« (DC) Power To The People! | Main | A Few Thoughts on the "Scott Thomas" Brouhaha »

Arab Princesses Removed from Airplane

They insisted that other passengers submit to their demands, which was segregated seating because they didn't want to sit next to men they didn't know. Well, they were thrown off the plane for creating such a ruckus:

Three Arab princesses were thrown off a packed British Airways flight after refusing to sit next to male passengers they didn't know.

The dispute - in which the three princesses from the ultra-conservative Qatar royal family demanded segregated seating - left the London-bound plane delayed on a baking Italian runway for nearly three hours.

Furious passengers whistled and clapped as the row intensified before the captain eventually ordered the women to be escorted off the plane.

The princesses, wearing traditional Arab dress, were returning from a day's shopping in Milan. They arrived at the city's Linate airport and boarded Heathrow-bound flight BA 563, which was due to take off at 4pm on Thursday.

The women, all relatives of the oil-rich emir of Qatar, Bader Bin Khalifa Al Thani, were booked into business class in a party of eight which included the emir and an entourage of cooks, servants and other staff.

After passengers had fastened their seat-belts and the plane had taxied on to the runway, two male passengers in the entourage got up to protest about where the women were sitting.

According to the customs of Qatar and other Gulf states, women are not allowed to mix with men who are not relatives.

Cabin crew tried to rearrange the seats but passengers travelling together refused to give up their allotted places. The captain tried to mediate but after more than two and a half hours of wrangling he ordered the bulk of their royal party off the plane.

So the captain actually spent two and a half ours on this matter? He should have thrown these women off much earlier than that. And I don't blame the passengers for refusing to move, simply on principle alone.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22969.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Arab Princesses Removed from Airplane:

Comments (42)

If they're relatives of the... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

If they're relatives of the Emir of Qatar, they should be able to afford to charter their own darned plane.

Ultimately, these people wi... (Below threshold)
LiberalNightmare:

Ultimately, these people will have to learn how to behave in civilized company if they intend to interact with the rest of the world.

Fly with the masses, that's... (Below threshold)

Fly with the masses, that's what you get.

Why would these people think for a moment that British Airways would have an obligation to ...

Oh never mind.

It's their oil, after all.

Had this happened on an Ame... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Had this happened on an American airline that pilots butt would have been taken to Gitmo. How dare we cross an Arab princess. We can't afford to have an Arab princesses or princes on our bad side. We want control of that oil one way or another.

The new way we are going to get it is quite novel. Now we've decided to kiss butt to the tune of 20 billion buillion of arms sales to Saudi Arabia while 40% of the imported insurgents in Iraq are from there. I would say our president and VP can now be marked as certifiably insane. Where were those hijackers from again?????

Not only would we be kissing the butts of the princesses if they wanted to be segregated but Dick and Bush are obviously kissing the butts of the princes of the royal family of Saudi Arabia as we speak.

No way could we write this kind of history without the help of the 30% deadenders who will find another way to support this madness once again.

I get it though. Really we want the surge to look so impressive that we will arm the enemy.

FOOLISH STUPID AMERICANOS.......more foolish by the minute.

Civil, I hope you are sitti... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Civil, I hope you are sitting down.

I, too, am not pleased with the way the Bush administration is kowtowing to the Saudis.

Unfortunately for you, the Dems would do no better, and probably worse. They also wanna kowtow to Iran, where many of the IEDs in Iraq come from, as well as lots of the terrorists.

We need someone who will get tough with the Saudis. None of the Dems will... time to look to a McCain or Giuliani or Fred.

Can we have nuclear power n... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Can we have nuclear power now?

Quick! Call the Italian ACL... (Below threshold)
marc:

Quick! Call the Italian ACLU!

civil [mis]behavior:

No way could we write this kind of history without the help of the 30% deadenders who will find another way to support this madness once again.

And Clinton: Since 1990, the U.S. government, through the Pentagon's arms export program, has arranged for the delivery of more than $39.6 billion in foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, and an additional $394 million worth of arms were delivered to the Saudi regime through the State Department's direct commercial sales program during that same period. (Foreign Military and Construction Sales and Direct Commercial Sales are recorded and published by the Dept. of Defense in Foreign Military Sales, Foreign Military Construction Sales and Military Assistance Facts; the most current online edition includes information through FY 1999.)

Had this happened ... (Below threshold)
Had this happened on an American airline that pilots butt would have been taken to Gitmo.

Will this never-ending barrage of out and out lies never end with you stupid libtards?

Your rights haven't been taken away by Bush, he's not throwing nay-sayers into some
internment camp and he's not plotting to stay in office and become emperor.

I realize you hate the man, but for crying out loud, at least deal with reality now and then.

Jim will now explain to us ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Jim will now explain to us that the British Airways pilot and the passengers just hate these Qatar's because they are muslims.

If they're relatives of ... (Below threshold)
Meezle:

If they're relatives of the Emir of Qatar, they should be able to afford to charter their own darned plane.

Well, at least they were trying to reduce their carbon footprints.

/sarc

Good one, Meezle!... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Good one, Meezle!

I commend the British on th... (Below threshold)
LAB:

I commend the British on their patience and manners. I've only been there a couple of times, but they really are a class act in matters hospitality. In this case, however, when there are many other people and a schedule to consider, two and a half hours of resolution time is absurd.

"Had this happened on an American airline that pilots butt would have been taken to Gitmo."

Silly and unreasonable statement.

Qatar, Isn't that one of th... (Below threshold)
scrapiron Author Profile Page:

Qatar, Isn't that one of the slime ball countries that put Millions of dollars in Slick Willie and the Weasel's bank account. Hey libtards, chew on that a while. That would explain how someone who came to D.C. broke ended up with $50 million + on a government salary, at least explain part of it. The rest we know came from a history of criminal activity, and payoff's for pardons. If congress wants to investigate I suggest they give this a quick look.

"Arab princesses kicked off... (Below threshold)
Susan:

"Arab princesses kicked off British Airways plane to jeers and whistles after refusing to sit next to male strangers"

Interestingly enough, that headline, both on Drudge and in the Daily Mail implies that it was the princesses who caused the ruckus, but if you actually read the article, they seem to have been perfectly content sitting next to strangers. It was the "...two male passengers in the entourage [who] got up to protest about where the women were sitting."

After a hard day's shopping in Milan, the ladies were probably glad just to sit down and relax for a while, when the menfolk started the ruckus. Not sure why the passengers felt it necessary to jeer at the women, though, when it seems to have been the men in the entourage who objected to the seating arrangements.

Whoever decided to bitch an... (Below threshold)

Whoever decided to bitch and moan about the situation (be it the women, or be it their "escorts") was completely out of line. They knew exactly what they were getting into when they booked a bloody business seat on a standard airline. Hell, these days, you can even pick out your seats before you step foot on the plane - why did they simply not bracket the women with the two men in the party, or put the women in two seats that were separated by an aisle, or some combination of the two?

Nope, instead, they had to be obnoxious, self-rightous prigs who believed that everyone else had to cow-tow to their beliefs, to the point of inconveniencing, delaying, and generally annoying everyone on the plane. A previous commenter was right - considering the nation these princesses are from, why on God's Green Earth are they not on their own little plane where they can sit next to whomever they so desire?

I am honestly disappointed in the pilot - taking half an hour to get a situation straightened out is one thing, and considering the customer is always right, I could completely understand that. But arguing with a batch of 8 customers, while holding up the other 100, for 2.5 hours? Come on. Get the whiny children off your bird, and it in the air.

Considering the Arab/Muslim... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Considering the Arab/Muslim status of women, it's a wonder they didn't insist that the women board the plane through a different door... like the one at the rear.

... if the men were that co... (Below threshold)
yo:

... if the men were that concerned, they should have made seating arrangements, or changes to such, prior to getting on the flight. It's not like they spring your seats on you as you board.

... meh ...

scrapiron:Qata... (Below threshold)
marc:

scrapiron:

Qatar, Isn't that one of the slime ball countries that put Millions of dollars in Slick Willie and the Weasel's bank account. Hey libtards, chew on that a while.

Sometimes you're mildly amusing. Other times, like with this comment, you're just being an ill informed ass.

First of all the UAE is the country (actually an Emirate) your are referring to, secondly Qatar as both a member of the GCC and served as the headquarters and one of the main launching sites of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In fact without their cooperation the drive into Bagdahad would not have been as successful as it was.

So next time think before you type. If that's at all possible.

civil behavior's posts are ... (Below threshold)

civil behavior's posts are much like a 15 car pile-up or a circus freak-show. You don't want to look, but morbid curiosity always has you reading to the last word. Thanks, CB, you never disappoint in that regard. Normally, I'd counter your dull, unimaginative, ignorant statements with facts and reason, but you're too far gone to get it.

I think Susan's right though. A soon as I read that the men were the one's who started the ruckus, I thought the title was very misleading. By the title, I expected to hear that the women stood up and protested the seating arrangements. The article goes on to say just the opposite.

Susan: The only thing I would add is that the passengers jeered at the whole entourage as they left the plane, not specifically the princesses.

I have to wonder if these people have ever flown on a commercial aircraft before and if so, have they ever protested the seating arrangements? Or was this just another staged event to cry foul and will the Muslim Council of Britain take CAIR's stance on this and sue?

Thank Allah the men didn't ... (Below threshold)

Thank Allah the men didn't insist on bringng onboard their goats.

Let's see, the saudi's keep... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Let's see, the saudi's keep us in oil so our country can run while CB's pal's prevent us from building Nuclear Power Plants and then CB and their pal's blame us for needing saudi's oil? Twisted logic.
The arab women cannot sit next to unknown men. They also cannot shame their husbands by causing a ruckus making the men look inferior. I can guarantee you the women were egging the men on. That the way it works in the backwater world of the Arabs. Oh yeah! Don't forget their religion of peace. If you do, they will kill you. ww

All the more reason to requ... (Below threshold)
LeeHoFook:

All the more reason to require every to eat a slice of bacon or sausage before boarding any plane.

Threats and problems will decrease 90%.

I put this in the same cate... (Below threshold)
Continuum:

I put this in the same category as throwing Paris Hilton's rear end back into jail.

Most Americans (and I imagine most other people) detest rich a$$holes who think that their money or position gives them special rights.

If I go to Saudi Arabia, I abide by their customs (mostly). If they come to ours then they need to do the same.

If this had happened in the... (Below threshold)

If this had happened in the USA, there would be a flying princesses suit against the airline, the pilot, and all those who jeered.

If they aren't allowed to g... (Below threshold)
Tim in PA:

If they aren't allowed to go around without "traditional dress" and "appropriate male escort", and if they can't site next to strangers... then what the fuck are they doing on an airplane, eh?

Bass-ackwards misogyny and modern western civilization don't mix too well.

To those who want to ascri... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

To those who want to ascribe inattention or ridicule to my statements about the princesses and my desire to bring focus to the real issues I will give you the pleasure of railing against me any time of the day or night.

This post like so many others that I find anymore here on Wizbang is the avoidance of the real issues that are affecting our daily lives. Kim writing about some silly princesses and their macho men causing grief for all others on a commercial flight is ridiculous. The evidence that Wizbang bloggers have resorted to tabloid news and rarely tackle the tough issues has become daily fare. Obviously since the real issues deal with obscene violations against our democracy it's no wonder your deliberate diversionary diatribes about princesses and the like abound.

