World Affairs

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

5 hours ago, raynev1 said:

Trust the electronic voting devices , what could possibly go wrong . 

Never used one.  We still make Xs with pencils.

[Dreadnought 8,231]

It is worth noting that even though the Taliban has lost another leader, and at least one Isis video has been released -- none of the known terror groups has come forward to claim any credit for the downing of the Egypt Air flight.  I can't imagine why a group carrying out the plot would not claim credit.  I can't imagine that they have not claimed the credit even if they did  not do it!!

Sounds like yet ANOTHER electrical problem for this airline -- it is not their first.

 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

35 minutes ago, Dreadnought said:

It is worth noting that even though the Taliban has lost another leader, and at least one Isis video has been released -- none of the known terror groups has come forward to claim any credit for the downing of the Egypt Air flight.  I can't imagine why a group carrying out the plot would not claim credit.  I can't imagine that they have not claimed the credit even if they did  not do it!!

Perhaps the mystery enhances the terror. Those terrorists love that CNN coverage, gotta keep 'em spinning. Could have been a lone wolf. Maybe the terror group doesn't want to reveal itself because they have other plans - covert terrorism.

Also, could be that intel agencies are covering up the fact that it is terrorism. If they release whatever claim they have it might only empower the terrorists. Of course, it's not like ISIS has to rely on anyone to propagate their messages with youtube around and you'd think they would just UL their claim and tweet it out to CNN or something.

A lot of possibilities. Could have just been an electrical problem like you said.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Accidents happen.  This carrier is not known for the qualify of its maintenance program, and that aircraft was very much in use.

[LexusInfernus 908]

On 22-5-2016 at 4:33 PM, MilitantRadical said:

Perhaps the mystery enhances the terror. Those terrorists love that CNN coverage, gotta keep 'em spinning. Could have been a lone wolf. Maybe the terror group doesn't want to reveal itself because they have other plans - covert terrorism.

Also, could be that intel agencies are covering up the fact that it is terrorism. If they release whatever claim they have it might only empower the terrorists. Of course, it's not like ISIS has to rely on anyone to propagate their messages with youtube around and you'd think they would just UL their claim and tweet it out to CNN or something.

A lot of possibilities. Could have just been an electrical problem like you said.

Mystery does not enhance terror because it allows people very easily to imagine that it was an accident. As you see right now, you are wondering what happened, you think it might be terrorist, but you also think it might be a simple mechanical failure. You are wondering what happened, which means you are not scared, which means that if terrorists were responsible, they failed because now no one is sure they did it. 

The point of terrorism is to be as public as possible with your acts of terror, in order to reach an as wide as possible audience. It enhances the effect of what you did, it draws attention to your cause, and it enhances your standing as a terrorist organization, because you successfully pulled off an attack. 

As for intelligence agencies keeping this a secret, yeah no way. Information containment is nearly impossible. The ones that are most successful at it are the North Koreans and even they can't keep secrets. Western agencies are not good at keeping secrets and they are even worse at containing information that doesn't originate from them. Basically, that kinda thing is impossible on the internet. 

Occrams Razor says the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one, mechanical failure causing an electrical fire is the simplest explanation fitting the evidence, hence right now its probably the correct one. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

As for intelligence agencies keeping this a secret, yeah no way. Information containment is nearly impossible. The ones that are most successful at it are the North Koreans and even they can't keep secrets. Western agencies are not good at keeping secrets and they are even worse at containing information that doesn't originate from them. Basically, that kinda thing is impossible on the internet.

Can only call this naive.

My assertion that they're covering up this airline thing is just a crackpot theory, but of course intelligence agencies can keep secrets. Just because every once and a while a whistle-blower reveals something doesn't mean they can't. Your statement is just a belief that you can't corroborate or quantify (neither of us can). There is no way to prove or disprove this unless we know about all the secrets they have compared to the secrets we know about.

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Occrams Razor says the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one, mechanical failure causing an electrical fire is the simplest explanation fitting the evidence, hence right now its probably the correct one. 

I've always taken issue with that definition. What is "simpler" can be subjective - it depends on the person. A terrorist attack on an airline is just a plausible and simple as a mechanical fire.

Can you show me where there is evidence of an electrical fire VS evidence of a terrorist attack? (Honest question, I'd like to know where you draw this conclusion from)

Here are a couple quotes I scooped up from my own research:

"A major technical fault - the explosion of a motor, for instance - seems improbable," said aeronautics expert Gerard Feldzer, underlining that the A320 in question was "relatively new", having entered service in 2003. "In addition, the A320 has an excellent safety record as the best-selling, medium-range airliner in the world."

There were no reported signs of mechanical malfunction when the Airbus A320 set off.

