Since Everyone Here Seems Happy, Let Us Discuss Something Else... (Off Topic)

[Renegade343]

By saying this:

 

The German co-pilot that intentionally crashed the plane last week? He should still be condemned for killing all 150 people on that plane, but there is something that he could be praised for (although praised might be too strong a word here, but anyways...): He did put some effort and commitment towards his stated goal of doing something drastic and having everyone remember him (which carries something in a world where the majority of people always talk, but never place these talks into practice).

 

It is just a very sad (and rather disgusting) thing that he chose to achieve his goal through killing quite a lot of people (and himself), and generally causing distraught. So, in short, still condemn him for killing all those people to achieve his goal, but do leave a small bit for remembering that there are still people in the world that are willing to do what they said to do (even those that end up causing major suffering everywhere). 

 

And another thing: He did achieve his goal as well, for he is now remembered (but in a bad light), and he did do something drastic (intentionally crashing the plane), and he did change something in the airline industry by reminding them about having at least two pilots in the cockpit at all times for safety.

[Morec0]

Heroes fade, but villains are always remembered with sharp disdain.

 

That sad, this was horrific and it only deserves condemnation and no consideration of even the slightest admiration for such an act.

[TheErebus.]

No praise should go to this. 
None at all.

 

That's like saying the gunners who shot down the Passenger Airplane my grandfather was in should be praised for excellent marksmanship. 

[011100110110000101101101]

I cannot praise a man who cut 150 lives short no matter what may have happened as a result.

Can I respect him? No.

Can I have any positive feelings toward him? No.

He did what he said he would, but what he did is evil, and I cannot respect evil.

[KidMemphis]

By saying this:

 

The German co-pilot that intentionally crashed the plane last week? He should still be condemned for killing all 150 people on that plane, but there is something that he could be praised for (although praised might be too strong a word here, but anyways...): He did put some effort and commitment towards his stated goal of doing something drastic and having everyone remember him (which carries something in a world where the majority of people always talk, but never place these talks into practice).

 

It is just a very sad (and rather disgusting) thing that he chose to achieve his goal through killing quite a lot of people (and himself), and generally causing distraught. So, in short, still condemn him for killing all those people to achieve his goal, but do leave a small bit for remembering that there are still people in the world that are willing to do what they said to do (even those that end up causing major suffering everywhere). 

 

And another thing: He did achieve his goal as well, for he is now remembered (but in a bad light), and he did do something drastic (intentionally crashing the plane), and he did change something in the airline industry by reminding them about having at least two pilots in the cockpit at all times for safety.

What's worse is the mindless nonsense that the media uses to distract the general public and redirect attention from one event to another...and the majority of mindless sheep that eat it up...

This one image alone demonstrates explicitly just how mindlessly devout the majority of the population are to popular media despite how inconsequential or medial the topic.

[Renegade343]

That's like saying the gunners who shot down the Passenger Airplane my grandfather was in should be praised for excellent marksmanship. 

But what was the context? When did that plane get shot down? What was happening at that time (e.g.: There could be a war in the area [and thus airspace] that the airplane was shot down at, meaning the gunners could have mistaken the plane for an enemy aircraft)?

 

Based on your statement alone, yes, there is no redeeming factors for the gunners, but that is just part of the story. It is not the full story, and thus one cannot make a fair judgement based on that statement alone. 

[Snydrex]

Well, yes. He achieved his goal. I'll give him that much.

 

From his actions, we will enter a new age of airline safety.

 

...Built on fear and paranoia.

[Nitresco]

If you're getting at what I think you're getting at...

Then yes, "praised" is the incorrect word.

 

Think of it this way. Adolf Hitler killed (or rather, facilitated) the death of millions of people. We do not "praise" him for this accomplishment. We simply "remember" it and learn from it. Just like how we remember other events such as 9/11 as lessons.

 

If you can discern any sort of inspiration or meaning from tragic actions such as this, then by all means, grasp your realizations. We learn from the mistakes of ourselves and others. Every cloud has a silver lining.

[Katakuna]

He did indeed accomplish what he strived to do, which in itself is a good trait to have.  

 

The merit of the trait, however, is tarnished by the means he used to accomplish his goal.  Which makes it difficult, or at least socially awkward, to view it in a positive light.

[Renegade343]

From his actions, we will enter a new age of airline safety.

 

...Built on fear and paranoia.

I would say that the reminder to have at least two pilots in the cockpit at all times is not really "fear and paranoia", but more on rational thinking. 

 

Why? It is very less likely that there would be two pilots that have the same thought of hijacking/intentionally crashing the plane, and be in the cockpit with each other at a particular instance of time (then again, it could be more likely as well, depending on how well human resource management deals with trying to minimise risk of having two pilots getting suicidal thoughts, and being in the same cockpit). 

 

I am just wondering if it would be better for a master code override instead (with random key placements while typing it in to delay hackers getting in, but then again, that also carries the risk of being used against the pilots as well). 

[TheErebus.]

But what was the context? When did that plane get shot down? What was happening at that time (e.g.: There could be a war in the area [and thus airspace] that the airplane was shot down at, meaning the gunners could have mistaken the plane for an enemy aircraft)?

 

Based on your statement alone, yes, there is no redeeming factors for the gunners, but that is just part of the story. It is not the full story, and thus one cannot make a fair judgement based on that statement alone. 

 

It got shot down during the Iran-Iraq war.

It was in Iranian airspace and territory.

No war was happening in that area, no way in hell would a civilian passenger jet go into a war escalated field, it was literally a short flight (28 minutes) from Iran to Dubai (where I live now, in fact, every day of the death of my grandfather, I go to the beach where the ocean meets the sand of his death and drop flowers for him.) 

 

Aside from some iranian gunboats scattered at different areas, nothing was happening. at the time to cause a shooting of a civilian passenger ship. Furthermore, the ships' AEGIS system identified it as a civilian ship (It was escalating in altitude, not going downwards into an attack pattern) but they did not see it like that. They attempted to hail it using military and emergency civilian frequencies. Even though they should f**king know that civ passenger jets do not pick up either of those frequencies and they didn't even attempt to use it or even contact flight traffic control to confirm.

The passenger jet was using IFF Squaks in mode 3 (Not mode 2, which is was fighter jets used)

Two other warships identified it as a passenger jet, yet this didn't.

Under international law, they had entered Iranian territory and whatever they had done was under the responsibility of the U.S.

Edited April 4, 2015 by ScrublordPrime

[Snydrex]

 

 

I think you'll be surprised how often tragedy and rational thought travel in perpendicular trails.

 

I'm not so daft as not to know why more then one person in a situation requiring control is a good thing. In fact, that's obvious.

 

I still agree that if it weren't for crap like this, we'd be at much greater security risk. Silver linings and all that. Which was your point.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Snydrex

[Renegade343]

It got shot down during the Iran-Iraq war.

It was in Iranian airspace and territory.

No war was happening in that area, no way in hell would a civilian passenger jet go into a war escalated field, it was literally a short flight (28 minutes) from Iran to Dubai (where I live now, in fact, every day of the death of my grandfather, I go to the beach where the ocean meets the sand of his death and drop flowers for him.) 

 

Aside from some iranian gunboats scattered at different areas, nothing was happening. at the time to cause a shooting of a civilian passenger ship. Furthermore, the ships' AEGIS system identified it as a civilian ship (It was escalating in altitude, not going downwards into an attack pattern) but they did not see it like that. They attempted to hail it using military and emergency civilian frequencies. Even though they should f**king know that civ passenger jets do not pick up either of those frequencies and they didn't even attempt to use it or even contact flight traffic control to confirm.

Two other warships identified it as a passenger jet, yet this didn't.

Under international law, they had entered Iranian territory and whatever they had done was under the responsibility of the U.S.

Then yes, there are no redeeming factors, for they blundered everything up (and as for having accuracy, they did shoot down other targets that are not civilian targets, so not applicable for this case). 

 

But in this case of the German co-pilot, he actually went to do some research on how to override the systems, how to get the plane to crash, and other things, to achieve his stated goal.

 

So, I state again, his effort in going towards a goal is a good thing to have (and we should learn just that [commitment and working towards established goals and promises set by oneself and other people]), just that his effort was placed into the goal of killing people (which should never be done at any circumstances, bar self-defence [but it is not the case here]). 

[Dogefighter]

Then yes, there are no redeeming factors, for they blundered everything up (and as for having accuracy, they did shoot down other targets that are not civilian targets, so not applicable for this case). 

 

But in this case of the German co-pilot, he actually went to do some research on how to override the systems, how to get the plane to crash, and other things, to achieve his stated goal.

 

So, I state again, his effort in going towards a goal is a good thing to have (and we should learn just that [commitment and working towards established goals and promises set by oneself and other people]), just that his effort was placed into the goal of killing people (which should never be done at any circumstances, bar self-defence [but it is not the case here]). 

50000% absolutely heretical

 

YOU HAVE BEEN CONDEMNED.  I BANISH YOU FROM ALL LANDS WHERE WOW MAY BE FOUND, SO THAT YOU MAY NEVER KNOW TRUE PEACE.  BURN, HERETIC.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Dogefighter

[Renegade343]

50000% absolutely heretical

 

insensitive prick

 

YOU HAVE BEEN CONDEMNED.  I BANISH YOU FROM ALL LANDS WHERE WOW MAY BE FOUND, SO THAT YOU MAY NEVER KNOW TRUE PEACE.

How is that heretical in any sense or form?

