N.J. man says he was almost kicked off plane after flight attendant found shirt offensive

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Local News
N.J. man says he was almost kicked off plane after flight attendant found shirt offensive

By Andrew Ramos
July 12, 2026 / 11:30 PM EDT / CBS New York

A New Jersey man says his t-shirt nearly got him kicked off a United Airlines flight. ... Sam Saadeh, of Linden, was on a flight traveling from Atlanta to Newark Liberty International Airport on June 4 while wearing a t-shirt that said, "Bombing kids is not self defense." ... Saadeh, who is of Palestinian descent, said the t-shirt holds a deeper meaning and advocates for children. ... According to a recent United Nations report, more than 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza by Israel in what have been described as targeted attacks. The Israeli government has rejected the report and has denied deliberately targeting civilians.

"Change your shirt or you can't get on this flight"

Saadeh told CBS News New York he was "very confused" when a supervisor pulled him off the plane just after boarding. ... "He was like, 'Hey, the flight attendant finds your shirt offensive,' and I was like, 'Why?'" Saadeh said. "He goes, 'Here are the choices. Either you change your shirt or you can't get on this flight.'"


A New Jersey man was on a flight traveling from Atlanta to Newark on June 4, 2026, while wearing a t-shirt that said, "Bombing kids is not self defense."
CBS News New York

Both upset and humiliated, Saadeh says he opted to change, but claims he couldn't get specific answers, even when he landed in Newark, where he spoke to airline personnel. ... "She kept saying, like, 'You could see how the shirt is offensive.' I was like, 'I can't see how the shirt is offensive,'" Saadeh said. "She was like, 'It's 2026.' I was like, 'I know what year it is.'" ... He added, " 'Do you think kids shouldn't be bombed, or kids should be bombed? Like, what are you offended by?'"

Flier files complaint with DOT

A United spokesperson said in a statement to CBS News New York, "This customer flew as scheduled after changing his shirt." ... As per the airline's rules posted on its website, United has the right to deny transport to passengers who are "not properly clothed, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene or offensive." ... Saadeh said he is consulting with lawyers.

{snip}

[RockCreek]

1. Did his darker skin (visible in picture)

lower the threshold for taking offense?

(semi-rhetorical question)

[3catwoman3]

3. Hmmmm - let's guess.

And we only get one guess.

[littlemissmartypants]

6. Or three guesses, first two don't count....🤔

[OldBaldy1701E]

92. Hmmm....

Almost as if there is a difference in treatment due solely to his skin color.

One would think that such behavior was illegal.

But, then one would not understand which racist country they are in. That is not illegal here. Treating anyone like crap is fine as long as they are not pasty, ghost white.

And, as long as the one doing the giving is.



I swear...

[badhair77]

2. I'm not offended.

I’m against bombing kids.

[AloeVera]

4. "How dare you prick my conscience...

And remind me I supported bombing kids?"

[yardwork]

12. Who supported bombing kids?

The airline staff?

[AloeVera]

18. The person "offended".

Why else would you be offended by a true statement?

[yardwork]

19. ????

There's nothing in the linked story that indicates this is anything more than an airline enforcing a policy they've had for more than fifty years.

[AloeVera]

30. You are somehow conflating two very distinct policies.

One relating to "lewd, offensive etc attire" - the one United is using here- and the much more serious one relating to safety such as SAYING the word bomb and causing a panic. The latter will get you kicked off a oplane, which he wasn't btw and even land you in jail.

Now why would you do that?

So again, what is "offensive" as the flight attendance claimed, about a true statement and why?

[yardwork]

31. There must be a more detailed article that is being referenced here.

I'm not seeing anything in the linked story that says there are two separate policies, or that this was in any way a political or social decision left to the discretion of the airline staff.

If there's more information I will be glad to read it.

[AloeVera]

45. Since you believe a policy against offensive attire and one on endangering public safety are one and the same...

A little research might have been in order first.

