|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Mar 28, 2015 10:04:31 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. Thanks for explaining terrorism men an tol, but saying that this does not fit the co-pilot is wrong in my estimation. When he locked the Captain out of the cockpit, how do you think that affected the passengers, they would have been filled with fear for their personal safety, and when the co-pilot put the plane into crash mode the passengers would have been aware that they were about to meet a violent end. So all these conditions are present in the actions of the co-pilot, so he must be a terrorist. Not forgettig that by not allowing the Captain into the cabin he held them hostage. All three conditions are there, held hostage, caused fear, and violence when they hit the mountain and were killed. What more can you ask for?
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Mar 28, 2015 11:06:35 GMT -5
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. They do indeed...
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 28, 2015 12:04:57 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. 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. absolutely Men...terrorism needs an agenda...because its the agenda that terrorism is all about...be it political/religious or sexual terrorism....terrorism is simply away of making people fearful so that they are more easily coerced/blackmailed/fearful one individual with no further aim than his own destruction..is not by any means terrorism the other passengers were not hostages in any way other than to fortune.. in that one man made them victims hostages usually have a price asked for their survival..no price was asked or offered in this case
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Mar 28, 2015 12:22:41 GMT -5
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. Thanks for explaining terrorism men an tol, but saying that this does not fit the co-pilot is wrong in my estimation. When he locked the Captain out of the cockpit, how do you think that affected the passengers, they would have been filled with fear for their personal safety, and when the co-pilot put the plane into crash mode the passengers would have been aware that they were about to meet a violent end. So all these conditions are present in the actions of the co-pilot, so he must be a terrorist. Not forgettig that by not allowing the Captain into the cabin he held them hostage. All three conditions are there, held hostage, caused fear, and violence when they hit the mountain and were killed. What more can you ask for? Chris, its not what I can ask for, it is the basic element that is missing, that is, the intent. If a person goes in to rob a bank by gun point, the people there are held hostage, the bank guard is not allowed to perform his duty, and there is certainly fear and terror in the minds of the people, and yet, no one would consider the bank robber as more than a . . . . . .. bank robber. Clearly the intent of a bank robber is to rob a bank and if terror and fear result they are by products of the robbery, that is, if the bank robber could rob the bank with no resulting fear and terror, he would do so.. A terrorist has the primary intent to cause fear and terror as resulting from acts committed to support a different goal. Generally such goals of the terrorist are to create a climate conducive to a political expansion or a religious expansion or more likely some combination of both. The intent is to use terrorism as 'necessary' to gain what the terrorist sees as the greater goal. Certainly not so with the bank robber or, as in this case, a person who mentally unstable and decides to commit suicide. To name such individuals as terrorists is not only an error but actually gets in the way of developing the facts as to what happened and to develop new approaches to stopping such acts.
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Mar 28, 2015 12:48:04 GMT -5
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. absolutely Men...terrorism needs an agenda...because its the agenda that terrorism is all about...be it political/religious or sexual terrorism....terrorism is simply away of making people fearful so that they are more easily coerced/blackmailed/fearful one individual with no further aim than his own destruction..is not by any means terrorism the other passengers were not hostages in any way other than to fortune.. in that one man made them victims hostages usually have a price asked for their survival..no price was asked or offered in this case smiley 1
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Mar 28, 2015 12:49:07 GMT -5
Thanks for explaining terrorism men an tol, but saying that this does not fit the co-pilot is wrong in my estimation. When he locked the Captain out of the cockpit, how do you think that affected the passengers, they would have been filled with fear for their personal safety, and when the co-pilot put the plane into crash mode the passengers would have been aware that they were about to meet a violent end. So all these conditions are present in the actions of the co-pilot, so he must be a terrorist. Not forgettig that by not allowing the Captain into the cabin he held them hostage. All three conditions are there, held hostage, caused fear, and violence when they hit the mountain and were killed. What more can you ask for? Chris, its not what I can ask for, it is the basic element that is missing, that is, the intent. If a person goes in to rob a bank by gun point, the people there are held hostage, the bank guard is not allowed to perform his duty, and there is certainly fear and terror in the minds of the people, and yet, no one would