He'll be called a terrorist if there is any evidence of a political or ideological motive... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Nobody cares about his feelings, they just want answers, so spare the rhetoric until we get some.
Printable View
He'll be called a terrorist if there is any evidence of a political or ideological motive... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Nobody cares about his feelings, they just want answers, so spare the rhetoric until we get some.
P4P is correct in his analysis though. Change the name and skin colour and it would be immediate terrorism. Like when Putin shot down that plane with his air rifle and when France was infiltrated by those devilish Muslim sorts. It's terrorism whenever it fits our agenda and isn't when we decide it doesn't. Terrorism is just a fancy name for those we don't like killing people. Personally, I think the killing of 150 people regardless of who did it an act of terrorism.
andreas 666 lubitz March 24, 2015 a day that will live in darkness for quite some time
No, it's an act of mass murder and senseless violence. Just because it's not (yet confirmed as) terrorism, doesn't make it any less awful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Terrorism's definition is clearly defined and has nothing to do with the scale or scope of violence, an Animal Rights activist petrol bombing the empty admin office of a company which tests on animals is terrorism, even though no person would have been harmed.
Lets not bastardise the word for the sake of our emotion.
The news just stated investigators found a doctor's note excusing him from work the day of the crash torn up in the guys apartment. I was hoping there was a rush to judgement but it sounding very peculiar. What if the guy did have a heart attack or seizure or something of the like.I guess we need to find out why the doctor was excusing him. Apparently three Americans were on the flight as well. Not that it makes a difference in its tragic nature, I just heard it. I guess I'm hoping this is not a purposeful event but I have to say it's looking more that way with every report.
I've been tied up with something this week so I'm a bit behind in the news but apparently the cockpit recording shows the compiling was conscious and breathing normally during the descent on the way to the crash. Damn, I was hoping that wouldn't be the case, it's scary what any of us are capable of. I'm only flying in a plane if Brock or Miles are driving the bitchQuote:
Originally Posted by walrus
:happy0931sb4::banana::clap::rocks::shocking::shoc king::shocking::stars::stars::stars:Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusI've been tied up with something this week so I'm a bit behind in the news but apparently the cockpit recording shows the compiling was conscious and breathing normally during the descent on the way to the crash. Damn, I was hoping that wouldn't be the case, it's scary what any of us are capable of. I'm only flying in a plane if Brock or Miles are driving the bitchQuote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Taking down a commercial flight fits my definition of it under any circumstance, as Miles said the term just gets thrown around when it fits. A large attack on random people in public is what it is, you are dealing with a terrorist and a mental inherently imo. Barring brocks extremely unlikely freak accident theory, this guy knew what he was doing and that's what matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGBHe'll be called a terrorist if there is any evidence of a political or ideological motive... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Nobody cares about his feelings, they just want answers, so spare the rhetoric until we get some.
[QUOTE=Gandalf;1312856P4P is correct in his analysis though. Change the name and skin colour and it would be immediate terrorism. [/QUOTE]
I heard a stat somewhere that 100% of Islamic terrorists practice Islam... don't know if it's true or not though ;D
Sadly, change his name and skin color to a certain ethnicity and chances are it would be Islamic terrorism
I kind of get where you coming from on a very loose sense, but there still needs to be some sort of political or religious ideology or motive for it to meet the definition properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingTaking down a commercial flight fits my definition of it under any circumstance, as Miles said the term just gets thrown around when it fits. A large attack on random people in public is what it is, you are dealing with a terrorist and a mental inherently imo. Barring brocks extremely unlikely freak accident theory, this guy knew what he was doing and that's what matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGBHe'll be called a terrorist if there is any evidence of a political or ideological motive... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Nobody cares about his feelings, they just want answers, so spare the rhetoric until we get some.
Like I say, I can ses your point but can't agree 100%
I train a pilot (not to fly lol) I'll ask him when I see him next, but from what I've heard, you can't accidently deadlock the door and put the plane into descent, not in a million years.
He's let me in the cockpit when the plane's been landed, those doors are thick and the frame/hinges too, you'd need something pretty substantial to get that door down. I keep going through the scenario - what would be to hand on a plane? What could be used to batter or prise the door open? I don't even think they have heavy duty fire extinguishers. It's making me sick thinking of those minutes.
Planes glide too, I've flown a small plane and pushing the yoke to make it descend took a decent amount of force, no way was it accidental.
People may say that yes but they wouldn't necessarily be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Yeah this made me angry, I do get the difference and why it's significant. My thing is that a lot of people have radical religious or political beliefs etc, but to actually go through with something like this takes a bit more than that. Nothing like this is truly done in the name of anything but insanity. I'm wondering how this guy would have flown under the radar(terrible pun) and seemed fit to work, if it turns out he wasn't trying to make a statement:-\Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGBI kind of get where you coming from on a very loose sense, but there still needs to be some sort of political or religious ideology or motive for it to meet the definition properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingTaking down a commercial flight fits my definition of it under any circumstance, as Miles said the term just gets thrown around when it fits. A large attack on random people in public is what it is, you are dealing with a terrorist and a mental inherently imo. Barring brocks extremely unlikely freak accident theory, this guy knew what he was doing and that's what matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamGBHe'll be called a terrorist if there is any evidence of a political or ideological motive... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Nobody cares about his feelings, they just want answers, so spare the rhetoric until we get some.
Like I say, I can ses your point but can't agree 100%
I train a pilot (not to fly lol) I'll ask him when I see him next, but from what I've heard, you can't accidently deadlock the door and put the plane into descent, not in a million years.
He's let me in the cockpit when the plane's been landed, those doors are thick and the frame/hinges too, you'd need something pretty substantial to get that door down. I keep going through the scenario - what would be to hand on a plane? What could be used to batter or prise the door open? I don't even think they have heavy duty fire extinguishers. It's making me sick thinking of those minutes.
Planes glide too, I've flown a small plane and pushing the yoke to make it descend took a decent amount of force, no way was it accidental.
No, not necessarily true but going by recent history the chance is not out of the realm of reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanmanPeople may say that yes but they wouldn't necessarily be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus