Christian terrorists hijack a plane
 

Notice the tone of the article, if you will...


BRINDISI, Italy (CNN) -- A hijacking episode that began over Greek airspace has ended in Italy with all 113 people aboard released and both unarmed Turkish hijackers in the custody of Italian aviation authorities, Italian officials said.

Earlier reports on Tuesday that the hijackers were protesting Pope Benedict XVI's planned visit to Turkey were apparently incorrect; authorities now say that the hijackers have requested political asylum."

Read the rest of the article here:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe...ack/index.html


I'm surprised this is not "breaking news".

It doesn't sound like religious extremism as much as a very extreme reaction to perceived political oppression. It's hard to make a call at this point, but since these guys didn't apparently hurt or kill anyone, they are automatically not as bad as the monsters who do hurt and kill people.

I'm sure after a few days or weeks enjoying the hospitality of the Turkish penal system, we (or the Turkish government) will know everything there is to know about these guys, why they did what they are doint, if they are part of an organized resistance, plans for future attacks, etc.

Too bad our congress wants to block such valuable means of acquiring intelligence :(

No one got hurt, it seems that most of the passengers didn't even know what's going on, and in the US there are a lot of big news stories going on right now- like innocent children being executed, several political scandals.

It's unfortunate, and i'm happy that no one got hurt, but it's not the biggest story out there today.

I guess the real question here is: Does hijacking a commercial airplane constitute terrorism? or is it ok to hijack a plane for political asylum as long as "no one" gets hurt?

It is big news, actually.

Your tone makes it sound like you're trying to start some sort of race/religion debate here or put words in people's mouths.

Whether or not it constitutes "terrorism" depends on the laws of the country that have jurisdiction over the matter or whatever treaties/agreements govern. I'm not hip to that.

No one said anything about it ever being okay to hijack a plane.

It's not a race debate, it is a religious one. If you don't like this discussion, you don't have to respond. But if you didn't notice, there is another thread about "radical islam". So religious threads are plenty in GC.

Anyway, I posted it because it was the "news" and "politics" section, and this story applies.

I find it preplexing that hijacking a plane by a group of people seeking "religious/political assylum" does not get the same headline/breaking news than, let's say, people of other religions. Both are equally atrocious and deserve equal coverage.

Yes, and tone says a lot. Making provocative statements to try to rile people up isn't necessarily effective. And i'm free to read and comment on anything on this site that I would like.

Details of this story are just being released. Not a single person got hurt, there was no violence involved. There's a big difference.

I could care less of what religion they are. No one got hurt, no property was damaged, and in light of many other things going on in the world, this is just a very very small blip, unless other thigns are uncovered that reveal more.

It could be interesting to see if they get prosecuted in Turkey or wherever, but for now, there's nothing all that "sexy" or "interesting" about this story. A couple religious wackos, who don't appear to be part of some sort of bigger scheme, "peacefully" (for lack of better word- without force, violence, or threats of harm) hijacked a plane. Yes, it was wrong, yes, they should be punished. But there's a lot worse things going on in the world and in this country right now.

It's one of the top stories at CNN, ABC News, CBS News, and the BBC. At 3:00, it was in the news headlines on NPR.

But, I suspect that the fact that no Americans seem to be involved keeps it from being the top story here. (It is the top story at the BBC's website).

The only thing I thought I was doing was provocking a discussion about how little media coverage this story is receiving or why there were not labelled terrorist when they clearly hijacked a plane.

I agree that there are alot of worse things that are going on right now, but that's not the point. The point is, that if these guys were muslims (which they were thought to be at first--because of the whole Pope visiting Turkey bit) it would nevertheless be "breaking news".

I noticed that you said that there was no violence used. And that it was peaceful --for lack of a better word. They infiltrated the cockpit. I can only imagine what the pilots were thinking. And I can't see how you can peacefully hijack a plane to make a political statement or whatever. Still, even though no one got hurt in the end does not make it any less scarier.

Anyway, this was religiously motivated crime. And if a muslim or a christian did it, they deserve the same media coverage and the same labels.

I posted a CNN article. And it wasn't breaking news. I haven't had a chance to go to BBC, but I'm not surprised it's breaking news over there.

Yes.

This would be a bigger news story if these were Islamic people. THen it could be used to fuel the fear and anxiety over Islam, terrorism, and anti-America (or anti-government, in general) sentiments.

