A bigoted opinion piece with an inaccurate characterization of Muslim prayer ritual. Disappointing that the WSJ would publish this.

It is an opinion piece with loose facts used to support their conclusion.

This editorial might constitute good journalism if it was printed in a Hearst paper in 1899. Otherwise, it might be a good letter to the editor. Ms. Burlingame does not print any journalistic credentials in her colophon--rather, she shows herself to be a highly prejudiced partisan in fomenting anti-islamic hatred. Besides the usual frothing of hysterical frenzy, there is one major issue that causes this this editorial to grow yellow as piss: "Given that Islamic terrorists continue their obsession with turning airplanes into weapons of mass destruction..." has no basis in fact whatsoever--it is not a given. And I personally was within a few miles of the pentagon the day Flight 77 slammed into it, and I saw no such dramatic black ... More »

I learned something about this story from this article that I have not heard from any other source -- that the imams acted very suspicious and innapropriate once they boarded the plane. Because I haven't seen this elsewhere, I have to admit to some skepticism, but if true then I wholeheartedly agree with the WSJ in this case. For me, it comes down to this -- did the Imams deliberately try to trigger the 9/11 security protocals by a) Not taking their assigned seats, but instead arranging themselves the same way the 9/11 hijackers did, and b) all request belt buckle extensions and then put them under their seats. If so, shame on them. If not, shame on the WSJ for falsifying such important details.

In a bit of Limbaughesque hyperbole the WSJ not only "stirs the pot" as it were, they also fabricate to make a phobic point. "Given that Islamic terrorists continue their obsession with turning airplanes into weapons of mass destruction..." Given that no airplanes - other than those belonging to the United States - have run into buildings or caused death and destruction since 9/11 the WSJ has sufficiently violated all the canons of journalistic ethics with that bit of falsehood.

This editorial is spot on. The Imams were very provocative and the captain did the correct thing. Which is more important, the "civil rights' of these characters or the saftey of the rest of the pasangers? There have been other incidents by Islamic individuals acting in concert. Is Al Quaeda testing the limits of our new security measures?

An opinion piece should not excuse the writer from checking sources. The allegations made, and the portrayal of the Imams as terrorists getting ready to strike, are so sensational, that Homeland Security, the Government, and all pundits from coast to coast, would have made a feast of them, were they true. How come the Imams were being interviewed on "Democracy Now!" instead of being in jail pending investigation? I simply can't believe what the writer says, it's too improbable, and no proof is given. The manipulative use the writer makes of the prayer "Allahu Akbar" is racist and worthy of Goebbels. Does she think of murdering knights wiping out entire villages during the Crusades, every time she hears the prayer "Hail Mary"? ... More »

Shows clearly the bigoted bias of the WSJ.