"I don't think the pilot's religion is necessarily what's we should be looking for."

Sure you believe that every investigators prejudice is the first they look at.
Of course you might be right, people now a days (like you) seem so scared that they can abrely think about anything else.

Anyway I was talking about any decent investigation, not some hack .

 

So those investigating every airplane crash the last 14 years were hacks? Every mass shooting or large explosion?

This is known as warping reality to fit your preconceptions... precisely what you are accusing me and others of... despite the fact that I didnt expect this to be a terrorist act by muslims.

Reality exists, regardless of your perception. Sorry

 

No , but thats simply because they didnt start with "is he muslim?"

They looked at the facts they found not whatever fits the narrative they believed in at the start of the investigation .

Reality exists, regardless of your prejudice .

 

You are not tethered to reality.
They eliminate terrorism, specifically Islamic terrorism, first. This is because there is an active threat from Islamic extremists to down commercial aircraft. We are at war, and this is their primary target. To exclude the primary threat to intentional crashing of commercial airliners because you are so unbiased, is biased. That is why EVERY investigation starts there, and before they release ANYTHING else to the public, they have eliminated this ONE thing as being at all likely, because it is the FIRST thing they investigate. In your imaginarium, while they are looking for motivation as to why someone would crash a plane it just so happens that every contact they have and all of their correspondence is about their distaste for Islam in general, at which time it occurs to them that Islamic terrorism is unlikely. So it eliminates itself at the onset of each investigation? Or... what?

 

Typical mistake of every official in multi-cultural countries! Religion can be the main reason of this case and i don't understand why they don't think like that...
As Obama thought that Charlie Hebdo incident were held" not by muslims!

 

Total BS, please stop pretending you have a clue how they run such investigations.

They look first at what happened, again they dont start with filling in predetermined conclusions.

 

Stop debating the messenger and start debating the message for once.

Most murder/suicides occur because of the person was desperate and depressed, not because of religion or political ideology. So by guessing it was religious placed you automatically in the minority, not to mention, showing a lack of discernable skills to analyze the situation for what it actually is.

As more and more evidence mounts that he did it for personal reasons and not religious ones, would you then start creating conspiracy theories that the investigative authorities and the media are not doing their jobs?

- - - Updated - - -

Since you are arguing about possibilities, the question I have is why ae you not including little green men or aliens with pointed ears?

 

It has nothing to do with being politically correct or incorrect. It has t odo with the evidence leading to the conclusion instead of the conclusion leading up to the evidence, which is what you RW guys love to do BTW.

 

No, hell no.

What you have posted is not how investigation work today, maybe 500 years ago, but not today, generally.

 

"Hand up Don't Shoot!" fails to ring an ideologically-based bell, eh?

 

Generally no it does not.

But it does become political if several witnesses say the same thing and you ignore them for political reasons right?

 

When a woman in the middle of a bitter divorse and custody battle goes missing, they DON'T look at the estranged ex first?

500 years ago maybe?

I can't make life comprehensible to you, only explain it.

 

....I wasn't though. I said people who jump to either conclusion right off the bad are equally bad. I wasn't discussing all the possibilities.

 

Speculation != conclusion

 

Given the fact that 98% of German nationals are not Muslim, then the odds were that he wasn't. This has proven to be the case. Taking the opposing stance to fanciful claims is not "as bad."

 

Then amend my comment to say speculating rather then concluding.

IMO the idea is to gather the evidence, and see where it takes you. Not hypothesis first and then start down the trail of evidence. And yes, I understand that people will naturally want to figure it out first, and come up with the most likely of scenarios, but that kind of thinking can make it difficult to drop one theory in favor of more prominent ones (depending on the investigator. I'm sure there are many who don't have that problem).

 

First you determine whether or not a crime has been committed. Then you look for motive. You eliminate the most common, and move on. That is what was done in this case, it is what is done in every case. If the estranged wife goes missing, you look at the husband first. If a commercial airliner is intentionally crashed, you look at ideology first.

That's why the husband is questioned.
That's why the first thing we heard was that Islam was not involved.

I don't care how you think it SHOULD work... that's how it works for a reason.

 

Or you can look at the evidence and see where it takes you.

was this intentional or mechanical? Intention

Ok who was this guy? German guy named whatever. Look through his history.

That is the point you would then look at Religion, Health, Personal Problems, etc..

If the person was of middle eastern descent, then starting with ideology makes more sense. How many German Islamic terrorists have you heard of?

 

True, but we here on this forum are not the investigators. These forums are pretty much all about speculation and assumptions. I will admit that my first thought when an airline is crashed "on purpose" is that it is Islamic terrorism related. After all, that is their motus operandi.

 

For sure. Honestly, I did the same thing. And then I heard German pilot and that went out the window for me.

 

I only started thinking otherwise when I heard about his background of mental illness. We have American citizens here who have gone to fight with ISIS after all. Now, I do believe he was not a terrorist but a really screwed up individual.

 

screwed up individual? how many times do we have to put up with this line until we start to point the finger at the culture, his society?

 

Want to elaborate? You know, I'm not a mind reader, and I grow tired of these kind of vague posts.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh let me guess, the "stigma" of mental illness? Well, let me tell you something. That is NO excuse for what he did. He took 150 innocent lives, babies, children, etc. A despicable act no matter how you slice it. If you feel like you want to kill yourself, fine go ahead. If you feel like you want to take a bunch of innocent people with you, seek help. That is YOUR responsibility, even if people "call you names."

 

what is it in western society that makes these crazy individuals want to do that with such regularity?

 

Why don't you tell me since you seem to think you know everything.