|
Post by markindurham on Mar 28, 2015 5:14:38 GMT -5
Politicians are bound to skip thinking it through. BA's statement was interesting - "We don't discuss it" Quite so. One point - until the other day, whilst '2 in the cockpit' was being performed in the US and elsewhere, it wasn't common knowledge. Now, of course, it is...
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Mar 28, 2015 5:15:36 GMT -5
Well now, it seems to me that you're very good at pontificating about your own beliefs, but you don't like to be challenged about them. A good example; yesterday Joseph challenged me regarding, inter alia, remotely operated aircraft and the use of ships as WMDs. I was able, without any animosity on my part, to rationally point out the reasoning for my stance on both, which were well received and, I believe, accepted without any problem on Joseph's part. There is NO evidence to suggest that this young pilot was in any way religiously or politically motivated to do what he did, although I do note that one or two Tea Party pillocks have tried to start a rumour that he was a recent convert to the cult of the carpet-headbutters... I don't believe that anybody is disputing, basis the evidence produced thus far, that he acted anything other than in a cool, calm and methodical manner. I'm really not sure why you feel it necessary to claim otherwise? Incidentally, how do you KNOW that he knew what he was doing was wrong? I'm sure that I'm not the only one wondering that... We are all expounding what we believe is the reason for his action, why has it turned personal all of a sudden? I'm only surmising as everyone else is doing, if we find out that he was prescribed the drugs that Kronks mentioned, then I'll go for that, as that is the best reason yet. We will just have to wait for more evidence, otherwise we will never really know what was on his mind no matter how much we pontificate!!! It hasn't turned personal - this is normal challenge and response...
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Mar 28, 2015 5:30:36 GMT -5
when the co-pilot refused to open the cockpit door at the insistence of the Captain, the Captain and passengers were in fact at that moment in time, actually being held hostage. That is the act of a terrorist. Surely you cannot dispute that fact.
Whatever the case may be, it seems which ever way you turn, there is no real security anywhere, we can only try to minimise the danger.
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Mar 28, 2015 5:38:40 GMT -5
when the co-pilot refused to open the cockpit door at the insistence of the Captain, the Captain and passengers were in fact at that moment in time, actually being held hostage. That is the act of a terrorist. Surely you cannot dispute that fact. Whatever the case may be, it seems which ever way you turn, there is no real security anywhere, we can only try to minimise the danger. What part of 'political or religious aims' still hasn't sunk in? You cannot play fast and loose with the definition of terrorism. Yes, the others on board were powerless, but this has not been proven to be a terrorist act, and it is a very dangerous road that we travel if we allow ourselves to define it as such. Also, there is minimising risk and becoming obsessed with it. It's a fine line to tread. Be careful.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 28, 2015 5:50:26 GMT -5
Chris wrote"""" When someone strikes fear into a person, then the perpetrator is a terrorist. These passengers suffered at the hands of the co-pilot when they realised what was about to happen."""" terrorists have an agenda..a plan..a reason behind their wish to terrorise others ...so I cannot go along with the idea that this man can come under the definition of terrorism.. imo he was no more than a selfish self obsessed inward looking killer..concerned only with himself and his needs/desires/wants...with no regard for those he was condemning to die along side him... it was all about him him him and his demons....part and parcel of the me me me generation
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Mar 28, 2015 7:18:05 GMT -5
when the co-pilot refused to open the cockpit door at the insistence of the Captain, the Captain and passengers were in fact at that moment in time, actually being held hostage. That is the act of a terrorist. Surely you cannot dispute that fact. Whatever the case may be, it seems which ever way you turn, there is no real security anywhere, we can only try to minimise the danger. What part of 'political or religious aims' still hasn't sunk in? You cannot play fast and loose with the definition of terrorism. Yes, the others on board were powerless, but this has not been proven to be a terrorist act, and it is a very dangerous road that we travel if we allow ourselves to define it as such. Also, there is minimising risk and becoming obsessed with it. It's a fine line to tread. Be careful.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Mar 28, 2015 7:52:57 GMT -5
Hi Markindurham, Why are you bringing politics and religion into the discussion? And why have you suggested that I am paranoid and obsessed, I don't understand you at all.