There have been no confirmed reports of any terror group claiming responsibility for bringing down the plane.

Egypt's aviation minister Sherif Fathy said: “If you analyse the situation properly the possibility of having a terror attack is higher than the possibility of having a technical [problem]”.

From this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/23/egyptair-crash-pilot-attempted-sudden-descent-in-bid-to-extingui/

And: EgyptAir: Aviation Chief Says We're Still 'Far Away' From Finding Fuselage

"Sherif Fathy, said in an interview with NBC News that it was "way too early" to speculate what brought down Flight 804 because not enough of the doomed jetliner has been recovered."

So I don't know where you get this idea that a mechanical failure fits the evidence when it seems we hardly have enough evidence to make any kind of determination.

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Speculation before the facts is somewhat futile, don't we think?  There is a mission on to recover the flight recorders, and we should wait for the results.

As for intelligence services keeping secrets, as a signer of the Canadian Official Secrets Act myself, I can pretty much guarantee that secrets are kept.  I've been involved in a few things that I cannot discuss under any circumstances and I have not heard any leaks with respect to those topics.  Most things that leak are classified 'confidential' which is just about any document that crosses a government employee's desk.  These guys are rather overzealous with that rubber stamp and cause a headache for their security officers. 

One thing that is not known generally is that you never know what your clearance really is.  All you know is that you are invited to attend certain meetings and read certain documents.  Only your security officer knows your real clearance level.  This is as it should be.  In the movies and tv dramas, when clearances are being bandied about it is all BS.

[Skimbo 304]

I don't know if anyone noticed but my country got a new president

Counting the votes on sunday was quite interresting as the two remaining candidates sometimes where just 2.800 votes appart and "overtook" each other (meaning a 50,0%-50,0% ). In the endthey where parted by still just 31.026 votes.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ Glad it is settled.  Last report I read said it was a tie.

[Dreadnought 8,231]

No doubt -- there may still be some discussion. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well that the right wingers did not become the government.

[krbe 193]

On 24/05/2016 at 9:37 AM, Skimbo said:

I don't know if anyone noticed but my country got a new president

Counting the votes on sunday was quite interresting as the two remaining candidates sometimes where just 2.800 votes appart and "overtook" each other (meaning a 50,0%-50,0% ). In the endthey where parted by still just 31.026 votes.

While the president is largely uninteresting in Austria, there are a couple of points to observe: Neither Mr Hofer (or is it Herr Hofer, since he is a rightwinger?) nor Mr Van der Bellen are establishment candidates. Basically, the difference between the two candidates -- 0.69% -- is so minute it doesn't really matter who won; and worse, it could not be called before the mail votes were counted.

What does it mean? A far-right or green president would, no matter who won, still present an alienating force to many centre-right, centre and centre-left voters. While the post is largely ceremonial, it also shows that people are not uniting against the far right.

EDIT: Also, Mr Hofer is from the party that prompted the EU to levy diplomatic sanctions on a member state due to human rights concerns and the US to recall its ambassador.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

One thing that has happened in the EU, as exemplified by the Austrian election, is that the same voter disaffection that allows people like Trump and Clinton to crawl out of the woodwork.  Our "democratic" institutions may all fail due to lack of solid, charismatic leadership.

[Dreadnought 8,231]

RUN  FOXEY-LOXEY -- !!

THE SKY IS FALLING !!!

Jeeeeez !

You'll like Secretary Clinton -- if Bernie doesn't outflank her at the convention! 

[Skimbo 304]

On 24.5.2016 at 1:10 PM, A Nonny Moose said:

^ Glad it is settled.  Last report I read said it was a tie.

....And it settled in the proper way. Mail voters usually tend left over here =)

9 hours ago, krbe said:

While the president is largely uninteresting in Austria, there are a couple of points to observe: Neither Mr Hofer (or is it Herr Hofer, since he is a rightwinger?) nor Mr Van der Bellen are establishment candidates. Basically, the difference between the two candidates -- 0.69% -- is so minute it doesn't really matter who won; and worse, it could not be called before the mail votes were counted.

"Herr" is just german language for "Mr." basically says the same. but the german language usually uses other nouns and avoids that word.

It actually matters a lot who won - and I'm glad it was green over blue. This voting was some kind of basic-decision where the austrian politics are heading to. And it's pro-european and open.

Quote

What does it mean? A far-right or green president would, no matter who won, still present an alienating force to many centre-right, centre and centre-left voters. While the post is largely ceremonial, it also shows that people are not uniting against the far right.

