Germanwings pilot: terrorist?

If you're not familiar with the recent details of the Germanwings plane crash, that's forgivable. There's been at least two major plane crashes within the last two weeks, both with catastrophic death tolls. However, what differentiates the Germanwings tragedy is that it appears to have been intentional: the co-pilot Andreas Lubitz seems to have locked the other pilot out of the cockpit and then begun the slow and deliberate descent into the crash site.

What has incensed many is that the crash is deliberately not being referred to as an act of terrorism by 'the media', instead focusing on his depression as a way to get around using the buzzword. Many of those same people are claiming that since Lubitz is a White Christian, the media is refusing to label him as a terrorist, saving that as a term solely for Muslims.

It's an interesting (and crucial) look into the state of affairs: while the revulsion for Lubitz's actions is universally shared by those who are aware of the current info, few are willing to label him with the word that would so easily be doled out in another situation. It's a common tactic in many crimes that would be called terrorism if the perpetrator was of a Muslim background (just one example), but instead, the white person is given the sympathy treatment. Perhaps sympathy isn't the right word, but nevertheless, there is a distinct difference in the way white terrorists are reported and treated.

What do you think of this situation? Do you think the criticism is justified?

I certainly support not using the word "terrorism"; but not for the reasons defined by the media perse. I think labeling anyone or any act as "terrorist" carries a strong connotation of evil, and therefore should be done with due care and caution no matter who the perpetrator is or what they so choose to believe in.

I also understand that this could indeed clearly be an act of terrorism; there are some crazy Christians who aren't pleased with the way Gay Rights have been prevailing in the world as of late. I also feel like there could perhaps be a reluctance to outright label the act as terrorism; because they don't want to seem like America in the way they act.

The purpose of a terrorist act is to invoke terror to a populace for a reason or to make a statement (usually). So no, it wasn't terrorism.

He had no reason other than he was mentally unwell, and he chose to not disclose that and to disobey his doctor who blatantly deemed him unfit for work. He was on psychiatric leave for a year and a half in 2009, [during his training(?)]. How was his 18 month absence ignored by his employers? The issue at hand is so much more of a mental illness recognition and treatment and its stigma than a racial terrorism issue. This offense brings to question, should it be legally mandatory for an employee's diagnosed illnesses to be known by the employer? How would that correlate with disability discrimination acts?

Mental illnesses and their effects and treatment in the workplace are already being swept under the rug enough, ignoring it and pasting terrorism on top is doing nobody any favors.

Terrorists have goals; they act with the deliberate purpose of inciting fear. The question is whether Lubitz was ideologically, politically, or in some other meaningful way motivated to do his actions and whether he intended to incite fear in a particular population. The evidence I've read suggests that this is not the case. If his point had been to kill homosexuals, strike fear in muslims, or something of that nature then terrorist might be the correct term. Organization is another question; we tend to draw distinctions between individuals acting alone and individuals acting in concert, even in the case of non-white, Muslim killers. See the Ft. Hood shooting, which was classified as workplace violence instead of terrorism I believe.

The issue you mention may well be a real issue, but I would find a different case for an example.

He was diagnosed with mental issues, the real question is why he was allowed to co-pilot with then

I've been watching the commentary around this story with a growing discomfort.

His motivation for crashing the plane wasn't about trying to kill those people for a higher purpose. He just wanted to kill himself. Is what he did wrong? Yeah, because he purposefully killed a bunch of innocent people. Is it terrorism? No, because he only did it so he himself could escape the world. The mental health stigma in calling him a terrorist is callous because if I purposefully got into a car accident to off myself (Something I had planned to do at a point) I would of rather people understood depression and the fact I couldn't care enough rather than me being labelled just a killer.

Terrorist or not, there's definitely a criticism to be made about how much more sympathetically he gets treated by the media as a white man than a Muslim would be in the same circumstance. I haven't followed the story much at all, so I can't tell for sure, but I think that's where a lot of these complaints are coming from.

