Slashdot Mirror
EgyptAir Flight 804 Missing (cnn.com)
dark.nebulae writes: An EgyptAir flight disappeared on it's way from Paris to Egypt resulting in loss of 56 passengers and 10 crew members. The plane was flying at 37,000 feet when it vanished shortly after entering Egyptian airspace. It was suppose to land in Cairo at 3:15 a.m. Thursday after leaving Paris' Charles de Gaulle Airport at 11:09 p.m. local time. CNN's aviation correspondent Richard Quest said, "Planes just do not fall out of the sky for no reason, particularly at 37,000 feet." He said the plane vanished while cruising -- the safest part of the journey. We'll update the story as more details emerge.
UPDATE 5/20/16 3:57 AM (UTC): Egypt's civil aviation minister says it's more likely terrorism than a technical issue. Greek officials said the plane swerved sharply and plunged from 37,000 feet down to the Mediterranean as the plane left Greek airspace for Egyptian airspace. [Source]
UPDATE 5/20/16 3:57 AM (UTC): Egypt's civil aviation minister says it's more likely terrorism than a technical issue. Greek officials said the plane swerved sharply and plunged from 37,000 feet down to the Mediterranean as the plane left Greek airspace for Egyptian airspace. [Source]
also BBC source
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36309492
There are a lot of nerds here, and people who know about aviation and engineering.
It's not clear about the nature of the distress signal or beacon in the Mediterranean; it doesn't seem like that's being reported yet. My best guess is that it's a device that's activated upon hitting the water, but that's not certain. It doesn't sound like the pilots issued a distress call.
It's very odd to have a loss of communication at 37,000 feet without a distress call or telemetry indicating there was a problem. It takes a few minutes to crash from cruising altitude. Weather doesn't seem to be an issue. I don't think it can be ruled out that there was no telemetry or ACARS data; we just don't know yet.
It's really hard to have any indication of what happened. However, there are unconfirmed reports from mariners that they witnessed an explosion in the night sky. That's incredibly alarming, if it's true.
Not funny. Indications are that there was an explosion in flight, but that'd unconfirmed. It's also not clear the cause of the explosiom, if true. That doesn't necessarily indicate an attack; TWA flight 800 exploded because of a mechanical failure. It's way too early to say shit like that.
There are no other alternatives - modern planes don't just break up mid flight and if it had been another pilot suicide the radar track would have shown it descending whereas it simply vanished indicating catastrophic break up. Given the distance from the coast my money is on a bomb, either in the hold or on a terrorist on board.
While it is the most probable for a mid air disintegration, the reality is that there were airplane which disintegrated fully or partially lost parts mid air. See airplane china lost in Taiwan in 2002. Usually those are due to metal fatigue or improper repair.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I'm not trolling, Slashdot.
20 per cent of people living in the city of Paris are immigrants and 41.3 per cent of people under 20 have at least one immigrant parent.
Second generation Muslims are the ones getting radicalized.
Getting? First generation Muslims were equally radicalized however then-Europe didn't accept that. Now Europe must accept all sorts of religious nonsense or consider serious fines and even jail time for "hate" speech (even this comment could be construed as such). That and Muslims are breeding out natives by both natural propagation and force, the large cities like Paris and Brussels are no longer safe to the natives, a problem that started only a few decades ago.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I wouldn't be too quick to put this is a terrorist attack. As someone else mentioned, it's much easier for them to bomb it at the airport, and terrorists crave media coverage - why would they blow it up in the middle of nowhere, especially if it's going to take a while to find? They could just be the stupid kind, but my bet would be on something else, perhaps an electrical failure of some sort. Them not having telemetric data is very very odd, most planes come loaded with it, and that furthers the case of this not being a bomb - I doubt a bomb could take out every single part of the aircraft, or rather, I don't think they could have snuck an explosive powerful enough to do that onboard. I would wait until we have more data to draw any conclusions.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Even if you're 100% not trolling (heh), it's still incredibly insensitive. Would you accept an Atheist posting something like, "Well, they're just hunks of meat and organs now, I don't get why we're spending so much money and effort worrying about something we can't change. They're dead, can't bring 'em back!".
Everyone of every religious creed (and none at all) can be total jerks. Would it be too much to ask to just at least pretend to be sympathetic?
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
I only said that God is great. My thought and pray are with the victims and their family. Allahu akbar.
Why are you so racist? ...assuming it meant a terrorist battle cry. You disgust me. Doing Islam apology so early without even knowing the facts.
You know damn well what you're insinuating, and you've been doing it all over this thread. It shows an extreme lack of taste or respect on your part, and what's even more sad is that you apparently have nothing better to do. You're the same kind of person that would think it funny to run around wearing swastikas, but if you'd ever survived any of these conflicts (which you almost certainly wouldn't), it wouldn't be nearly so funny. You're probably among the younger population of this world, and you should be very very thankful you never had to live through something like WWII or the Vietnam War, or the wars in the Middle East. While I don't like saying the gift of life is a waste, you have absolutely no appreciation for how lucky you are that you can piss around and post shit like this all day, without living in fear that this is the last day you're alive.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
.. how we have sent a rocket out of solar system, are planning to transport (and keep track of) bunch of nanobots to Alpha Centauri, but somehow keep losing 40 ton metal leviathans on pansy little Earth.
Second generation Muslims are the ones getting radicalized.
It would be more correct to say that disfranchised, young people in deprived areas are the ones that get radicalised. At the moment this group includes a large proportion of Muslims, but there is no reason to equate the two, for many reasons:
- We have historically seen this happen many times; in the beginning of the 20th century, we saw large numbers of Fascists, Communists and, yes, Conservatives in organised street fighting, we have seen the Suffragettes, and so on - every time there has has been a large proportion of young people who felt they had nothing to lose, and that they had to do something. Religion may have been the excuse sometimes, or idealism of one sort or another. This time there are many Muslims, because that particular group has recently contributed large numbers of migrants into Europe, and it is very hard to grow up as a teenager in between cultures. But it has nothing to do with their religion.