Some people might give me a strange look now, but:

FPÖ has a quite far right wing in it's party structue but they're not as right as - for example - the german NPD or the american republicans who's "stone-aged" view of the society ain't good for nothing . Hofer positioned himself in a centre right position and gained lots of voters who simply can't stand Van der Bellen. (Who's quite far on the left side, ex-member of the austrian communist party, btw)

On the first run of the elections, the establishment candidates made places 4 and 5. Place 3 was held by Mrs. Griss, who also got lots of protestor's votes and profited from the fact that many Austrians - which might not have been said in media - can't stand both candidates who made it in the second round.

 

 

 

 

[krbe 193]

1 hour ago, Skimbo said:

"Herr" is just german language for "Mr." basically says the same. but the german language usually uses other nouns and avoids that word.

Herr, when used in English, evokes one very particular man, namely Mr Hitler. While I do believe it was common at the time to refer to Germans and French -- and perhaps even in other countries/languages -- with their own titles, such as Herr or Monsieur, neither Kohl, Schröder or Schweinsteiger would be called Herr today.

1 hour ago, Skimbo said:

FPÖ has a quite far right wing in it's party structue but they're not as right as - for example - the german NPD or the american republicans who's "stone-aged" view of the society ain't good for nothing . Hofer positioned himself in a centre right position and gained lots of voters who simply can't stand Van der Bellen. (Who's quite far on the left side, ex-member of the austrian communist party, btw)

And this is the case with many European 'far-right' parties of today. The Danish Popular Party is often referred to as a far-right party by English media; I merely feel it is a run-of-the-mill social democratic party (moreso than the Social Democrats) sans the EU admiration, with a virulent anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric. While I'm not absolutely certain, I believe this is the case with Ms Le Pen turning around Front Nationale in France as well as Alternativ für Deutschland.

Austria has chosen, and FPÖ is most certainly a viable option these days. Now that the immigrant stream seems to have waned, it's Britain's choice in the Brexit referendum that'll add fuel or water to the current right-wing fire in Europe.

[Dreadnought 8,231]

That's quite interesting.

When I lived in Germany, the term "Herr" denoted a "formal" version of "Mister".  (Please understand, I never studied the language -- but was reasonably fluent many years ago.  Obviously, I cannot claim to be correct and proper -- nor can I claim to know the current usage of any German language.) 

I had no idea the term had taken on a sinister use and could possibly be construed as an insult. 

I had heard "Herr Hitler" used in conversation back in those days (about 40 years ago) -- but was given to understand that they did not wish to dignify him with anything more formal than "Herr".

The elections sound like a success.  "Center- right" or "center-left" is a good thing.  Too much in either direction is bad for either the economy or the social conscience of a nation.

You are quite correct -- the particular brand of "Republicanism" practiced in the US is "Neanderthal".  Much too far to the right and detrimental to almost everything it touches.  Great strides are being made with stem cell research and global warming measures all over the world -- while they quote Theology and Capitalism to thwart it at every turn.

Bernie Sanders is decried as a socialist.  My personal opinion is that a bit of "social democrat" might be just what we need.

[LexusInfernus 908]

On 23-5-2016 at 7:44 PM, MilitantRadical said:

Can only call this naive.

My assertion that they're covering up this airline thing is just a crackpot theory, but of course intelligence agencies can keep secrets. Just because every once and a while a whistle-blower reveals something doesn't mean they can't. Your statement is just a belief that you can't corroborate or quantify (neither of us can). There is no way to prove or disprove this unless we know about all the secrets they have compared to the secrets we know about.

Intelligence agencies are no better at keeping secrets than any other human organization, which means they are absolutely terrible at it. 

The ability to keep a secret is directly related to how many people know of said secret. The more people know, the faster the secret becomes public. With intelligence agencies, even the really really secret stuff, quite a few people know. When we are talking about suppressing information regarding a terrorist attack so many people know the truth that it won't stay secret. 

Quote

I've always taken issue with that definition. What is "simpler" can be subjective - it depends on the person. A terrorist attack on an airline is just a plausible and simple as a mechanical fire.

Can you show me where there is evidence of an electrical fire VS evidence of a terrorist attack? (Honest question, I'd like to know where you draw this conclusion from)

Alright, fair question, why wasn't it a terrorist? First of all, this plane left from France. France which currently is still in a state of emergency and has effectively doubled security everywhere, especially on airports. While not impossible for a terrorist to sneak a bomb on a plane right now, I think its rather unlikely at this moment. 

Secondly, it clearly wasn't a bomb, because the plane made a bunch of strange turns before it disappeared. A bomb blasts a plane right out of the sky, the plane disintegrates and it does not have time to make two sharp turns. If it wasn't a bomb, it makes terrorism unlikely. 

Thirdly, terrorists would never not instantly claim they were behind something like bringing down a plane. If anything terrorists are more likely to claim things even if they didn't actually do it. If they don't claim it, its makes it a pretty sure bet that they didn't do it. 