I guess if I was a 30% deadenderand party loyalist unwilling to accept the destruction of America at the hands of these current white collar criminals I might avoid subject matter like the recent desire for appropriating and sending 20 Billion dollars to arm the enemy like the plague. Who cares about a few spoiled nobility except in relation to the antics of our own president and his princes.

You all deliberately deflect attention from the gorey details and dance around the need for honest evaluation of the facts since they are not as you'd like them to be.

I'd be the last one to defend the antics of previous admnistrations when pointed out to me or I read about them. It's one reason why I need for any one other than Hillary to be the next Dem candidate. I don't need more of the smae. Having the ability to read with the advent of internet communications I cannot deny the despicable and disaterous results of having criminals in our government, including acts from previous administrations. The difference between you and me is I live in the present and understand that what is happening now on top of what I now know happened in the past is at a level we have never experienced and will be much worse if we don't all begin to recognize the consequences of what is occuring in the present.

Argue all you want about the pea and the princess. I'm looking towards a few remaining logical solution to this strong progression towards a takeover of our democracy because it's not looking very promising.

Civil, you completely ignor... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Civil, you completely ignored my point. Not surprising, since it makes Hillary look bad.

Do you honestly, truly, think Hillary would stand up to the Saudis? To Iran?

What possible evidence do you have to support that conclusion, if that is what you believe?

I expect you to ignore this post as well, Civil... but that's OK. It's just more evidence of the kind of person you are.

The princesses, we... (Below threshold)
The princesses, wearing traditional Arab dress, were returning from a day's shopping in Milan.

What I want to know is, what were these pure daughters of Allah doing corrupting themselves in the sinful, infidel vanity-filled markets of Italy? If their panties are all in a wad because their Arabian customs are not being honored, then why aren't they at home, indoors, behind barriers, serving their husbands along with his other wives??

I ask you, what's this world coming to?

/sarc off

Do you honestly, t... (Below threshold)
Do you honestly, truly, think Hillary would stand up to the Saudis? To Iran?

Heh. How about Fox News? She can't even stand up to Chris Wallace. And she wants us to believe that she can go toe-to-toe with evil thugs such as Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadadinnerjacket?

Uh-huh.

Mahmoud Ahmadadinn... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:
Mahmoud Ahmadadinnerjacket

I like that! May I borrow it from time to time, Muse?

I'm looking toward... (Below threshold)
I'm looking towards a few remaining logical solution to this strong progression towards a takeover of our democracy because it's not looking very promising.

Then start your own weblog and write your own drivel there. Hijacking threads on other weblogs is considered impolite, and only shows that you are a self-centered, self-serving twit with a blown-up sense of self-importance.

Notice all of the "self"s in there? That would be the problem.

CCG,Let me repeat ... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

CCG,

Let me repeat for you since you seemed to miss it the frst time. I am not a Hillary backer. I am no longer even much of a Dem backer. If it turns out that neither candidate Democrat or Republican in 2008 has any semblance of my own vision of a way forward for the first time in decades I might consider not voting at all.

As for whether or not Hillary would stand against the Saudis or Iran I think she is almost as indebted to the military industrial complex as Dubya is. Thus, much of her already stated opinion is to continue to subsidize the agendas of our very own corporate henchmen. There is after all, the biggest resource grab in all of history going on and guaranteed the corporations are fixing to reap all benefits possible.

The difference is that if she decided to depart too far from a progressive initaitive toward bringing closure to the Middle East empire building her very own party would no longer support her, whereas as I have pointed out Dubya has his ever loyal goosies who refuse to expose him for his very worst transgressions.

Besides, anyone with a shred of knowledge about the Middle East realizes that this oil grab through military might has a distinct odor of more wealth and power for the few and all others are dispensable.

What you and way too many others fail to realize that the real threat against America is not that we will be attacked by a fundamentalist muslim fringe group. That is now a given. What you fail to understand is that it has been our actions in the past as well as a ramped up version of those same kinds of actions that are the emergency we are facing. It's not "geting tough" with other countries that has obviously backfired time and time again that is our solution. If you fail to realize that it is our OWN military industrial complex that is the provocation of our eventual demise I cannot help you.