Terrorism.... I believe refers to individuals using violence to scare people for political goals or a movement. I do not believe this man was doing this in the name of anything other than the fact that he was mentally ill. I find it absolutely absurd for someone to say that he is treated more "sympathetically" because he is white. News coverage that I have seen has not shown any sympathy and has basically called it for exactly what it is. Some people do this, they become mentally ill and for whatever reason want to go out with a bang. Most people are only able to get their hands on guns, but this guy flew plans. It's very tragic.

Lizardo said:

Terrorist or not, there's definitely a criticism to be made about how much more sympathetically he gets treated by the media as a white man than a Muslim would be in the same circumstance. I haven't followed the story much at all, so I can't tell for sure, but I think that's where a lot of these complaints are coming from.

Click to expand...

Sympathetically? Well, I don't know where you get the news, but at least in Spain and Germany, where most of the victims came from, he is taking hell. The police even had to send security to his house. He is being given hell for not commiting suicide alone but dragging 150 innocent people along, and the company is being given hell for not making enough psychological tests. Which, you know, are both valid points. I literally haven't watched anything else on the news for the past week (it's like plane crash coverage 24h) and I have yet to record a single word of understanding for the copilot in any Spanish media.

The only reason why he isn't labeled a terrorist is because he didn't have any higher political or religious goal behind his actions- therefore, he has to accept the mere label of "mass murderer" instead.

I definitely understand the complaints - Authorities have cited that they'd look into the "religious background" whether to determine this was terrorism or not. What they probably meant was doing a check to see if he held extremist views, but they way society works automatically leaps to the assumption to whether or not the pilot was Muslim. I've found a lot of the Muslim community are mad about that, which I think is fair.

Went said:

Sympathetically? Well, I don't know where you get the news,

Click to expand...

American media is focusing on blaming his illness, highlighting issues in his life, talking about how people thought he was a nice guy, etc.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/28/europe/france-germanwings-plane-crash-main/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/w...e-germanwings-crash-authorities-say.html?_r=0

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...N0MP0GF20150329?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

http://abcnews.go.com/International...lot-normal-guy-fellow-pilot/story?id=29974407

http://time.com/3762584/germanwings-flight-crash-struggle-motivation/

They're basically being sympathetic for this mass murderer while simultaneously doing things like, for example, demonizing poc VICTIMS of murder.

This is just another example of why mainstream American media is a joke and should be ignored.

Keiran said:

American media is focusing on blaming his illness, highlighting issues in his life, talking about how people thought he was a nice guy, etc.

Click to expand...

.... But he was mentally ill and for now it does seem that the fact that he was mentally ill was to blame. How would you prefer that it be reported? I am confused on this? In my mind reporting that the man was mentally ill is not providing the man with sympathy, its reporting a fact.

Yeah, I'm curious to that too. You have to be aware of his illness to look at the situation critically - (A mentally ill man had a mental break and killed himself while unfortunately dragging down those innocent people.) so I'm wondering how you're expecting it to be reported.

Eh, terrorism usually applies when inciting fear to further a political agenda. No terrorist group is linked to him AFAIK. Depression can make you do crazy things, his depression was so severe that he wanted to drag the crew and the passengers with him.

Terrorism? Hell no. Inconsiderate actions that had consequences that you are simply negligent to see? Maybe.

Sad to say but if the co-pilot had been either "middle eastern looking" or a man of color, the U.S. media would be taking completely different angle here, and you would be seeing the "terrorist" label being thrown around. It's certainly worth mentioning, given that it's an act of murder with an airplane, and that strikes a chord with the american public. And they are being pretty sympathetic towards him which baffles me, depression or not.

If you were mentally ill that should not give you the right to crash everyone on a plane. Most people know right from wrong unless he had been severly delusional or just didn't give a fuck. But mental illness really needs to be looked at way more often especially if you have the lives of others in your hands which was the case of the co-pilot. The workforce certainly does like to sweep everything under the rug regardless of your profession. In all he should have not been approved to be a pilot to start with if you knew there was something up from the beginning.