If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC) NewsFlash Russian Airline update: 135 dead; one plane has debris field covering 25 to 30 miles; witnesses say "three explosions" when first plane crashed   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 255
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

14266 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Aug 2004 at 7:00 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

255 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-08-25 07:45:38 AM
2004-08-25 07:39:54 AM radioberlin
Short answer: Nothing.
the war in Iraq and the War on Terrorism are two different things.


2004-08-25 07:13:28 AM radioberlin
Yes, it was a devistating attack but it caused the Spaniards to pull out of the War rather than becoming comitted to it.

It was Iraq they pulled out of
 
2004-08-25 07:46:39 AM
Cormee

If only GW's old Man had pulled out of................oh, never mind.
 
2004-08-25 07:46:57 AM
Anyway... Planes have been hijacked and blown up for more than 35 years. So what's new? Still sad for all the people involved, though...
 
2004-08-25 07:47:28 AM
Which The War are we talking about?
 
2004-08-25 07:48:47 AM
radioberlin - the two groups have different agendas and stated goals. Just because it's beneficial for them to work together from time to time, doesn't mean that they're the same. Your example says: "Evidence of a direct Chechen connection to Osama bin Ladens al-Qaeda terrorist network remains limited". So there we go.
 
2004-08-25 07:48:58 AM
LaughingGremlin - The Woman?
 
2004-08-25 07:49:08 AM
 
2004-08-25 07:50:13 AM
 
2004-08-25 07:50:20 AM
the Wall Street Journal has reported that Zacarias Moussaoui, whom U.S. authorities have charged with being the 20th hijacker in the September 11 attacks


I always have doubts over stuff like this. How can they be sure that he was the 20th hijacker when several of the hijackers are apparently alive and well and clearly had nothing to do with 9/11?
 
2004-08-25 07:50:25 AM
I always thought that The War is WWII. The Great War is WWI. The war in Iraq... GWAR?
 
2004-08-25 07:52:24 AM
I'm gonna go over this once more.

If an act of terrorism is committed and that result in one country attacking another in an attempted to bring the guilty parties to justice (like Afgahnistan) then it is a matter of the War on Terrorism (which is a cumbersome term so I just use a capital on the W)

The 9/11 commission has concluded what most were saying all along that Iraq has no connection to Al Qaeda or 9/11. Iraq is Bush's personal war and not related to this Russian plane crash as far as I can see, whereas Putin will use this event to fuel the attacks on the Chechen rebels.
Chechens attack Russians resulting in more military action means that it will be considered part of the War on Terrorism.

Every up to speed?
 
2004-08-25 07:53:11 AM
Has anyone said the ever so witty "in 'you know where Russia', _____ you" yet? No? Oh, nevermind, um, forget I said that.

Just to add to the obvious. 'twas terrorists. Or dragons. Could be dragons too. Smarmy little buggers I tell ya. In all seriousness though, terrorists suck. That is all.
 
2004-08-25 07:54:14 AM
Okay, WTF? Flame war about plane crashes? Mark my words. At some point before November 2, there will be a flame war for a boobies link. Somebody will blame either Bush or Kerry for a model getting breast implants and BOOM! Thread goes directly to infinity.
And the Spaniards didn't pull out of the "War", they pulled out of Iraq and doubled their forces in Afghanistan. Why? Because Iraq has jack shiat to do with Al-Qaeda, and Afghanistan/Pakistan is where they really are.
 
2004-08-25 07:56:48 AM
I'm not jumping to a conclusion on the cause of the crashes, but like I said last night, domestic terrorism although terrorism appears completely different to most people.
 
2004-08-25 07:57:06 AM
radioberlin - right. So basically, it's just what I said first time round - you're trying to appropriate global terrorism and make it about the USA, which is an incredibly small-minded and arrogant thing to do.
 
2004-08-25 07:57:08 AM
for those interested the Bali Bombings were a direct bombing of Australians because we helped East Timor (largly Christian) gain thier indpendance over Indonesia (not christian) because of all the killings and ransacking of houses that was going on there.
 
