2 Turks Hijack Airliner to Protest Pope visit

Quote:

---

By MAX FRIGIONE, Associated Press Writer
BRINDISI, Italy - Two Turks protesting Pope Benedict XVI's planned trip to Turkey next month hijacked a Turkish Airlines jet carrying 113 people from Albania to Istanbul on Tuesday, and it landed safely in this southern Italian coastal city, officials said.

The hijackers, who were unarmed, told authorities they were prepared to surrender, said Candan Karlitekin, chairman of Turkish Airlines' board of directors. He said no one aboard the Boeing 737-400 was injured.

---

Pretty mild hijacking, any thoughts?
Should the Pope stay home for a little while?

link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Pretty mild hijacking, any thoughts?
Should the Pope stay home for a little while?

---

Yes, its stupid of him to go anywhere with large muslim communitities just at the moment until things cool down a bit, rightly or wrongly he caused a lot of offence with his recent comments, by going to places liek turkey he puts himself at risk....:2thumbsup:

Wow. A peaceful hijacking? Impressive.

Were these 2 guys part of the 'how dare you say Islam is violent club' I wonder? ~:rolleyes:

I have no love for the Pope or any religion for that matter but perhaps if people actually thought about an event instead of acting on the first-dare I say- violent impulse that enters their arguably tiny minds perhaps they might realise that the Pope's visit might (and just might) be an apology or atonment for previous actions...a building of bridges if you will...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Were these 2 guys part of the 'how dare you say Islam is violent club' I wonder? ~:rolleyes:

I have no love for the Pope or any religion for that matter but perhaps if people actually thought about an event instead of acting on the first-dare I say- violent impulse that enters their arguably tiny minds perhaps they might realise that the Pope's visit might (and just might) be an apology or atonment for previous actions...a building of bridges if you will...

---

From there point of view the Pope can apolgoize from the vatican, the level of hostility i think is understandable...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

From there point of view the Pope can apolgoize from the vatican, the level of hostility i think is understandable...

---

I disagree. Consider the following (which I rather liked):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leonard Pitts, 2 October 2006

In 1989, photographer Andres Serrano exhibited a photo he called Piss Christ, depicting a crucifix submerged in urine. It raised a furor and was condemned on the floor of the United States Senate.

Nobody was killed.

In 1999, artist Chris Ofili exhibited a painting he called The Holy Virgin Mary in which the mother of Jesus has an exposed breast made of elephant dung. It drew a rebuke from the mayor of New York and crowds of protesters.

Nobody was injured.

Last year, a Danish newspaper printed political cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, one showing him with a bomb in his turban. There were weeks of rioting across Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa. At least one person died in Somalia, five in Afghanistan, a hundred in Nigeria. An untold number of people were injured. Property damage was in the millions.

You may think the point of the foregoing parallel is that Christians react more maturely to provocation than Muslims. You would be mistaken. After all, Muslims in America, surely as offended by the cartoons of the Prophet as Muslims anywhere else, did not riot or kill. Their protests were confined to statements of anger and letters to editors.

IT'S A CLASH OF CULTURES

No, the point has less to do with religion than with culture. As in, some cultures value freedom of expression more than others. Some realize the person who is not free to speak his or her mind is not truly free at all.

And some know courage is the price of that freedom.

Which brings us to Germany, where an opera house in Berlin last week ended a production of Mozart's Idomeneo that featured the severed head of the Prophet Mohammed. The opera, which premiered in 2003, also included the severed heads of Jesus, Buddha and Poseidon, part of director Hans Neuenfels' protest against organized religion. But it was security fears specifically related to the Muslim prophet that led Kirsten Harms, director of Deutsche Oper, to cancel the production.

Many Germans have condemned the decision. Chancellor Angela Merkel warned that ``self-censorship out of fear is not tolerable.''

I agree, of course, but I also empathize with Kirsten Harms. Certainly, it was only a matter of time before the production came to the attention of world Islam; one marvels that it escaped three years without detection. And we all know what would have happened then.

It's one thing to risk one's own building, one's own crew, even one's own life, for the principle of free speech. But who'd want to live with the knowledge that their opera caused riots and deaths all over the world, further destabilizing an already fragile and unstable planet? So I understand Harms' thinking. But I disagree.

THERE SHOULD BE NO GIVING IN

For too long, radical Muslims have behaved like the spoiled children of the planet, throwing temper tantrums -- violence and the threat thereof -- to get their way. Any seasoned parent can tell you that giving in to tantrums only ensures more tantrums.

Better to teach the child restraint. Better to teach him to share. In radical Islam's case, to share the planet with those who are not of their ideology. To behave with tolerance if not acceptance.

I do not argue provocation for its own sake, which is why I disagreed with papers that reprinted the cartoons of the Prophet. There was no point to it; it was the journalistic equivalent of one school kid insulting another's mother.

This is different. Neuenfels uses provocative imagery to make a political point. Most of us would disagree with that point, but his right to make it should never be in question.

This is what the rest of the world must teach radical Islam, but we can't if we retreat in fear from our own principles. Yes, the danger is real. Offend the crazies, and they will destroy property or take somebody hostage. But the alternative is worse. To give in is to destroy more than property. And make hostages of us all.

---

Please note that Mr. Pitts is NOT a neo-con, NOT a fan of the Bush administration, and NOT a fan of the War in Iraq. This is not the rant of a Bush administration hawk.

The problem with not going in response to this is possibly sending the message that the way to get the pope or whoever else to do what you want is to hijack a plane to make your statement. I tend to think that the more terrorist actions are ignored the less power terrorists have. There are problems and complications with that outlook of course, but the pope should not let his activities be unduly influenced by the actions of fanatics.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

In 1989, photographer Andres Serrano exhibited a photo he called Piss Christ, depicting a crucifix submerged in urine. It raised a furor and was condemned on the floor of the United States Senate.

Nobody was killed.

---

I met the Piss Christ guy, interesting to say the least. The “piss” was his btw, and he also had small hand rolled balls of his own poo as part of his exhibit. I found the materials he used were more offensive than the fact they were incorporated into art involving the crucifixion. Pee and Poo jokes are funny but when used in a more serious situation they are just gross. :2cents:

And now back to your regularly scheduled program.

Quote:

---

...but the pope should not let his activities be unduly influenced by the actions of fanatics.

---

He could also stop being an arse. There's freedom of expression, and then there's patently asking for trouble. I rather refuse to believe he or his staff couldn't foresee the effects given the already taut nerves and ruffled feathers involved, and the man's track record in this interfaith conversation thing isn't really that good by what I've read.

As one free-distribution youth mag here commented sarcastically: "The Rottweiler of God cunningly insulted Islam by quoting a historical figure. An Iranian mullah duly quoted the friend of his little brother, according to whom the Pope sucks."

Some more recent news:

CNN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

Earlier reports on Tuesday that two hijackers were protesting Pope Benedict XVI's planned visit to Turkey were apparently incorrect; authorities now say that the single hijacker has requested political asylum.
[...]
Turkish officials said the hijacker, identified as Hasan Ekinci, wrote a letter to the pope in August asking for help in avoiding service in the Turkish army.

"I am a Christian and don't want to serve a Muslim army," he wrote, adding that he had been attending church since 1998.

---

And here I thought I saw the beginning of peaceful 'terrorism'.

*Man gets past security, shows a guard the bomb in his car*

"Well played, well played. You could have blown up our embassy! Here's your own country.":laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Some more recent news:

CNN

---

Sounds like the media "making" the news instead of reporting it, AGAIN. Good call Ser...:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

As one free-distribution youth mag here commented sarcastically: "The Rottweiler of God cunningly insulted Islam by quoting a historical figure. An Iranian mullah duly quoted the friend of his little brother, according to whom the Pope sucks."

---

Now that's the kind of response I can respect! We need more Muslim leaders with a sense of humor. I think it's the most effective way to counter criticism or hatred, not to mention it doesn't involve killing innocents.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Turkish officials said the hijacker, identified as Hasan Ekinci, wrote a letter to the pope in August asking for help in avoiding service in the Turkish army.

"I am a Christian and don't want to serve a Muslim army," he wrote, adding that he had been attending church since 1998.

---

Now why would a Christian have objections in serving in a Muslim army?? Is he facing discrimination? Or is he just one lazy guy who doesn't want to serve his country?

And the fact that Turk officials identified him as a 'Christian'...sounds incendiary to me, they could just say he was trying to skip military duties but instead they had to resort to using a religious "iindicator". Howrever, I can understand their need to deter the assumption of a Muslim terrorist attack by the world. But is it necessary to introduce a religious element into a situation that is more about military exmeption than anything else?

A subtle difference- the Turkish army is not a muslim army. It's an army whose soldiers are mostly muslims.

I find the whole story suspsicious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

A subtle difference- the Turkish army is not a muslim army. It's an army whose soldiers are mostly muslims.

---

Ya, and if service in Turkey is mandatory he should just shut up and start marching like the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Ya, and if service in Turkey is mandatory he should just shut up and start marching like the rest.

---

If he doesn't want to, he shouldn't have to. I wouldn't join the Turkish army - hasn't anyone seen Lawrence of Arabia!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ezrider

If he doesn't want to, he shouldn't have to. I wouldn't join the Turkish army - hasn't anyone seen Lawrence of Arabia!?

---

He is a Turk living in Turkey, I ussualy have little patience with dutch muslims that refuse to do something because of their religion, you have to respect the law/etiquette in the country you live in. For special treatment one should go to the local brothel and bring money to pay for it.

The guy just wanted a free ride

Back when modern Turkey was set up they copied most of the old French Revolution charter about verbatim, I understand. Including the principle of laïcite. AFAIK Turkey is at least as far as legalities and the official side goes more draconianly secular than just about any state on the European subcontinent proper, and their military has IIRC several times intervened openly in politics to keep things that way (ie. nullified excessively religious-looking election results).

"Muslim army" my foot.

Now, if he down't want to get involved in for example the increasingly nasty and bloody fighting against the Kurdish guerillas in the eastern mountains (I've read Turkey has the unpleasant habit of sending fresh conscripts there), that's an entirely different issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

He is a Turk living in Turkey, I ussualy have little patience with dutch muslims that refuse to do something because of their religion, you have to respect the law/etiquette in the country you live in. For special treatment one should go to the local brothel and bring money to pay for it.

---

You see, now that is the kinda logic I can respect! :2thumbsup:

He is a Turk living in Turkey, I ussualy have little patience with dutch muslims that refuse to do something because of their religion, you have to respect the law/etiquette in the country you live in.

He was a Turk living in Albania:dizzy2: , he didn't want to live in Turkey because he didn't like the conscription laws .
Albania said that under its laws his dislike of Turkeys laws wasn't a good enough reason to not live be sent to Turkey .
So now it is up to the Italians to decide if he can live under their laws or will be sent to live under laws that he doesn't like .


I suppose he could have stayed in Turkey and put up with the law that he didn't like , but being a conciencious objector in Turkey is life imprisonment , unless you change your mind about your concience .

Awww ok didn't know that. Weird, why hijack a plane if he already was beyond turkeys grasp.

Awww ok didn't know that. Weird, why hijack a plane if he already was beyond turkeys grasp.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: He was being sent to Turkey on that plane , he didn't want to go to Turkey on that plane because he was going to be arrested when it got there .:idea2:

I think this whole issue is just another case of the media taking things way out of context. Just like the Pope's speech.

Ben could have been illustrating that Turkish Imperialism had caused Manuel II to hate the Turkish for being Muslim, you know.

Artound that time it'd really just been good old fashioned pastoralist land-grabbing really (the Turks had de facto taken over most of Syria and northern Mesopotamia too after all). But anyway. The point is really that Byzantine Emperors aren't exactly on the average what one could consider fair and balanced commentators on Islam for fairly readily obvious reasons (the correspondance between them and assorted Muslim rulers apparently tends to be pretty interesting in its abundance of carefully worded insults), although they were tame and well-informed compared to the vitriol Catholics of the day tended to dream up, and that there's no bloody way the Pope wouldn't have known that he'd be getting angry results for his little choice of words.

Which pretty much makes it picking a fight for the Hell of it. Freedom of speech isn't the same as insults barely covered under the smallest of fig leaves in an already tense atmosphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: He was being sent to Turkey on that plane , he didn't want to go to Turkey on that plane because he was going to be arrested when it got there .:idea2:

---

Ah, finally I have the bigger picture, which is, that he should have just served his time in the turkish military like everybody else, like I said before. He gets no love from me, Turks in Turkey should obey turkish law. When in Rome, have massive orgy's.

All I can see is pure BS. What is this about ? What is that saying I'm Christian and I don't want to serve a Muslim army?

I bet the guy has personal problems and found a good way to lighten his hijacking by benefiting anti-Muslimism.

NOTE: SEE THE BOTTOM FOR EXTRA INFOMATION ON WHAT THE STARS MEAN. PLEASE TAKE NO OFFENCE FROM THIS POST.

I just don't understand this. Some Muslims are so unstable and get angry for the most trivial reasons. I just do not get it.
If I was to say "Hindu's and the wars they had with people in the past were not acceptable*" on live television then most of them would not care as that is the past. That was the past and what the pope said was true: Crusades and any form of holy war is unacceptable. He was right. I simply just do not understand those Muslims who get tetchy about him commenting on extremists that carry on the Jihads of the past. What they do is unacceptable and deserves 0 tolerance. In my opinion these extremists that get angry are not true Muslims that follow Islamic teachings. They are Muslims that have broken away from the true path of Islamic righteousness and have formed their own "splinter" religion.

* I do not actually say this, this was an example.

OK matthius , and that relates to this story ....how ?