- Although there are many extremists at the moment, who self-identify as Muslims, they are not the only ones; we also have nominally Christian extremists (how absurd is that: 'pro-lifers' committing terrorism offences), there are some that call themselves 'Communists', 'Maoists' or Neo-Nazis. Whatever their ideology or religion, this is only an excuse they use to justify their atrocious actions to themselves.
I think, if we always point the finger of blame away from ourselves, we miss the opportunity to address the very real issues that cause this to happen. We have to accept that the anger that fuels radicalisation is, in fact, very justified, and we need to face up to the fact that we play a big part in creating these injustices. And then we need to fix the problems.
- LOL
Either Land O' Lakes (awesome butter, yo) or League of Legends (meh).
- racism
That thing that happens when you don't hire enough minorities in spite of applicants being completely unqualified for the positions at hand.
- apology?
I'm sorry you're a douche. :(
Christ, do you have that rant saved, ready to use? Did an Airbus aircraft run over your pet goldfish?
Getting? First generation Muslims were equally radicalized
No they weren't. They were mostly hard working people trying to escape from poverty and bad places. They were happy with where they were and integrated reasonably well
however then-Europe didn't accept that. Now Europe must accept all sorts of religious nonsense or consider serious fines and even jail time for "hate" speech (even this comment could be construed as such).
This is a bit of a misrepresentation of the history. The fact is that American backed Saudi Wahhabi preachers have come in to the mosques worldwide. There is a likely reason why the 9/11 report won't be published since it will turn out that there was indirect CIA involvement in supporting the Saudi's that funded the attack. Simply put, there are many different groups with many different interests among muslims and if you aren't able to separate them and undestand the differences between them then you push them all together.
That and Muslims are breeding out natives by both natural propagation and force, the large cities like Paris and Brussels are no longer safe to the natives, a problem that started only a few decades ago.
This idea of "no longer safe" is crazy. Work the areas of the worst neighborhoods in the Banlieu of Paris and then compare to hotspots in Oakland or Boston. Nowhere in Western Europe is truly unsafe.
the plane vanished while cruising -- the safest part of the journey
Unless a stray air-to-air rocket got it into his infrared sensor.
I hope Charley Hebdo will not start to publish cynical caricatures about an air accident again.
Planes just do not disappear suddenly.
If there is any kind of mechanical issue, or a hint of it, pilots are trained to report immediately to the ground. All we have at this time is a news report about an automated distress signal, which is released by the plain automatically.
Remember Lockerby: it took years to put all the evidence, and it disintegrated over the ground. Flight 804 has disappeared in the middle of Mediterranean sea, investigation will be extremely difficult and costly. It will take weeks to get the flight recorders and it will take months to gather some plane parts. Marine environment is very unfriendly to the forensic evidence.
Because of the uncertainty, it will have a chilling effect to Egypt tourism (second airplane crash within 12 month), and, possibly, even longer TSA lines in USA. People will now need arrive to the airport not 2 but 3 hours.
This tragedy may also add several percent points to Mr. Trump's popularity, and could possibly win him elections.
If you have an airplane safety budget, would you rather spend it on preventative safety measures, or speeding up the location of the very small number of planes that crash and aren't found quickly? Other than a few notable exceptions (AF447, MH370 being the main ones) we generally find planes within an adequate amount of time, especially considering that it typically takes months to conclusively determine the cause of an incident and make recommendations that might improve safety.
This plane has probably been found already with divers and black box pinger locators en-route. The real issue for us is that the authorities are more concerned about figuring out what happened then keeping the 24 hr news monster updated.
stray air-to-air rocket
Not the sort of thing that's usually misplaced. Granted there are frequently combat aircraft, representing a number of different counties, flying sorties in that part of the world but you'd think someone would notice if one returned with fewer missiles that it left with. Then again, media suppression is also par for the course in some places.
Dave420 will be wondering whether the Mormon Tabernacle Choir or the Women's Institute are to blame. After all, he thinks that every religious organisation is equally likely to commit acts of terrorism.
Well, not exactly. There's several books by Arabs, Moslems, etc. who point out that there really is an Islamic ideology which aims to take over the world. Think of it like Communism. Certainly, Western Islamophobia exists, but so does Islamic Westphobia. And this isn't to paint everyone with the same brush. They are quite clear though, that Islamism, or whatever you want to call it, exists, and it isn't just a reaction to bigotry and marginalisation. Besides, too often, even the general public notices that this or that young radical, actually came from a nice middle class neighbourhood and was studying medicine at university. It is an ideology. It blocks reasoned thinking. And it has some support at all levels. When the OIC (representing 57 Muslim countries) claims that "universal human rights" are ok but ONLY the ones which don't contradict Islam, that's part of the problem. Yes, Islamophobia exists, but it isn't what's driving the ideology.
the anger that fuels radicalisation is, in fact, very justified
It's not, or at least it's aimed at the wrong people. The young muslim who wasted his time in faith schools should be angry at his parents for denying him a prosperous European life. The young muslima who keeps segregating herself from her European peers by wearing a hijab should be angry at her family as well. It's not us Europeans who require these things from young immigrants. It's their families' misguided desire to be true to their roots which costs them the chance to be a valued part of the European society. It's not exclusion. It's a failure to join.
I only said that God is great. My thought and pray are with the victims and their family. Allahu akbar.
Why are you so racist? ...assuming it meant a terrorist battle cry. You disgust me. Doing Islam apology so early without even knowing the facts.
You know damn well what you're insinuating, and you've been doing it all over this thread. It shows an extreme lack of taste or respect on your part, and what's even more sad is that you apparently have nothing better to do. You're the same kind of person that would think it funny to run around wearing swastikas, but if you'd ever survived any of these conflicts (which you almost certainly wouldn't), it wouldn't be nearly so funny. You're probably among the younger population of this world, and you should be very very thankful you never had to live through something like WWII or the Vietnam War, or the wars in the Middle East. While I don't like saying the gift of life is a waste, you have absolutely no appreciation for how lucky you are that you can piss around and post shit like this all day, without living in fear that this is the last day you're alive.
Funny how you excoriate him for his blaming of Islam for what's quite likely a terrorist attack, you then you claim "you never had to live through something like ... the wars in the Middle East", when pretty much everybody on this planet since about, oh, 600 AD or so, has had to live through "the wars in the Middle East", and that's all because of Islam...
