The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[TrentVilla]

Far far more likely but the footage is curious. And I agree a bomb on board is the only plausible at they could have brought it down but you are right re Russian airlines.

 

Define external forces?

Would they know they plane flying overhead was Russian at that altitude even if they could shoot it down?

Its not been shot down by a surface to air missile, or at least it's highly unlikely ddie to the altitude and ISIS not having that sort of capability.

External forces doesn't have to mean external to the plane. Everything about this so far suggests a bomb on board the plane.

[TrentVilla]

Pure ignorance here - but, I have no idea what is happening in Turkey. 

Anybody able to explain why it's all bad news? Keen to know. 

AWOL and others are the ones for the detail, some very informed people in this thread.

In a Channel 5 news style though.... Turkey had an election yesterday in which the Israel hating, Islamisit, terrorist supporting PM won even greater support.

He is trying to change Turkey from secular democracy to Islamist dictatorship/presidency.

 

He's also the President that agreed and oversaw the building of US air force bases on Turkish soil. I'm not sure his principles are his driving factor, I'm not sure he wants anything more than power, the more i read the more I'm convinced of this, he'll keep playing people off against each other and watch the whole thing merrily from his £384m house. 

 

I don't recall that, are you sure? I know he allowed them to use a Turkish airbase to bomb ISIS but those two things are worlds apart. There is Incirlik air base which is a U.S. Base in Turkey but that's been around since the 1950's.

In regards his motives we will have to disagree, I think his support of ISIS, attacks on the Kurds and his stance on Israel point to more than just a desire for personal power although that is very much part of it.

[bickster]

Far far more likely but the footage is curious. And I agree a bomb on board is the only plausible at they could have brought it down but you are right re Russian airlines.

 

Define external forces?

Would they know they plane flying overhead was Russian at that altitude even if they could shoot it down?

Its not been shot down by a surface to air missile, or at least it's highly unlikely ddie to the altitude and ISIS not having that sort of capability.

External forces doesn't have to mean external to the plane. Everything about this so far suggests a bomb on board the plane.

Would that be everything including the appalling safety record of the airline and the fact that the co-pilot only two days before was complaining about the condition of the aircraft. Does it also include the fact that the aircraft was turning back as something was wrong, that in itself suggests the exact opposite

Edited November 3, 2015 by bickster

[TrentVilla]

Far far more likely but the footage is curious. And I agree a bomb on board is the only plausible at they could have brought it down but you are right re Russian airlines.

 

Define external forces?

Would they know they plane flying overhead was Russian at that altitude even if they could shoot it down?

Its not been shot down by a surface to air missile, or at least it's highly unlikely ddie to the altitude and ISIS not having that sort of capability.

External forces doesn't have to mean external to the plane. Everything about this so far suggests a bomb on board the plane.

Would that be everything including the appalling safety record of the airline and the fact that the co-pilot only two days before was complaining about the condition of the aircraft. Does it also include the fact that the aircraft was turning back as something was wrong, that in itself suggests the exact opposite

Far far more likely but the footage is curious. And I agree a bomb on board is the only plausible at they could have brought it down but you are right re Russian airlines.

 

Define external forces?

Would they know they plane flying overhead was Russian at that altitude even if they could shoot it down?

Its not been shot down by a surface to air missile, or at least it's highly unlikely ddie to the altitude and ISIS not having that sort of capability.

External forces doesn't have to mean external to the plane. Everything about this so far suggests a bomb on board the plane.

Would that be everything including the appalling safety record of the airline and the fact that the co-pilot only two days before was complaining about the condition of the aircraft. Does it also include the fact that the aircraft was turning back as something was wrong, that in itself suggests the exact opposite

Everything was a poor choice of word by me and not one that reflects my actual posts on this topic but as I say poor choice of word.

But in regards your other points, I've not seen any reports that the aircraft was turning back if you have I'd be interested to read them because none of the stuff I've read has indicated that. I think I've already acknowledged the poor record of Russian airlines in a previous post and yes comments have been attributed to the pilot or co-pilot about the condition of the plane.

