Conservatives Refuse To Believe Germanwings Pilot Wasn’t Muslim Terrorist With Laughable Results

Crash investigators have released very little details about the Germanwings plane crash that claimed the lives of 150 people in the French Alps. During these early stages it’s important to start with what we know:

On a clear day and without any warning signs, the plane began what looks like an intentional descent into the ground. One of the pilots was believed to be locked outside of the cockpit, frantically trying to re-enter in time to save the plane. His co-pilot, identified as Andreas Lubitz, can be heard breathing normally (seemingly ruling out a medical emergency). Furthermore, he had reportedly suffered from depression and very recently been ordered “unfit for work” by a doctor, although his specific medical condition has not been released.

Notice that nowhere in this tragedy is there any indication that Lubitz was driven to kill by Islam (or any religion). His motivations are still completely unknown, but one line of inquiry that has been all but dismissed was Islamic terrorism. Yet that hasn’t stopped a contingent of Islamophobic conservatives from jumping to that conclusion nonetheless.

This reaction, while disappointing, is hardly surprising. Like Pavlov’s dogs, conservatives have conditioned themselves to begin crying Islamic terrorism at the very first sign of mass murder. Unable to comprehend an act of violence that didn’t center around the Muslim religion, the pack is left scrambling to justify their assumptions despite the evidence. It’s led to some very, very laughable leaps of logic.

Conservative website Newsmax’s White House correspondent, John Gizzi, for example, pulled his conspiracy theory straight from his DVD collection.


And before you laugh at the king of “Just asking questions,” remember that time a group of male models almost assassinated the prime minister of Malaysia in the very same way. Clearly, “terrorism via post-hypnotic suggestion” is a credible threat and definitely a line of inquiry worth pursuing with all available resources. Or as Gizzi justifies it:


Then there are the “recent convert” theorists, who propose that Lubitz wasn’t always a Muslim extremist, but seemingly became one overnight. It’s convenient because not finding any evidence of having been radicalized is just further proof that he was a “recent” convert. You have to admire the near perfect circle they’ve drawn in their logic. At the forefront of this idea is serial fabricator Jim Hoft, of Gateway Pundit, who penned a breathless column suggesting as much, citing a “German writer” whose own column has already been deleted but at one time said.

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. [source]

What evidence do they have for any of these claims? None other than their ironclad conviction that if someone in the world does something unspeakably awful, he must, by default, be a Muslim (secret or otherwise.)

If we can learn anything from these crimes against logic it’s that the human mind will go to nearly any lengths to validate its preconceived notions. How powerful is this urge to reaffirm one’s cherished beliefs? Strong enough to publicly tweet the idea that a German airline pilot was brainwashed like in the movies, and do so without a hint of irony.