I bet you think you're smarter than average, too. Welcome to Lake Wobegone.
Looks like someone managed to get something on the plane.
I wonder how much "Allah Akbar"ing was going on ?
Given recent events, terrorism does in fact seem like the most likely hypothesis.
However, regarding your slur of the "Religion of Peace"... who do you blame for the IRA's terrorism? Christians? Catholics? Irish Catholics? Or just the IRA and their supporters?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Not funny. Indications are that there was an explosion in flight, but that'd unconfirmed. It's also not clear the cause of the explosiom, if true. That doesn't necessarily indicate an attack; TWA flight 800 exploded because of a mechanical failure. It's way too early to say shit like that.
Where are you seeing reports that indicate an explosion? Everything I am reading simply states that contact was lost over water at cruising altitude. Now, there are reports of a distress signal in the area it went down, but given that it was over water and very early in the morning when it disappeared, it is very unlikely anyone would have seen anything. The fact that there was no distress call from the pilots and that the plane simply disappeared from radar as opposed to being seen descending does indicate a catastrophic event, but from what I understand most civilian radar looks for transponders as opposed to the actual aircraft itself, so a power failure could conceivably cause both the lack of contact and disappearance from radar.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Although there are many extremists at the moment, who self-identify as Muslims, they are not the only ones
The most interesting extremists right now are Muslims.
I think, if we always point the finger of blame away from ourselves, we miss the opportunity to address the very real issues that cause this to happen.
Yes, we intentionally exacerbated them as a problem so that we would have an enemy, that is irresponsible. However, religion is a cancer. Nobody should be so easy to fool and rile up and make violent.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
who do you blame for the IRA's terrorism?
The UK. Take away all "legitimate" means of response and what is left?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It isn't confirmed that this is a terrorist attack. Not at all.
Here's my understanding of what's actually happened:
Greek air traffic controllers made contact with the plane in the last check-in, when things were normal and the pilot seemed in good spirits. Thirty minutes later, when everything appeared normal, the Greek air traffic controllers attempted to contact the plane. This was about ten miles from the edge of Greek airspace. There was no response from the pilots. About a minute and a half later, the aircraft dropped from 37,000 feet to 15,000 feet, while swerving to the left and spinning to the right. Contact was lost at 10,000 feet.
That information says it's highly likely that the plane crashed into the Mediterranean. I don't think there's much doubt of that. Beyond that, it's virtually impossible to know what happened. I can think of multiple things that could explain what happened.
1) There may have been a mechanical problem that required the attention of the flight crew and prevented them from responding. A loss of control such as what would occur in a stall could explain these maneuvers.
2) A naferious act by the pilot could explain these behaviors. There have been multiple instances previously of pilot suicide. That could explain these maneuvers.
3) A terrorist attack could explain these maneuvers, especially if the crew was prevented from responding to the calls. That's all speculation.
I don't think it's clear at all that terror was responsible. I do think it's virtually certain the plane crashed into the Mediterranean. It's extremely likely that debris will be found soon because of the large number of search assets in the region and that those waters are heavily trafficked. But it's too early to say it's an act of terror.
Since when was Islam a race?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
All it takes for a plane to "disappear" from "radar" is that its Mode-S transponder fail. Since air traffic control doesn't really use radar anymore (except in the US, where the government prefers to live in the stone age), relying instead on self-reporting by GPS-enabled transponders sending squitter messages. Passenger jets take care of minimums and separation themselves now, rather than relying on ground-based radar, which is wildly inaccurate compared to GPS.
In any case, all a pilot has to do to disappear from the universe is turn off the Mode S transponder. Poof. Gone. Without going to an antique radar system (which still cannot tell altitude), that plane is invisible.
The "wars in the middle east" are far, far older than islam. That region of the world has always been at each others' throats since the dawn of time. There must be something in the water ;)
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
There it is AGAIN. A leftist, making excuses for Islamists, and trying to deflect the blame and say the whole thing is the West's fault for being so kind and admitting these people. How many Syrian refugees have Islamic countries taken in? How about a word about them? What is *with* the left-wing alliance with Islamists? Why is there always one to jump right up and defend them? You know they execute homosexuals and legally allow spouse abuse?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
pilots are trained to report immediately to the ground
That's not how I was trained. I was always told: "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, in that order." Or "First, fly the plane." In other words, conversations with ATC take the lowest priority.
we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands
part of Oneness is noting when to Be Silent
Yes, there is undoubtedly some of that.
On the other hand, many people (not you per se) grossly overestimate the fraction of Muslims that are Islamists, in this sense. Partly this is because they are a disproportionately loud fraction, but there is also the deliberate exaggeration on the part of Le Pen, Wilders, Farage, and so on, i.e. far-right nationalists who need "others" for us to fear.
Also, let's not forget that this colonialist mentality you are describing here used to be par for the course for us Europeans for a very, very long time -- and people on the receiving end of it were routinely labelled "savages" for not welcoming and adopting our superior ways.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
There it is AGAIN. A leftist, making excuses for Islamists, and trying to deflect the blame and say the whole thing is the West's fault for being so kind and admitting these people. How many Syrian refugees have Islamic countries taken in? How about a word about them? What is *with* the left-wing alliance with Islamists? Why is there always one to jump right up and defend them? You know they execute homosexuals and legally allow spouse abuse?
Liberals defend Islam because the largest critics of Islam are Christian conservatives--the liberals' biggest boogey-man. If conservatives oppose something, liberals feel compelled to defend it. Additionally, there is the liberal commitment to cultural relativism & multiculturalism. If Muslims want to execute homosexuals, abuse their spouses, or arrest women for not wearing hijabs in photos on the internet, it's because those things are their cultural norm, so who are we to judge?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
a 90 degree turn to the left then a 360 degree turn. Sounds like the flight control system or one of structural components of the aircraft weren't functioning. I would hate to be one of the passengers or crew on that flight because you know what was going to happen. What caused this will have to wait until the investigation completes or unless one of the N number of terrorist organizations claims responsibility. My bet is on the latter.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Quite. Islam is an exponent of that culture, not the other way around. That's how religions work.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I wish I had points to vote this up.
