One other thought. What is the advocated policy here? That Arab looking folks speaking what sounds like Arabic, wearing too much clothing for the weather, and looking at their watches too often, can't fly, no matter how screened? That passenger angst should dictate who flys?
You should talk to the captain of the plane to get those answers. Once he looked at the two islamo-passengers' passports and asked them a few questions, he deemed that they were not fit to fly...
So, ask the captain.
"What is the advocated policy here?"
The problem is that in a Democracy, the current security "policy" does not accurately reflect the wishes of the people.
As always, when governments try to carry out policies that do not have public support, the public take matters into their own hands.
The US and UK don't profile. That is wrong. Political correctness does not come before risk to human life.
The body politic has consistently defined this as a war on "terror". Everyone knows that it is a religious war, and that Islam is the other party. For the Government not to acknowledge this leads to independent action.
There are now two different conversations going on. First a public one that skates around all the issues, and second the private real conversation, where the issue is very clearly defined. That is what happens when the body politic censors free speach.
The lack of free speech leads to parties misunderstanding exactly what their situation is. The Muslims in Europe and the US don't seem to realise that they are standing right on the edge of a precipice, because no-one is publicly saying what is being said privately.
And please don't say "what about all the moderate Muslims". When I see mass protests by Muslims against Saddam Hussain, 9/11, 7/7, Hezbollah, beheadings, the Iranian leadership, I will believe that there is a group of moderate Muslims.