Trouble-maker Raed Jarrar has hit the jackpot.
U.S. resident Raed Jarrar was boarding a JetBlue flight from New York to Oakland, California, when he was told to remove his shirt, which had Arabic writing on it. Below the Arabic and written in English: "We will not be silent." He was told other passengers felt uncomfortable, but of course this meant nothing to him.
Why would you try to board an airplane wearing something that disturbs people or makes them afraid? If you really didn't know, when approached about it why wouldn't you politely and quickly turn the shirt inside out or put something else on, instead of making a big stink? Why would you disturb people and cause trouble?
The ACLU was happy to file a lawsuit.
240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt
Payout for Arabic shirt passenger
An air passenger forced to cover his T-shirt because it displayed Arabic script has been awarded a payout of $240,000 (£163,000), his lawyers say.
JetBlue, TSA Officials Pay $240G in Damages Over Arab T-Shirt Flap
Jarrar was approached by security officials who told him to remove his T-shirt with the words "We will not be silent" as he waited near the front of a JetBlue flight at JFK Airport because it apparently made other passengers feel uncomfortable.
Jarrar, a U.S. resident, eventually agreed to cover his shirt with one provided by the airline and was subsequently allowed aboard the aircraft, the AFP reported. His seat, however, was changed from the front to the back of the jet.
From the ACLU: TSA Officials and JetBlue Deliver Settlement in Discrimination Lawsuit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Raed Jarrar
The shirt does appear a bit ominous or menacing. It seems meant to be cautionary or even intimidatory.
"We will not be silent". Who is "we"? Since the shirt features Arabic writing presumably it means Arabs. What will Arabs not be silent about?The U.S. is currently at war in two Arab countries, has been attacked by Arab terrorists, has STOPPED MANY ATTACKS by Arab terrorists, and is constantly being threatened by Arab terrorists.
But at the end of the day, the buffoon Jarrar got the attention he wanted and even some cash. But he will undoubtedly continue his two-faced advocating for pro-terrorist ideas in the Middle East.
You have only to read Jarrar's blog to see that he is interested in criticizing the U.S. and U.S. leadership. He is against the Iraq war, and for several years has advocated the complete withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq - so leaving Iraqis at the mercy of criminals and extremists seems like a good idea to him. He seems to be against the new Iraqi government, so does an overthrow by radicals, a failed state where terrorists can thrive, seem like a good idea to him? He has constantly advocated "leaving Iraq to Iraqis". Why is he not as critical of acts of terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere as he is the U.S.?
Raed's motivations are questionable at best.
Raed closed the comment section of his blog because his propaganda and anti-Americanism were being challenged. And it was becoming clear that those who agreed with him were Islamists, America-haters, and hard-leftists. He claimed he closed his comments because he was afraid of being held legally responsible for what was written by other people in the comments, he even mentioned fearing the U.S. government and being sent to Guantanamo which is just silly. Interestly, his comments were closed a short time after I myself made a comment questioning the purpose of having a PayPal account for donations on the blog.
Raed and his girlfriend Niki, who also blogs, are both very anti-Israel.
RAED'S AMUSING SPECULATION
I wonder if Raed still thinks that U.S. forces blew up the al-Askari shrine?
Is he really just a poor misguided fool, or something more sinister?