Germanwings Flight 9525 crashes in French Alps

520 posts in this topic

 

I'm not suggesting he was a terrorist, I just don't think his motive was suicide, but instead premeditated mass murder.

 

How is it when a Muslim gunman kills 4 at a Brussels Jewish museum it is labeled Terrorism; but when a German pilot kills himself, (along with 149 others) it is labeled "Suicide" ??

 

I don't care what religion Andreas Lubitz was! When you kill 149 people, it's Terrorism!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorism -

The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.

 

It's not terrorism, just mass-murder. I see no political or religious goal.

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is actually simple, every mistake a Muslim does is in the name of the religion, therefore it is terrorist. While every mistake a Christian does has nothing to do with the religion because it is a western religion, therefore you blame the person and it is of course not terrorism.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anders Behring Breivik is a terrorist. This pliot was not. He did not have any political or religious motives based on the information till now. Same case with the pilot of EgyptAir Flight 990. Not a terrorist, but another mass murderer. Sadly, the media speculate the terrorist card when the accused are Muslims.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... Sadly, the media speculate the terrorist card when the accused are Muslims.

 

Only because most modern acts of terrorism happen to be committed in the name of Islam by misguided Moslems.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sadly, the media speculate the terrorist card when the accused are Muslims.

 

Not only media. What changes if we put the terrorist label or not? Nothing, but people in this thread think that it makes a difference.

 

What matters if whether this guy belongs to some group or not. And if other pilots are members of this group also. This is important to know for prevention purpose. But we now know that this guy was a lone wolf.

 

 

It is actually simple, every mistake a Muslim does is in the name of the religion, therefore it is terrorist. While every mistake a Christian does has nothing to do with the religion because it is a western religion, therefore you blame the person and it is of course not terrorism.

 

Terror has a very strict definition, there is nothing to speculate. If you think that Lubitz was a terrorist, then tell us what kind of terror he did, which exactly policy he wanted to change.

In case of Charlie Hebdo terror was very clear: ban publishing Mohammed images. Simple message, simple policy suggestion.

In case of Breivik terror was also very clear: Ausländer raus. Simple message, simple policy suggestion.

 

What kind of policy did this pilot suggest?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

terrorists commit atrocities to try & force people to think or act in a certain way, often because they are powerless to achieve their ends by other means.

 

Hitler & Stalin were not terrorists. even during their reigns of terror.

 

Muslims don't have a monopoly on terror. There are Hindu terrorists in India, and were Christian terrorists in Northern Ireland. It's just that Muslims have dominated the terrorism industry over the last decade.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the missing plane from Malaysian Airlines? Remember when there were some theories about the pilot committing suicide? Then suddenly such act was considered terrorism because the pilot happened to be a Muslim. If it is proven that was the case then there should be no difference with the German pilot. But you know it is not like that in the modern world. A Muslim makes a mistake then the western world blame Islam.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is actually simple, every mistake a Muslim does is in the name of the religion, therefore it is terrorist. While every mistake a Christian does has nothing to do with the religion because it is a western religion, therefore you blame the person and it is of course not terrorism.

 

I guess you have never heard of Northern Ireland?

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hitler & Stalin were not terrorists. even during their reigns of terror.

That's another terror, I of course didn't speak of state terror.

 

And Hitler did commit a terror act, he put Reichstag on fire. This is a classics of terror: do something which scares people and forces them to make "correct" decisions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And Hitler did [...] put Reichstag on fire.

That's highly disputed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By you.

 

While he certainly didn't strike the match himself the terrorist attack, that's what it was , did happen on his order, at least with his complete consent

 

After about 400 post, Godwin's law finally applies.

 

OK, and both Hitler and Stalin were terrorists, of course. All their power was based only on terrorism. Against their people and against all foreign people under their control.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one thing that crossed my mind regarding whether this man made a conscious choice to kill the peeople on board...

 

having known a couple of suicidal people, they tend to be rather selfish when it comes to the end game, and very single minded. I know that doesn't sound nice but it's the only way to put it.

 

I can imagine this guy, whose biggest passion in life is flying...facing these health problems which will likely end his career...perhaps feeling suicidal, clearly unstable...finds himself in the extraordinary position of being alone in the cockpit...and he decides he'd like to go out doing the one thing he loves.

 

Yes that is mental. Obviously. But not completely implausible: it could very well be he didn't give the people on that plane a first, let alone a second thought when he made his decision about how HE wanted to leave this world.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By you.

 

While he certainly didn't strike the match himself the terrorist attack, that's what it was , did happen on his order, at least with his complete consent

So, if it's not disputed, surely, if I were to go to Wikipedia right now, it surely would - without leaving any room for questions - say it was Hitler? Right?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We seem to have a name for all the conditions. Lubitz obviously cannot be called a terrorist and was obviously suffering from something much more serious than depression. Psychotic schizophrenia is the descriptive term which I have heard bounded around. As mentioned here before as many as 1 in 4 may develop some kind of mental illness in their life but this is a very broad stroke that includes depression. How many people will develop psychotic schizophrenia to the degree this guy was suffering is anybody's guess but there are 150000 active airline pilots in the world. Presumably psychotic schizophrenia does have recognized symptoms and all airline pilots at least should be periodically checked out for these.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... I can imagine this guy ... finds himself in the extraordinary position of being alone in the cockpit ...

 

To be alone in the cockpit historically hasn't been at all extraordinary, until 9/11 followed by x then y then Lubitz caused a rethink of what is or isn't normal on board a passenger aircraft.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's common that the captain is off dicking around elsewhere on the plane while the junior staff is left to cover things behind that highly secured door?

 

I'm not asking for the historical view, but the view this guy would have had, given he was 27 years old and a mere teen when 911 happened.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I guess it's common that the captain is off dicking around elsewhere on the plane while the junior staff is left to cover things behind that highly secured door?

 

Sure - the FO is perfectly capable of completing a flight including landing if/when the captain becomes incapacitated. If you read through the bullitins of the BFU on their website you will see that this occasionally happens.

 

On a normal "tour" the captain & FO share the tasks of "pilot-flying" & PNF about 50-50.

 

I have been on a number of flights where one of the flight deck crew has come out. I have been on the jump seat when the captain visited the WC/Klo/restroom leaving the FO (& me) in the cockpit).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The selfishness covers his parents, whose life he has virtually ended -- not just through the suicide -- horrible enough -- but the murders.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now