 

Yes, we should learn the German co-pilot's trait of working towards a goal, but his actions is a shining example of the age-old statement, "The means never justify the end" (where means = researching about crashing the plane [and planning how to do it] [and working on it when he is on the plane], and end = actually crashing the plane and causing the loss of all 150 lives on board). Even so, does that mean we should not see what the means are? No, for the means could give us another lesson other than the end. 

Edited April 4, 2015 by Renegade343

[Dogefighter]

How is that heretical in any sense or form?

 

Yes, we should learn the German co-pilot's trait of working towards a goal, but his actions is a shining example of the age-old statement, "The means never justify the end" (where means = researching about crashing the plane [and planning how to do it] [and working on it when he is on the plane], and end = actually crashing the plane and causing the loss of all 150 lives on board). Even so, does that mean we should not see what the means are? No, for the means could give us another lesson other than the end. 

His grandfather was killed, you mouth-breathing philistine.

[Renegade343]

His grandfather was killed, you mouth-breathing philistine.

I am talking about the German co-pilot, not the civilian airline that got shot down in Iraq (in which I already stated that there are no redeeming factors for the gunners, for they had all the information to indicate the targeted airline is a civilian aircraft, but yet they decided to shoot it down anyways, ignoring the information). 

 

Please read more carefully next time. 

[Snydrex]

I am talking about the German co-pilot, not the civilian airline that got shot down in Iraq (in which I already stated that there are no redeeming factors for the gunners, for they had all the information to indicate the targeted airline is a civilian aircraft, but yet they decided to shoot it down anyways, ignoring the information). 

 

Please read more carefully next time. 

 

Renegade. Moral and emotional banter aside, this topic is clearly not going anywhere good.

 

I suggest you ask a moderator to delete it.

[Nitresco]

Syndrex is correct. The topic of this thread is still a sensitive one, at the time. Maybe we're better off not taking it any father.

[Renegade343]

 

Renegade. Moral and emotional banter aside, this topic is clearly not going anywhere good.

 

I suggest you ask a moderator to delete it.

I am going to respectfully disagree, even if it might step on the toes of a few people. 

 

Why? 

 

Because I want to tell everyone that there are (almost) always multiple viewpoints towards one situation, even if said situation is widely viewed as a tragedy (just like the German airlines). I see too many people always seeing things on one side of a die, but barely anyone is willing to see multiple sides of said die to understand and learn more.

 

That is also why I made this topic: To tell people that despite what the co-pilot has done, there is one small thing that the co-pilot has done that should be taken to heart, and it is the effort towards a goal (although I think I should add the modifier "good" before goal, just to not make people think that I am in support of the co-pilot's goal). 

[Snydrex]

I am going to respectfully disagree, even if it might step on the toes of a few people. 

 

I understand.

 

Just remember that you should expect people breathing down your neck. The majority of this community is... I don't want to generalize this too much, is too good-hearted to discuss such a subject here.

 

Your points all stand, but this is insensitive. To a lot of people.

 

You cannot expect this particular demographic of the community to ignore the glaring morality issues here.

[Renegade343]

 

I understand.

 

Just remember that you should expect people breathing down your neck. The majority of this community is... I don't want to generalize this too much, is too good-hearted to discuss such a subject here.

 

Your points all stand, but this is insensitive. To a lot of people.

 

You cannot expect this particular demographic of the community to ignore the glaring morality issues here.

I am already used with other people being angry at me for holding alternative and controversial (but correct) viewpoints. That is not to say that I do not accept those people's viewpoints, but I will stick to my side despite the conflict. 

[011100110110000101101101]

I am already used with other people being angry at me for holding alternative and controversial (but correct) viewpoints. That is not to say that I do not accept those people's viewpoints, but I will stick to my side despite the conflict.

I can respect a person who sticks to their guns, though I may not agree with their beliefs.

Good luck.

[Snydrex]

I am already used with other people being angry at me for holding alternative and controversial (but correct) viewpoints. That is not to say that I do not accept those people's viewpoints, but I will stick to my side despite the conflict. 

 

Your conviction is a thing to be admired, but I want you to understand something here.

 

You might be inflicting actual psychological harm on some people gracing the subject of this thread.

 

I do not want that. I hope you don't want that.

 

This isn't becoming so much of an issue of "telling people things" as it is of a subject of common decency and respect for those who have suffered in the light of this event.

 

I may beg you to at least hold off on this until the whole thing rolls over.

[011100110110000101101101]

Your conviction is a thing to be admired, but I want you to understand something here.

 

You might be inflicting actual psychological harm on some people gracing the subject of this thread.

 

I do not want that. I hope you don't want that.

 

This isn't becoming so much of an issue of "telling people things" as it is of a subject of common decency and respect for those who have suffered in the light of this event.

 

I may beg you to at least hold off on this until the whole thing rolls over.

Also this.