When I read about situations like this, my mind just completely gets lost. There are so many unnecessary things about this incident. A man "with mental issues" held airline workers hostage on a plane that would be departing for Canada, demanding to go to Cuba. He used a gun. I hate how the author of the article mentioned that the man had "mental issues" a couple times. Is that supposed to get readers to sympathize for this man and be more understanding? I'm pretty sure anyone who reads this article will think to themselves, "Well, this man clearly needs help". But I don't think that's because of the so-called "mental issues". I think anyone reading an article about ANY person who hi-jacks a plane would think to themselves that the person clearly needs professional help.
Another issue that I have with this situation is the man himself. I understand that he may not be completely sound of mind, but hijacking a plane, BY HIMSELF, with a single gun, was a BAD idea. In the past, there have been much more elaborate terrorist plots than running into an empty, landed plane, with a single gun, demanding to be brought to Cuba. Much more elaborate plots that have FAILED. Such as the John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot, where there were undercover agents everywhere. Or the Glasgow International Airport attack, where three men drove an armoured truck filled with propane through the airport, but were stopped by airport security before they were even halfway to their desired goal. My point is that this man who decided to hi-jack a plane with no real plan, had no chance of succeeding.
My final complaint is about the article itself and how it portray's Stephen Harper as careless and like his only comment on the situation is that he was "Deeply Concerned". Harper was in Jamaica at the time of the incident working with the Jamaican Prime Minister to develop a program that will work to stop crime in Jamaica. And as we can clearly see from this ridiculous situation, they need it...
No comments:
Post a Comment