Best line
ILL TELL YOU WHAT ITS MADE FROM.
MURDER!
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
In this case so far, the reports hint at a birdlike shape and a screeching noise. It could be a stork, it could be a bat flying up when an old, unlocked door moved in the wind.
20 per cent of people living in the city of Paris are immigrants and 41.3 per cent of people under 20 have at least one immigrant parent.
Yes, but that doesn't mean they are muslims.
My children are the children of immigrants -- I'm a Brit, living in Paris.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
You're saying that the US Government (from Eisenhower to Obama) are directly backing Wahhabi preachers?
That the US government (from President to Secretaries of State) have been colluding to give more and more power to these imams?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Muslim population is 10% and growing. Are they integrating with Post-Catholic France? No.
At what point would you know longer call it a "few muslims"?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Russian security official Alexander Bortnikov says "in all likelihood it was a terror attack" that caused EgyptAir Flight 804 from Paris to Cairo to crash into the Mediterranean early Thursday with 66 people on board.
http://bigstory.ap.org/fc727f9...
The guy knows next to nothing about planes other than being a passenger on one. And he's the guy who was arrested in Central Park after he was caught jerking off with a rope around his neck that was tied to his genitals and with meth in his pocket.
How many Syrian refugees have Islamic countries taken in?
About 4.4 million.
(2.7 million in Turkey, 1.5 million in Lebanon and 1.2 million in Jordan).
What was your point?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
You're saying that the US Government (from Eisenhower to Obama) are directly backing Wahhabi preachers?
No; The US government are directly backing the Saudi Arabian state who are doing more than just backing the preachers, they are actively creating, developing and spreading them. Some of this is probably for fear of something worse, but it's still happening.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that terrorism may have been involved when you're talking about the sudden disappearance of a plane flying from France to Egypt (both of which have seen a lot of terrorist attacks in recent years from radical Muslims).
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
I only said that God is great. My thought and pray are with the victims and their family. Allahu akbar.
Why are you so racist? ...assuming it meant a terrorist battle cry. You disgust me. Doing Islam apology so early without even knowing the facts.
I bet your the type of prick that walks around with a swastika on and then when someone says wtf you go into a big rant about hows its actually a thousands of years old hindu symbol for good luck.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
It's quite obvious it was shot down. By Putin.
With an AK!
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
CNN's aviation correspondent Richard Quest
Oh my, where do I even start with that one?
CNN hasn't even found MH370 yet and now they're jumping on another missing plane story?
Is Richard Quest[*] some relation to Dr. Benton Quest ? Is he some sort of black sheep of the family for some reason?
[*] never can find a MF'ing <BLINK> tag when you really need one. Fine, have this instead.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
On the other hand, many people (not you per se) grossly overestimate the fraction of Muslims that are Islamists, in this sense.
I don't think they do. A small fraction of the highly motivated one commit the crimes. The vast majority of them harbor them, and run interference. They all must go.
"suspected" != "confirmed"
It is perfectly reasonable to SUSPECT that this was a terrorist attack. It's also perfectly reasonable to suspect a half-dozen other things. It's just that "suspected mechanical failure" of a plane doesn't give the talking heads as many viewers as "suspected terrorist attack".
Catastrophic destruction with no warning in the cruising phase of flight is so rare that a bomb is virtually the only possibility. TWA 800 was in initial climbout. Enroute accidents typically look like Swissair 111, in which an electrical short caused insulation above the flight deck to catch fire. There was plenty of communication with the pilots to characterize what went wrong, even before the flight recorders were analyzed. Even in the case of Air France 447, where there was no pilot communication, the avionics sent of a detailed series of error messages showing that Pitot icing gave the pilot incorrect values for airspeed, causing them to stall the plane in panic.
"[In] biology a population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies."
Once again: a religion is not a genetic type. It's a set of ideas within a culture that people can freely adopt. Even Lysenko didn't believe that religion was transmitted genetically.
Would it be too much to ask to just at least pretend to be sympathetic?
About 150,000 people die everyday. That is about two per second. Why do these 66 people deserve more sympathy from strangers than those than die in the next half a minute?
Well, not exactly. There's several books by Arabs, Moslems, etc. who point out that there really is an Islamic ideology which aims to take over the world. Think of it like Communism.
Isn't that also the agenda of Christianity and every other fanatical missionary religion in human history?
"A leftist, making excuses for Islamists, and trying to deflect the blame and say the whole thing is the West's fault for being so kind and admitting these people. "
Leftists also reflexively defended the enemy during the Cold War, but in those days I could see a rationale, since Communism was an exaggerated version of their own belief system. But jihadism is totally opposite to everything our left stands for right now: status of women, prisoner rights, gay rights, worker rights, and use of rape as a standard tactic for exercising power and outbreeding the local population. Our left loves to mock every other religion, but curiously not this particularly bad example of one.
That is not racism since any race can practice Islam.
Tired of my customary (Score:1)
There it is AGAIN. A leftist, making excuses for Islamists, and trying to deflect the blame and say the whole thing is the West's fault for being so kind and admitting these people. How many Syrian refugees have Islamic countries taken in? How about a word about them? What is *with* the left-wing alliance with Islamists? Why is there always one to jump right up and defend them? You know they execute homosexuals and legally allow spouse abuse?
All you had to do to avoid looking like a stupid right wing blowhard was to run a web search. Three moslem countries seem to lead the list:
Turkey 2,748,367
Lebanon 1,500,000
Jordan 1,265,000
Germany 484,000
Greece 496,119
Christ, do you have that rant saved, ready to use? Did an Airbus aircraft run over your pet goldfish?
He's just farting in our general direction.
Well, not exactly. There's several books by Arabs, Moslems, etc. who point out that there really is an Islamic ideology which aims to take over the world.
You mean, a bit like this (Matthew ch 28):
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Isn't that also the agenda of Christianity and every other fanatical missionary religion in human history?
With some historical differences.
Both Islam and Christianity are spreading religions. That is, it's a tenet of faith that it's a good thing to spread the faith by conversion. One can compare this to, e.g., Judaism.
