Translation from German:
All evidence indicates that the copilot of Airbus machine in his six-months break during his training as a pilot in Germanwings, converted to Islam and subsequently either by the order of “radical”, ie. devout Muslims , or received the order from the book of terror, the Quran, on his own accord decided to carry out this mass murder. As a radical mosque in Bremen is in the center of the investigation, in which the convert was staying often, it can be assumed that he – as Mohammed Atta, in the attack against New York – received his instructions directly from the immediate vicinity of the mosque.
Converts are the most important weapon of Islam. Because their resume do not suggests that they often are particularly violent Muslims. Thus Germany now has its own 9/11, but in a reduced form. And so it is clear that Islam is a terrorist organization that are in accordance with §129a of the Criminal Code to prohibit it and to investigate its followers. But nothing will happen. One can bet that the apologists (media, politics, “Islamic Scholars”) will agree to assign this an act of a “mentally unstable” man, and you can bet that now, once again the mantra of how supposedly peaceful Islam is will continue. And worse still, the attacks by the left against those who have always warned against Islam, will be angrier and merciless.
Via Gateway Pundit
Isn’t it odd that there’s no confirmation by any media of any of this.
All the above from a translation of a German newspaper:
But then the article produces none of ”the evidence.”
I wish they would have.
If there is some.
The paper claims he ”stayed” (maybe the better translation was ”attended?”) at the radical mosque in Bremen but it again produces no evidence of this.
Obviously investigative reporting is needed.
I wonder who has the moxie (inside Germany) to do it?
This may not true. Have to wait for more info.
If the reporting that this co-pilot was a recent convert to islam turns out to be false, ESPECIALLY if the reporter did not perform due diligence, then this reporter should be pilloried harshly. False reporting – lying, in other words – should be quashed with extreme prejudice. I have no love nor respect for islam, but I don’t have any love/respect for liars, either.
There is no evidence at all that Andreas Lubitz was a Muslim convert. There aren’t even many suggestive dots to connect; only that he took pilot training in a city where an investigated mosque is located.
I think there’s been a bit too much of a hurry to pin the crash on a deliberate act on the part of the copilot. Could he and the pilot have been both been drugged? Could the flight software of the aircraft have been hacked? It is a fly-by-wire aircraft. How does anyone actually know it was the pilot who was locked out of the cockpit, trying to break back in?
The industry might have motives for preferring a quick and simple answer rather than a lot of very troubling questions.
As long as it’s not the liberal media. Then it would be ‘normal’.
As more facts come out it looks like this man had mental or emotional problems along with some sort of vision issue.
His apartment was searched and torn up doctor’s notes were found.
Among them were sick notes saying he was unable to work from the day of the crime.
That one would have grounded him for as much as a year.
He was also apparently pretty fragile ego-wise.
He only has EX-girlfriends.
One local hospital admits he was a patient as recently as March 10th.
In sports the team ”owns” the doctors so that their players’ health is no secret to them.
Why is this not the case in airlines?
@Nanny G, #6:
It does look now like this was all the result of a single deranged person. In retrospect, relying on an employee to report a mental problem when the mental problem itself could render the employee unreliable about making reports makes no sense whatsoever. Neither does a cockpit security door that has no means whatsoever of overriding the lock from somewhere outside the cockpit.
As individual human beings, we often miss the obvious. Organizations of human beings are sometimes even worse.
All the time.
As imperfect and selfish as all humans are, we lose even more virtue and honor when we organize.
The main problem with the liberal mindset is that it keeps trying to solve problems with bureaucracies that humans bring on themselves through their own shortcomings.
But bureaucracies only magnify our imperfections, they never alleviate them.
The problems of collective efforts notwithstanding, a lot of important things can only be accomplished when human beings organize into groups and work together.
Whoops, that must mean it was something else, since you’ve never been right on anything, it’s not gonna start now.
Want to give some examples. (I’m betting it’ll be communistic)
Let me turn that around on you, since you don’t seem to have given much thought to the meaning of the statement: Name a few things that you see around you that don’t exist as a result of the organized efforts of groups of human beings.
Most individuals couldn’t produce the vast majority of objects they use daily if their lives depended on it. That there’s something as simple as a wooden pencil in the room is the result of the organized efforts of countless people.
Consider each of the hundreds of component parts that have been assembled into your automobile—who designed them, who manufactured them, where and how the raw materials were acquired, who made the tools and equipment that was required for these processes, where and how the raw materials for those were acquired, etc. Consider the roads and highways that you drive it on. The entire modern world, down to its smallest part, is a cooperative effort involving the organized efforts of countless groups of people.
I don’t know why people insist on hearing everything that’s said as a right vs. left political statement. Organized group human efforts are simply how most things get done. Disorganization generally doesn’t produce good results.
I own a college education that I got by myself. I own a house that I bought. (I have built my own in the past) I have two children that were not a ‘group’ effort. I had an excellent job because ‘I” worked for it. I have an excellent retirement because “I” worked for it. I buy groceries and eat every week because I earned a retirement that can afford to do so. I can’t think of anything that I get that is not directly from my effort.
That ‘argument’ doesn’t work. Most people don’t have the need to produce the vast majority of objects they use. If I need a pencil and I don’t have the time to make one, then I can just trade a watermelon that I grew for one. That doesn’t have to be a ‘group’ deal. I can grow, build, make anything I want and if I want something I don’t care to do for myself, then If I can find someone that has something, I can just trade. No one has to be in a ‘group’ nor are required to build or make anything for anyone. They just choose to do what they want for themselves. The more work and effort they put into it, the more they have for themselves.
As I said, you’re looking from a ‘communistic’ perspective. No one had to build or to own an automobile. Because someone had a vision of things that could be done if he used his abilities could benefit him. If others want to participate in it, then they need to acquire their own resources that allow them to do so. Do you think Henry Ford built an automobile for ‘his’ benefit or for the benefit of others? Just because General Motors build cars does not mean that you have to aid them in their efforts. You don’t have to be a part of their group. How does it benefit you if General Motors build a car that you don’t make a part for, or choose to own or drive? It doesn’t.
good point. Are you going to tell me that people couldn’t get from one place to another without someone building a road or highway? Or without someone building a wagon or a car? Sure they did. There is no road or highway through the woods behind my house, but if I want to get to the other side, I can still do so.
because most of it is. Story about the woman in England today. Never had a job in her life. Never been married, has 8 children under 13, government gives her $40,000 year. Gives it to her. Now they are cutting it to $34,000. Do you think the liberals support that cut? Do you think Conservatives support that cut? Is she entitled to ‘anything’ at all free from the government? Why?