robinson:

Steve Gill “. . .Middle Eastern men that were on the plane and that, as they had pulled back from the jetway to taxi to the airport or to the runway. . .that uh, he said two had gotten up and were taking pictures with their cell phones of the other passengers on-in that area. This is while the plane is taxi-ing on the runway. That’s what he said, yes.

Ok, hang on. We are going to talk more. Keith Robinson was there. He’s
relating more of what happened on Flight 297. Air Tran says oh, no. Nothing happened. It was just a misunderstanding. One guy just didn’t shut off his cell phone. Keith Robinson was there, he’s going to give us more of the scoop that the main stream media seems to be ignoring. Well, maybe some of them are starting to catch on. We’ll follow up with Keith Robinson with more on the Steve Gill Show in just a moment.

Continue reading here.

Listen here.

Now that Geert Wilders has been summoned to appear and to defend himself in court for the "crime" pointing out the hate speech and the evident actions on that speech rampant in the Muslim world and rapidly spreading throughout the Western workd as well, we thought it appropriate to remind our readers there are others who defend common sense, even in the halls of the United Nations. Below are two speeches delivered by David Littman to the UN Human Rights Council on Oct. 27, 2009.

 

And another speech delivered on the same day: