A Muslim family removed from an airliner Thursday after passengers became concerned about their conversation say AirTran officials refused to rebook them, even after FBI investigators cleared them of wrongdoing. Atif Irfan said federal authorities removed eight members of his extended family and a friend after passengers heard them discussing the safest place to sit and misconstrued the nature of the conversation.


Irfan, a U.S. citizen and tax attorney, said he was "impressed with the professionalism" of the FBI agents who questioned him, but said he felt mistreated when the airline refused to book the family for a later flight. AirTran Airways late Thursday said they acted properly and that the family was offered full refunds and can fly with AirTran again. "AirTran Airways complied with all TSA, law enforcement and Homeland Security directives and had no discretion in the matter," the company said in a prepared statement.

Family members said FBI agents tried to work it out with the airline, but to no avail. "The FBI agents actually cleared our names," said Inayet Sahin, Irfan's sister-in-law. "They went on our behalf and spoke to the airlines and said, 'There is no suspicious activity here. They are clear. Please let them get on a flight so they can go on their vacation,' and they still refused." "The airline told us that we can't fly their airline," Irfan said.

The dispute occurred about 1 p.m. Thursday as AirTran flight 175 was preparing for takeoff from Reagan National Airport outside of Washington, D.C., on a flight destined for Orlando, Florida. Atif Irfan, his brother, their wives, a sister and three children were headed to Orlando to meet with family and attend a religious conference.

"The conversation, as we were walking through the plane trying to find our seats, was just about where the safest place in an airplane is," Sahin said. "We were (discussing whether it was safest to sit near) the wing, or the engine or the back or the front, but that's it. We didn't say anything else that would raise any suspicion." The conversation did not contain the words "bomb," "explosion," "terror" or other words that might have aroused suspicion, Irfan said.

"When we were talking, when we turned around, I noticed a couple of girls kind of snapped their heads," said Sobia Ijaz, Irfan's wife. "I kind of thought to myself, 'Oh, you know, maybe they're going to say something.' It didn't occur to me that they were going to make it such a big issue." Some time later, while the plane was still at the gate, an FBI agent boarded the plane and asked Irfan and his wife to leave the plane. The rest of the family was removed 15 or 20 minutes later, along with a family friend, Abdul Aziz, a Library of Congress attorney and family friend who was coincidentally taking the same flight and had been seen talking to the family.After the FBI interviewed family members, it released them, Irfan said.

AirTran spokesman Tad Hutcheson said the incident began when some passengers reported hearing suspicious remarks by a woman and alerted flight attendants. Two Federal Air Marshals, who were on board the flight, notified law enforcement about the security-related issue, AirTran said. After the family and Aziz were taken for questioning, the remaining 95 passengers were taken off of the plane and rescreened, along with the crew and the baggage, AirTran said. Irfan said he believes his family is owed an apology. "Really, at the end of the day, we're not out here looking for money. I'm an attorney. I know how the court system works. We're basically looking for someone to say,  'We're apologizing for treating you as second-class citizens.'"

"We are proud Americans," Sahin said. "You know we decided to have our children and raise them here. We can very easily go anywhere we want in the world, but you know we love it here and we're not going to go away, no matter what."
Aziz said there is a "very strong possibility" he will pursue a civil rights lawsuit. "I guess it's just a situation of guilt by association," Aziz said. "They see one Muslim talking to another Muslim and they automatically assume something wrong is going on."

http://news.aol.com/article/muslim-family-kicked-off-plane/291630

The Wrong doing of a few should not be used to judge others.

"The conversation, as we were walking through the plane trying to find our seats, was just about where the safest place in an airplane is," Sahin said. "We were (discussing whether it was safest to sit near) the wing, or the engine or the back or the front, but that's it. We didn't say anything else that would raise any suspicion." The conversation did not contain the words "bomb," "explosion," "terror" or other words that might have aroused suspicion, Irfan said. "I guess it's just a situation of guilt by association," Aziz said. "They see one Muslim talking to another Muslim and they automatically assume something wrong is going on."

The conversation probably contained the words "crash", "device" or "explode". Otherwise, how did the idiots start the topic? Even if it didn't, it's a bloody stupid thing to talk about as you're walking through the plane.
It doesn't matter shit if you're African, Arab or White - do the same thing here in the UK and not only will you miss your flight but you'll probably spend the night in a cell.
No sympathy for these people whatsoever. If they're not aware of the protocols that airlines and airposts work by they should take a bus.

Bastage:

The conversation probably contained the words "crash", "device" or "explode". Otherwise, how did the idiots start the topic? Even if it didn't, it's a bloody stupid thing to talk about as you're walking through the plane.
It doesn't matter shit if you're African, Arab or White - do the same thing here in the UK and not only will you miss your flight but you'll probably spend the night in a cell.
No sympathy for these people whatsoever. If they're not aware of the protocols that airlines and airposts work by they should take a bus.

You are not being sincere at all. I suggest you try to follow the link and see the pictures of the family. it was because they saw them as an Arab being a bearded man and saw the women among them with the Hijab. Do you think this news will come up if they were to be white or their appearance wasn't that islamical or Arabian?

Stop being an idiot and shouting "Poor little Muslim".
The fact is that white Christians would and have been pulled of planes for the same thing.

Grow up.

Do you think this news will come up if they were to be  white or their appearance  wasn't that islamical or Arabian?

No. If they were of any other appearance but Arabic, then it would probably not have made the news. They would have been arrested, missed their flight and faded into obscurity, just as hundreds have. But because they're Muslim, the liberal PC bandwagon starts whining on about how their "rights" have been affected.

Simple fact. Unless you're a total and utter idiot, you don't walk down the centre aisle of a plane, talking about where the safest place to be is when it crashes.

Bastage:

The conversation probably contained the words "crash", "device" or "explode". Otherwise, how did the idiots start the topic? Even if it didn't, it's a bloody stupid thing to talk about as you're walking through the plane.
It doesn't matter shit if you're African, Arab or White - do the same thing here in the UK and not only will you miss your flight but you'll probably spend the night in a cell.
No sympathy for these people whatsoever. If they're not aware of the protocols that airlines and airposts work by they should take a bus.

Don't be ridiculous! Are you therefore suggesting that it is unlawful to speak to your family members while walking through a plane trying to decide which seats to choose? This just smacks of hysteria, and it has ' irrational' written all over it. Is it the protocol that you must say nothing while walking down the aisle? You cannot on your own having read this press story, just conclude that their conversation contained the words "crash", "device", or "explode", because if you do, that would be a fabrication as the article does not say this at all!

Let us call a spade a spade. They were thrown off the plane because being obviously muslims, their fellow passengers would already be primed and would have paid close attention to their conversation; and those who were listening would be ready to finger them as potential terrorists. It is very unlikely that a potential hijacker will be speaking about his intended actions so loudly that other passengers on the flight will hear of it even before the plane has left the ground.

anengiyefa:

don't be ridiculous! Are you therefore suggesting that it is unlawful to speak to your family members while walking through a plane trying to decide which seats to choose? This just smacks of hysteria, and it has ' irrational' written all over it. Is it the protocol that you must say nothing while walking down the aisle? You cannot on your own having read this press story, just conclude that their conversation contained the words "crash", "device", or "explode", because if you do that would be a fabrication, as the article does not say this at all!

Let us call a spade a spade. They were thrown off the plane because being obviously muslims,  their fellow passengers would already be primed and would have paid close attention to their conversation; and those who were listening would be ready to finger them as potential terrorists. It is very unlikely that a potential hijacker will be speaking about his intended actions so loudly that other passengers on the flight will hear of it even before the plane has left the ground.   

Being muslims most definitely contributed to the decision the airline took, are we forgetting the other passengers there??
But c'mon, they were Arab muslims (Arab being the key word here not muslim) discussing about safe places to sit in an airplane
In a politically correct society, this is normal . . .
But this is a country that's still recieving threats from Osama everyday, a country whose President just supported Israel against Hamas, security alerts are on record highs
That's were they decided to go discussing if it's safer to sit behind the engine or at the back. . . How daft!!!
Safe from what?? Snakes??

This is just like a black guy walking round a murder scene in in the UK countryside saying something about a device, he becomes a freaking suspect!!!