[yardwork]

46. I appreciate your research into this.

I'll be happy to read any info you would like to post.

[yardwork]

47. I appreciate your research into this.

I'll be happy to read any info you would like to post.

[AloeVera]

51. Lack of research is not the problem here.

Absurdity is. For lack of a better word or one that was not "offensive".

Edited to add:
It should be pretty clear that a purported dress code offense is distinct and separate from the far more serious safety/security offense - without having to do "research". But that's just me.

[SpankMe]

39. It's not a question of enforcing a long-standing policy

Rather, it's a question of degree. The point of the gripe here is...what constitutes "not properly clothed, or...clothing [that is] is lewd, obscene or offensive"? Why should a shirt protesting the bombing of children be offensive enough to threaten getting a guy bumped?

I fly Southwest a lot, and on one flight I saw a t-shirt with a picture of Mickey Mouse giving the middle finger. I also saw one years ago that said "I second that" with a sillouette of an AK-47 type rifle (a pro-second amendment shirt). In spite of the profane Mickey gesture and image of a gun, the airline didn't tell the passengers to hide or change their shirts.

So, it looks like the airline in this case is cloaking a political objection by justifying it with a vague policy.

[TBF]

68. We all know what the shirt refers to

- and most of us agree it's not offensive. I hope he sues.

[yardwork]

69. Airlines treat flying as a privilege, not a right.

I've known since I was a child that any little thing can get one thrown off a plane. This was drummed into me at an early age. It's been even worse since 9/11.

I don't think anybody here on DU misunderstands the meaning of the message on the shirt. I don't think any of us find it offensive.

However, airlines don't play. They don't bother to decipher meanings or try to discern intent. They are literal. Try to get on a plane with a tee shirt that says "bombing kids" and you might be asked to deplane. And that policy is not going to be consistently enforced. It is up to the staff on the particular flight. And no, you might not get a clear explanation.

This is the way it's been since commercial flights began. You may think it's unfair. You may think it's unreasonable. I've experienced plenty of unreasonable inconveniences on flights.

Also note: Joe Biden's administration imposed penalties on airlines that leave passengers stranded. Trump lifted those penalties. Thanks to Trump, airlines have more power over their passengers than ever.

PSA: if you want to use a commercial airline to travel, follow all their rules and don't draw attention to yourself. It's ridiculously easy to get in trouble with an airline and end up losing the privilege to fly.

[TBF]

70. lol - yes all of that is factual

I mean, I have no idea why you feel the need to defend this ridiculous status quo but whatever

[yardwork]

71. I'm certainly not defending it.

I'm pointing out that this person's attempt at performative activism is unlikely to win a lawsuit.

And I'm stressing to any reader confused about this that it's way easy to get thrown off a plane.

I put this in the category of people throwing tomato soup on paintings in art galleries to "draw attention to" climate change.

[TBF]

73. Wearing a shirt is not defacing property -

but you do you.

[Farmer-Rick]

93. We all must kowtow to our corporate masters

Can't get them upset. Not if you want to go about your daily life without being singled out for uncomfortable interrogations and not supporting our dictator.

Don't be objectionable. Do whatever the corporate sycophant wants because they are the ones who got pedo Trump elected.

Did you think you were in a democracy? It wasn't your votes that got a pedo elected to the highest office in the country. It was their corporate money.

So be passive, go along to get along. Also, adding a little butt kissing always helps. Maybe start incorporating bowing to images of our dictator under the banner of one of our many controlling corporate masters.

[yardwork]

94. If you want to fly on a commercial airline, yes.

Paying your money to a for-profit airline in order to use their product means giving up a lot of personal freedoms. Or maybe you're sent by your employer on this trip as part of your job.