All three facts combined makes me 99% certain that terrorists were not involved. That is also why mechanical problem is the simpler explanation in this case. Yes, terrorists could have done it, but you need to go through some pretty weird hoops to make the evidence fit. 

[Sabretooth78 808]

3 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Secondly, it clearly wasn't a bomb, because the plane made a bunch of strange turns before it disappeared. A bomb blasts a plane right out of the sky, the plane disintegrates and it does not have time to make two sharp turns. If it wasn't a bomb, it makes terrorism unlikely.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your assertions, damage to the right spot in an aircraft (of which there are several if not many) can sever/short out electrical components and/or control wires.  Quite often the case with an incident in the air (bomb, explosive decompression, etc.) is that the plane will maintain airworthiness but ultimately crashes resulting in loss of life because the connections to the controls/engines/etc. are severed.

Granted with the pilot of an A320 series being almost just a computer nanny (fly-by-wire and almost fully automated), it could go both ways.  It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to believe that such damage could result in erratic movements, although perhaps the computer would know what was going on and would act to counteract them - assuming the linkages are still intact, of course.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Intelligence agencies are no better at keeping secrets than any other human organization, which means they are absolutely terrible at it. 

The ability to keep a secret is directly related to how many people know of said secret. The more people know, the faster the secret becomes public. With intelligence agencies, even the really really secret stuff, quite a few people know. When we are talking about suppressing information regarding a terrorist attack so many people know the truth that it won't stay secret.

Keep telling yourself that.

I admit, the probability of my cover up theory is very low, but what proof do you have that intel agencies aren't good at keeping secrets? How can you quantify this?

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Alright, fair question, why wasn't it a terrorist?

That's not the question I asked. Don't pretend you're an aviation or bomb expert.

Where is the evidence, not your opinion, that it was a mechanical failure and not a bomb?

3 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Secondly, it clearly wasn't a bomb, because the plane made a bunch of strange turns before it disappeared. A bomb blasts a plane right out of the sky, the plane disintegrates and it does not have time to make two sharp turns.

Depends on the size of the bomb and you're forgetting the possibility of a hijacking + suicide crash.

The idea that it took sharp turns is unconfirmed. The head of Egypt's air navigation services contradicted the Greek officials who made this claim and said there were no signs of the plane making sharp turns (source).

3 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Thirdly, terrorists would never not instantly claim they were behind something like bringing down a plane. If anything terrorists are more likely to claim things even if they didn't actually do it. If they don't claim it, its makes it a pretty sure bet that they didn't do it. 

If we're to believe the official narrative, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda did not instantly claim responsibility for 9/11. We were left guessing for days (possibly months) and it was the media that initially laid the blame on him before alleged confessions came out later. (from what I remember, hard to get a timeline on this)

The Tsarnaev brothers didn't claim responsibility for the Boston Marthon bombing. You're forgetting the possibility of an uncoordinated lone wolf attack.

And I'm not arguing that it was a bomb. It could have been a mechanical failure.

Word from all the experts right now is that there isn't enough evidence, yet somehow you're 99% sure when Egypt's air minister, someone no doubt more qualified than you, says the possibility of a terrorist attack is higher than a mechanical failure.

[LexusInfernus 908]

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

Keep telling yourself that.

I admit, the probability of my cover up theory is very low, but what proof do you have that intel agencies aren't good at keeping secrets? How can you quantify this?

Intelligence agencies are staffed by humans, and humans as a rule are not good at keeping secrets. Hence, the more humans know of a secret, the more likely the secret will come out. Since intelligence agencies are professional organizations and bureaucracies as much as the next governmental organization, it means that every secret handled within an agency is handled by at least a handful of people. The more complex the secret, due to it being tied to some kind of ongoing organization, the more people know either the full secret or at least parts of it, the more likely it is that someone somewhere will reveal the secret or part of the secret. 

Quote

That's not the question I asked. Don't pretend you're an aviation or bomb expert.

Where is the evidence, not your opinion, that it was a mechanical failure and not a bomb?

Again, planes do not make multiple sharp terms when they just got bomb. They disintegrate in mid air. A disintegrating plane would literally show up on radar and it didnt. Of course you can argue that maybe a really really weak bomb exploded that did only minor structural damage but did kill enough electrical systems causing the plane to crash. Perhaps, that is possible, but again, its making a relatively simple scenario more complex by adding unnecessary causes to it (a very weak bomb, that got smuggled through state of the art security by an organization that is so unknown that even real terrorists don't think it were terrorists). The simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one, and a mechanical failure is much more simple that a terrorist bomb plot.  