Have you ever wondered how loud the public outcry would have been if they were let into the plane a an ordinary, pilot mistake crash took place??
Or are you forgetting that the Company is there to provide maximum comfort and security for the passengers, even if it means evicting five??

Security is achieved by making people believe they're safe, if the passengers didn't feel safe, then any threat must be evacuated.
To me, two Arabs discussing how safe the plane is is a big threat, hell anyone carrying a big bag in the Underground is a threat to me, I think the 95 passengers thought so too

@eldee:
I am inclined to completely disagree with you. In a society where the rule of law is supreme, rules should be applied equally to everyone and should not be cherry picked on the basis of a person's ethnicity. It is because the airline and the authorities were thinking like you, that this unfortunate and unfair incident occured. My position on this is that this muslim family was treated unfairly, and especially so because this happened in a country that never stops talking about equality and freedom and is even prepared to wage wars in foreign lands supposedly in support and promotion of these ideals!

No sympathy for them. Sure they looked harmless and did not pose a threat but WHO WALKS ON A PLANE AND TALKS ABOUT THE SAFEST PLACE TO SIT? They have to live with the fact that people fitting their description are the world's most notorious terrorists so when they get on a plane just STFU and take a seat.

anengiyefa:

@eldee:
I am inclined to completely disagree with you. In a society where the rule of law is supreme, rules should be applied equally to everyone and should not be cherry picked on the basis of a person's ethnicity. It is because the airline and the authorities were thinking like you, that this unfortunate and unfair incident occured. My position on this is that this muslim family was treated unfairly, and especially so because this happened in a country that never stops talking about equality and freedom and is even prepared to wage wars in foreign lands supposedly in support and promotion of these ideals!

Ok, put yourself in the passengers' shoes. Since you live in the Uk, you should remember July 7 2005 when some [b]MUSLIMS[/b]decided to detonate bombs on trains and a bus. Now imagine yourself on a train today and that family walks on the train talking about the "safest place to seat on the train", would you raise an eyebrow?

@Martian:

You make a good point. But, it must be assumed that after eyebrows were raised and the family were trundled off the aircraft, they would have faced a thorough search and rigorous questioning by the FBI and Homeland Security officials, who the person telling the story said were very 'professional'. Having put them through this tough and humiliating process and finding that there was nothing suspicious about them, why would the airline then refuse to book them on a later flight, presumably because their own original flight could not be delayed due to tight scheduling issues? Why also could the airline not be said to owe them an apology?

I am pleased to hear that they intend to pursue civil rights litigation against the airline, and they should too.

Don't be ridiculous! Are you therefore suggesting that it is unlawful to speak to your family members while walking through a plane trying to decide which seats to choose?

My guess is that you don't fly that often.

1) If you're discussing the demise of the plane that you are travelling on, it is illegal. That is a fact in UK and probably in US law too (in fact even more so over there). Many, many people have been refused flights, removed from flights, arrested and convicted for doing just that. The vast majority were not Arabs or Muslims.

2) You don't decide which seat to choose. The airline allocates them to you. These people were wandering down the central aisle of the plane discussing it's destruction.

You cannot on your own having read this press story, just conclude that their conversation contained the words "crash", "device", or "explode"

Then what logical explanation could there be for their discussion?

They were thrown off the plane because being obviously muslims, their fellow passengers would already be primed and would have paid close attention to their conversation

You would have a point if this was an isolated incident. But as I've already pointed out, there have been plenty of other people, who weren't Muslim and who got refused flights for the same sort of thing. Therefore, you have no point. You're just one of the liberal, PC crowd who doesn't know what they're talking about.

It is very unlikely that a potential hijacker will be speaking about his intended actions so loudly that other passengers on the flight will hear of it even before the plane has left the ground.