I don't though think either of those things do much to tip the balance to suggesting that its the "exact opposite".

While its true we have the Egyptian President saying the claims by the ISIS affiliate are propaganda, there are still those claims. It would be rather daft to claim responsibility for something that can be proven not to possible.

In addition you have rather curious footage the group has posted which appears to show the plane at the moment of break up. Then there is the physical evidence that suggests/proves the plane broke up in mid air rather than crash and various apparent expert witnesses who say mechanical failure wouldn't account for such a mid air break up. The crew made no attempt to get in contact with air traffic control during the planes rapid decent.

You've got quotes from the airline themselves saying that an "external influence" caused the crash while the US director of national intelligence is quoted as saying there was no "direct evidence of any terrorist involvement yet. It's unlikely, but I wouldn't rule it out".

I'm no conspiracy theorist, far from it but there does seem to be quite a lot of things point away from this being a normal aviation accident. Meanwhile CBS in the US are reporting that a US satellite detected a "heat flash" over the Sinai at the time of the crash and the data is being analysed.

The black boxes have been recovered and will be being studied so I'm sure things will be explained soon enough one way or another.

[Wainy316]

I think the Flight Radar app represents a bit of a security risk.  You can point your phone up at the sky and it will tell you what airline a plane is and where's it's travelling from and too.  Pretty fascinating but also dangerous surely?

[blandy]

I think the Flight Radar app represents a bit of a security risk.  You can point your phone up at the sky and it will tell you what airline a plane is and where's it's travelling from and too.  Pretty fascinating but also dangerous surely?

No. I don't think so, Wainy.

Being able to be advised that a plane you can see as a tiny dot (or a bigger dot) is "such an airline's flight QR255 to Doha" is not dangerous - no more so than standing on a bridge over the motorway and being able to see Bowen's coaches coach to Blackpool, or Virgin trains 10:20 to Euston. The information is not dangerous.

We kind of need to be wary of fear of things which are not fearful, politicians making like everything is a terrible danger so that they can take away ever more liberties and generally make the world a more scary place, to cement their positions and create fear of "others".

You with your telephone identifying flight BA1262 is not in the slightest bit dangerous. People with rocket launchers can be dangerous. Take away their rocket launcher (and their freedom), not everyone's phone app.

Edited November 3, 2015 by blandy

[ChristchurchVillan]

i have flown out of Sharm el Sheikh on several occasions, most recently 3 weeks ago.

The security going through check in is an absolute joke and do not follow the international airport rules that are in place.

This last time i thought id try my luck with 2 large bottles of water and a bottle of coke in my hand luggage, straight through no probs.

Then walked through the security arch with phone, wallet and loose change and was lightly frisked by the security guard while he had a fag hanging out his mouth lol.

If they are this casual with the hand luggage they must be as bad with the hold luggage as well so it wouldnt surprise me if we hear that was the cause.

As for the perpetrators, i read that there were 3 Ukrainians on board the plane, would they be possible suspects as opposed to the obvious IS links ?

[bickster]

Far far more likely but the footage is curious. And I agree a bomb on board is the only plausible at they could have brought it down but you are right re Russian airlines.

 

Define external forces?

Would they know they plane flying overhead was Russian at that altitude even if they could shoot it down?

Its not been shot down by a surface to air missile, or at least it's highly unlikely ddie to the altitude and ISIS not having that sort of capability.

External forces doesn't have to mean external to the plane. Everything about this so far suggests a bomb on board the plane.

Would that be everything including the appalling safety record of the airline and the fact that the co-pilot only two days before was complaining about the condition of the aircraft. Does it also include the fact that the aircraft was turning back as something was wrong, that in itself suggests the exact opposite

 

Far far more likely but the footage is curious. And I agree a bomb on board is the only plausible at they could have brought it down but you are right re Russian airlines.

 

Define external forces?

Would they know they plane flying overhead was Russian at that altitude even if they could shoot it down?

Its not been shot down by a surface to air missile, or at least it's highly unlikely ddie to the altitude and ISIS not having that sort of capability.

External forces doesn't have to mean external to the plane. Everything about this so far suggests a bomb on board the plane.

Would that be everything including the appalling safety record of the airline and the fact that the co-pilot only two days before was complaining about the condition of the aircraft. Does it also include the fact that the aircraft was turning back as something was wrong, that in itself suggests the exact opposite

Everything was a poor choice of word by me and not one that reflects my actual posts on this topic but as I say poor choice of word.

But in regards your other points, I've not seen any reports that the aircraft was turning back if you have I'd be interested to read them because none of the stuff I've read has indicated that. I think I've already acknowledged the poor record of Russian airlines in a previous post and yes comments have been attributed to the pilot or co-pilot about the condition of the plane.

I don't though think either of those things do much to tip the balance to suggesting that its the "exact opposite".

While its true we have the Egyptian President saying the claims by the ISIS affiliate are propaganda, there are still those claims. It would be rather daft to claim responsibility for something that can be proven not to possible.

In addition you have rather curious footage the group has posted which appears to show the plane at the moment of break up. Then there is the physical evidence that suggests/proves the plane broke up in mid air rather than crash and various apparent expert witnesses who say mechanical failure wouldn't account for such a mid air break up. The crew made no attempt to get in contact with air traffic control during the planes rapid decent.

You've got quotes from the airline themselves saying that an "external influence" caused the crash while the US director of national intelligence is quoted as saying there was no "direct evidence of any terrorist involvement yet. It's unlikely, but I wouldn't rule it out".

I'm no conspiracy theorist, far from it but there does seem to be quite a lot of things point away from this being a normal aviation accident. Meanwhile CBS in the US are reporting that a US satellite detected a "heat flash" over the Sinai at the time of the crash and the data is being analysed.

The black boxes have been recovered and will be being studied so I'm sure things will be explained soon enough one way or another.

It was in the very first news reports on the radio

[villakram]

It's rather convenient that a US thermal sat picked up a heat flash here, but nothing over Ukraine a while back. Lot's of propaganda being spewed by all sides right now.

 

 

 

 

[YGabbana]

It's rather convenient that a US thermal sat picked up a heat flash here, but nothing over Ukraine a while back. Lot's of propaganda being spewed by all sides right now.

 

 

 

 

My thoughts exactly

[Chindie]

It's rather convenient that a US thermal sat picked up a heat flash here, but nothing over Ukraine a while back. Lot's of propaganda being spewed by all sides right now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My thoughts exactly

Could you elaborate please?

[TrentVilla]

Far far more likely but the footage is curious. And I agree a bomb on board is the only plausible at they could have brought it down but you are right re Russian airlines.

 

Define external forces?

Would they know they plane flying overhead was Russian at that altitude even if they could shoot it down?

Its not been shot down by a surface to air missile, or at least it's highly unlikely ddie to the altitude and ISIS not having that sort of capability.

External forces doesn't have to mean external to the plane. Everything about this so far suggests a bomb on board the plane.

Would that be everything including the appalling safety record of the airline and the fact that the co-pilot only two days before was complaining about the condition of the aircraft. Does it also include the fact that the aircraft was turning back as something was wrong, that in itself suggests the exact opposite

 

Far far more likely but the footage is curious. And I agree a bomb on board is the only plausible at they could have brought it down but you are right re Russian airlines.

 

Define external forces?

Would they know they plane flying overhead was Russian at that altitude even if they could shoot it down?

Its not been shot down by a surface to air missile, or at least it's highly unlikely ddie to the altitude and ISIS not having that sort of capability.

External forces doesn't have to mean external to the plane. Everything about this so far suggests a bomb on board the plane.