Quote

Depends on the size of the bomb and you're forgetting the possibility of a hijacking + suicide crash.

Like I said, you need a very small bomb, that has the same detection chances as a big bomb. So if you were a terrorist, why go small if big carries the same risk but a better chance of success? As for hijacking/suicide crash, thats quite difficult. One person hijacking a plane can force a plane to land somewhere, you need a team of hijackers to get to the cockpit to then drive the plane into the sea. Sure, that is possible, but if you get a team of hijackers, you massively increase the risk of getting detected and you need resources. So why the hell would you then use that team to hijack a night plane going from France to Egypt to crash it into the sea? 9/11 makes sense from a terrorist perspective, its one big symbolic act, but just crashing a plane into the sea is a waste of resources. Again, terrorists make a simple scenario far more complicated and therefor far less likely to be true. 

But on the notion of suicide crashing, a more plausible scenario might be a pilot with depression committing suicide, much like in the Germanwings case. I would rate that scenario as about as likely as a mechanical problem. 

Quote

The idea that it took sharp turns is unconfirmed. The head of Egypt's air navigation services contradicted the Greek officials who made this claim and said there were no signs of the plane making sharp turns (source).

Meh, I trust the Greeks over the Egyptians, given that the plane was from an Egyptian airline and the Egyptians have a stake in this. The Greeks don't, they have no reason to lie. 

Quote

If we're to believe the official narrative, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda did not instantly claim responsibility for 9/11. We were left guessing for days (possibly months) and it was the media that initially laid the blame on him before alleged confessions came out later. (from what I remember, hard to get a timeline on this)

Actually he initially denied responsibility and about a month after the attacks he changed his mind and did. But that was Bin Laden, and he was a softie compared to the guys we have today. You really think IS wouldn't instantly broadcast another 'victory' over the infidels of the west? And if they weren't responsible, they would be congratulating on whoever was. 

Quote

The Tsarnaev brothers didn't claim responsibility for the Boston Marthon bombing. You're forgetting the possibility of an uncoordinated lone wolf attack.

They didn't have time since they were hunted by a small army of cops. Also, plenty of other terrorist organizations did praise them, pretty clearly indicating that terrorist were behind that (as if that was ever in doubt). 

Also, its one thing to bring a pressure cooker bomb to a public event with minimal security, and then just target the audience, which is even less protected, but to smuggle a bomb on a plane? Pressure cookers get detected, the place is full with dogs trained to sniff out explosive materials, its really not that simple to get an actual bomb on a plane. That really isn't something a lone wolf can pull off. 

Quote

Word from all the experts right now is that there isn't enough evidence, yet somehow you're 99% sure when Egypt's air minister, someone no doubt more qualified than you, says the possibility of a terrorist attack is higher than a mechanical failure.

Why would the Egyptian air minister be any more qualified than I am? Is he a pilot? Or an airplane mechanic? And if so, do you trust him to tell you the truth when his actual job is to protect Egyptian airlines from bad PR? Wouldn't blaming terrorists be much easier to handle from a pr perspective than saying it was probably shoddy maintenance or pilot error? And what would be the consequences when people think Egyptian airlines are unsafe because they don't maintain their planes or because their pilots are deemed incompetent? No one would fly with them, which would cost the Egyptian government a lot of money. AKA, it would make the air minister look really bad, and it could possibly hurt his career. 

So we established that a terrorist scenario is far more complicated than a mechanical failure and that the only official who keeps suggesting terrorists were behind this has a very big vested interest in saying these things regardless of whether they are true. I think I've made my case. Of course, I could be wrong, Im just 99% certain that Im not   

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Intelligence agencies are staffed by humans, and humans as a rule are not good at keeping secrets. Hence, the more humans know of a secret, the more likely the secret will come out. Since intelligence agencies are professional organizations and bureaucracies as much as the next governmental organization, it means that every secret handled within an agency is handled by at least a handful of people. The more complex the secret, due to it being tied to some kind of ongoing organization, the more people know either the full secret or at least parts of it, the more likely it is that someone somewhere will reveal the secret or part of the secret.

So you've got nothing...

There is no "rule" on how good humans are at keeping secrets. Some people suck at it, other people aren't.

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Again, planes do not make multiple sharp terms when they just got bomb. They disintegrate in mid air. A disintegrating plane would literally show up on radar and it didnt. Of course you can argue that maybe a really really weak bomb exploded that did only minor structural damage but did kill enough electrical systems causing the plane to crash. Perhaps, that is possible, but again, its making a relatively simple scenario more complex by adding unnecessary causes to it (a very weak bomb, that got smuggled through state of the art security by an organization that is so unknown that even real terrorists don't think it were terrorists). The simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one, and a mechanical failure is much more simple that a terrorist bomb plot. 

I asked you not to pretend to be an expert. We don't know for sure if the plane made those sharp turns.

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Like I said, you need a very small bomb, that has the same detection chances as a big bomb.

According to who? You?

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

As for hijacking/suicide crash, thats quite difficult. One person hijacking a plane can force a plane to land somewhere, you need a team of hijackers to get to the cockpit to then drive the plane into the sea.

You don't necessarily need a team. A team could be composed of just two people. The pilots could have been the terrorists. There are so many variables. Don't pretend as if you can account for all of them like you're some kind of counter-terrorism expert.

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Meh, I trust the Greeks over the Egyptians, given that the plane was from an Egyptian airline and the Egyptians have a stake in this. The Greeks don't, they have no reason to lie.

So you're suggesting a cover-up? I thought organizations of humans couldn't do that.

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Actually he initially denied responsibility and about a month after the attacks he changed his mind and did. But that was Bin Laden, and he was a softie compared to the guys we have today. You really think IS wouldn't instantly broadcast another 'victory' over the infidels of the west? And if they weren't responsible, they would be congratulating on whoever was.

I'm just suggesting a possibility. It is plausible, there are precedents for it.

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

They didn't have time since they were hunted by a small army of cops.

Yeah they did. It took over 24hrs for the FBI to identify them.

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Why would the Egyptian air minister be any more qualified than I am? Is he a pilot? Or an airplane mechanic? 

Ok, neither of you are qualified. I'm not either, but then again I'm not pretending to be.

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

And if so, do you trust him to tell you the truth when his actual job is to protect Egyptian airlines from bad PR? Wouldn't blaming terrorists be much easier to handle from a pr perspective than saying it was probably shoddy maintenance or pilot error?

Very true, he could be lying. He could be part of a cover up. He could be keeping secrets, which as a rule, humans are bad a doing.

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Of course, I could be wrong, Im just 99% certain that Im not   

Well right now there appears to be zero evidence of a terrorist attack.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

"Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead" -- Ben Franklin.

A really clever saboteur who knew the A320 could easily have planted a thermite device to disable the aircraft's control systems without causing an immediate crash.  However, since no outfit has taken credit, this one guesses that it is an equipment failure of some sort.

[krbe 193]

11 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Again, planes do not make multiple sharp terms when they just got bomb. They disintegrate in mid air. A disintegrating plane would literally show up on radar and it didnt. Of course you can argue that maybe a really really weak bomb exploded that did only minor structural damage but did kill enough electrical systems causing the plane to crash. Perhaps, that is possible, but again, its making a relatively simple scenario more complex by adding unnecessary causes to it (a very weak bomb, that got smuggled through state of the art security by an organization that is so unknown that even real terrorists don't think it were terrorists). The simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one, and a mechanical failure is much more simple that a terrorist bomb plot.  

Bombs can do all sorts of damage, but most of the damage to a bombed plane is not due to the bomb. If it's powerful enough it rips a hole where it was located, and spreads its kinetic energy throughout the metal/plastic tube. In air, planes may break up in smaller pieces because of the outside forces on a 220 tonnes piece of plastic and metal hurling forwards and downwards at 800 kmh. The worst threat to the integrity of the plane is of course the hard landing. As far as I know there's only one known survivor of a commercial plane 'falling out of the sky', and a few more of military fame.

Bombs need not be large to bring down an aircraft; as long as they damage navigation surfaces, fuel lines, etc. there may be enough damage to make sure that the plane is going down. The bombing of the Daallo aircraft not too long ago shows that an improperly placed bomb creates difficulties, but doesn't necessarily kill the aircraft.  If the aircraft is sufficiently damaged, but some navigation surfaces still work, it's only natural that either the autopilot or pilot input would cause the plane to veer.

Statements about radars are close to worthless unless you specify what kind of radar you're talking about. Primary radar merely picks up waves returning; as long as there's a piece of reflective metal within the area that the radar operates in (range+altitude) that piece will return to the radar and show up as a blip on the radar screen. Secondary radar, on the other hand, consists of a transponder transmitting identifying and supplementing information concerning speed, altitude, bearing, etc.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Speculation before the facts may be interesting, but this is going nowhere.

[LexusInfernus 908]

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

So you've got nothing...

There is no "rule" on how good humans are at keeping secrets. Some people suck at it, other people aren't.

Oh no doubt, but we are talking about groups of people here, and that means a law of averages is at play here. And the average human sucks at keeping a secret. 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

I asked you not to pretend to be an expert. We don't know for sure if the plane made those sharp turns.

Well even if it didn't a radar image would show if a plane disintegrates. 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

According to who? You?