consider the bank robber as more than a . . . . . .. bank robber. Clearly the intent of a bank robber is to rob a bank and if terror and fear result they are by products of the robbery, that is, if the bank robber could rob the bank with no resulting fear and terror, he would do so.. A terrorist has the primary intent to cause fear and terror as resulting from acts committed to support a different goal. Generally such goals of the terrorist are to create a climate conducive to a political expansion or a religious expansion or more likely some combination of both. The intent is to use terrorism as 'necessary' to gain what the terrorist sees as the greater goal. Certainly not so with the bank robber or, as in this case, a person who mentally unstable and decides to commit suicide. To name such individuals as terrorists is not only an error but actually gets in the way of developing the facts as to what happened and to develop new approaches to stopping such acts. smiley 1
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Mar 28, 2015 12:59:24 GMT -5
My own take is to go with the evidence. The evidence points towards a deliberate descent. Answering the question why he did it is speculative at best. A deeply disturbed individual or a heartless lunatic, either way its shown up the flaws in cockpit security post 9/11. I heard that now most airline operators will implement the two man on the cockpit rule. The naysayers hold that this will mean the door being open longer and increasing risk. I'd say that's better than leaving a solitary pilot in control. not really the entrance will be more crowded making a terror attack harder. The best security is to leave the door open and give every passenger a baton/weapon (none fire arm) so a successful terror attack would require more terrorist than passengers making it pointless.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Mar 28, 2015 16:22:58 GMT -5
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. absolutely Men...terrorism needs an agenda...because its the agenda that terrorism is all about...be it political/religious or sexual terrorism....terrorism is simply away of making people fearful so that they are more easily coerced/blackmailed/fearful one individual with no further aim than his own destruction..is not by any means terrorism the other passengers were not hostages in any way other than to fortune.. in that one man made them victims hostages usually have a price asked for their survival..no price was asked or offered in this case That is the point Mouse, who said that he did it for his own destruction? I don't think that fact has been established to my satisfaction. When he went on duty, nobody thought he was behaving irratioally, so he must have been acting sanely enough to be able to trick his Captain. If it is true what he told his girlfriend then even though it was wrong thinking, he is obviously one of those people who feel so insignificant that they are always seeking fame,in order to be noticed, they can't bear to be ignored. Who knows? I certainly don't. I am just surmising like the rest of you. It is a very tragic event, that fact, we all agree on. Some people might want to be copycats, so the aviation people will ofcourse have to be on the alert..
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Mar 28, 2015 16:47:59 GMT -5
Thanks for explaining terrorism men an tol, but saying that this does not fit the co-pilot is wrong in my estimation. When he locked the Captain out of the cockpit, how do you think that affected the passengers, they would have been filled with fear for their personal safety, and when the co-pilot put the plane into crash mode the passengers would have been aware that they were about to meet a violent end. So all these conditions are present in the actions of the co-pilot, so he must be a terrorist. Not forgettig that by not allowing the Captain into the cabin he held them hostage. All three conditions are there, held hostage, caused fear, and violence when they hit the mountain and were killed. What more can you ask for? Chris, its not what I can ask for, it is the basic element that is missing, that is, the intent. If a person goes in to rob a bank by gun point, the people there are held hostage, the bank guard is not allowed to perform his duty, and there is certainly fear and terror in the minds of the people, and yet, no one would consider the bank robber as more than a . . . . . .. bank robber. Clearly the intent of a bank robber is to rob a bank and if terror and fear result they are by products of the robbery, that is, if the bank robber could rob the bank with no resulting fear and terror, he would do so.. A terrorist has the primary intent to cause fear and terror as resulting from acts committed to support a different goal. Generally such goals of the terrorist are to create a climate conducive to a political expansion or a religious expansion or more likely some combination of both. The intent is to use terrorism as 'necessary' to gain what the terrorist sees as the greater goal. Certainly not so with the bank robber or, as in this case, a person who mentally unstable and decides to commit suicide. To name such individuals as terrorists is not only an error but actually gets in the way of developing the facts as to what happened and to develop new approaches to stopping such acts. Come on Men an tol, it would be plain stupidity if a person who sets out to commit a crime, doesn't know that he/she is going to instil fear in people. It is a foregone conclusion that this will happen, no doubt about it. People are definitely being terrorised in any crime IMO, so as far as I am concerned, that makes he/she a terrorist. That is how I see it!!!