Flying on a commercial plane means experiencing the indignity of waiting in line to take off some of your clothes and have your body scanned or patted down by strangers, have your possessions gone through, possibly have your own property broken into and searched, etc. I can tell you from personal experience that as a woman it's not fun to "assume the position" spreadeagled in a plastic tube while federal employees look at your body in front of hundreds of people. It's not fun to have a personal item that matters to me removed from my luggage, angrily shown to me, and then thrown in a trash can in front of me. And that is if all goes well. Pity the people who are told to "follow me" by TSA agents. Wonder what happens to them, especially if they're immigrants.

And let me tell you if you're brown, like my wife, all this scrutiny is ramped up. She is always, always patted down. A 70 year old woman whose ancestors have been in this country for thousands of years.

Then you get to sit in a chair that is much too small for a grown human, tightly surrounded by other people who are sitting much too close to one another, in a tube with too little oxygen. Maybe some of those people are crying babies. Maybe some of them are panicking. Quite a few of them are drinking. Some of them brought strong smelling food with them. The one in front of you just reclined his seat into your lap. Forget it if you're claustrophobic. Say the serenity prayer over and over.

And then maybe you sit in that tiny space jammed with other people on the tarmac for hours. The bathroom toilets overflow and human sewage runs down the aisles. And the airline won't let you off. You are a mile from the gate and nobody - not even the pilot - knows when you can either take off into the air or return to the gate. Sometimes this lasts for hours. Google news reports.

But most of the time it's not "extreme" enough to make the news. Like the time I waited through delay after delay for ten hours to board a flight out of LGA only to have the flight cancelled at midnight. Options were to spend the night in the dark terminal or get a hotel room - which I did, no luggage of course, it was supposed to be a day trip up and back - only to return to the airport the next day to learn my flight was cancelled again. Finally got home 24 hours after I'd arrived at LGA for a 1.5 hour flight.

So yeah. There is nothing about flying on a commercial airplane that is dignified, that retains any constitutional rights as far as I can tell.

And somebody wants to enter this chaos wearing a shirt that says "bombing kids."

There is not one person on that flight who wants that kind of performance right then.

Oh hell no.

[Biophilic]

5. What the heck United? One of your flight attendants found that offensive?

What kind of people are you hiring? Someone who thinks it’s offensive to say no to bombing children? Your PR people need to rethink this. I find United’s actions very offensive.

[littlemissmartypants]

8. Welcome to the United States of Authoritarianism.

[BaronChocula]

64. Here's what I would have told the personnel he spoke with

"I'll be informing my attorney your FA who disagrees with this message on my shirt had the airline force me to change my clothes. We could either chalk this up to a misunderstanding right now or I'll see you in court." And I would have had to hold my tongue from adding "asshole."

[yardwork]

7. Any reference to bombing or bombs gets anyone kicked off planes,

He's fortunate that he was not kicked off. I'm not sure why he's making such a big deal since it ended in his favor. Sounds performative to me.

Even back in the 1970s it was understood that any reference to a bomb, no matter how joking or whatever the context, would get you kicked off or not allowed to board a plane.

I doubt very much that the airline staff noticed or cared about the meaning of his message.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

9. My thought exactly. And good morning. NT

[yardwork]

10. Good morning!

[whathehell]

16. Maybe she should have explained that policy

when he repeatedly asked what the problem was.

[yardwork]

17. Sounds like she did.

From the article at link:

A United spokesperson said in a statement to CBS News New York, "This customer flew as scheduled after changing his shirt."

As per the airline's rules posted on its website, United has the right to deny transport to passengers who are "not properly clothed, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene or offensive."

Also, I have known since the very first time I flew (in the 1960s) that references to bombs will get you kicked off a plane and possibly arrested.

This is not a new policy.

[whathehell]

41. As the passenger said,

he didn't know that "being against bombing children was 'offensive' to anyone".
Along with most I'd guess, he didn't know there was a broad based, context free, ban on the word "bomb" on a shirt.
I didn't know it either, and have also been flying since the 1960's.
In any case, I can't think of a reason the attendant couldn't just inform the passenger of the policy and get on with it.

