I wanted to take an informal look at the article presented by “The Telegraph” entitled EgyptAir hijacker is ‘dangerous fanatic’ who ‘abused his family’, says ex-wife
While I don’t condone the actions of the jackass that did this, there were a few points I think the article tried to twist in an attempt to fuel unnecessary hatred. I want to take a look at this article objectively.
“Seif al-Din Mohamed Mustafa hijacked an EgyptAir aeroplane flying from Alexandra to Cairo on Tuesday and diverted it to Cyprus in an apparent bid to see his former spouse and children.
But Marina Paraschou strongly rejected reports that he was a desperate man who acted out of love in an interview published in Phileleftheros daily on Thursday. In a separate interview with daily Politis, Ms Paraschou said Mr Mustafa used her as an “excuse” to seek asylum in Cyprus.”
On the one hand the article suggest that suspect had attempted to divert the flight to see his estranged wife and children. One would initially think this is done out of want. But the article then counters that notion by painting the action in the worst light possible, stating his wife believed he didn’t do it out of love, but rather an excuse to seek asylum. Furthermore, the article states “This man never cared for his children for one minute, either when he lived here or when he went away,” Ms Paraschou is quoted as saying.
Almost immediately following that point in the article, the suspect is painted in a dark light, giving grim details of a notorious past. Immediately followed the article mentions
Ms Paraschou said she met Mr Mustafa in Cyprus in 1983 when she was 20 – a chance encounter that led to marriage and four children.
The couple divorced five years later and since then had only once made contact when she called him several years later to say that their teenage daughter – had been killed in a car accident.
This was the last time she says she spoke to her ex-husband – his response, she claimed, was: “And what do I care? I don’t mind that she died.”
My first question is, if he hadn’t spoken to her after those five years, what other reason would he have to divert a flight there? No matter how crazy you are, a man would realize that the odds of being granted asylum after hijacking a plane is astronomical. So what other reason would he have?
The Second question is of course, how should a man feel about a child he has never knew due to being estranged by his wife? Angry? Lost? And the sad part is that all of this happens more often than the media cares to mention. In fact, governments are aware of the crazed actions of some women, and yet do very little to alleviate the madness. And when they do, tempers fly. SeeFor Love or Real Estate: The Cost of Getting Divorced in China
The suspects estranged wife states “I’m so embarrassed by all the publicity, and I don’t want to see him,”….really now? You don’t want to see him because of the publicity? It’s embarrasing? My question is what is the reason he wasn’t around in the first place?
I think an article by Turd Flinging Monkey entitled “A.W.A.L.T. Syrian Refugee Edition ” has some relevance here. I simply think it is another case of traditionally “customed” woman getting a taste of feminism and it’s perverted “rights”.
I apologize for the particularly long rant… anyone else have any insight into this? I want to make sure my “Rpr” (Red Pill Rage) isn’t flaring up and I want to make sure I see things clearly.
Funny, isn't it? How women thrive on a mans time, attention and resources, while simultaneously telling him he isn't enough...
ILiveAgain 3 years, 10 months ago.
