Christian terrorists hijack a plane

_Opi_ · #1 10-03-2006, 03:12 PM

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".

Kevin · #2 10-03-2006, 03:24 PM

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

kddani · #3 10-03-2006, 03:25 PM

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.

_Opi_ · #4 10-03-2006, 03:30 PM

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.

kddani · #5 10-03-2006, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Opi_

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.

_Opi_ · #6 10-03-2006, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kddani

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.

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.

kddani · #7 10-03-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Opi_

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.

MysticCat · #8 10-03-2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Opi_

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.

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).

blueangel · #9 10-03-2006, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Opi_

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.

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.

DSTCHAOS · #10 10-03-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Opi_

I guess the real question here is: Does hijacking a commercial airplane constitute terrorism?

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.

DSTCHAOS · #11 10-03-2006, 04:05 PM

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.

KSig RC · #12 10-03-2006, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Opi_

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'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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Opi_

Both are equally atrocious and deserve equal coverage.

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.

DSTCHAOS · #13 10-03-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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'.

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."

KSig RC · #14 10-03-2006, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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."

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.

_Opi_ · #15 10-03-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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