Canadian fighter jets sent to intercept British plane

Nomen Nescio wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4607657.stm

"North American Aerospace Defense Command Lt Cmdr Sean Kelly said
Canadian fighter jets escorted the plane to Halifax, where it landed
safely
at 1539 BST.

Canadian military officials confirmed that two CF-18s from Bagotville,
Quebec,
were sent to intercept the flight."

Ooh, Quebec ... let's see how Mezei defends his country, and his
*province* no less,
getting involved in "the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis of evil".


If you actually listen, you might someday learn.
There was a very good reason for the plane to be intercepted.
It had sent out a false hijack alarm.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...diverted_x.htm

What does this have to do with Quebec "getting involved with Bush........"?

Userbeam Remailer wrote:

Recently fired Cisco pedophile/psychopath Michael Voight "mrtravel
" kooked:


Nomen Nescio wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4607657.stm

"North American Aerospace Defense Command Lt Cmdr Sean Kelly said
Canadian fighter jets escorted the plane to Halifax, where it landed
safely
at 1539 BST.

Canadian military officials confirmed that two CF-18s from Bagotville,
Quebec,
were sent to intercept the flight."

Ooh, Quebec ... let's see how Mezei defends his country, and his
*province* no less,
getting involved in "the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis of evil".


If you actually blah blah blah troll troll troll kook kook kook


What does this have to do with blah blah blah troll troll troll kook kook kook


***SMACK!!!***

**** off and die, pedo kook.

Shouldn't you now be posting the contact info for the management at HP?

Tchiowa wrote:

The US did *NOT* force the plane to land in Canada. The US
refused to let it enter their airspace.

Think about that. If it were a real hijacking do you think the
hijackers would obey any such directive to "not enter US airspace" ?

It was an act of cowardice to tell the plane it couldn't enter US
airspace.

Send up a couple of jet fighters to escort it, but don't act like a
scarred little girl and say "no don't come in. go away! I'm scared
of you!"

You'd think they'd want it to land in the US (by force, escorted by
fighters if necessary). You'd think they'd want to get their hands on
the hijackers.

No, they act like a bunch of chicken-**** cowards that they are when
faced with a crisis.

Let someone else deal with the plane, even if it is loaded with US
citizens, even if they have a strong interest to capture the would-be
hijackers for prosecution and intelligence purposes. No, all of that
is trumped by their cowardice and fear of the situation. They must
have zero confidence that they could handle the situation properly.
They must have zero confidence that their fighters could contain the
situation if it was a real hijacking.

Maybe if it came to it, they wouldn't want to be the ones to order it
to be shot down - because they are cowards and afraid of the PR
reaction if the US public learned that it was US fighters, on the
command of no less than the president or high-ranking US official, who
ordered a plane full of US citizens to be shot down.

Maybe that's why we were told that Bush the monkey wasn't told of the
small plane that was flying in restricted airspace a few weeks ago.
By putting up the impression that he wasn't told, it would also
deflect implicating him as the one who would have given the final
go-ahead to shoot it down. It's more important to insulate top
officials from making important decisions because they are cowards and
fear the PR implications of dealing with public and media analysis
after the fact.

This is how top officials of the Bush administration deal with the
threat of *real* terrorism when it is unfolding around them. Run and
hide and let others make important decisions because career and
reputation are more important than excercising the responsibilities
given to them. Cowards all of them.

A few fact that have not been mentioned:

The pilots were in contact with the ground. They confirmed it was not a
highjacking and that they were in control. However, they were unable to
reset the highjack transponder setting, so landing was the correct
course of action.

The jets are standard "issue" since that code had to be investigated.
(Consider a case where pilots enter the code, but highjackers then enter
cockpit and force pilots to tell ground that it was a glitch).

Virgin's press release mentioned a "glitch" which prevented pilot from
resetting the transponder in flight. Is that really a glitch ? Weren't
they designed that once set, you couldn't remove the highjack code ?

Fly Guy wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:

The US did *NOT* force the plane to land in Canada. The US
refused to let it enter their airspace.

Think about that. If it were a real hijacking do you think the
hijackers would obey any such directive to "not enter US airspace" ?

THere was no "directive". There were Canadian fighter jets.

And that avoids the issue. The poster said that the US forced the plane
to land in Canada. Not true. The Canadians forced it to land in Canada.

It was an act of cowardice to tell the plane it couldn't enter US
airspace.

No, it was a completely appropriate act of national security. If the
plane had not obeyed orders the next act would be to shoot it down.

Send up a couple of jet fighters to escort it, but don't act like a
scarred little girl and say "no don't come in. go away! I'm scared
of you!"

Grow up.

You'd think they'd want it to land in the US (by force, escorted by
fighters if necessary). You'd think they'd want to get their hands on
the hijackers.

No you wouldn't. You'd think they'd want to prevent the hijackers from
getting close to a place where they could do some damage (like fly into
a building). Have you forgotten 9/11 already?

Tchiowa wrote:

THere was no "directive". There were Canadian fighter jets.

They weren't told that they had no permission to enter US airspace?

And that avoids the issue. The poster said that the US forced
the plane to land in Canada. Not true. The Canadians forced it
to land in Canada.

And that also avoids the issue. Did not the US authorities force it
first to land somewhere else after they told it it couldn't enter US
airspace?

It was an act of cowardice to tell the plane it couldn't
enter US airspace.

No, it was a completely appropriate act of national security.
If the plane had not obeyed orders the next act would be to
shoot it down.

Once in US airspace, you could still shoot it down if they didn't obey
all orders given to it. Of course those would US fighters, flown by
US airmen, shooting down fellow US citizens, on direct orders from
high-ranking cowards, the issue of which you do not seem to address.

I'm begining to suspect that last resort (to shoot down a commercial
airliner) is a bogus threat that will never be done but the gov't
makes a big deal (with the help of the media) to play up that option
just to achieve or add to the deterrence factor. So they do all they
can to keep even very very very remote threats out of US airspace to
avoid an escalation that would lead to a shoot-down. If they were
confident of their ability to shoot down a plane then they wouldn't be
so anal about letting these planes (even just with no-fly-list people)
into US airspace.

I think they fear a breakdown in cordination and communication with
the fighter pilots, combined with confusion about the potental for a
false order to shoot down the plane and the political embarrasment
(rage?) that would follow - law suits against top officials, even
against Bush Monkey, etc. I think this is the reality they are always
thinking about.

You'd think they'd want it to land in the US (by force,
escorted by fighters if necessary). You'd think they'd
want to get their hands on the hijackers.

No you wouldn't. You'd think they'd want to prevent the
hijackers from getting close to a place where they could
do some damage (like fly into a building).

If you trusted the ability of US fighter pilots and their command
structure to direct the plane to, say, Bangor Maine (presumably a
place with not a lot of tall buildings) then this wouldn't be an
issue. Any attempt to fly beyond Bangor, then shoot them down.
Plenty of time to do that.

What - better they crash into some Canadian buildings? Are you also a
coward? Doesn't sound like the American Way at all. Or is that just
a lot of bull?

Fly Guy wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:

THere was no "directive". There were Canadian fighter jets.

They weren't told that they had no permission to enter US airspace?

Yes. Air Traffic Control denied them access. There was no government
"directive" You tried to phrase it as if the Bush administration was up
to something. You're way out of line.

And that avoids the issue. The poster said that the US forced
the plane to land in Canada. Not true. The Canadians forced it
to land in Canada.

And that also avoids the issue. Did not the US authorities force it
first to land somewhere else after they told it it couldn't enter US
airspace?

No they didn't. The Canadian authorities did that.

It was an act of cowardice to tell the plane it couldn't
enter US airspace.

No, it was a completely appropriate act of national security.
If the plane had not obeyed orders the next act would be to
shoot it down.

Once in US airspace, you could still shoot it down if they didn't obey
all orders given to it.

So let it continue through Canadian airspace and hope it doesn't crash
into a Canadian city?

The process was SOP for all countries. You trying to make this a Bush
issue is simply nonsensical.

Of course those would US fighters, flown by
US airmen, shooting down fellow US citizens, on direct orders from
high-ranking cowards, the issue of which you do not seem to address.

Because it's an idiotically silly issue.

You'd think they'd want it to land in the US (by force,
escorted by fighters if necessary). You'd think they'd
want to get their hands on the hijackers.

No you wouldn't. You'd think they'd want to prevent the
hijackers from getting close to a place where they could
do some damage (like fly into a building).

If you trusted the ability of US fighter pilots and their command
structure to direct the plane to, say, Bangor Maine (presumably a
place with not a lot of tall buildings) then this wouldn't be an
issue. Any attempt to fly beyond Bangor, then shoot them down.
Plenty of time to do that.

Object is to get the plane out of the air as quickly as possible. Not
let it fly around to various countries to do it.

What - better they crash into some Canadian buildings? Are you also a
coward? Doesn't sound like the American Way at all. Or is that just
a lot of bull?

No, better you stop them immediately.

Tchiowa wrote:


If you trusted the ability of US fighter pilots and their command
structure to direct the plane to, say, Bangor Maine (presumably a
place with not a lot of tall buildings) then this wouldn't be an
issue. Any attempt to fly beyond Bangor, then shoot them down.
Plenty of time to do that.

Object is to get the plane out of the air as quickly as possible. Not
let it fly around to various countries to do it.

It was a London to NY flight. It had nothing to do with Canada. We should
have kept out fighters on the ground and let the US deal with it.

Dave Smith wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:


If you trusted the ability of US fighter pilots and their command
structure to direct the plane to, say, Bangor Maine (presumably a
place with not a lot of tall buildings) then this wouldn't be an
issue. Any attempt to fly beyond Bangor, then shoot them down.
Plenty of time to do that.

Object is to get the plane out of the air as quickly as possible. Not
let it fly around to various countries to do it.


It was a London to NY flight. It had nothing to do with Canada. We should
have kept out fighters on the ground and let the US deal with it.


It was in Canadian airspace squawking a hijack alarm.
Should Canada ignore this?

mrtravel wrote:

Dave Smith wrote:

It was a London to NY flight. It had nothing to do with Canada. We should
have kept out fighters on the ground and let the US deal with it.

It was in Canadian airspace squawking a hijack alarm.
Should Canada ignore this?

That's an interesting question. According to the airline, they were in
direct contact with the crew on the aircraft, and using their own
prearranged codes, determined that the alarm was indeed false, and that
the cockpit door was properly closed and locked.

Prior to 9/11, I suspect the aircraft would have been permitted to fly
to its destination with that kind of information. In thinking about it,
I suspect it would have been allowed to continue even without that
information, since the policy was to cooperate with hijackers. Now, it
appears they want to do a precautionary landing.

Knowing the information from the airline, I suspect that the Canadians
would have allowed the aircraft to continue without landing if the US
had said OK. I doubt they would ask the aircraft to land just to check
on things. They might have sent up fighters to escort the aircraft into
US airspace.

The US refusal to allow the aircraft into the US meant it had to land in
Canada.