- 11,468
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Seen yesterday
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?
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?
Last edited by a moderator: