Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Terrorism Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Egyptian airliner tragedy, does anybody believe the mech failure explanation?
Jay    1/5/2004 9:07:33 AM
In the midst of the heightened alert for foreign airlines, an apparently well-maintained Egyptian plane flying French tourists right near Tony Blair's resort, I'm not that big a believer in coincidences. Also a good article from Debka
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
SGTObvious    RE:Egyptian airliner tragedy, does anybody believe the mech failure explanation?   1/5/2004 10:41:50 AM
The plane was not as well maintained as Egypt is claiming. There are big holes in the history. Egypt is caught by the Arab need to preserve Ego at all cost: They cannot admit to anything wrong, either in security or in maintenance, as it "insults" them. So, the only "Ego-Safe" explanation that works for them is the "It just suddenly had an accident" claim. Sort of like sticking gas pedals. In DECADES of testing, not one auto safety engineering lab has EVER managed to find a gas pedal that really sticks. But its easier on the Ego to say "the pedal stuck" than "my foot stuck"..
Quote    Reply

NewGuy    RE:Egyptian airliner tragedy, does anybody believe the mech failure explanation?   1/5/2004 3:34:22 PM
Remember this is the same Egyptian governmental mentaility that absolutely refused to even consider that the Egypt Air flight that crashed off the US coast a couple of years ago was purposefully caused by the Egyptian pilot, even though every piece of evidence collected pointed to that conclusion and none other. NewGuy
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious    I seem to recall that one, NewGuy   1/5/2004 4:32:10 PM
That was the episode in which the Egyptian government maintained that fighting for the stick and screaming "We are in the hands of Allah!" over and over again is part of standard procedure for in-flight emergencies on Egyptian aircraft. .
Quote    Reply

Jay    RE:I seem to recall that one, NewGuy   1/5/2004 5:05:24 PM
Yeah, I agree that the Egyptians would cover up a mechanical failure. But by the same token I think they'd cover up a security lapse too. I mean I'm not sure the wreckage had settled on the sea floor before they were issuing "this is not an act of terrorism" denials. Just damn strange where and when it happened is all. I dunno, I guess the fact that a lady and her son from my church were on board TWA 800 has colored my perspective on govt. honesty regarding air crashes. You remember, the one where like 110 witnesses including several airline and one army guard helo pilots reported a clear pre-incident missile trail, and the FBI guy in charge was on TV lambasting the witnesses who refused to see what he told them they saw. Lots of other evidence too, a retired navy air crash investigator who lived in MD did extensive work on it before passing away from cancer recently, but that's another story. J
Quote    Reply

SYSOP1    Sharm el-Sheikh - OneGus Post - moved by Sysops   1/5/2004 6:48:33 PM
We are moving a post started by Onegus concerning the aircrash- which properly belongs here. Our deepest sympathies to all of the families and friends of the victims. onegus the 1st - SHARM EL-SHEIKH 1/5/2004 4:46:55 PM Read the story following. Tomorrow more than 500 french militaires will be on the spot... : Another interresting link : To be followed... 1Gus - (bot
Quote    Reply

SYSOP1    Sharm el-Sheikh post by SgtObvious moved by SysOps   1/5/2004 6:49:49 PM
SGTObvious RE:SHARM EL-SHEIKH 1/5/2004 4:55:18 PM Depending on the evidence uncovered, this thread should be either: 1) deleted, as this is not an "Aviation Safety" forum, or 2) moved to the Terrorism board, where we are already discussing it. Get up to speed
Quote    Reply

SYSOP1    2nd Onegus post moved by Sysops   1/5/2004 6:50:32 PM
onegus the 1st RE:SHARM EL-SHEIKH 1/5/2004 6:13:24 PM we will see..
Quote    Reply

Ashley-the-man    RE:Egyptian airliner tragedy, does anybody believe the mech failure explanation?   1/7/2004 1:43:34 PM
"Remember this is the same Egyptian governmental mentaility that absolutely refused to even consider that the Egypt Air flight that crashed off the US coast a couple of years ago was purposefully caused by the Egyptian pilot, even though every piece of evidence collected pointed to that conclusion and none other." Is it any wonder that the trolls who argue their lame theories here use the same sophistry of logic that these third world "macho" governments do to protect their fragil egos. Americans make mistakes and whatever bureaucracy that is close to a disaster tends to want to cover it up - read the Gander military plane crash - but ultimately we have a desire to get to the truth so that mistakes can be corrected and avoided in the future. Covering up a suicide by an airline pilot does not sit well with the religious views of the people of Egypt, so it is the politically correct thing to manufacture another cause.
Quote    Reply

