Russian airliner missing over Egypt

Longbow said:
No because that wasn't a terrorist attack, just generic war.
Click to expand...

This.

There is a real difference between a heat of the moment action in a combat zone and putting a bomb on an aircraft. Weather it was a mistake, poorly trained operator, or some other combination I surmise there is regret by whoever made that happen. In the case of ISIS, they will happily dance on the graves of their victims until the end of time, or a JDAM.
 
Gilly said:
A de facto independent country. So, they sought autonomy and independence and even declared it. They were not granted it and the subsequent referendum only hardened that. It didn't change the fact.
Click to expand...

no - ISIS is a functioning country , no one has recognised them but they have all the workings of a functioning government and state sponsored systems (as was pointed out to you in another thread)

The chechnya wars started in the early 1990`s culminating in 1994 with Moscow invading to reassert its rule - and we know how that turned out;

in 1996 yeltsin was dragged to the peace table after the Russian forces where thrown out of grozny and were rolled back by chechnyan troops, with first a ceasefire then peace accords and finally Russian forces retreating.

in 1997 the elections of president and prime minister , with the new president mainitaining chechnyan sovereignty (as per the peace accords) and reparations being paid by Russia

you don't pay reparations if you win!

the problem was one of extreme corruption - and religion (what a surprise) , and finally the invasion of Dagestan by the Islamic brigade - the government of Dagestan called to Moscow for help - and then we have the second chechnyan war ; this time Chechnya lost - the government went into hiding and Moscow reaffirmed control


so whilst it wasn't a country in its own right for very long - under 3 years , my affirmation still stands - Russia used chemical weapons on the capital of another country.
 
It isn't that clear cut in either case. Your own use of the phrase 'de facto' implies that Chechnya may not have legally been a country, which may be key to some people's definition. Similarly, the 'IS country' is illegally occupying the sovereign territory of Syria and Iraq and as such may fail someone's definition of a country. Something functioning like a country may not be considered a country by everybody.
 
Moses said:
So use the best recognised way of determining statehood... Article 1 of The Montevideo Convention 1933... something which is accepted as reflecting customary international law, so basically is international law.

"The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."
Click to expand...

Just the one point highlighted above rules out ISIS as a state, they can't enter into relations with other states because they want to fight everyone.

Regardless of the previous topic wondering's, lets try and keep on track here with the OP gents, awful loss of life and now confirmed as a terrorist act.
 
Uther said:
Even with traces of explosives found you still don't believe it? OK.
Click to expand...

If he said there was traces of unicorn horn dust does that mean its true or would you want more than just a quote?

e: I'm not dismissing the fact that it may or may not have been a bomb in the slightest, it's just a bit odd that no-one from the crash investigation team has uttered a word yet but this bloke is quite happy to declare it was definitely a bomb.
 
Last edited:
Boycey0211 said:
If he said there was traces of unicorn horn dust does that mean its true or would you want more than just a quote?

e: I'm not dismissing the fact that it may or may not have been a bomb in the slightest, it's just a bit odd that no-one from the crash investigation team has uttered a word yet but this bloke is quite happy to declare it was definitely a bomb.
Click to expand...

I don't think the crash investigators don't tend to say much if anything at all about a crash until they're absolutely certain, as their primary duty is to investigate the cause thoroughly )and I think there are legal and operational implications if they say something too soon)
The only time I think they tend to say something early is if it looks like it's a problem with the aircraft that could be affecting others, in which case I believe they may put out a preliminary report so that a warning can be issued and other aircraft that might be affected checked.

I can't remember them saying a great deal about MH17 at first and that was pretty obvious what had happened.
 
Well with strategic bombers now in play, the potential for disaster has multiplied immensely.

Regardless, traces of explosives are usually a strong signal.
 
DJMK4 said:
They are going to have to up the anti securely scanning what's going through in to hold or other storage
Click to expand...

I'd imagine the chances of getting such a device on a flight originating from airports such as Heathrow, Amsterdam, Munich, LAX etc has been virtually zero, and has probably been so ever since just after the Lockerbie bombings. The problem, as we've seen, are less secure airports such as Sharm El-Sheik.
 
The Funktopus said:
I'd imagine the chances of getting such a device on a flight originating from airports such as Heathrow, Amsterdam, Munich, LAX etc has been virtually zero, and has probably been so ever since just after the Lockerbie bombings. The problem, as we've seen, are less secure airports such as Sharm El-Sheik.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Last time I flew from Newark I incurred the wrath of TSA for having a small bottle of water in my carry-on which I had forgotten to remove.
 
Curio said:
Indeed. Last time I flew from Newark I incurred the wrath of TSA for having a small bottle of water in my carry-on which I had forgotten to remove.
Click to expand...

It could be that the can in this case (if it is true) was placed by someone who had access to the aircraft without going through normal passenger security.
A cleaner or similar would probably not be looked at twice with a can, or it could be placed with real cans that have been cleared and loaded for use on the aircraft.

The problem with a lot of airport security, especially in some countries, is that there are massive holes in it if you're willing to exploit them (the food/consumable materials required every flight are probably high risk and not necessarily secure all the way*).
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some don't fully vet or check on the staff who do the non technical maintenance on the aircraft or are happy to use casual staff around the airport on the "secure" side.


*Things like the food/refreshments being prepared and packed at other facilities that may be less secure than the airport and then not checked before being loaded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom