Posted on 03/27/2015 3:01:15 PM PDT by KeyLargo
Steve brought up a good point that the U.S. media are more than willing to label incidents involving suicidal persons intent on killing themselves and are cowards,(unwilling to just kill themselves), but instead plan to take others with them, as a mass murderer, just to further the media gun-control meme.
But, yet in this instance the media are all portraying this mass murdering pilot as a poor little depressed, misguided suicide victim with mental illness and not as the mass murderer that he really is.
‘US school shooter’
As opposed to mass murderess in other nations?
And yes, they exist!
I heard on the radio this am that Lubitz was deemed unfit to be a pilot by his trainers at the Luftansa flight school in Arizona because of his psychological issues. Did anybody else hear this?
Dunblane Scotland, 1996, sixteen school kids murdered, for one.
Technically he died first
I think Brevik in Norway was the most stone cold.
They should look into demonic possession.
A shrink last name of Akbar? Well allehu akbar to you too sir.
Freegards
LEX
Yeh, if true, there’s going to be one heck of lawsuit.
Ban planes.
I am waiting for the disclosure that he had recently been diagnosed as a Paranoid schizophrenic.
That’s who shoots up schools in our country.
Lufthansa in big heap of trouble (Little Indian lingo there)
>>exhibited the behaviour of a mass ‘spree-killer’
So they use cars and planes and bombs and knives...and not just guns? That kinda breaks the Prog narrative that “the gun made them do it.”
Is that the one that was a camp of some sort?
Maybe Flyboy Kelly can take Gabby on a French Alps tour and demand that Airbus A320s be banned. Assault jetliners. Who needs ‘em?
Has the media (or relevant authorities) chosen to illuminate us with this murderer’s religion of choice? I saw a brief claim yesterday about him being a “recent muslim convert” but no independent confirmation.
There is a huge difference in countries victim compensation compared to that of the ambulance chasers in the U.S. rightly or wrongly.
Plane Crash Victim Compensation under the Montreal Convention
By Miriam Kelliher on April 3, 2014
As their disbelief turns to anger and their anger turns to grief, the families of the passengers of missing Malaysia Airlines flight 370 will likely turn to the law to explore their right to economic compensation for their horrific loss. Any claims filed against the airline will be subject to the provisions of the Montreal Convention, an international treaty signed by 105 nations, intended to bring order to a potential multijurisdictional legal mess arising from international commercial aircraft disasters. But can this law, born of an earlier legal scheme to shield the industry, fairly compensate 21st-century victims and their families?
“So they use cars and planes and bombs and knives...and not just guns? That kinda breaks the Prog narrative that the gun made them do it.”
Bingo!
Exactly the point here.
No media calling for banning cars is there?
Just a thought but with the technology available today, why wouldn’t it be possible for a ground crew to take command of an airplane behaving erratically? Obviously, there would have to be a well-defined protocol and numerous failsafes, but I would think such technology would prevent tragedies like the 9/11 attacks and this one.
Any aviation technologists out there well-informed enough to weigh in?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.