General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf anything was proven by the recent Airbus tragedy it is that no amount of bluster or threatening
can stop a "terrorist" or any sick sociopath from wreaking havoc and death if they really want to do it.
Trump's bluster about we have got to stop this and we are weak and we don't win and he will increase waterboarding and other forms torture is not an answer, it is mostly an invitation to more.
"Terrorism" morphs almost every day and it is more sophisticated but more simple than drone, bombs, and bluster. It is easy to predict that more attacks will occur...why wouldn't they. That doesn't make you a sage on the political stage. Any fool can predict there will be more. You won't be able to keep them out of your country either because they are already in place within every country. We don't know who they are and some of them have yet to recognize themselves as "terrorists." Ordinary people, pushed to their limits by hopelessness, racism, xenophobia, hate, bullying, all have the potential to become a "terrorist" at any time they feel they have reached their brink.
Being kind, thoughtful, having compassion, and love speech will do more to counter what we fear than any military plan or bluster.
And somewhat related to the seeds of terrorism is how leadership in those countries breeding terrorism is handled. Whether he means it or not and whether it comes from a place of true leadership ability or not, Trump said one thing yesterday that made sense to me. He would talk directly to N.Korea's Kim. This is the right move to me. We missed this boat when Bush was in office by not talking directly with Saddam after he asked for such a meeting. We are doing it now with Syria, we failed to do it in Libya. We were about to do it with Iran and if we want that deal to be sealed in positive reality Obama should speak directly to Iranian leadership.
All most dictatorial leaders of any country want is to be respected as the head of their respective states and considered a relevant part of world leadership. They want to FEEL legitimate and they want to APPEAR to be respected among their own people. The first answer to conflict is not more conflict but it should be talk.
Sure, there will be folks to scoff at you for even suggesting this because of foolish and unproductive pride. But Iran is a good example of a half-way attempt at something other than conflict. What keep the Saudi royal family on the throne is that they are accepted by the rest of world leadership. When that changes they too will become more belligerent and their subjects will too.
Scoff if you want to because what we have been doing by denigrating leaders we don't like is not now nor ever has worked and usually ends in costly and on-going conflict. Too bad Obama didn't follow through with his initial position on talking to Gaddafi. And I am a Hillary supporter and think she will make a much better President than Donald Trump...I think she has learned a lot about being belligerent just meet the fancy of the male machismo. I don't believe she will make the same mistakes she has in the past. I am with her.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A HERETIC I AM
(24,495 posts)Because I haven't seen any news source claiming that.
I won't address the rest of your post since you led with what appears to be an unproven allegation.
clarice
(5,504 posts)A HERETIC I AM
(24,495 posts)Modern airliners are incredibly complex machines and at altitude fly within a flight envelope that is as thin as a razors edge.
If it was a deliberate act by one of the flight crew, this would not be unheard of, but to qualify it as terrorism is a bit of a stretch at the moment.
clarice
(5,504 posts)I did listen to an interesting program on the radio yesterday...
The basic theme was about the number of safety precautions and what are called redundant backing
systems that these planes are equipped with in case of almost ANY mechanical malfunction. Still.... ya never know.nt
A HERETIC I AM
(24,495 posts)so I know a thing or two, I suppose is fair to say.
One explanation could be a fire, even worse, a fire in the cockpit.
They'll find out in due time, of this I have no doubt.
clarice
(5,504 posts)A HERETIC I AM
(24,495 posts)but you are more likely to ....blah blah blah!!
Seriously, I am by no means the most well traveled person, but I have flown quite a bit in the past - 6 across the Atlantic and back, ditto the Pacific to Australia, as well as dozens of domestics. The most harrowing experience I ever had was on a small commuter plane that aborted a takeoff from a regional (read "small"!) airport in Texas, and it was frankly no big deal. The Pilots handled it perfectly.
Having said all that, I will admit that the prospect of crashing is certainly terrifying. Imagine what the people onboard Air France 447 went through. Or TWA 800 where the front end of the 747 broke off and fell away so that the entirety of the people in coach were looking at the stars out the front of the fuselage.
Horrifying.
At that point, just grab the best looking person near you and boff like rabbits! Might as well die having an orgasm, is my motto!
I should say that I don't mean to make light of any tragedy, and my heart goes out to the families of the lost. May they all find peace.
clarice
(5,504 posts)as far as "just grab the best looking person near you and boff like rabbits! Might as well die having an orgasm, is my motto!"
If you are a male, and are able to perform under THOSE conditions , my hat is off to you.lol
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The OP is written as a response to (a) people in the media who are proclaiming it to be so, and (b) their underlying thesis that terrorism results from not torturing enough people.
I did not read the OP as some kind of conclusion that it was an act of terrorism because, of course, that has not been demonstrated to be the case. A depressed German pilot managed to kill more people in taking down a plane than this event, which also says things about people's sense of scale. But I digress.
What has happened here is that a presidential candidate is using this as an opportunity to promote his counterproductive nonsense. The OP is primarily addressed to that counterproductive nonsense. Whether the loss of the airliner is or is not the result of a terrorist act is utterly and thoroughly irrelevant to the point made in the OP about the way that we react to these things counterproductively.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,495 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)However, reading the OP as prefaced "If it was an act of terrorism..." would cure the first commenter's blunt objection.
Of course there is no definitive finding at this time close in. People like the first commenter believe it is somehow a public duty not to engage in speculative discussion on a discussion board.
Clearly, the OP is a reflection on those who believe it was an act of terrorism, and who believe that terrorism results from not dealing with people harshly enough, of whom there is no shortage in the media.
clarice
(5,504 posts)linuxman
(2,337 posts)Such an act is usually followed by a claim of responsibility. Terrorism is by definition a violent act or threat of violent acts to bring attention to a demand or ideology, or to influence policy decisions. Without a responsible party, what's the point? It's just another airline accident then.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)I can't imagine anyone would be so gullible as to assume so.
clarice
(5,504 posts)
malaise
(274,781 posts)Plueeeeeeez!