It is very unlikely that the people jailed for saying that they have a bomb in their luggage when asked if they have anything to declare are potential hijackers either. But they're still jailed.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2006-02-22-bomb-joke_x.htm
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2001/09/26/story13476.asp
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-112361515.html
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-6771588_ITM
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE1DC1539F930A15751C1A96F958260&sec=&spon=
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2004/jan/21/britishairways.terrorism
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/is_/ai_n14818196
http://gothamist.com/2008/04/21/mentioning_a_bo.php
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/gan/press/2005/11-07-2005.html

The list goes on. I can literally find hundreds of these incidents and none of them are Arabs or Muslims.

anengiyefa:

@Martian:

You make a good point. But, it must be assumed that after eyebrows were raised and the family were trundled off the aircraft, they would have faced a thorough search and rigorous questioning by the FBI and Homeland Security officials, who the person telling the story said were very 'professional'. Having put them through this tough and humiliating process and finding that there was nothing suspicious about them, why would the airline then refuse to book them on a later flight, presumably because their own original flight could not be delayed due to tight scheduling issues? Why also could the airline not be said to owe them an apology?

I am pleased to hear that they intend to pursue civil rights litigation against the airline, and they should too.

The airline apologized a couple of days ago. Not booking them on a later flight is inexcusable, but other than that, they had every right to question them.

Then what logical explanation could there be for their discussion?

You did not hear them discussing, therefore you absolutely cannot say that they were talking explosions or devices. The only information available to you and me is that they talked about which part of the aircraft was safest to sit at.

It is very unlikely that the people jailed for saying that they have a bomb in their luggage when asked if they have anything to declare are potential hijackers either. But they're still jailed.

People who announce to airport security that they have bombs in their luggage have absolutely no intention of blowing up any airplane. They would not do so if they did.

My guess is that you don't fly that often.

1) If you're discussing the demise of the plane that you are travelling on, it is illegal. That is a fact in UK and probably in US law too (in fact even more so over there). Many, many people have been refused flights, removed from flights, arrested and convicted for doing just that. The vast majority were not Arabs or Muslims.

2) You don't decide which seat to choose. The airline allocates them to you. These people were wandering down the central aisle of the plane discussing it's destruction.

Well, sorry to trump you mate, because your guess is wrong, and I do fly very often indeed. Yes the airline allocates you a seat, but in this case, 8 seats must have been allocated to the family. So, yes there was the question of choosing where to sit. Apart from that, the information that we have about what they said, is that they contemplated on which part of the plane was safest in the event of a crash. Only an incredibly irrational person would interpret this as a plan to blow up the airplane. And yes, you're still being ridiculous!

@Martian, I am glad to hear of the airline's apology. They should have done it sooner.

This is so stupid! Like anyone who wants to bomb a plane will be discussing the details so casually. . . on the way into the said plane.

Eejits!

Then what logical explanation could there be for their discussion?

This is a legitimate question? Seriously??!!

Everyone has their view on this issue. I personally think that the family did not display good sense in talking about such a sensitive issue ESPECIALLY as they are Arabs and visibly muslims. The airline was right to eject them from that very flight even though they were cleared as had they been let back on there might have been some hysteria among other passengers. However, they should have put them on the next available flight. There was no excuse for not doing so.

Security issues are taken seriously nowadays. . . terrorist activities have ruined it for all of us. A British girl was arrested because while she was being "harrassed" she said something like "what? Do you think I have a bomb in my bag?" nobody jokes with these things. I know the family did not mention bomb or explosives but, these things happen. The same way Nigerians are viewed with suspicion as fraudsters is the same way people view Arabs as potential terrorists. I personally will take my chances in London with a white fidgety man carrying a big bag on the tube than with an Arab doing same (probably unfounded bias I know, but hey, we all make judgments based on some reason or the other, no matter how illogical that reason may be).

A few years ago (and this is the truth), I was almost not allowed on a Continental Airline flight from London Gatwick to New York, just because I had insisted (rather forcefully) that I had to have seats by the exit (those seats have more leg room). They booked my flight and gave me the seats, but on the day, you need to see the way I was treated. I was searched thoroughly (they stopped short of stripping me o). Then when they finally checked me in, I was told that i was not being given the exit seat. When I asked what seat I was allocated, I was told a seat would be allocated to me at the gate (in all my years of travelling, this was a new one). At the gate, they refused to give me a seat until the last passengers had gotten on the plane, then they gave me a seat as far from the exit as possible, in the bleeping middle row (I guess they wanted to make sure that if I had anything or plan or accomplice, it would be hard to carry out the plans). To add insult upon injury, when I was returning, I was pulled aside again when I showed my passport and ticket and searched again (told to sit down, lift up my legs etc). . . I was mortified. Again, my exit seat was taken off me and I was allocated some other obscure seat. Needless to say that that was the first and last time I ever flew with Continental Airlines.

To cut a long story short, these things do happen. And anyone can be a victim. The airlines were within their rights to take them off the flight but they had no right not to let them on another flight. So I do think they should take legal action. They will probably succeed (that is of course if what has been portrayed is a true account of what happened).

Too bad; but it's better to be safe than sorry; apologies to the family.

Look, you don't have to be Muslim to be kicked off a plane for this sort of discussion; just try it someday; even if you're Jesus Christ, the airline 'll eb doing God's good safety work to kick you off a plane for thinking aloud about where to sit, especially, when you casually mention words like crash and nasty words like that.

Note: some flights are free-seating, and passengers are allowed to choose where they sit. That said: anyone discussing aloud a crash of a carrier they're on ought to be kciked off the place, whatever their religion.
.

It's very unfortunate that the difference between Islam and Terrorism is getting blurrier and blurrier. No thanks to those fanatics who after nothing but selfish political gains.

Bastage:
It is very unlikely that the people jailed for saying that they have a bomb in their luggage when asked if they have anything to declare are potential hijackers either. But they're still jailed.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2006-02-22-bomb-joke_x.htm
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2001/09/26/story13476.asp
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-112361515.html
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-6771588_ITM
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE1DC1539F930A15751C1A96F958260&sec=&spon=
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2004/jan/21/britishairways.terrorism
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/is_/ai_n14818196
http://gothamist.com/2008/04/21/mentioning_a_bo.php
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/gan/press/2005/11-07-2005.html

The list goes on. I can literally find hundreds of these incidents and none of them are Arabs or Muslims.

Excellent list; informative for those who don't know and those who're prone to shout "religious discrimination".

More stuff that'll get you kicked off a flight, whatever your religion:

1) http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=32068
2) http://panasonicyouth.buzznet.com/user/journal/104473/man-kicked-off-australian-flight/
3) Jewish man removed from airplane for praying http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/09/05/qc-hasidicprayeronplane.html
4) Preacher’s Wife Kicked Off Plane http://www.onlinetravelreview.com/2005/12/21/preachers-wife-kicked-off-plane/
5) Man kicked off plane faces sentencing  http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-145642594.html
6) http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13664685/detail.html

As you'd see, the attendants/airline could even be wrong; they'll apologise later (see item 6; there's a good hint). Stupidity has no religion; when you're on a plane, or even before then, be careful. No one's going to allow you on a flight if you pose even the hint of a threat.
.

blissfullynaughty:
A few years ago (and this is the truth), I was almost not allowed on a Continental Airline flight from London Gatwick to New York, just because I had insisted (rather forcefully) that I had to have seats by the exit (those seats have more leg room). They booked my flight and gave me the seats, but on the day, you need to see the way I was treated. I was searched thoroughly (they stopped short of stripping me o). Then when they finally checked me in, I was told that i was not being given the exit seat. When I asked what seat I was allocated, I was told a seat would be allocated to me at the gate (in all my years of travelling, this was a new one). At the gate, they refused to give me a seat until the last passengers had gotten on the plane, then they gave me a seat as far from the exit as possible, in the bleeping middle row (I guess they wanted to make sure that if I had anything or plan or accomplice, it would be hard to carry out the plans). To add insult upon injury, when I was returning, I was pulled aside again when I showed my passport and ticket and searched again (told to sit down, lift up my legs etc). . . I was mortified. Again, my exit seat was taken off me and I was allocated some other obscure seat. Needless to say that that was the first and last time I ever flew with Continental Airlines.

Interesting, and informative story. The airline should be thanked for taking note of unusual requests. Too bad it was not convenient for you, but you'd want another bad guy who'd want an exit seat to be treated the same way; it's quite the reasonabel thing to do.

The airlines were within their rights to take them off the flight but they had no right not to let them on another flight.