2004-08-25 07:57:29 AM
If hostilities resume in Northern Ireland, will that be made part of the current WarTM , or will we just revert to the tactics that seemed to actually work in bringing about the current ceasefire?
 
2004-08-25 07:57:58 AM
2004-08-25 07:45:38 AM Cormee
You got me there, the analogy does break down because Spain pulled out of Iraq due (in part) to a terrorist attack, hoever, it was not committed by Iraqis. Kind of a muddy issue.

dukefluke
I wasn't using that bit to prove or disprove a connection, I just wanted everyone to have a factual reference before they started making up random shiat.
 
2004-08-25 07:59:29 AM
The Bali Bomber admitted himself that the club bombing was a screw-up. Somebody got the wrong address; he had intended to bomb a club that was full of Americans.
 
2004-08-25 07:59:41 AM
Jimbo the Slightly Impressive

Okay, WTF? Flame war about plane crashes? Mark my words. At some point before November 2, there will be a flame war for a boobies link.


Erm, where have you been? Flaming boobies thread.
 
2004-08-25 08:01:10 AM
LaughingGremlin Don't mention 'ze war'!
I missed you btw in the Whisk(e)y thread
 
2004-08-25 08:01:41 AM
I'm not trying to make global terrorism about the USA, I'm saying that terrorism is a global issue and every country involved in fighting it has a reason or event that brought them into it. Just because I used 9/11 as an analogy doesn't mean it's the only example of terrorism. You'll notice I also mentioned the Bali bombing which had noting to do with the USA.
 
2004-08-25 08:04:00 AM

Fark.com Certified Flame-War
 
2004-08-25 08:05:24 AM
radioberlin

Are you insinuating that Cechen rebels aren't terrorists? I seem to remember them taking over a movie theater and a whole lot of people being killed.
 
2004-08-25 08:07:40 AM
CokedUpWerewolf
How in the hell did you get that?
 
2004-08-25 08:08:27 AM
No, really, terrorism. You don't just "accidentally" declare your plane is being hijacked. Either that is being reported incorrectly, or it was terrorists.

You have a mat, and its got some conclusions written on it, and you back up next to the mat, and think about a question, and then you jump to a conclusion. Right there on the mat, you jump to a conclusion
 
2004-08-25 08:08:54 AM
radioberlin

Couldn't tell ya, I need coffee.
 
2004-08-25 08:09:55 AM
Does this mean we can support the Chechyan terrorists like we did Osama when he was attacking Russia?
 
2004-08-25 08:11:09 AM
radioberlin

Oh, and my apologies. I'm off to caffienate some sense into me.
 
2004-08-25 08:12:18 AM
umm I think you're wrong there Mr. Clarence Butterworth , the bali bombings where indeed aimed at Australians. Here's one example of proof, there's plenty more out there:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/11/1060588321968.html?from=storyrhs& oneclick=true
 
2004-08-25 08:15:15 AM
I'm going with the prediction...
"one plane caused the other one to crash"
/oritwasgeorgebush'sfault
 
2004-08-25 08:16:32 AM
2004-08-25 07:57:58 AM radioberlin
You got me there, the analogy does break down because Spain pulled out of Iraq due (in part) to a terrorist attack, hoever, it was not committed by Iraqis. Kind of a muddy issue.


Not really, it had been part of the election manifesto of the Spanish Socialist Party to withdraw troops from Iraq all along, they would have been withdrawn regardless of whether there had been bombs or not.
 
2004-08-25 08:17:59 AM
It might be worth pointing out that the Chechen mess as it exists today was caused by strong military reactions to terrorism. Way to stick with a failed strategy, reactionaries.
 
2004-08-25 08:18:08 AM
Cormee

That's true, but they didn't become the favorite until the bombs went off.
 
2004-08-25 08:18:14 AM
It is extremely sad for the victims and families.

As for terrorism, if it is terrorism, bla, let them deal with it, the rest of the world has their own problems (/tounge still in cheek).
 
2004-08-25 08:20:04 AM
2004-08-25 08:05:24 AM CokedUpWerewolf
I seem to remember them taking over a movie theater and a whole lot of people being killed.