[yardwork]

42. According to the article, that's exactly what happened.

The passenger was asked to change his shirt, he complied, and he was reboarded with no issue.

I have been aware of the airlines' policy regarding the word "bomb" - no matter the context - since the 1960s. It's something my mom taught me them because she knew somebody who joked about a bomb and was kicked off a flight.

[hlthe2b]

50. "joked about a bomb" ... VERY DAMNED DIFFERENT. Again CONTEXT matters.

Arbitrary and capricious to try to enforce a rule that is based on words only, sans context. See my post below (#49).

And tell the manufacturer of this candy that its mere presence in the hands of a passenger equates to a threat, and the candy is thus outlawed. Because that is your suggestion. Fortunately, common sense prevails in most settings.

[whathehell]

52. I read your report of the article

and it describes several instances of the passenger asking "why" and getting no answer to his question. Being told he could remove the shirt and stay on the plane or leave it on and be removed, was not an answer, it was an ultimatum.

[yardwork]

54. You might be responding to the wrong post?

I didn't "report" on the article. I read it and quoted two paragraphs.

The article linked in the OP is the extent of my knowledge about this incident.

[whathehell]

58. You are correct

I did respond to the wrong post..My bad.

[yardwork]

61. No worries at all.

[whathehell]

66. Good..

:

[whathehell]

59. You are correct

I did respond to the wrong post..My bad.

[hlthe2b]

49. Again context matters for use of the word "bomb"

A t-shirt with a cherry-bomb logo and ad (offensive?
A teen on a t-shirt inviting all to "come and get bombed" or to "get destroyed" with a liquor logo?

How about other related terms suggesting guns, not bombs:

Hotshot candy logo and lettering?
A shirt that states the US Men's Soccer team will have another "shot" at it in 2030?
A picture of high-powered water guns and kids
A cute dog whose food was changed to an inferior new brand labeled "kill me, just kill me now"

This stuff gets silly. The threat from using the word "bomb" is not that hard to distinguish from its nonthreatening use. But, even if they made a rule that the use of this term can never be used, given there are so many synonyms for threatening equipment, acts, and outcomes, the rule quickly becomes ARBITRARY and CAPRICIOUS. Just as SS has to sort actual threats to an elected official or other individual from the INTENT and ABILITY to do so. A word on a t-shirt just doesn't do it. A note dropped suggesting a bomb was on board--yeah, you bet that would do it.

Context matters (even if common sense seems in short supply)...

[whathehell]

56. Exactly..

and even if this is their policy, I can't imagine why she couldn't just give him a brief explanation of it.

[AloeVera]

20. Nice stretch there.

Very nice.

[hlthe2b]

24. Context matters, yardwork. That is an incredible stretch. I like his lawyer's odds on this one.

[yardwork]

27. Really.

In what way was he harmed?

[hlthe2b]

36. Uggh huh. Threatening to remove him if he did not remove his shirt is a viable "harm" especially

--Given it was done before a throng of passengers. The harm includes the arbitrary nature of the "rule."

Wait and see, yardwork. A good lawyer will get a settlement because the public sees this as both arbitrary and capricious.

[R0ckyRac00n]

55. yeah-

-this. How is that hard to see?

[ShazzieB]

67. Thanks for confirming what I suspected.

I didn't know there was a longstanding policy regarding the use of the word "bomb" in an airport or on a plane, but I'm not at all surprised that there is such a policy. It makes perfect sense to me.

When I saw the picture of the shirt, my first thought was that it would be in poor taste to wear a shirt on an airplane that referenced bombs or bombing in any way. You don't have to read it as a threat to bomb the plane or know that the word "bomb" is verboten on planes and in airports to realize that there was a good chance of it makng someone uneasy. Just getting on a plane makes some people uneasy, so why take a chance on adding to what is already a tense situation for many?

I would imagine that flight attendants are well versed in the sorts of things that have the potential to cause problems, and they're probably trained to err on the side of caution. I see nothing wrong with that. A lot of people think of them as glorified waitresses and waiters, but one of their chief responsibilities is passenger safety, and a big part of that is keeping passengers calm and relaxed.

As for the written policy, I think the word "offensive" was chosen for a reason, as it can mean a whole lot of different things, thereby giving airline personnel the leeway to make a judgment to make judgment calls like this one. Merriam-Webster lists several definitions for the word, including "giving painful or unpleasant sensations" and "causing displeasure or resentment." What's offensive is always going to be a judgment call, and it makes sense to me that flight attendants are allowed to make such judgments. A policy that's too narrow and specific could hamper them in doing their jobs.

I love the First Amendment as much as anyone, but there have to be limitations in certain situations, and flying on a plane is one of those situations. (The old adage about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater comes to mind.) As much as people take airline travel as a matter of course in this day and age, being packed into what amounts to a sardine can and transported high about the earth for hours at a time is in many ways a very unnatural situation, and it seems reasonable to me that those who are entrusted with the welfare and safety of all involved should be enabled to make decisions like this one, whether everyone else agrees with them or not.

[Cirsium]

83. The First Amendment is not relevant

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

[Skittles]

81. THANK YOU

I mean, seriously, WTF

[The Wizard]

11. It will be settled out of court.

Damages for missing a flight shouldn't be excessive unless he can prove he missed the last precious minutes with a dead or dying next of kin.

[yardwork]

15. Did he miss the flight?

Edit: No indication he missed his flight.

From the article:

A United spokesperson said in a statement to CBS News New York, "This customer flew as scheduled after changing his shirt."

As per the airline's rules posted on its website, United has the right to deny transport to passengers who are "not properly clothed, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene or offensive."

[intheflow]

34. So their policy is if anyone of their staff is offended by your shirt,

you're kicked off. So if I wore a shirt that said Jesus didn't die for anyone's sins, I could be kicked off? The telling part is when he asked the United staff if they supported bombing kids, and they couldn't answer him. His choices were missing his flight (which, as we know, is costly, and I doubt United would have given him a seat in their next flight) because some RW nutjob got offended or change his shirt? It's bullshit. They picked on him because he is brown and had the word bomb on his shirt, ignoring the underlying message of peace. I think the flight attendant was a racist MAGA.

[Haggard Celine]

96. I think the DID understand what the shirt meant,

at least the flight attendant understood, which is why she was so offended. Nobody would find anything wrong with saying that bombing children is bad, it's the unspoken meaning that set off the flight attendant.

[QueerDuck]

13. You don't say the word "BOMB" in an airport or on a jet... nor should you make references to them.

Even as a political statement on a t-shirt. I think it's safe to say there's a strong likelihood that he was deliberately being provocative in the hopes of making headlines. He knew what he was doing, I believe.

[yardwork]

14. His subsequent actions tend to support that conclusion.

1. Dons a provocative tee shirt that includes the words "bombing children."

2. Tries to board an airplane.

3. Gets told he has to cover up the shirt before he can board.

4. Complies, and is boarded.

5. After the flight, makes a big deal, runs to the media, and threatens legal action.

Note that he was not arrested, not roughed up, not handed over to ICE, not taken away for questioning.

In fact, the entire scenario would have played out exactly the same way in 1975.

Performance fail.

[displacedvermoter]

23. Really...?

Significant numbers of airline personnel might not have found his shirt provocative, so his chances of making headlines might have "bombed" so to speak.

If it had said "I'm a Sex Bomb" or had he been wearing a Runaways shirt that said "Cherry Bomb" on it, would that have been provocative?

[QueerDuck]

26. You. Don't. Say. BOMB. In. An. Airport. 💣️✈️

I don't know how much clearer I can be. That's just something you don't do, say, talk about, joke about, mention. Not even in passing. Not even in any way that it could be "mis-heard" or "mis-understood" or "mis-interpreted" or "mis-seen" or "mis-read".

He got the attention he was seeking. He's no victim.