Why do you say this? Does this mean it's ok to be concerned about the safety of the first flight and not the other? It was correct for the airline to have refused to get these passengers on board any flight until they were satisfied the passengers posed no danger at all; and, then, it's the right thing to do to apologise when then the airline was mistaken. Always better to err on the side of safety than be sorry; always.
.

Nimshi:

Interesting, and informative story. The airline should be thanked for taking note of unusual requests. Too bad it was not convenient for you, but you'd want another bad guy who'd want an exit seat to be treated the same way; it's quite the reasonabel thing to do.

Why do you say this? Does this mean it's ok to be concerned about the safety of the first flight and not the other? It was correct for the airline to have refused to get these passengers on board any flight until they were satisfied the passengers posed no danger at all; and, then, it's the right thing to do to apologise when then the airline was mistaken. Always better to err on the side of safety than be sorry; always.
.

The FBI said they were clean, so they should have been alllowed to board another flight.

There are plenty Muslims and non Muslims that have been kicked off planes for "suscipicious activities"
That is the world we live in thanks to Islamic terrorists.
I'll rather 100 people were kicked off and later found innocent that one guilty jihadist fall through the cracks and cause havoc to innocent souls.
If I sat in a plane and a family were talking about the safest place in a plane especially if they were dressed in Islamic wear,I would be concerned too.
My heart goes out to this particular family for the embarassment and inconvenience but better safe than sorry.

Martian:

No sympathy for them. Sure they looked harmless and did not pose a threat but WHO WALKS ON A PLANE AND TALKS ABOUT THE SAFEST PLACE TO SIT? They have to live with the fact that people fitting their description are the world's most notorious terrorists so when they get on a plane just STFU and take a seat. 

Too bad the world has come to that.
We live in a world where people have to be careful how they conduct themselves in public.
A Jewish Rabbi was kicked off sometime ago for praying in the plane
A Muslim man was also kicked off last year for counting his beads and murmuring to himself
I'm sure if I went to a plane speaking in tongues,I'll probably be kicked out too.
People need to be aware of their sorroundings and I'm actually glad that passengers are alert and watching suspicious movements on aircrafts.
many disasters have been abated by such vigilance.
I have been searched and wanded several times,of course I hate spreading out in public and patted down like a criminal but if that's the prize we have to pay for safety in today's world,you either live with it or stop flying.

Martian:
The FBI said they were clean, so they should have been alllowed to board another flight.

Yeah, the FBI said they were clean, but the pilot and airline have the last say. Anyone who's been on a flight that had some trouble could perhaps recall the sense of anguish that would hang on for the duration of the flight. The pilot and airline have the last word; the FBI (and CIA, if they like) could go swallow some sand; since when have they always got it right? The rules are clear: behave yourself and muzzle your mouth when going on a flight; if the pilot feels the hint of any insecurity, you're off the flight. Of course, you may sue, heck, you may even win; but you aren't doing that flight. It's the pilot's plane, and he decides who stays on board.
.

@topic
A black Afro-Carribean male is seven times more likely to get stopped and searched in the streets of London.
This is higher in the countryside. . . No one complains bout that.

But now some idiots go on plane to start discussing safe places and we expect the passengers to overlook that??
C'mon!!!

Yeah America preaches equality, but still, these people crossed the line, they abused it.

Nimshi:

Why do you say this? Does this mean it's ok to be concerned about the safety of the first flight and not the other? It was correct for the airline to have refused to get these passengers on board any flight until they were satisfied the passengers posed no danger at all; and, then, it's the right thing to do to apologise when then the airline was mistaken. Always better to err on the side of safety than be sorry; always.

I said what I said because the family was cleared by the FBI (at least that is what was stated in the original write-up). I feel that it was right for them to be refused on that particular flight because there would have been passengers who would have been apprehensive had they been let back on, especially after seeing them being led off and knowing the reason why they were so led off the plane. However, on a later flight, no one would have been aware of the incident and thus no passenger would feel unsafe.

All I am saying is that these things happen. When I had my nasty experience, I in no way look Asian or Arab, I am a Christian and I am a girl, but one has to accept that these things happen and it is the price we have to pay for a few asssholes ruining it for us all.

they should have chatted in their native language.

so nigerians, speak yoruba, hausa or igbo when talking abt Bomb at oyinbo airport