Weren't they killed by the Russians pumping in gas?
 
2004-08-25 08:20:24 AM
Cormee
I know, and the Spanish people were against it by s vast majority all along. All furthering my original argument that the Madrid bombing is not comparable to the WTC attack the way the Bali Bombing is for the Aussies.
 
2004-08-25 08:21:03 AM
Cormee - "Weren't they killed by the Russians pumping in gas?"

Yep.
 
2004-08-25 08:21:19 AM
Bugger_All

Don't tell anyone, but I was...........working!
Or after 6.30, I was at Footy training.

Tis Terrible, Fadder, Terrible!
 
2004-08-25 08:22:16 AM
jcblack

"them deal with it, the rest of the world has their own problems"

> So you reckon only watch your own back? A bit selfish don't you think?
 
2004-08-25 08:22:23 AM
radioberlin

I'm gonna go over this once more.

If an act of terrorism is committed and that result in one country attacking another in an attempted to bring the guilty parties to justice (like Afgahnistan) then it is a matter of the War on Terrorism (which is a cumbersome term so I just use a capital on the W)

The 9/11 commission has concluded what most were saying all along that Iraq has no connection to Al Qaeda or 9/11. Iraq is Bush's personal war and not related to this Russian plane crash as far as I can see, whereas Putin will use this event to fuel the attacks on the Chechen rebels.
Chechens attack Russians resulting in more military action means that it will be considered part of the War on Terrorism.

Every up to speed?



Wrong. The 9/11 Commission did indeed state there were not connections between 9/11 and Iraq, but they did indeed state there are connections between Al Qaeda/terrorism and Iraq.
 
2004-08-25 08:22:50 AM
Mr. Clarence Butterworth

Where was that said? I don't remember Amrozi or JI saying anything to that effect.
 
2004-08-25 08:25:05 AM
Bonzy20


Wrong. The 9/11 Commission did indeed state there were not connections between 9/11 and Iraq, but they did indeed state there are connections between Al Qaeda/terrorism and Iraq.



I thought they said that Al Qaeda had tried to contact the Saddam regime, but were snubbed by Saddam.
 
2004-08-25 08:25:47 AM
cokedupwerewolf - It certainly helped their case, theres no doubt about it, however Jose Maria Aznar's claims that the bombs were set by Basque sepratists didn't help him much either.
 
2004-08-25 08:25:57 AM
Cormee

Yeah, I think they couldn't get a hold of tear gas or something, so they used a really old surplus nerve agent. Or at least that's how I remember it being reported.
 
2004-08-25 08:27:35 AM
Cormee

Fair enough.
 
2004-08-25 08:29:51 AM
My tinfoil hat theory:

The planes were taken by terrorists and they were heading to blow up russian targets, 9/11 style. One was heading towards Putin's vacation spot. To reduce the number of casualties the russians did the only logical thing: destroy the planes themselves before they can hit anything.
 
2004-08-25 08:32:25 AM
Wrong. The 9/11 Commission did indeed state there were not connections between 9/11 and Iraq, but they did indeed state there are connections between Al Qaeda/terrorism and Iraq.


Ah. Upon further investigation, what they actually concluded was that despite contact having been made between the two, there was no "collaborative relationship". Osama has recieved more funding and weaponry from the US than he ever did from Iraq. Interesting.
 
2004-08-25 08:32:42 AM
Can anyone confirm the reports of mysterious charter flights landing around Russia and picking up Chechen dignataries to shuttle them out of the country before they're properly questioned? Anyone?
 
2004-08-25 08:34:11 AM
Official:

"the signal was an SOS and that no other signals were sent."

Bullshiat. Aircraft don't send SOS, they make mayday calls. The situation being described in the article is the pilot setting the aircraft's transponder to a specific code indicating that he is being hijacked and cannot make a radio mayday call. You can also set the transponder to indicate that you have a flight emergency, or that your comm radio is out, but these are two different codes.

/student pilot
 
Displayed 50 of 255 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report