[displacedvermoter]

29. Ok

You are pretty clear

[AloeVera]

38. He didn't say it.

The whole point of that policy making SAYING - as in verbally - the word "bomb" a CRIME is that, upon hearing it, it might cause panic among passengers and endanger plane safety.

How would his T-shirt endanger safety? Would people be stampeding away in horror and panic upon reading his T-shirt? Please.

Even the Airline itself didn't make that argument or use that policy. Yet here we see it on DU.

The fact that one flight attendant was "offended" by the truth is a sad reflection of the lengths some will go to to not have to face it.

[QueerDuck]

72. Blaming the flight attendant personally ignores the reality of the airline industry and how corporate liability works.

Reasonable people understand that flight crews don't invent these policies on the spot. They are trained to enforce strict airline protocols and FAA guidelines regarding cabin safety and passenger conduct.

Ultimately, a flight attendant is an employee executing company policy to ensure a smooth flight. It's unrealistic to expect them to risk their own job or tolerate potential cabin friction just to accommodate a passenger's choice of attire.

The only "sad reflection" here is the great lengths some folks will go to by characterizing policy enforcement as simply a matter of being "personally offended."

A person's First Amendment right does not override corporate safety and conduct policies on a commercial airliner. I think common sense dictates that an employee shouldn't be vilified for doing exactly what their employer trains them to do.

Let's talk about that straw man I saw back there! Claiming that a piece of clothing is perfectly fine just because it doesn't cause a literal "stampede in horror and panic" sets an absurdly low bar for cabin safety.

Cabin safety isn't just about preventing mass hysteria... it's about preventing the localized friction, political arguments, and escalating verbal altercations that can easily derail a flight inside a cramped tube at 35,000 feet.

Splitting hairs with regard to "verbally saying" a word versus "silently wearing it on a shirt" misses the foundational legal reality: commercial flights are not public forums. It's a weak argument.

Sure... the text on a shirt isn't the exact same thing as shouting a threat... however, the flight crew's job is to ensure a calm, safe environment for everyone on board. The airline's private corporate policies grant them the authority to make those calls on the spot.

He FA'd and he FO... just as he wanted to. His 15 minutes of fame are now over.

[AloeVera]

74. The airline itself characterized it as a dress code violation, not a safety violation.

Other examples of dress code violations are lewd, obscene messages, bare feet, revealing clothing etc. Nothing to do with safety but rather subjective, personal standards - meeting societal expectations of proper and acceptable attire.

The flight attendant found the message personally offensive, as he/she might a low-worn tank top or a "GFY" T-shirt.

The FA did not invoke the security/safety rule pertaining to "bombs" that you started your argument with.

And let's get back to what is being claimed: "The flight attendant found your shirt offensive".

That's the point where your argument falls short.

So again, what did the FA find to be personally "offensive" about that T-Shirt? It's not hard to draw the right conclusion about why it "offended" him/her.

[QueerDuck]

75. Passengers must obey flight crew instructions. He did. Then whined about it. End of story.

"The FA did not invoke the security/safety rule pertaining to "bombs" that you started your argument with." --- A smart move on their part... considering how litigious and hair-splitting people can be, this was a position that would be easier to defend and justify. Flight attendants and gate crew use subjective judgement all day long: is a passenger too drunk? are their clothes too revealing? do they smell offensive? --- In this case, I think they did the right thing, they made a call, they told the passenger what to do, and he complied. Perfect ending.

[AloeVera]

78. So, using your own words, someone made a "subjective judgement"

That the words "Bombing kids is not self-defense" was "offensive".

Exactly. And the underlying reason why - my question you ignored - will win the passenger the case in court.

[QueerDuck]

79. As a legitimate backup to the threatening word of bomb. Yes. When it comes to flight crew the rule is simple....

... do as you're told. There is no "court case" ... and if they try, they will lose. Passengers must comply and he did. He was not denied a flight. His feelings were hurt. He felt entitled. Give up.

[AloeVera]

95. I gave up to attend to my whiplash.

I'll have to be mindful of that in future debates!

[Bayard]

21. I want that shirt to wear to protests,

And I promise not to wear it on a plane.

[hlthe2b]

22. This is the ridiculous side of those who want to make everything antisemitic and there are those

who do.

To voice via a written t-shirt that "bombing kids is not self-defense" applies just as readily to the US bombing the Iranian school children, killing at least 150. Is that antisemitic or OTHERWISE OFFENSIVE?

But, if applied to Israel (which the t-shirt never mentions): IDF and Bibi's tactics went way too far after October 7, 2023. The first responses over the early weeks/months could legitimately be said to be retaliation justified after Hamas' horrorstorm, albeit collateral casualties to civilians should have been more closely controlled/avoided. But after that. Well, anyone who wants to maintain that ALL of the civilian deaths were due to Hamas using them as human shields is not convincing anyone, IMHO. Some, sure. But, at some point, it has become apparent that IDF just didn't give a "GODDAMN"... Yes, I said it. That is not antisemitism any more than severely criticizing Hegseth's idiocy and Trump's sadistic decisions to bomb bomb bomb anything in Iran without thorough evaluation--even if the civilian population could be devastated-- is traitorous to criticize (as dedicated MAGATs would claim).

I hope United is overwhelmed with backlash. This is ridiculous. (as is those who want to claim the context for the word "bomb" does not matter and that that automatically becomes grounds to remove the passenger when zero threat level is present and the word is in no way directed as such. I like the lawyer's odds for that passenger in a civil suit).

[yardwork]

28. Who said this incident is antisemitic?

[hlthe2b]

32. I listed this as but one of several possibilities. Again, jumping to conclusions is problematic

But, in the wider context of all that is happening now, other similar incidents certainly were for that reason. If you deny that, you haven't been watching or reading all that is going on.

[yardwork]

35. What similar incidents?

I agree that jumping to conclusions is never a good idea.

[ToxMarz]

25. If she found that offensive then she must find 'Bombing kids is self defense' acceptable

He should have offered to cover the word "not" for her.

[TheRickles]

77. Exactly! If his flight partner had a t-shirt with your slogan, which one would get kicked off?

[relogic]

33. A thought experiment

Take out the wording (bombs, bombing) substitute on the shirt advocacy for extreme, general due diligence in US warfare or remembrance of innocents killed in recent campaigns (wars of choice).
For example: on the shirt:
“We’re not collateral damage”. Victims of Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab

I suspect the offense is not the particular word used on that shirt. It’s more likely the airline doesn’t want legal headaches from this regime because they allowed tolerance for criticism against this and all other bombing campaigns.

[yardwork]

37. I find that to be extraordinarily unlikely.

[relogic]

40. Please be specific

What is “extraordinarily unlikely”?

[yardwork]

43. Your last sentence.

[relogic]

53. So, then

you don’t think that in light of trump/hegsbreath/military priveledge and the latitude given to US conflicts since our founding that airlines, tv networks, universities, law firms, etc. are not intimidated in their free speech. Go back just 19 months for a refresher course.

You might start with the speech of people on shirts and general peaceful protests since 911. Try this:

If the shirt proclaimed adulation of America as the peacemaker in Israel and Palestine and I’m a flight attendant offended by this ridiculous trump meme, would my being offended carry similar weight?

[yardwork]

60. Sure, the Trump administration is nuts and authoritarian.

However, I find it to be very unlikely that the airline staff on the plane singled out this passenger for any other reason than his shirt said "bombing children."

I doubt they understood what it meant. I doubt they thought, "Gosh, we'd better make an example of him or else the Trump administration might go after United Airlines for allowing this pro-Palestinian protest."

That's the kind of thing the CEO or corporate lawyers might think about. I'd be willing to bet all my crypto currency that the staff on the plane thought something along the lines of "Dammit the guy in seat 21B has a shirt that says "bombing children" now were probably going to have a delayed flight or something worse. Betty, go see if he'll cover it up."