Christianity has been spread by both force and by missionary activity. The earliest conversions were almost entirely underground and "bottom up." Many later conversions were "top down". Today it's pretty much universally agreed that conversion cannot be forced and must be personal. Even the most imperialist missionaries of the the 18th and 19th centuries were almost always essentially aid workers as well (building schools, hospitals, etc). Yes, they did have an ulterior motive!
Islam has also been spread by both force and by missionary activity (See the relatively peaceful spread of Islam in e.g. Malaysia and Indonesia). Unlike Christianity, the early and most rapid spread of Islam followed pretty much exactly with the Arab conquest of North Africa through Central Asia, southern Europe through Africa. Islam has historically been linked much more tightly to political apparatus than Christianity--I like to think of it in terms of Islam being a "triumphalist" religion (winning battles and expanding rapidly in the time of Muhammad) versus Christianity as underground of subversive religion--spreading underground through conversion (think even today, the house churches in China). The climax of Islam is Muhammad receiving revelations from god and winning. The climax of Christianity is Jesus being executed for his beliefs and actions. Quite a difference!
Islam has also been much more concerned that Muslims live in Islamic controlled states--not that the polities necessarily have to be 100% Muslim. This is Marshall Hodgson's term "Islamdom." The sphere of the world controlled by Islamic political powers and largely Islamicate (his term, again) in terms of culture, but that may not even be majority Muslim in terms of faith of the population! So historians think that it may have been the 18th century before a majority of Egyptians were Muslim, for instance (after over a millennium of Islamic rule).
In terms of that interesting word jihad, that's widely debated. Some would argue that jihad is never about conversion. I don't believe that. For recent examples, see for instance the area of Afghanistan formerly known as Kafiristan (Lands of the Unbelievers) and now known as Nuristan (Land of Enlightenment) after a jihad of forced conversion in the 1890s. See also the jihads of forced conversion in West Africa in the 18th and 19th centuries. Or, for the matter, the stealing of Nigerian Christian girls and their forced conversion in Nigeria today.
So, that all boils down to, do Christianity and Islam both have as its agenda to "take over the world?" Yes and no :-) I would say that Islamic theology has long had a greater interest in Islamic institutions being in political control than has Christian theology. IMHO, that's one of the reasons Europe was able to overcome religion and secular humanism, the age of reason, and all that good stuff came about.
You've got to realise that religion in NI is such a big deal that to this day it's so far backwards compared to the rest of the UK (and much of the West in general) that abortion still isn't legal even for victims of rape. That's the kind of zealotry you're talking about in NI.
As an Englishman who lives in Northern Ireland this is true, to the point that on the equal opportunities sections of job application forms (or any kind of form that has equal ops attached really) the religion section literally reads catholic, protestant, other (literally is being used correctly here they are actually the only 3 options, I don't feel I can stress that enough). That's all they care about and it does pervade everything. The local elections recently are a fine example. For the most part people vote by their religion, it really is shocking how backwards they are in that respect. Every year in July when the orange men do their (intentionally antagonistic) marches half the businesses in town close down for a few days because it's just not worth the hassle. The funny part is when you see the dole scum who are all pro republic (they'd never dream of moving over the border though, oh no) living of benefits while saying they want to be united Ireland without realising in Ireland they'd get jack shit and might have to get off their big fat self righteous arses and get a fucking job which is the scariest thought of all to them! They even still have vigilante IRA wannabe gangs going around knee capping drug dealers and a good section of the people think it's a good thing! Fucking savages some of them.
Sorry, went off on a bit of a tangent there, rant over.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
It's not, or at least it's aimed at the wrong people.
I'm not saying the target for their anger is well chosen - but there is a very real injustice that is prevalent in the Western societies, among others, and it is very reasonable that young people become very angry, when they grow up knowing that whatever they do and however hard they work, they are always going to be worthless. The support for Trump, the Tea Party and to some extent Bernie Sanders are symptoms of pretty much the same: People are sick of the way things are, and they seriously want it to stop, so they follow anything that looks like it might be better - or at least different. Don't you feel the anger yourself, sometimes? I do - I was lucky enough to make it past those hurdles and made it to adulthood and established a family; but it could have ended differently.
Notice the lack of anything resembling force in that. "Teach" rather than "subjugate."
This is stuff that matters, though.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
A leftist
Heh, yeah, I'm a leftist: someone who disagrees with you.
How many Syrian refugees have Islamic countries taken in?
I remember something about several millions by Turkey, something similar for other neighboring countries in the region. But look up your own statistics, they can't be hard to find.
What is *with* the left-wing alliance with Islamists?
Who knows? It's the first I've heard of it. Can you provide details? Sorry, I shouldn't be sarcastic, I know. What I do know is that there is some cooperation between Neo-Nazis in Denmark and Islamist terrorists - it is only natural I suppose, since both groups tend to be anti-semites.
Why is there always one to jump right up and defend them?
Perhaps it is because people like you are always being generic, uninformed and unfair in your criticism? There is nothing wrong with criticising things based on a sound understanding of the situation, but you are intellectually lazy and default to generic attacks with no real insight.
You know they execute homosexuals and legally allow spouse abuse?
Do they? I know Uganda, a mostly Christian nation AFAIK, practise some draconian laws against homosexuals, and I have heard Daesh execute gay men, but then they seem to revel in the most bestial brutality they can think of. This is the kind of things that happen when religion or ideology becomes more important than real human beings: you start using it as an excuse for living out whatever filth is in your mind. There are Muslims that do this, but it is not a specifically Muslim trait - Christians do it too, and just as much. Think Catholics and child abuse: same thing.
You call me a 'leftist'? Please do - to me it is badge of honour, that means I think critically.
Yeah, but let's not pretend that all scenarios are equally plausible, though. A terrorist attack is far more likely in this case than just about any other scenario save maybe mechanical malfunction.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
If conservatives oppose something, liberals feel compelled to defend it.
Holy shit that is it. I had been asking myself "why would feminists and islamists be on the same side" for at least a year with nobody able to give a response other than "victim culture", which I felt can't be all of it.