Terrorism is violence against innocent civilians that is designed to have a psychological impact on a broader audience in order to achieve a political, messianic, or vengeful goal. The motivation behind terrorist acts is not as important as the means through which people evoke fear. (Harvard magazine, 2002)

Hijacking a plane is a very frightening act. If people don't die as a result, GREAT, but the people on that plane didn't necessarily know they weren't going to die. We also don't know if this was just one of a series of hijacks and other attacks planned.

I'm not sure what you mean by "breaking news," since I don't see that catagory at CNN.com. It's the fourth story, and the first from outside the US, under "Latest Stories."

It's never OK to hijack a commercial plane. I can't imagine a 'worthwhile' cause for a hijacking.

As far as 'terrorism', while DSTCHAOS has provided a definition that requires violence, I'd say this would probably be construed as an act of 'terrorism'.

However, here's where I'm not sure if I can agree:

Hijackings that result in injury are not 'equally attrocious' to those that result in no harm to innocents; I can't reason any way to get around that.

I do agree, however, that given identical outcomes/circumstances as far as loss of life/injury, it should not matter the reason for the hijacking - hijacking in the name of Allah should not be considered worse than hijacking for political asylum, for Greenpeace, or for any reason.

Check the red-bolded text at the top of the page. I think the current breaking news is about the Dow average breaking at a record high.

I provided that definition to show that this is terrorism.

Hijacking a plane is violence, which includes forcefulness and the threat of violence. So this story is about terrorism just as any other terrorist news story is. If it were not violence, the flight crew and passengers would've been able to ignore the hijackers and continue their flight without any obstruction. There wouldn't have been a newstory or the story would've read "attempted hijacking on a commercial airline...but no one cared or felt fearful so the hijackers just sat down and asked the flight attendant for peanuts."

And they all deserve the appropriate title of "terrorists" and equal media coverage.

I wonder if we'e looking at different versions of CNN.com. What I'm looking at doesn't have any red-bolded text at the top of the page. The Dow story is the first one under "Latest News," followed by Foley, Bush on Dems and Congress, and then the Turkish highjacking story.

The absence of injury or a loss of life is only the difference between "terrorists" and "attempted terrorists." "Terrorist" is still in there.

No, it's still there.

Not on what I'm looking at. No bold, red-text, breaking news at all. Weird.

Yeah, what else is weird is that your signature says FMA but I see the greek with some other peoples

Yes, but currently Islamists are way ahead of Fundamental Christian terrorists in terms of current events.

The media determines media coverage. This story certainly meets the So What Factor. But given that Christianity is the dominant Western religion, I don't think we're going to see huge exposes on the Christian Fundamentalist Conspiracy.

That's too bad. Seriously.

This is fair - my reading of 'violence' as 'causing injury' was probably too narrow, and it makes more sense now that I see we're headed in the same direction.

I think _Opi_ made a good point with the title of this thread... in that because Christianity is the dominant faith in the West, we are forgiving or give a pass to, fundamentalists and radicals in "our" own faith...

Also look at the labelling of the thread, or even how it is reported in the news... the two hijackers (who yes, are terrorists according to the 'Bush' doctrine of terrorism) are reported as just that 'two hijackers' ~ BUT if they had say been Muslim, then it would have been all over the news as 'two MUSLIM men'. Why though? Why is that the "Western" media is so ready to use faith (and ethnicity) as an identifier or qualifier? I mean why is one gunman who goes on a rampage described as "disturbed" or "deranged" and others simply described as "Muslim"?

/cosign

Seriously, even the most radical or fundamentalist Muslim doesn't consider "the end of the world" or "end times" a good thing, or at least something to look forward to...

Did you guys not read the part where the passengers didn't even know the plane was being hijacked? Now I mean, label them terrorists if you will, but from what I've read they were never really a threat to anyone.

My guess is that with so much going on between the school shootings and the Page/Congress scandal, what might have been a story on a slower news day simply got pushed aside.

The whole thing seems to have been pretty tame in relation to what we have come to expect from a hi-jacking.

Whether that's right or wrong, I'd have to leave that to an expert on journalistic ethics.

There have been several times when an airliner has been diverted (a couple here to Denver) when a passenger became unruly or made comments they shouldn't have. The ones here were carried by local media, but did not make the national press.

So if some gelhead drugs you and, you know, sticks it in the ol' pooper but you're passed out and don't know it's happening, that's totally cool, right?

Had the hijacking resulted in the plane slamming into a building killing all aboard as well as nearly 3,000 innocent civilians, I think that would have made more of a news impact.

Had this been part of an organized "Jihad" called by extremist Christians against all non-Christians then yeah.. you would have a point. But, this isn't the case. There is no "Christian Jihad".. however there is an extremist Muslim Jihad against non-Muslims.

Valk, thanks for making me throw up.

Ah yes because I forgot, the easy explanation that any violence commited by one of the Islamic faith can be attributed to a “Jihad” :rolleyes:

There is a serious double-standard, or dare I say prejudice, out there that _Opi_ was trying to draw attention to (I think) – namely how the violence is portrayed or reported differently as it applies to Muslims.

Looking at the recent news, concerning the Amish school shooting, how much has been made of the murderer’s faith? I haven’t seen headlines proclaiming “Christian Man murders Amish children”, have you? But lets just say that the shooter had been Muslim… do you think the reporting might have mentioned his faith then? Or say the shooting at Dawson College up in Montreal… if the shooter had been a Muslim instead of a Atheist/Nihilist, I’m positive that the coverage would have been vastly different.

The problem is that many (yourself included) seem to jump to the conclusion that in the case of a Muslim committing a violent act, the first conclusion (and only amongst some) is it is simply “a further example of the violent nature of the faith”… whereas the same acts committed by a Christian will instead focus on how the perpetrator was deranged or “sick”, not their faith. Now why is that? Is this simply a new flavour of societal prejudice, much like the double standard of racial labelling in crime reporting of the past (and present in some areas)?

Finally why is it that every time a Muslim commits an unspeakable act, that other Muslims are called to justify or defend their faith? <such as you did with _Opi_ in another thread> Yet the same standard isn’t applied for us Christians – for example, I haven’t be asked to defend the Christian (or Roman Catholic denomination) faith in light of the Christian militants actions in Indonesia… nor do I think were Christians held accountable for the actions of Hitler – after all he was “Christian”. Instead we recognize that these acts, individuals, and ideologies are aberrations or perversions of the Christian faith – so why can’t we apply the same reasoning and standards to Islam?

It's called the Crusade. There are still Christians who cause violence in the Middle East, but they usually loose, because they are the minority. But there was a very active Crusade back in the day, because that is where Christianity was during its devolpement. Islam today is in a simillar state. But to cliam there is organized violence by Christians against non-Christians is erronerous.

Exactly.

You summed it all up. Thank you.

I knew six people in the World Trade Center.. and one on the Pennsylvania airplane that crashed on 911, so I think I know what "violence" and "terrorism" is.

Hijacking of any sort is a wrong and horrible.. but the example Opi gave is like comparing apples and oranges. Christians have not declared a mass holy war against anyone. This hijacking had nothing to do with trying to exterminate those who practice a religion.. where as the it was the mission (and still is) of the terrorists on 911 to kill as many non-Muslims as possible.

The Amish thing had nothing to do with a holy war. It was a crazed man who enjoyed making young girls suffer and loved to kill. I'll never understand what drives humans to enjoy making others suffer.. whether it be torturing someone mentally or physically. He lived in the Amish area, and these girls were an easy target. He did not declare a holy war on the Amish.

And... regarding my questions on the other thread... I asked legitimate questions, but Opi refused to answer them. The questions I asked are the basis of why there is so much controversy regarding Islam.

She got extremely defensive about those quotes.. as are you. Why? Those quotes were in the Islamic holy book. I did not make them up. I even asked her to explain to me what they meant and whether they were mistranslated. They describe how those of the Islamic faith are commanded to convert everyone to Islam, and if they don't.. to fight them. It's right there in black and white.

The crux of this is that there is a Jihad declared against all non-Muslims.... just as Hitler declared a Jihad against all Jews. He got plenty of press too... and he wasn't Muslim. If there was a holy war against the Muslims, I'm sure those causing the violence against the Islamic community would get lots of press too.

Yes there was a crusade, and it was wrong.. just as Nazi Germany was also an organized extermination of another religion, and it was wrong.... just as the Islamic Terrorist "Jihad" is an organized extermination of all non Muslims. What is extremely disturbing are those passages in the Islamic holy book that I quoted to Opi urging Muslims to fight all non-muslims.

What are people debating and why?

Just admit that there are different forms of terrorism, and that the media has given people a certain image of terrorism, and be done with it. Geesh. ;)

If the Q'uran does have passages such as this, what is the relevance of this for this topic?