Christian terrorists hijack a plane

[kddani]

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_]

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]

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_]

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]

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.

[_Opi_]

Originally Posted by kddani

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

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).

[_Opi_]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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).

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by _Opi_

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.

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."

[blueangel]

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.

[shinerbock]

Valk, thanks for making me throw up.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by blueangel

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.

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

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?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by RACooper

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.

Exactly.

[mulattogyrl]

Originally Posted by RACooper

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

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?

You summed it all up. Thank you.

[blueangel]

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.

Originally Posted by RACooper

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

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?