But I think you nailed it right on the head here. Protesters gotta protest, and the regressives feel like everyone not of the majority should fall under their banner. One would think they would have figured it out by now, but once they graduate with their underwater basket weaving degrees and hit the job market, they will figure it out.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
One of the current problems is the number of lives one extremist is able to claim before he's stopped. Look at the attack on the rock concert in France, or the airport in Bruxelles, or a plane getting taken out of the air.
If one person can kill hundreds, even having less than one percent of muslims be extremists is a really, REALLY big problem.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Unless a stray air-to-air rocket got it into his infrared sensor.
Oh jeebus, now we have to worry about wild packs of stray air to air missiles roaming the countryside? Please friends, remember to spay or neuter your munitions.
Frankly, I'm fine with Christians or Muslims trying to take over the world.
I'm not fine with either one of them taking it by force. If your words can't convince me, then let me be. Think of better words.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Absolutely, no argument there. But overreacting by demonizing the whole group for the actions of a few will have innocent victims too.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Not sure who you hang around with, but the leftists I know lump all religious conservatives into symptoms of the same underlying disease - relinquishing your rational thought processes to some huckster claiming to speak for a god that doesn't exist.
That may be so, but there's also the "enemy of my enemy is my friend." In America, conservative Christians are an immediate threat to the leftist/atheist/homosexual lifestyle crowd. Islam is a distant threat somewhere else.
The thin line between Christians and Islams is about as meaningful as the thin line between Republicans and Democrats.
If you think there's a thin line between Christians and Muslims, try this: Pick any city in the USA or Europe and in public during the day, paint a painting of Jesus, and tell everyone who passes by what you're doing. Then pick any city in Egypt/Saudi Arabia/Libya/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan and do the same thing, except make the painting of Mohammed. I think you'd soon see the thin line is much larger than you thought.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
and this is why I love /. sigs.
OP AC troll: your subject line gives you away.
much informations in these metadata
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Agreed.
But that leads to more philosophical questions, doesn't it?
If there will be innocent victims no matter which solution is taken (let anyone in without checking if they're terrorists, or seal the borders no matter if people aren't terrorists), what do you do? Wouldn't most people choose to leave the victims on the side that isn't close to them, eg. Europeans choosing to seal the borders to keep the muslims out and by extension forcing them to stay in war-torn countries, but reducing the risk of terrorist bombings within Europe?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/...
Will this usher in a new era of web errors?
EgyptAirror 804: Wreckage found.
Too soon?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Well, I think there's middle ground between those extremes. Closing borders to the whole religion is just as impossible as 100% preventing damage by lone wolf jihadis.
I don't have all the answers, obviously. Just wanted to point out that broad brush demagoguery is less than helpful.
Going forward it would be a good idea to stop interfering in their countries, it seems to me. That would not deter the fanatic leaders but definitely make it a lot harder for them to recruit foot soldiers. Things like the Paris and Brussels attacks, and London and Madrid before, might happen less often.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
But jihadism is totally opposite to everything our left stands for right now: status of women, prisoner rights, gay rights, worker rights, and use of rape as a standard tactic for exercising power and outbreeding the local population
Most leftists I've known have absolutely no love for jihadis or conservative muslims, but see them as a very separate creature from the liberal or normal Muslims, while some of the more ultra-conservative Christians don't see a difference between the two or feel like the liberal Muslims are responsible for the conservative actions.
Well, religious (and other) provisos to "human rights" isn't an exclusively Muslim thing either. Many Christians believe that discriminating against gays or transgender people is OK, for example.
People understand the world in terms of ideological frames in which a term like "human rights" implies different things. A Swedish social democrat's notion of "human rights" is very different from a US Tea Party Republican. And it's not the case that either concepts of "human rights" is broader than the other; it's that each version contains things which are logically inconsistent with the other version. The social democrat sees the ability of an unpopular group to purchase without discrimination any good or service as part of the human rights package; the Tea Party Republican sees the right not to conduct business with people you find morally repugnant part of the human rights package. Neither sees their view of human rights as "human rights minus something"; they see their own version as complete and perfect and the other version as incomplete and/or inconsistent.
No matter where you stand in the hyperplane of ideology or religion, you will see others who stand in a different place as supporting limited versions of "human rights". And they'll see you the same way.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Jesus, look at you guys - even your strawmen have strawman arguments now. If you want to know what somebody thinks, try asking them instead of playing your six degrees of imaginary argument bullshit. The first thing you are likely to discover is that (big surprise), people are more complex than 'Liberal' and 'Feminist' and the ridiculous mischaracterized personae that you have built up behind those words. I could type out the epic debate where I utterly trounce a 'Conservative Christian' or a 'Trump Supporter' who just keeps thinking the same dumb shit; but I don't, because that is a cartoon character not a person, and because that would be a masturbatory, idiotic thing to do.
But you guys go ahead and give 'em what for though - everybody's cheering for you! And by everybody I mean all the other fictional characters who populate your papier mache worldview.
Looks like someone managed to get something on the plane.
I wonder how much "Allah Akbar"ing was going on ?
Given recent events, terrorism does in fact seem like the most likely hypothesis.
However, regarding your slur of the "Religion of Peace"... who do you blame for the IRA's terrorism? Christians? Catholics? Irish Catholics? Or just the IRA and their supporters?
Why blame the IRA? Any sane individual would support their goal. If you're mad about the violence, which wasn't their goal, note that they didn't like it either - they called ahead to get people out. And it was the Brits that left them with no option to try to achieve their goal other than violence.
Who do you blame for the Yankee's terrorism against their King and Country?
It's not, or at least it's aimed at the wrong people. The young muslim who wasted his time in faith schools ...
...by and large isn't joining ISIS. The young Muslim who got a higher degree, has trouble getting a job using that degree, feels dissociated from the culture he's currently living in, and doesn't actually know much about Islam itself, that's who's joining ISIS.