According to bomb sniffing dogs. Airport security measures are designed to pick up all types of bombs, not just big ones. 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

You don't necessarily need a team. A team could be composed of just two people. The pilots could have been the terrorists. There are so many variables. Don't pretend as if you can account for all of them like you're some kind of counter-terrorism expert.

The pilots could have been terrorists? You know, it could also have been an UFO swooping from the sky and mistaking the plane for a threat. There is no evidence to suggest that it didn't happen, and since neither of us are experts on extraterrestrial encounters neither of us can meaningfully dismiss the idea as ridiculous. Literally your line of reasoning taken to its absurd logical extreme. 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

So you're suggesting a cover-up? I thought organizations of humans couldn't do that.

No I'm suggesting that politicians who have a vested interest in absolving their own airline industry from any blame put a spin on this story by suggesting that terrorism is the most likely answer. 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

I'm just suggesting a possibility. It is plausible, there are precedents for it.

If anything then, it should show you that terrorists will take the credit for things even if they weren't directly involved in it. 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Yeah they did. It took over 24hrs for the FBI to identify them.

That doesn't mean that they had 24 hours to just sit around and play innocent. It meant they had a 24 head start to hide from the inevitable army of cops looking for them. 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Well right now there appears to be zero evidence of a terrorist attack.

And as such a mechanical failure is the most logical explanation given the evidence, hence it is the most likely to be true. 

[Dreadnought 8,231]

2 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Speculation before the facts may be interesting, but this is going nowhere.

Agreed !

Going nowhere VERY fast!!!

OPTIONS:

And -- as usual -- the discussion has taken on the characteristic "Trump Trait". 

If you don't agree with Trump, you MUST be 100% wrong !! (Out of the horses' mouth --). 

There is -- in this ever-changing world -- ALWAYS alternative possibilities.

RADAR:

"krbe" is right --

Several types of radar --

Several different makes & models of radar --

MANY different operators --

Many different levels of training and interpretation !!

A disinterested third party (European preferably -- Dutch maybe?) to run the investigation would be productive.

SECRETS:

They can be kept and have been kept in the past.  At least -- they've been kept until the parties concerned are long dead and safe from retribution.  (Though I do seem to remember Charles II digging up Oliver Cromwell and having him beheaded.  So retribution my have a longer reach than we think.)

Now --

Having had my say -- I'm going to bow out and leave you Canadians to slaughter one another.  But it is nice to know -- you may call them by other names -- but you DO have "Republicans" in Canada!!

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

@DreadnoughtRepublicans in Canada are called Conservatives (large C).  They are really the Reform Party of Canada, a western outfit that took over the Progressive Conservatives, and like the TEA party, they are far enough right to rub elbows with Adolf the Aryan.  We just shucked off a ten-year rule by these guys and have gotten a majority of the centre left Liberal Party of Canada. 

The Canadian electorate is more fickle than the U.S. one, but we generally only give the government five years (or less) to pull off their agenda.  If we don't like it, we boot them at the first opportunity.  We do know how to use the ballot box up here.  And, of course, unlike the Americans we have a set of gadfly parties, the largest of which is the New Democratic Party (much farther left) currently disorganized due to the recent election, the Greens who perennially get one seat in the House of Commons, and the Bloc Quebecois who get a few seats but are dedicated to making Quebec a separate sovereign state.  The BQ is persistent, but constipated, and those old French intellectuals are dying off.  Their counterpart in Quebec, the Parti Quebecois, just fell apart again as their leader, tired of a short time herding cats, resigned.  We can say that our political scene here is more entertaining and certainly more complex than the one in the U.S. 

Here in Ontario you have to watch your Ps and Qs because in Ontario provincial Liberals are really Conservatives and the Conservatives are really Liberals.  What's in a name?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

And the average human sucks at keeping a secret.

On what do you base this statement?

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

According to bomb sniffing dogs.

Bomb sniffing dogs aren't perfect and they aren't everywhere in airports. You're also assuming the bomb had to go through security, if there was one.

Ever dealt with drug sniffing dogs? I can tell you, they are far from precise.

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

The pilots could have been terrorists? You know, it could also have been an UFO swooping from the sky and mistaking the plane for a threat. There is no evidence to suggest that it didn't happen, and since neither of us are experts on extraterrestrial encounters neither of us can meaningfully dismiss the idea as ridiculous. Literally your line of reasoning taken to its absurd logical extreme.

It could have been Big Foot. Did you know ISIS has Big Foots? What about that?

You're taking me way too seriously. I'm not suggesting my theories have any merit or are based on evidence. I at least have the humility to admit it.

Your assumptions about what happen aren't based on any proof, just the word of the Greeks who said it made sharp turns, but that isn't even confirmed. Every thing else is just what you believe is and isn't possible.