Jay    The late Commander Donaldson's research   1/7/2004 3:04:34 PM
Not to get too far off the Flash Airlines subject, but if anybody wants to read some of the Flight 800 material I mentioned earlier here is the link. This is a good site by the way, not another wacky conspiracy page. It's interesting reading whether you buy into the assertions or not.
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    If this be terrorism, could it be the beginning of the Headscarf Jihad against the French?   1/13/2004 6:43:31 AM
From Walid Phares - terrorist expert: The Beginning of the French Jihad? | January 13, 2004 When President Jacques Chirac delivered his televised speech about the Hijab (female Muslim scarf) in France, I believed there would be an immediate Jihad against France. I anticipated a wide array of Jihadist offensives against Paris. My primary analytical reason was the strategic importance of the scarf to Islamic fundamentalists worldwide. According to religious radicals, the long scarf, which is supposed to cover the hair, and in some cases, the face of Muslim women, is not just a tradition but a religious duty called Fard Dinee. By Sharia law, affirm the Salafi (fundamentalist) clerics, women have to cover their head. And by way of extension, those who do are complying with the will of Allah. That, at least, is the interpretation of the more radical currents within the Islamic religious establishment. When women wear the scarf, Islamic fundamentalists consider it a pillar of their influence. They can deploy their statistical power onto others, and they project it as a make-or-break indicator of their growth. If the hijab (scarf) were used increasingly, the Islamists would feel on the ascent. If its use decreases, particularly by orders of a secular government, like France, the Jihadists have no choice but to wage war. But that war can be political, social, legal, and eventually can cross the line into a violent confrontation. President Chirac, pressed hard by his secular elite, thought Republican France could absorb the problem, particularly if he displayed a pro-Arab and pro-Islamist role. He was wrong on measuring the Jihadist parameters on this very important, sacred issue. Chirac, a Gaullist politician, projected a major political trade. He would oppose the U.S. on Iraq, shield Saddam's regime until the last day, stand firmly by the Palestinian Authority against Israel, and continue to endorse Syria's control of Lebanon. In return, he expected an "Arab understanding" of France's domestic needs regarding secularism. He was surprised by Arabs' lack of fidelity to their benefactor. Although Paris refused to cooperate with Washington and with other European governments on uprooting the al-Qaeda's terrorist networks, the Sunni radicals did not grant Chirac a hijab removal license, either. To the contrary, they punished the French "infidels" for their scarf sin. On the other side of the fundamentalist aisle, the French government tried hard to court the Shiite Jihadists, but in vain. The master of the Elysee attended a Beirut-Francophone summit, shook the hand of Hizbollah's commander, Nasrallah, and constantly identified the Pro-Iranian organization as a freedom-fighting force. He would have expected a respite from Tehran, when the "hijab affaire" was settled by his speech. Not at all: the Khamanei spokespersons blasted the French President for his "anti-Islamic" war. The anti-French holy campaign started one minute after Chirac finished his speech, carried "live" and instantly translated into Arabic on al-Jazeera TV. The anchors, analysts (not to mention the resident clerics) had no mercy on the man who opposed the American military. Sheikh Youssef al Qardawi, the senior cleric in the Qatar-based station, was clear: "This is not an issue of adapting to domestic or international politics or circumstances; this is a matter related to the essence of our existence." The ideologue of jihad describes the new geopolitical realities of France, according to al Qardawi: "There is a new reality out there and in Europe. We exist and our rights (exist), as well." But he doesn't defend equal rights in as much as he calls for special privileges. The subject is certainly open to debate in the West, and will be for awhile. But Sheikh Qardawi takes the issue beyond the debate: "By all means and in all that we can do, we must resist and fight. The Arab world, the Muslim world and all Mujahedin around the world must help their brothers and sisters in France." So far, this incitement can be transcribed under "freedom of speech." But in Jihadist language it is more. It is a license for a "freedom of action." It will be absorbed by the several shades of militants in as much as they understand the "urgencies" of the call for holy duty. Some will hire lawyers, while others will threaten with vote sanctions. Some will take it to the streets, while others will boycott French goods in the region. A myriad of jihads can and will take place. But there are some that will take it to the Mohammed Atta level (i.e., mass killing) when and if needed. The problem is that no one in the international religious establishment has the authority or the power to stop the ultimate Jihadi from striking France or the French. An attempt by the (in principal influential) Al-Azhar center in Cairo failed to curb the anti-French drive.
Quote    Reply