Yeah I am not seeing the point in this distinction, unless it is to claim that Islamism is somehow unique among all other upstart strata of society in history and that it uniquely deserves casting suspicion on all members of its larger base of Islam. This seems highly unjust, and catastrophically misleading when applied to coming up with a plan to combat it (i.e. let's attack Islam and radicalism, because Islam has somehow done something as a whole to deserve that, and it's not like it's going to increase the radicalism at all, right?). I don't know how many times we have to label X the 'great evil of our decade/generation/century' before we realize that all of the 'thems' are all formed of the same basic tectonic forces that are always at work in society pushing one group of people against, past or through another. None of them are truly unique in their origins, yet each one is accompanied by all new bouts of pearl clutching, doomsday speak and resolutions to crush them out of existence as if such a thing were possible. All this fallacious thinking does is to ensure that you are reset to zero every time you start dealing with a new one, because you didn't fucking learn anything from the last one. Most of the time, 20 years on, the 'great evil' is integrated if not accepted as a part of our society and we look back on the pearl-clutchers as backward assholes, so what was the point of all that?
'Oh that one was different. It was just {Irish|communists|unions|blacks|gays} - they turned out to be not so bad. But this one - this is the real devil in the world! Don't you see!? It's in their very {genetics|religion|philosophy}! They hate us and will do anything to destroy us!'.
.
I can only hear this template for treating people like shit so many times (once) before it is proven to be nonsensical, but somehow we keep spinning the wheel. It's like watching a truly godawful programmer try to write what is clearly meant to be recursive logic using for loops: it just ain't gonna work buddy - time to change your mindset and approach!
IOW: "Quit trying to understand what's going on, and grab your damn flaming torch and pitchfork along with everyone else."
I don't know which version the BBC article had when you posted that, but they've found the plane, which did crash in the ocean.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If there will be innocent victims no matter which solution is taken (let anyone in without checking if they're terrorists, or seal the borders no matter if people aren't terrorists), what do you do?
There will always be innocent victims, so it's better to die being the sort of person you want to see in the world, rather than die becoming closer in thought and action to the enemy you're fighting.
Wow, I love this. The amount of crazy just intensifies as the comment goes on!
The weird point about PI reminds me of the Timecube website.
While riding a bear. Shirtless.
Tongue in cheek: Which one is a gruesome beheading, and which one is peacefully in my sleep of old age?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Sure, religious conversions almost always follow tribal, caste, racial, social, or economics (or some combination!) divisions.
I'm by no means an expert on the West African jihads, but I don't think you can just boil them down to a proxy for tribal conflict. There were certainly economic motivations as well--the slave trade was huge in, e.g., Sokoto. From what I do know, though, you would be very hard-pressed to make the case that those jihads were not driven by a desire to spread Islam.
As a counter example, in India today, many Muslims are the descendants of Muslims (Arabs, Turks, Persians, and others who invaded the subcontinent at various times). Many Muslims who are converts (or rather, whose family converted at some point in history) came from the lowest castes of Hinduism. The same thing goes with Christianity (minus the descendants of invaders). Many--if not the majority--of Indian Christians in India today came from low castes. Another interesting phenomena in Indian Christianity is that 50-60 years ago, across most of India (and ignoring areas like Kerala), almost all ministers and priests would have been of Western descent. Today, that's rate, and almost all religious organizations, etc., are run indigenously.
In India, many Muslims and Christians alike converted to their new religious precisely because their new religion was seen as more egalitarian.
Here's a fascinating article I read recently that illustrates the point:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36220329 (Why are many Indian Muslims seen as untouchable?)
Half of France are Atheists, just like most of Europe.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
A friend of mine is of the opinion, the problems we have right now on the planet are all caused by one single root: monotheistic religions. ... people cant imagine how peaceful countries are where stuff like this is considered absurd.
Considering the fact hat Christians, Muslims and Jews (in order of perceived number of membership) all believe in the same god (and there a a few niche religions, with about a million followers each, who believe in that exact same god, too)
In Thailand e.g. there is a noticeable (10% - 15% ?) muslim population. However: they are first of all, Thai! Girls wear a veil, but I never saw one hiding her face. They ride motor bikes, sit on the lab of boys, drink (alcohol) if they want etc.
Where ever Buddhism and Islam interconnect there is no problem or issue what so ever.
You can stay for weeks or month at a road crossing and preach ... people will simply accept your preaching and ignore your message ... or follow you. No war, no fight no harassment.
This anti Islam messages we see here is just the "Christian uproar" about: we failed and now they "seem" to win.
Sorry, either you believe in the Jew, Muslim, Christian god: then you have to embrace human beings and love them, or you don't. If you don't embrace human beings and love them, you are not following jewish, christian or muslim religion/doctrine etc.
I for my part (as an Atheist) can easily cope with any natural religion, Buddhists or Shintoists, e.g Shamanism etc.
Abrahamic believers, are a pain in the ass. Most painful are Christians, not Jews, nor Muslims.
And for reference: I live in Odin's lands ...
When ever I see an internet advert for parties seeking attention for "Christian Values", I send them an eMail: "This is Germania!" (You english speaking guys want to call us Teutons, but the correct term is "germans", hence the english name of our country. The "Teutons" were a single tribe ... )
When I see such "advertisements" I write back: "what the f**k is a christian value?" Love your children? Love your wife? "And how does that differ from any pagan value?"
Germany is not a Christian country. You can turn it how ever you want. 50% - 80% are Atheists. Only going to church on Christmas or Eastern (to not lose face, not faith, face!).
Most of Europeans are not Christians. You go to Church to marry, to bury your dead, to ... cough, cough ... baptize your child, randomly on Christmas, depending on ethnos at Eastern ... thats it! I only visit churches when friends of me marry ...
Before the pseudo Christian uproar (as we see right now), we (Germany, Scandinavia) were a ' "right to hospitality" is sacred country '. Immigrants, travelers, traders were welcome! Just like any muslim country is today. You go to any muslim country and ask for help and shelter: the poorest guy will share his meal with you!
Christians: not so much.
Anyway, I get side tracked.
If you believe a religion is your enemy ... you are very likely very dumb.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There it is AGAIN. A leftist, making excuses for Islamists
How do you know he is a lefty and not a righty?
You seem to be an idiot ;D
and legally allow spouse abuse? ...) And in plenty of western countries till mid 19xx, with varying degrees of xx.