I asked you to provide a source, to provide evidence of a mechanical failure which you claimed exists, but all you gave me was your opinion and you're acting like you know exactly what happened. That doesn't preclude you from being right, but be a little more humble.

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

If anything then, it should show you that terrorists will take the credit for things even if they weren't directly involved in it.

But then you get to have it both ways. If a terrorist group came out and accepted responsibility you could just say: "meh, terrorists will take responsibility for stuff they didn't do"

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

That doesn't mean that they had 24 hours to just sit around and play innocent. It meant they had a 24 head start to hide from the inevitable army of cops looking for them.

Are you sure about that?

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

And as such a mechanical failure is the most logical explanation given the evidence, hence it is the most likely to be true. 

Probably. I'm not even denying that. All I did was provide possibilities for an alternate explanation. Never claimed they were logical or likely. In fact if you read my first comment you can see that I basically debunk my own theory that intel agencies are covering up terrorist claims of responsibility.

[Skimbo 304]

On 25.5.2016 at 9:47 PM, krbe said:

Herr, when used in English, evokes one very particular man, namely Mr Hitler. While I do believe it was common at the time to refer to Germans and French -- and perhaps even in other countries/languages -- with their own titles, such as Herr or Monsieur, neither Kohl, Schröder or Schweinsteiger would be called Herr today.

And this is the case with many European 'far-right' parties of today. The Danish Popular Party is often referred to as a far-right party by English media; I merely feel it is a run-of-the-mill social democratic party (moreso than the Social Democrats) sans the EU admiration, with a virulent anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric. While I'm not absolutely certain, I believe this is the case with Ms Le Pen turning around Front Nationale in France as well as Alternativ für Deutschland.

Austria has chosen, and FPÖ is most certainly a viable option these days. Now that the immigrant stream seems to have waned, it's Britain's choice in the Brexit referendum that'll add fuel or water to the current right-wing fire in Europe.

Immigrants? Waned? NOPE. We're expecting to reach 30.000 arrivals by mid 2016. In a country that got a population little aboth 8.000.000. Infact the refugees already total more than the combined population of our 2 smallest "state capitols" (austria is partet in 9 states "Länder"). To make things worse we also got higher crime rates near big refugee camps.  Water on the mills for any party which doesn't want to see them in our country. And prople get more and more upset with that. That's also the main reason why FPÖ gains more and more voters theese days. Also Erdogan does his best to provoke hate against muslims, especially turkish people, all anew. Also good for the right wing.

 

The word Herr.... I explain it that way:

"Sie sind Herr XXX?" - meaning: "You are Mr. XXX?" > formal, polite

"Herr XXX weiß natürlich wieder alles besser" - meaning: "S*** up, you **** and listen to me" > Not quite polite

On 26.5.2016 at 1:42 AM, Dreadnought said:

The elections sound like a success.  "Center- right" or "center-left" is a good thing.  Too much in either direction is bad for either the economy or the social conscience of a nation.

You are quite correct -- the particular brand of "Republicanism" practiced in the US is "Neanderthal".  Much too far to the right and detrimental to almost everything it touches.  Great strides are being made with stem cell research and global warming measures all over the world -- while they quote Theology and Capitalism to thwart it at every turn.

Bernie Sanders is decried as a socialist.  My personal opinion is that a bit of "social democrat" might be just what we need.

 

 

 

 

And I'm happy about center left, this is a good counterweight for our neighbour country Hungary which is currently on a "vote-right-spree"

 

My main problem with Republicans is their grudgy way of argueing for guns and against any measure which would help U.S.A. to keep up with Europe and Canada when it comes to the quality of life for it's citizens. My second problem is their obsession with religious stuff which is - for me - a clear problem in this party endangering a laicist way politics.

 

Bernie: In my opinion, he would be the best possible thing that could happen to USA. Obama did a great start on several very good things. Clinton might be able to continue some but she lacks some special kind of political tactfullnes to be sucessful. Sanders instead might be the one to defend obama's sucesses, learn from his misstakes and continue a good political course inside the country and towards the outside world.

The thrumpet instead would just ruin everything. Build a wall, sit atop, cry out lout: "USA STRONK" and leave keeping up world peace to EU and Japan..... I always imagine him like a big ol' gorilla, bumping his fists against his chest.

 

 

 

 

@Nonny Moose: 1 seat isn't much for greens. So let's see what's going to happen over here

> I continue posting mayor Austrian politics stuff, if there's interest in here.

 

 

 

About the egyptian thing: Well, there might be reduced interest in clearing things up from the european side because we got some countries... especially Italy... which are quite mad about Egypt by now.....