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Mar 28, 2015 17:09:27 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 I think in a way you can look at as a form of terrorism, he seemed to want to get back at society for one reason or another. Granted he had no explicit demand. So he did have some sort of an agenda to "change the whole system". However it's a bit unclear what he means. Maybe he should have said, but I think he could not say.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 28, 2015 17:19:38 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 I think in a way you can look at as a form of terrorism, he seemed to want to get back at society for one reason or another. Granted he had no explicit demand. So he did have some sort of an agenda to "change the whole system". However it's a bit unclear what he means. Maybe he should have said, but I think he could not say. I'm pretty sure one can be arrested for terroristic activity here without being a "terrorist" attached to any previously known terrorist group. I could be wrong but don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Mar 28, 2015 18:01:09 GMT -5
Chris, its not what I can ask for, it is the basic element that is missing, that is, the intent. If a person goes in to rob a bank by gun point, the people there are held hostage, the bank guard is not allowed to perform his duty, and there is certainly fear and terror in the minds of the people, and yet, no one would consider the bank robber as more than a . . . . . .. bank robber. Clearly the intent of a bank robber is to rob a bank and if terror and fear result they are by products of the robbery, that is, if the bank robber could rob the bank with no resulting fear and terror, he would do so.. A terrorist has the primary intent to cause fear and terror as resulting from acts committed to support a different goal. Generally such goals of the terrorist are to create a climate conducive to a political expansion or a religious expansion or more likely some combination of both. The intent is to use terrorism as 'necessary' to gain what the terrorist sees as the greater goal. Certainly not so with the bank robber or, as in this case, a person who mentally unstable and decides to commit suicide. To name such individuals as terrorists is not only an error but actually gets in the way of developing the facts as to what happened and to develop new approaches to stopping such acts. Come on Men an tol, it would be plain stupidity if a person who sets out to commit a crime, doesn't know that he/she is going to instil fear in people. It is a foregone conclusion that this will happen, no doubt about it. People are definitely being terrorised in any crime IMO, so as far as I am concerned, that makes he/she a terrorist. That is how I see it!!! You can see it any way you like, obviously, but again you are missing the intent. Certainly an individual can do some act which any logical person will believe can (will) terrorize others. I never said otherwise, but for the individual who causes the terror to be called a terrorist there must be intent for religious or political expansion or both. To not recognize this reality is to make the real terrorists equal to a common criminal or a mentally ill person. To be named a terrorist is specific to not just the act but the intent.
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Mar 28, 2015 19:11:58 GMT -5
I think in a way you can look at as a form of terrorism, he seemed to want to get back at society for one reason or another. Granted he had no explicit demand. So he did have some sort of an agenda to "change the whole system". However it's a bit unclear what he means. Maybe he should have said, but I think he could not say. I'm pretty sure one can be arrested for terrorist activity here without being a "terrorist" attached to any previously known terrorist group. I could be wrong but don't think so. It is a pretty meaning less expression anyone with an army and nuclear missiles in their back garden qualifies are a terrorist in my book. It is just a word use to discredit people you disagree with. To me it is a none word, everyone is a terrorist, just depends on whcih side of the fence/war you sit. It is used to demonise anyone who disagrees with the terrorist regime of the establishment basically. Anyhow just checked to make sure you were in the USA and indeed you are!! Anyhow I don't think summing people up with one word "terrorist" is very helpful, it is a demonsing word.
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Mar 28, 2015 19:18:55 GMT -5
Come on Men an tol, it would be plain stupidity if a person who sets out to commit a crime, doesn't know that he/she is going to instil fear in people. It is a foregone conclusion that this will happen, no doubt about it. People are definitely being terrorised in any crime IMO, so as far as I am concerned, that makes he/she a terrorist. That is how I see it!!! You can see it any way you like, obviously, but again you are missing the intent. Certainly an individual can do some act which any logical person will believe can (will) terrorize others. I never said otherwise, but for the individual who causes the terror to be called a terrorist there must be intent for religious or political expansion or both. To not recognize this reality is to make the real terrorists equal to a common criminal or a mentally ill person. To be named a terrorist is specific to not just the act but the intent. Do you distinguish between good terrorism and bad terrorism?? For example the USA has funded many terrorist groups in it's time.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Mar 28, 2015 22:55:50 GMT -5
You can see it any way you like, obviously, but again you are missing the intent. Certainly an individual can do some act which any logical person will believe can (will) terrorize others. I never said otherwise, but for the individual who causes the terror to be called a terrorist there must be intent for religious or political expansion or both. To not recognize this reality is to make the real terrorists equal to a common criminal or a mentally ill person. To be named a terrorist is specific to not just the act but the intent. Do you distinguish between good terrorism and bad terrorism?? For example the USA has funded many terrorist groups in it's time. Not for this theme since that discussion is long and would just confuse the issue being discussed. However, terrorism (in addition to what has been discussed) is focused on the civilian populace and not those who are the fighters.
|
|