That was legal till 1997, e.g. in Germany. (Cough cough
You know they execute homosexuals
Homosexuality is legal regarding Islam laws. Only backward countries "punish" it, and yes, unfortunately sometimes with death.
The origin of anti homosexual laws was ... uuuuuuh, let me memorize .... was about 1100 before christ. Written laws are from about 550 before christ. Islam was founded roughly (easy to memorize) 500 after christ. So you want to blame anti homosexual laws on Islam, instead of the culture of the people who happen to be born in an islamic country?
Laws against homosexuality in Germany were abolished 1994.
A shame, isn't it?
So you are arguing against countries, islamic countries, that are roughly 22 years behind us?
When was it exactly that "rape in a matrimony" became a crime in your country? Or that "homosexual activity" was no longer a crime?
As sad as it is if one gets executed "for nothing" ... before blaming other nations, countries, religions, I would rather try to figure how such "stuff evolves" and "think about what you can do".
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Fucking moron. Any race can practice Islam? False. False. False. Were you born retarded or did sucking your dad's fat cheesy cock send you that way? How can the fucking 100 meters practice Islam? Or the Grand fucking Prix? The Tour de fucking France or the Indy fucking 500? Ignorant twat. Do you even words you pedo bagend bellmuncher.
My uncle was on UA 175 on 11/11, so your diatribe strikes a chord. We talked to him on speaker phone seconds before the plane hit the south tower. I'll never forget his final words: "Allahu Akbar!!!"
Jesus, look at you guys - even your strawmen have strawman arguments now. If you want to know what somebody thinks, try asking them instead of playing your six degrees of imaginary argument bullshit.
It seems Slashdot is reaching that point where the people who like to discuss things are now outweighed by the people who just come for a fight.
It's a very real phenomenon with any public forum, and the mod system works ok most of the time, but sometimes I think about how this could be improved but there's no easy answers.
Maybe like cool nightclubs, the sensible people need a new secret web forum every few months that the idiots can't keep up with? How else do you solve this?
Our left loves to mock every other religion, but curiously not this particularly bad example of one.
I wonder what base of measurement you use to come up with this conclusion?
As someone who finds all religion ridiculous, I find Islam equally ridiculous as any other. The difference is that I see idiot Christians pushing their shit on me everyday, which creates more opportunity to mock such activity. I can't recall any other religion, be it Islam, Jewish, Buddhist or whatever pushing their shit on me anywhere near as badly.
The nearest mosque is the other side of the city, the Jews all live in their own suburb and keep to themselves mostly, and the Buddhists you wouldn't even know who they are because they don't feel the need to tell you about all the time. If Christians behaved as equally as obscurely, maybe they'd get more peace.
Shot by whom exactly?
The usual suspects (US, Israel..) are Egyptian ALLIES (well at least have a peace agreement) and have no interest in doing this.
The Israelis aren't engaging anyone over the Med in air-to-air combat and neither is the US.
A SAM launched from North Sinai? Maybe..
Air-to-air: HIGHLY unlikely.
Because there are no loyalist on the dole, right? :P
(It's a joke, relax)
This. Exactly this. The IRA even had back-channels with the UKGOV to decide on code words that would be used to indicate an actual real bomb threat instead of a random nutcase calling Downing Street and saying something in Whitehall will blow up in 30 mins, get your people out.
The groaning sound of the moving goalposts rings across the interwebs.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Notice the lack of anything resembling force in that. "Teach" rather than "subjugate."
Indeed. Unfortunately, people through the ages have seen nothing strange in taking this to mean 'subjugate'; the sword seems often to be the preferred, pedagocical tool. Likewise, whatever the Qur'an may or may not say about the subject, there have been many Muslim rulers who have not felt compelled to force their religion on others. What this tell us is that these things are open to interpretation, and in the end it comes down to what kind of people do the interpretation. All religions, even the most nominally peace loving and tolerant, have been used to excuse whatever their followers were doing. So, don't blame the religion, blame those who do the deeds. Of course, once you realise that the specific religions are not to blame, it potentially brings the criticism so much closer to your own back yard.
It could be unintentional. For example, something like what happened at the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. Or a rocket could be released during training and went amiss. I mean there is nothing what can happen to such an aircraft as A320 at this altitude by itself.
It is like, I do not know, for example, cycling on an empty even path in good weather and suddenly crashing on the ground without an apparent reason.
No, its like going to a mexican restaurant and finding they have 3 'mexican' items on the menu and the rest are french, italian and german.
Perhaps a meteor hit it. Perhaps it was a covert assassination of a passenger by an unfriendly state. Or, perhaps a serious defect of the plane itself.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
But how will fixing these problems support the military-industrial complex complex?
In France muslims are probably integrated the best in comparison with the rest of Europe.
No idea what you want to point out.
The problems in France are the school system and how it treats lower classes, regardless of religion.
A poor native frensh is not treated or integrated in any way better than a poor muslim imigrant.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Since 1971 OPEC is bullied to sell Oil exclusively in US dollars resulting in friction between 1.8 billion Muslims and the West;
http://www.zerohedge.com/print...
Casteism
I see you tried use fancy words and be funny at the same time. Stick to one at a time and work on it, because you do need that practice.
Tired of my customary (Score:1)
It isn't confirmed that this is a terrorist attack. Not at all.
I don't think it's clear at all that terror was responsible....
Let's use bomb or device instead of "terror". That word is ambiguous and fraught with unscientific meaning.
You can't conclude a bomb caused the crash with the current evidence, but you certainly can say things point to it. The plane was an EgyptAir flying from Paris to Cairo. That's an airline that recently experienced a bomb and cities that recently have had Muslim bombing activity. The invoked sensors were all localized on the front right of the plane around the galley. The plane dropped quickly.
=Muslim bomb.
(||) Nehmo (||)
Since when was Islam a race?
A race gets special privilege in modern society. Consequently, people defending Islam want to elevate its status to race, allowing it avoid attacks from people who don't want to be labeled as racist.
For this issue, it's fortunate I'm an atheist. It can't be said that my anti-Islam attitude stems from my Christianity.
(||) Nehmo (||)
...who do you blame for the IRA's terrorism?
Religion plays a large role.
(||) Nehmo (||)