Never underestimate (1) the juggernaut that is "corporate policy," and (2) the level of disinterest average people have in our protests. Most people don't care. They're at work, they have a job to do.

Most of us could write a book about the stupidity and aggravation we've encountered while flying. Especially since 9/11.

[relogic]

85. You underestimate

the political/corporate astuteness of the preemptive necessity imposed on any underlings-particularly a flight attendant who’s read up on (see my earlier reference to Trump’s 19 months of fascism). In short-play it safe and neutralize speech addressing obvious obliteration of children (collateral damage).

I believe after reading your comments on intuitive, underling corporate employee vs. corporate lawyer hierarchy you might convince some of the opposite of your stance.. “ Sure, the Trump administration is nuts and authoritarian” Exactly why some enjoy that brand of fascism whose thousands also happen to be working on a corporate plane, corporate industry all on board for repuke, authoritarian nuts and enablers.

If delving into the dutiful, obedient minds of company workers, I would not bet any of my hard earned “currency” against their loyalty or their overly cautious actions in such current speech on planes or otherwise.😀🌻

Try switching the scripts to pro-war, authoritarian, conservative speak since the JFK era and recognize the tolerance that permeates these forums as opposed to what is considered liberal, left wing positions on t-shirts, tv pundit discussions, etc., etc. The safer positions has always been conservative, right leaning.

Cry for noble war on a plane, some offensiveness. Cry for peace sans violence as a hope for mankind and they’ll snatch your parachute before you’re thrown off the plane.🤝

[Skittles]

84. or maybe

no one wants to see any variation of the word BOMB at the airport or on a plane

[no_hypocrisy]

44. Hell, I want one!

[yardwork]

48. Just don't try to wear it on a plane!

[Soul_of_Wit]

57. In related news

A man wearing a T-shirt advertising his bar "Crash Landing" was also asked to change the shirt or cover it up.

[Joinfortmill]

62. He'll win

[twodogsbarking]

63. He didn't mention any names. Why would one be upset?.

[chouchou]

65. Me feelwings were hurt. I've seen shirts on planes WAY more "Hot Words"

..and the flight crew ignore it..

[OC375]

76. Irony... Both sides of the conflict could use the same meme/slogan on their propaganda.

Wonder if victim dude gets that?

[BHDem53]

80. Would an idiot donning mAga attire get treated the same?

[displacedvermoter]

82. Not likely...

[Dethhogan]

86. In solidarity....

I plan on wearing my "SCREW HAMAS" shirt on my next flight.

[Aussie105]

87. Selective reading by a not too bright airline person.

Looks at the shirt, thinks . . . bomb kids? Who would do that? So offensive!

The whole message that this is indeed happening, and it is a bad thing, and the wearer is against that, well . . . whooosh! Straight over his/her head.

But maybe the reading analysis is a bit deeper?
Yes, it is happening, but . . . we are supposed to ignore it like it isn't happening, because (reasons) . . .so it is an anti-semitic T shirt!

Who knowns what stupidity lurks in the minds of others?

[RainCaster]

88. I'm offended by that United flight attendant

She needs to be fired.

[maspaha]

89. Will United make the MAGAt change their shirt? Or take off their red hat?

[LearnedHand]

90. Gonna go out on a limb here and say air travel is not the place to fly your position flags high

Any other place sure. But passengers are already angry from the whole experience, the crew is right behind them, and no one has a sense of humor in that pressure cooker. Seems planes are good places to not extrovert your political positions, especially if it mentions bombing.

[Ruby the Liberal]

91. I'm giving the flight attendant a mulligan on this

Of course I agree that this is in no way offensive.

BUT - were I a flight attendant on a commuter route from Georgia, a decision like this would likely be based more on the odds of any red hat idiots I just watched board deciding that it IS an issue - in a sealed tube at 35k feet.