The only real statesman who speak against the guns and butter are marginalized and dismissed. It is with that we go forward at our own peril.

As for the real issue I wanted to discuss it seems that providing 20 billion to Saudis in arms and an additional 30 billion to Israel is simply setting the stage for highly charged blowback. Personallly, I think someone is on some heavy drugs.

FOOLISH STUPID AMERICAN... (Below threshold)
Jo:

FOOLISH STUPID AMERICANOS.......more foolish by the minute

I agree with you there. And sometimes, unfortunately these foolish people make it to a voting booth and predictably vote for democrats. Mind boggling.

Okay, Civil, let's check a ... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Okay, Civil, let's check a few facts here.

1979: 52 Americans seized by Iranian Muslim terrorists. President Carter tried a poorly-thought-out rescue attempt, then sat on his hands and did nothing.

1983: US Embassy bombed in Beirut, Lebanon. President Reagan did nothing except move the Embassy.

1983: Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. Marines moved to new barracks,and were pulled out in 1984.

1993: World Trade Center bombed. President Clinton does nothing.

1996: Khobar Towers bombed. No military action taken.

1998: Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya bombed. Nothing done.

It is clear that our lack of response is what emboldened the terrorists to hit us on 9/11.

I like that! May I... (Below threshold)
I like that! May I borrow it from time to time, Muse?

I didn't invent it (Ahmadadinnerjacket), so I think it should be in the public domain!

CCGWhat is ... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:


CCG

What is clear is that the disasterous policies of past and current administrations which as I said have increased exponentially this last six years are policies that have reaped exactly what we have sown.

Case in point read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man or The Secret History of American Empire by John Perkins.

Here is a man who was as important to the process of covert foreign policy as CIA agents are, just a different approach. It is pretty clear where our country's leaders have taken us. Pretty clear the path they are blazing. It's all true and it's all there for learning about if you are courageous enough to read it.

It's all about blowback. And we've got plenty yet to receive. Keep supporting the occupation of Iraq and see where it gets us. How you can blindly support these criminals is beyond me.

Blowback from what i... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Blowback from what is my point, Civil.

We hadn't done a damned thing in response to these attacks until 2003.

And after 2003, not a single successful attack on American soil.

Stick your head in the sand all you want, you cannot change those basic facts. And all the conspiracy-theory books in the galaxy won't change them either.

I always think of the Scott... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

I always think of the Scottish Play when CB posts.

A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Yes, I think the Bard of Av... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Yes, I think the Bard of Avon had CB in mind when he penned that one.

"Blowback" is a favorite te... (Below threshold)

"Blowback" is a favorite term for people with no understanding of the status of terrorism in the world and especially against the United States. Al Queda's grievances against the west include the fact that the United States aided Kuwait against Iraq, that we dare oppose Sudan's genocidal acts, and even to such old grievances as Spain's reconquest of Andalusia from the Moorish occupation.

Al Queda's grievan... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:
Al Queda's grievances against the west include the fact that the United States aided Kuwait against Iraq, that we dare oppose Sudan's genocidal acts, and even to such old grievances as Spain's reconquest of Andalusia from the Moorish occupation.

Not to mention the unforgivable sin of being able to provide a better standard of living for our people... regardless of where they came from originally or what God they worship.

Another thought on the "blo... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Another thought on the "blowback" theory.

If "blowback" really does happen, why don't we have German and Japanese terrorists? We did a lot more damage to those countries and killed a lot more of their civilians than we ever have Arabs.

If "blowback" were true, we should be seeing Japanese folks blowing themselves up in shopping malls... Kamikaze, ya know. We should have Germans planting bombs by the roadside, too.

Did the Bush-controlled media just bury those stories, Civil?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy