AC drops Beirut inagural flt due to "national security"
Jun 4, 2003, 7:30 am
#46
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: +61
Programs: SQ*PPS, QF-WP1 & LTG, VA-Gold, Marriott*LTT, Hilton*Gold, Accor*Platinum
Posts: 5,735
Guava - excellent post.
However, I think if Canada / US are going to work towards a common-security front, then decisions like this are going to become much more frequent and imposing in nature. For once, I do feel a tiny bit safer with this Government ruling, compared to my indifference when Hussein was removed from power.
O
However, I think if Canada / US are going to work towards a common-security front, then decisions like this are going to become much more frequent and imposing in nature. For once, I do feel a tiny bit safer with this Government ruling, compared to my indifference when Hussein was removed from power.
O
Jun 4, 2003, 8:20 am
#47
Formerly known as newbie elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: YUL
Programs: IHG Diamond Ambassador, Accor Platinum, AC50K
Posts: 2,968
Totally off-topic, but I just wanted to congratulate everyone for dealing with the sensitive issues that were brought up in a mature and reasonable manner, even though the viewpoints were, in some cases, diametrically opposed.
I think this thread tilts the balance back in the zone where the Air Canada forum doesn't need a moderator, in my opinion.
Sorry for being OT.
I think this thread tilts the balance back in the zone where the Air Canada forum doesn't need a moderator, in my opinion.
Sorry for being OT.
Jun 4, 2003, 8:28 am
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 20,550
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by newbie elite:
Totally off-topic, but I just wanted to congratulate everyone for dealing with the sensitive issues that were brought up in a mature and reasonable manner, even though the viewpoints were, in some cases, diametrically opposed.
I think this thread tilts the balance back in the zone where the Air Canada forum doesn't need a moderator, in my opinion.
Sorry for being OT.</font>
Totally off-topic, but I just wanted to congratulate everyone for dealing with the sensitive issues that were brought up in a mature and reasonable manner, even though the viewpoints were, in some cases, diametrically opposed.
I think this thread tilts the balance back in the zone where the Air Canada forum doesn't need a moderator, in my opinion.
Sorry for being OT.</font>
Jun 4, 2003, 8:39 am
#49
At Large
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: oakville Ontario canada;AC*SE
Posts: 16,985
boring!!!!!!!!! 
Jun 4, 2003, 10:43 am
#50
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Everywhere you want to be
Posts: 319
"Israelis do not attack civilian jets with missles."
No they use fighter jets and tracers. Look it up. For that matter look up the fate of the USS Liberty.
"They do not hijack passenger jets and aim them into skyscrapers."
No they are content with doing the first (again look it up) and using bulldouzers and dynamite in the latter respect although admittedly only against apartment buildings and houses.
"Hezbollah supporters, based in Lebanon, might not either, but they certainly have 'friends' who do!"
Osama was a creation of America, an ally, a friend, as was Saddam in the latter two respects at least. Are we going to rigorously start judging people by their unholy alliances and friends? Wolfowitz wants to rearm a terrorist group and turn it on Iran incidently. So I guess we better cancel his Canadian visiting rights forthwith and AC flights to Washington while we are at it.
No they use fighter jets and tracers. Look it up. For that matter look up the fate of the USS Liberty.
"They do not hijack passenger jets and aim them into skyscrapers."
No they are content with doing the first (again look it up) and using bulldouzers and dynamite in the latter respect although admittedly only against apartment buildings and houses.
"Hezbollah supporters, based in Lebanon, might not either, but they certainly have 'friends' who do!"
Osama was a creation of America, an ally, a friend, as was Saddam in the latter two respects at least. Are we going to rigorously start judging people by their unholy alliances and friends? Wolfowitz wants to rearm a terrorist group and turn it on Iran incidently. So I guess we better cancel his Canadian visiting rights forthwith and AC flights to Washington while we are at it.
Jun 4, 2003, 11:33 am
#51
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 294
Why would a bankrupt carrier even want this route?
Jun 4, 2003, 11:42 am
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 1999
Programs: FB Silver going for Gold
Posts: 21,850
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by marbuck:
Israelis do not attack civilian jets with missles.</font>
Israelis do not attack civilian jets with missles.</font>
# 21 February 1973; Libyan Arab Airlines 727-200; Israeli occupied Sinai Desert: The aircraft was shot down by Israeli fighters after the 727 had strayed into the airspace of the occupied territory. Eight of the nine crew members and 100 of the 104 passengers were killed.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/1973/730221-1.htm
[This message has been edited by terenz (edited 06-04-2003).]
Jun 4, 2003, 11:58 am
#53
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 1999
Programs: FB Silver going for Gold
Posts: 21,850
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cure:
Osama was a creation of America, an ally, a friend, as was Saddam in the latter two respects at least. </font>
Osama was a creation of America, an ally, a friend, as was Saddam in the latter two respects at least. </font>
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1
And also let's not forget who was instrumental in providing chemical weaponery components to Iraq.
Jun 4, 2003, 12:23 pm
#54
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 450
Thanks, Terenez, for posting that reference to the Libyan airline incident. I didn't know about that one.
But on reading the report, I could see again the double standards that are applied to Israel. Israeli military jets did indeed intercept and shot the plane down, but it appears they made sincere efforts to warn the pilot that the plane shouldn't have been there. This is a whole lot different than conspiring to blow up a tourist hotel and aiming a SAM at a totally civilian flight to a tourist destination!
(Now I am going off topic from this forum point of view...sorry)
There, indeed, may be many classes of Jews, though I don't think they are ranked in the heiarchy that YOWkid suggests. Israel does allow any Jew (at least one deemed 'orthodox') the right to take up Israeli citizenship. You can be a black from ethiopia or a rich financier from New York -- you can be a french speaking person from an Arab country, or a young family from Toronto. Now it can be said that non-Jews don't have the same right to Israeli citizenship, and that this is a sore spot for Palestinians, who have opposed the Zionist movement since its inception pre world war I.
Zionism, indeed, is fraught with some moral inconsistencies and many Palestinians, I acknowledge, are aggrieved by the Jewish state. There is also the very real disparity in wealth between the Palestinians and Jews (though, alas, it turns out the poorer Jews are often the ones dying because they use the city buses the Palestinian terrists like to blow up.) As well, on the Jewish side, there are some folks as violent and hateful as the most hateful Palestinian terrorists. The Jewish people cannot claim moral perfection.
I've thrashed this issue back and forth, and been reading extensively for the past year or so, to avoid 'mouthing' opinions without substantial knowledge.
In the end, however, the point comes to the legitimacy of the State of Israel as a Jewish state, and its right to defend itself -- and the rights of the Palestinians to a state of their own.
Here, the U.N. decided the issue in 1948. It drew a map partitioning Israel and Palestine. Most Arabs and Arab sympathizers have until now not recognized or accepted this fact, and underneath all of this have been the wars, the israeli defense, and (alas) the development of equally virulant views on the part of Israeli "settlers".
Now, the US appears to be pushing the Israelis and Arabs to accept a modified version of the original U.N. partition. Seems reasonable to me. And if tempers can cool enough, maybe Air Canada can fly to Beirut, along with El Al and Kuwait Airlines.
But on reading the report, I could see again the double standards that are applied to Israel. Israeli military jets did indeed intercept and shot the plane down, but it appears they made sincere efforts to warn the pilot that the plane shouldn't have been there. This is a whole lot different than conspiring to blow up a tourist hotel and aiming a SAM at a totally civilian flight to a tourist destination!
(Now I am going off topic from this forum point of view...sorry)
There, indeed, may be many classes of Jews, though I don't think they are ranked in the heiarchy that YOWkid suggests. Israel does allow any Jew (at least one deemed 'orthodox') the right to take up Israeli citizenship. You can be a black from ethiopia or a rich financier from New York -- you can be a french speaking person from an Arab country, or a young family from Toronto. Now it can be said that non-Jews don't have the same right to Israeli citizenship, and that this is a sore spot for Palestinians, who have opposed the Zionist movement since its inception pre world war I.
Zionism, indeed, is fraught with some moral inconsistencies and many Palestinians, I acknowledge, are aggrieved by the Jewish state. There is also the very real disparity in wealth between the Palestinians and Jews (though, alas, it turns out the poorer Jews are often the ones dying because they use the city buses the Palestinian terrists like to blow up.) As well, on the Jewish side, there are some folks as violent and hateful as the most hateful Palestinian terrorists. The Jewish people cannot claim moral perfection.
I've thrashed this issue back and forth, and been reading extensively for the past year or so, to avoid 'mouthing' opinions without substantial knowledge.
In the end, however, the point comes to the legitimacy of the State of Israel as a Jewish state, and its right to defend itself -- and the rights of the Palestinians to a state of their own.
Here, the U.N. decided the issue in 1948. It drew a map partitioning Israel and Palestine. Most Arabs and Arab sympathizers have until now not recognized or accepted this fact, and underneath all of this have been the wars, the israeli defense, and (alas) the development of equally virulant views on the part of Israeli "settlers".
Now, the US appears to be pushing the Israelis and Arabs to accept a modified version of the original U.N. partition. Seems reasonable to me. And if tempers can cool enough, maybe Air Canada can fly to Beirut, along with El Al and Kuwait Airlines.
Jun 4, 2003, 12:57 pm
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 1999
Programs: FB Silver going for Gold
Posts: 21,850
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by marbuck:
for posting that reference to the Libyan airline incident. I didn't know about that one.
</font>
for posting that reference to the Libyan airline incident. I didn't know about that one.
</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
But on reading the report, I could see again the double standards that are applied to Israel. Israeli military jets did indeed intercept and shot the plane down, but it appears they made sincere efforts to warn the pilot that the plane shouldn't have been there.
</font>
But on reading the report, I could see again the double standards that are applied to Israel. Israeli military jets did indeed intercept and shot the plane down, but it appears they made sincere efforts to warn the pilot that the plane shouldn't have been there.
</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
This is a whole lot different than conspiring to blow up a tourist hotel and aiming a SAM at a totally civilian flight to a tourist destination!
</font>
This is a whole lot different than conspiring to blow up a tourist hotel and aiming a SAM at a totally civilian flight to a tourist destination!
</font>
Jun 4, 2003, 1:50 pm
#56
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 450
(still way off topic, but...)
Terenez, your supposition about guerrilla warfare is interesting. When I lived in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe in 78/80, the guerillas were defined as 'terrorists' in the local media (I had to change Robert Mugabe's name to 'an external terrorist leader based in Mozambique' when working on the desk of the Bulawayo Chronicle).
Nevertheless, while there were some out-and-out terrorist actions (a couple of civilian jetliners were shot down, for example) the primary movement was against military and quasi-military targets.
In line with my contention that Israel has the legal and moral right to exist at least within UN mandated territories, and the fact that the 'occupation' occurred because the Arabs wanted to drive the Jews out to the sea, there may be some argument justifying guerilla-war tactics against settlers in the west bank/Gaza, but not against civilian airliners travelling from Tel Aviv to Nairobi!
And of course we go back to the irony of Zimbabwe. Back then the white settlers said the place would go down the tubes, be ruled by a despot, and the world would rue the day of Mugabe's victory. I didn't buy that stuff then, but I find it ironic 20 years after the fact the western media that had supported the liberation movement now sees Mugabe as a despot.
(And does any of this have anything to do with Aeroplan...ugh...)
Terenez, your supposition about guerrilla warfare is interesting. When I lived in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe in 78/80, the guerillas were defined as 'terrorists' in the local media (I had to change Robert Mugabe's name to 'an external terrorist leader based in Mozambique' when working on the desk of the Bulawayo Chronicle).
Nevertheless, while there were some out-and-out terrorist actions (a couple of civilian jetliners were shot down, for example) the primary movement was against military and quasi-military targets.
In line with my contention that Israel has the legal and moral right to exist at least within UN mandated territories, and the fact that the 'occupation' occurred because the Arabs wanted to drive the Jews out to the sea, there may be some argument justifying guerilla-war tactics against settlers in the west bank/Gaza, but not against civilian airliners travelling from Tel Aviv to Nairobi!
And of course we go back to the irony of Zimbabwe. Back then the white settlers said the place would go down the tubes, be ruled by a despot, and the world would rue the day of Mugabe's victory. I didn't buy that stuff then, but I find it ironic 20 years after the fact the western media that had supported the liberation movement now sees Mugabe as a despot.
(And does any of this have anything to do with Aeroplan...ugh...)
Jun 4, 2003, 2:21 pm
#57
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 87
Don't forget that the US also has something of a history of downing civilian airliners with missiles.
Jun 4, 2003, 2:40 pm
#58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 1999
Programs: FB Silver going for Gold
Posts: 21,850
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by marbuck:
When I lived in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe in 78/80, the guerillas were defined as 'terrorists' in
Nevertheless, while there were some out-and-out terrorist actions (a couple of civilian jetliners were shot down, for
</font>
When I lived in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe in 78/80, the guerillas were defined as 'terrorists' in
Nevertheless, while there were some out-and-out terrorist actions (a couple of civilian jetliners were shot down, for
</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
but not against civilian airliners travelling from Tel Aviv to Nairobi!
</font>
but not against civilian airliners travelling from Tel Aviv to Nairobi!
</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Back then the white settlers said the place would go down the tubes, be ruled by a despot, and the world would rue the day of Mugabe's victory. I didn't buy that stuff then, but I find it ironic 20 years after the fact the western media that had supported the liberation movement now sees Mugabe as a despot.</font>
Back then the white settlers said the place would go down the tubes, be ruled by a despot, and the world would rue the day of Mugabe's victory. I didn't buy that stuff then, but I find it ironic 20 years after the fact the western media that had supported the liberation movement now sees Mugabe as a despot.</font>
Jun 4, 2003, 3:04 pm
#59
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Cleveland
Programs: AF/KLM Plat For Life/UA Million Miler-PremEx For Life/SPG Gold
Posts: 5,054
Gentlemen-
I have no interest in stifling this Mideast debate, but I have great interest in seeing it moved to OMNI.
I don't post on AC often at all, but I know that the denizens of this forum are for the most part, opposed to moderators.
The offshoot of these threads (the political part!) provides the very pretext for moderation.
So, again, I'm not opposed to the debate, but I trust that the appropriate forum is indeed OMNI. While I have equally strong personal opinions on the Mideast, I'm pretty sure that no one will be SWAYED to change their opinions based on this thread, rather your posts simply will REINFORCE the pre-existing positions of those reading the thread. Hence, the seeming futility of trying to 'set the record straight' by both sides!!
Thanks for hearing me out.
I have no interest in stifling this Mideast debate, but I have great interest in seeing it moved to OMNI.
I don't post on AC often at all, but I know that the denizens of this forum are for the most part, opposed to moderators.
The offshoot of these threads (the political part!) provides the very pretext for moderation.
So, again, I'm not opposed to the debate, but I trust that the appropriate forum is indeed OMNI. While I have equally strong personal opinions on the Mideast, I'm pretty sure that no one will be SWAYED to change their opinions based on this thread, rather your posts simply will REINFORCE the pre-existing positions of those reading the thread. Hence, the seeming futility of trying to 'set the record straight' by both sides!!
Thanks for hearing me out.
Jun 4, 2003, 3:28 pm
#60
At Large
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: oakville Ontario canada;AC*SE
Posts: 16,985
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by beaubo:
Gentlemen-
I have no interest in stifling this Mideast debate, but I have great interest in seeing it moved to OMNI.
I don't post on AC often at all, but I know that the denizens of this forum are for the most part, opposed to moderators.
The offshoot of these threads (the political part!) provides the very pretext for moderation.
So, again, I'm not opposed to the debate, but I trust that the appropriate forum is indeed OMNI. While I have equally strong personal opinions on the Mideast, I'm pretty sure that no one will be SWAYED to change their opinions based on this thread, rather your posts simply will REINFORCE the pre-existing positions of those reading the thread. Hence, the seeming futility of trying to 'set the record straight' by both sides!!
Thanks for hearing me out.</font>
Gentlemen-
I have no interest in stifling this Mideast debate, but I have great interest in seeing it moved to OMNI.
I don't post on AC often at all, but I know that the denizens of this forum are for the most part, opposed to moderators.
The offshoot of these threads (the political part!) provides the very pretext for moderation.
So, again, I'm not opposed to the debate, but I trust that the appropriate forum is indeed OMNI. While I have equally strong personal opinions on the Mideast, I'm pretty sure that no one will be SWAYED to change their opinions based on this thread, rather your posts simply will REINFORCE the pre-existing positions of those reading the thread. Hence, the seeming futility of trying to 'set the record straight' by both sides!!
Thanks for hearing me out.</font>