I asked you to define terrorism, I'm still waiting!!! Whatever his frame of mind was at the time these actions took place, the fact is, he knew what he was doing.
He was supposed to be helping to fly the plane not deliberately crash it, and by preventing the Captain back into the cabin he was indeed holding them all hostage.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 28, 2015 8:44:27 GMT -5
Well now, it seems to me that you're very good at pontificating about your own beliefs, but you don't like to be challenged about them. A good example; yesterday Joseph challenged me regarding, inter alia, remotely operated aircraft and the use of ships as WMDs. I was able, without any animosity on my part, to rationally point out the reasoning for my stance on both, which were well received and, I believe, accepted without any problem on Joseph's part. There is NO evidence to suggest that this young pilot was in any way religiously or politically motivated to do what he did, although I do note that one or two Tea Party pillocks have tried to start a rumour that he was a recent convert to the cult of the carpet-headbutters... I don't believe that anybody is disputing, basis the evidence produced thus far, that he acted anything other than in a cool, calm and methodical manner. I'm really not sure why you feel it necessary to claim otherwise? Incidentally, how do you KNOW that he knew what he was doing was wrong? I'm sure that I'm not the only one wondering that... Suicide is the ultimate amoral, narcissistic act. After the decision is made, the suicidal person becomes a god. Nothing else matters. If someone else induced this individual to crash the aircraft, we might regard this act as terrorist. The ragheads, however, haven't taken responsibility for the crash. It looks like this guy acted alone. The usual idiots want to know why he did it. When is that ever going to matter? People kill themselves simply because they can.
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Mar 28, 2015 8:51:39 GMT -5
Hi Markindurham, Why are you bringing politics and religion into the discussion? And why have you suggested that I am paranoid and obsessed, I don't understand you at all. I asked you to define terrorism, I'm still waiting!!! Whatever his frame of mind was at the time these actions took place, the fact is, he knew what he was doing. He was supposed to be helping to fly the plane not deliberately crash it, and by preventing the Captain back into the cabin he was indeed holding them all hostage. *sighs* Paranoid/obsessed because you seem to think that 'terrorists' are behind everything bad that happens. This might be a difficult concept to grasp, but not every evil deed is terrorism... Politics and religion are PART OF THE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM, which I posted a couple of hours ago. Feel free to reprise my posts This was, for the umpteenth time, NOT A TERRORIST ACT, but the actions of someone not in his right mind.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Mar 28, 2015 9:05:11 GMT -5
Hi Markindurham, Why are you bringing politics and religion into the discussion? And why have you suggested that I am paranoid and obsessed, I don't understand you at all. I asked you to define terrorism, I'm still waiting!!! Whatever his frame of mind was at the time these actions took place, the fact is, he knew what he was doing. He was supposed to be helping to fly the plane not deliberately crash it, and by preventing the Captain back into the cabin he was indeed holding them all hostage. Terrorism includes intent that is the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear. None of this fits the acts of the copilot. His was the act of a single person using the method of crashing the plane to face his own personal demons. That other people were on the plane most likely had no meaning to him. This is very unlike the planes taken over and crashed on 9/11 which were well planned to make a large political statement and to terrorize civilians. To define the the copilot's act as terrorism is to give it a perspective that is more than that of a 'sick' individual.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Mar 28, 2015 9:19:59 GMT -5
Hi Markindurham, Why are you bringing politics and religion into the discussion? And why have you suggested that I am paranoid and obsessed, I don't understand you at all. I asked you to define terrorism, I'm still waiting!!! Whatever his frame of mind was at the time these actions took place, the fact is, he knew what he was doing. He was supposed to be helping to fly the plane not deliberately crash it, and by preventing the Captain back into the cabin he was indeed holding them all hostage. *sighs* Paranoid/obsessed because you seem to think that 'terrorists' are behind everything bad that happens. This might be a difficult concept to grasp, but not every evil deed is terrorism... Politics and religion are PART OF THE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM, which I posted a couple of hours ago. Feel free to reprise my posts This was, for the umpteenth time, NOT A TERRORIST ACT, but the actions of someone not in his right mind. Hi Markindurham, you seem to be as obsessed as you say that I am. I've just heard that the co-pilot told his girlfriend that he was planning a heinous crime that the world would remember forever. How do you like them apples?
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Mar 28, 2015 9:27:08 GMT -5
*sighs* Paranoid/obsessed because you seem to think that 'terrorists' are behind everything bad that happens. This might be a difficult concept to grasp, but not every evil deed is terrorism... Politics and religion are PART OF THE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM, which I posted a couple of hours ago. Feel free to reprise my posts This was, for the umpteenth time, NOT A TERRORIST ACT, but the actions of someone not in his right mind. Hi Markindurham, you seem to be as obsessed as you say that I am. I've just heard that the co-pilot told his girlfriend that he was planning a heinous crime that the world would remember forever. How do you like them apples? Hahaha - nice try, but an epic fail. we have another member who tries that stunt on occasion As for what the bloke said to his girlfriend - yes, we've all seen the story, but it still doesn't make him a terrorist, does it? Wanting to be remembered forever is not the same as, for example, wanting the world to worship the kiddie-fiddling warmongering paedophile & the imaginary friend dreamed up by that bampot (religious) or wanting full control of a region of a country, like the murdering Basque scum in Spain (political). Have another go!
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Mar 28, 2015 9:34:12 GMT -5
We are all expounding what we believe is the reason for his action, why has it turned personal all of a sudden? I'm only surmising as everyone else is doing, if we find out that he was prescribed the drugs that Kronks mentioned, then I'll go for that, as that is the best reason yet. We will just have to wait for more evidence, otherwise we will never really know what was on his mind no matter how much we pontificate!!! It hasn't turned personal - this is normal challenge and response... You sure seem to be up yourself, if you understand that expression. And ofcourse it has turned personal. We are supposed to be describing the person who was responsible for crashing the plane. Yet you are now describing me. Just because I am giving my point of view as to why he decided to commit that act.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Mar 28, 2015 9:41:14 GMT -5
Hi Markindurham, you seem to be as obsessed as you say that I am. I've just heard that the co-pilot told his girlfriend that he was planning a heinous crime that the world would remember forever. How do you like them apples? Hahaha - nice try, but an epic fail. we have another member who tries that stunt on occasion As for what the bloke said to his girlfriend - yes, we've all seen the story, but it still doesn't make him a terrorist, does it? Wanting to be remembered forever is not the same as, for example, wanting the world to worship the kiddie-fiddling warmongering paedophile & the imaginary friend dreamed up by that bampot (religious) or wanting full control of a region of a country, like the murdering Basque scum in Spain (political). Have another go! I wouldn't even try Markindurham, the posts speak for themselves, so I'll leave it at that. and wait for the final assesment.
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Mar 28, 2015 9:43:03 GMT -5
It hasn't turned personal - this is normal challenge and response... You sure seem to be up yourself, if you understand that expression. And ofcourse it has turned personal. We are supposed to be describing the person who was responsible for crashing the plane. Yet you are now describing me. Just because I am giving my point of view as to why he decided to commit that act. If you say so, chris. If you say so... This is a messageboard, where robust debate is the norm. I happen to disagree with some of your definitions and views, and I do note that I am not alone I leave it for others to decide if I'm "up myself", as you so eloquently claim... ...but I would respectfully point out that if you are prepared to "dish it out", then you also have to be prepared to "take it" as well. Just sayin'...
|
|