Would that be everything including the appalling safety record of the airline and the fact that the co-pilot only two days before was complaining about the condition of the aircraft. Does it also include the fact that the aircraft was turning back as something was wrong, that in itself suggests the exact opposite

Everything was a poor choice of word by me and not one that reflects my actual posts on this topic but as I say poor choice of word.

But in regards your other points, I've not seen any reports that the aircraft was turning back if you have I'd be interested to read them because none of the stuff I've read has indicated that. I think I've already acknowledged the poor record of Russian airlines in a previous post and yes comments have been attributed to the pilot or co-pilot about the condition of the plane.

I don't though think either of those things do much to tip the balance to suggesting that its the "exact opposite".

While its true we have the Egyptian President saying the claims by the ISIS affiliate are propaganda, there are still those claims. It would be rather daft to claim responsibility for something that can be proven not to possible.

In addition you have rather curious footage the group has posted which appears to show the plane at the moment of break up. Then there is the physical evidence that suggests/proves the plane broke up in mid air rather than crash and various apparent expert witnesses who say mechanical failure wouldn't account for such a mid air break up. The crew made no attempt to get in contact with air traffic control during the planes rapid decent.

You've got quotes from the airline themselves saying that an "external influence" caused the crash while the US director of national intelligence is quoted as saying there was no "direct evidence of any terrorist involvement yet. It's unlikely, but I wouldn't rule it out".

I'm no conspiracy theorist, far from it but there does seem to be quite a lot of things point away from this being a normal aviation accident. Meanwhile CBS in the US are reporting that a US satellite detected a "heat flash" over the Sinai at the time of the crash and the data is being analysed.

The black boxes have been recovered and will be being studied so I'm sure things will be explained soon enough one way or another.

It was in the very first news reports on the radio

Then I'd suggest they jumped the gun and got their facts wrong because that wasn't the case.

[coda]

Govt sending a team to Sharm to assess security. Could be a precaution or maybe they know what brought the plane down.

[KHV]

All flights to and from Sharm are now suspended, seems our Government believe it was a bomb

[Ikantcpell]

Iam pretty sure it was a bomb to.

[TrentVilla]

 

I should have stuck by everything.

The Russian plane that crashed in Egypt at the weekend "may well have been brought down by an explosive device", Downing Street has said.

All flights between the UK and Sharm el-Sheikh have been suspended on Wednesday evening as UK experts assess security at the Egyptian airport.

Number 10 said flights had been delayed as a "precautionary measure" after "more information has come to light".

Russian Airbus 321 crashed on Saturday, killing all 224 people on board.

"We would underline that this is a precautionary step and we are working closely with the airlines on this approach," a Number 10 spokesman said.

Aviation experts have travelled to Egypt assess security arrangements at the Egyptian airport.

Their findings were considered in a one-hour meeting of the government's Cobra emergency committee, chaired by Prime Minister David Cameron.

A further government statement is expected later tonight.

The Irish Aviation Authority said it has directed Irish airlines not to fly to or from the area until further notice.

'An explosive device'

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said the delays would allow UK experts time to make sure "the right security measures are in place" at Sharm el-Sheikh airport.

"We cannot categorically say why the Russia jet crashed but we have become concerned that the plane may well have been brought down as a result of an explosive device," he said.

I 

[Awol]

The Saudis promised a reaction to Russian intervention in Syria. 

[TrentVilla]

The Saudis promised a reaction to Russian intervention in Syria. 

Shudder.

[Awol]

The Saudis promised a reaction to Russian intervention in Syria. 

Shudder.

We'll see. 

[villakram]

Saudi/Qatar are allies of the US/UK/France and could be easily interpreted as direct proxies, and ISIS is being funded by these guys. Not that war is likely to result, but I would expect this is how it will be interpreted on the Russian side.

Now the question is... did ISIS do this on their own or were they given some help by one of the various government agencies playing the game over there... CIA/Mossad jump to the front of the queue given their previous.