Edward Snowden; Hero or villain?

[Harleyman]

As seen as Finnair, Air New Zealand and Cathay Pacific have never had a hull loss or any deaths, you could say they are safer airlines than El Al, who have lost a aircraft back in 1992.

 

An El Al flight has been high jacked in the past. You could say Virgin Atlantic oe Easyjet are safer because non of their aircraft been high jacked.

 

Ever flown Virgin Arlantic trans Atlantic economy class. I've always felt sorry for canned sardines ever since I would happily pay another 600 dollars for Premium Economy just to be able to get my legs a little clearance from the seat back in front of me.

 

El Al apparently have their own security personnel apart from those who are employed by airports.

 

El Al considering it's probably a prime target way and above any other airline has done pretty damned good

[DYKWIA]

I have no idea what happened on El Al flight 1862. I only go on what I hear on the media and publsihed opinions by people far more in the know than myself.

If by chance you meant the attack on an El Al airline counter at LAX back in the 80s then such things can happen since crystal balls dont exist but they learn from these happenings. If they didnt then we'd all be in trouble.

 

I would fly El Al anytime without so much as a second thought

 

So would I, but I can happily say the exact same thing when I fly into LAX from London later this summer with Air New Zealand, followed later by a short hop up to SFO and back with Virgin America.

 

---------- Post added 03-07-2013 at 23:02 ----------

 

Ever flown Virgin Arlantic trans Atlantic economy class. I've always felt sorry for canned sardines ever since I would happily pay another 600 dollars for Premium Economy just to be able to get my legs a little clearance from the seat back in front of me.

El Al apparently have their own security personnel apart from those who are employed by airports.

 

El Al considering it's probably a prime target way and above any other airline has done pretty damned good

 

But that doesn't make Virgin Atlantic an unsafe airline. Maybe an uncomfortable one for Y passengers but not unsafe.

 

Thankfully my days of having to fly long haul in Y or Y+ are long gone

 

---------- Post added 03-07-2013 at 23:05 ----------

 

Ever flown Virgin Arlantic trans Atlantic economy class. I've always felt sorry for canned sardines ever since I would happily pay another 600 dollars for Premium Economy just to be able to get my legs a little clearance from the seat back in front of me.

 

El Al apparently have their own security personnel apart from those who are employed by airports.

 

El Al considering it's probably a prime target way and above any other airline has done pretty damned good

 

Agreed, but I'm not sure it makes them any more or less safe than other airlines.

[Harleyman]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=el+al+flight+1862%5D

 

C'mon using the internet isn't that difficult. Or perhaps it is...

 

Okay I bit. But that doesnt change my opinion based on hard fact that El Al has one of if not the best security systems in place of any airline and as I've already just said it's a prime target and always has been.

 

Air France which is a sterling airline for relaibility and safety has had a disaster in the past few years. All aboard perished when an Airbus stalled out during a severe thunderstorm. Caused, a later report said by pilot error

 

TWA flight 803, Boeing 747 went down shortly after taking off from New York bound for Paris. An electrical short circuit in one of the spare fuel tanks, which was empty at the time was blamed.

 

Then there was Egypt Air (or Air Egypt) which went down in the 1990s when the co-pilot disconnected the auto pilot and intentionally crashed the aircraft while the captain was away from the cockpit

 

S**t happens

[DYKWIA]

Okay I bit. But that doesnt change my opinion based on hard fact that El Al has one of if not the best security systems in place of any airline and as I've already just said it's a prime target and always has been.

 

Air France which is a sterling airline for relaibility and safety has had a disaster in the past few years. All aboard perished when an Airbus stalled out during a severe thunderstorm. Caused, a later report said by pilot error

 

TWA flight 803, Boeing 747 went down shortly after taking off from New York bound for Paris. An electrical short circuit in one of the spare fuel tanks, which was empty at the time was blamed.

 

Then there was Egypt Air (or Air Egypt) which went down in the 1990s when the co-pilot disconnected the auto pilot and intentionally crashed the aircraft while the captain was away from the cockpit

 

S**t happens

 

 

3 major crashes in recent history ( since 2000 ) resulting in the loss of over 300 lives plus 9 high jackings since the early 70's could suggest otherwise. There's a reason some call them Scare France.

[flamingjimmy]

Explain then why slavery still existed? The founding fathers were men of vision, their ideals admirable but dont stick them on too high a pedestal. In the light of 21st century ideals they could be said to be somewhat flawed.

I think you do them a disservice to say that. In Jefferson's original draft of the declaration of independence he strongly condemned slavery but it was taken out for the sake of political expediency and the need to unify quickly for obvious reasons, and he made moves to try to ban slavery in various forms and territories. The were well aware that the words of the constitution and the bill of rights were incompatible with slavery, but they couldn't afford to wipe slavery out immediately, even if they all wanted to (which they didn't).

 

Their ideals do stack up on a high pedestal, they just didn't live up to them entirely themselves, but you're right they were men of vision, and they knew what they were doing with those words. You don't accidentally write "all men" and "inalienable rights" if what you really mean is "all men (except slaves)" and "inalienable rights (except actually not inalienable)".

 

And OK, yeah I probably went too far with the 3 million thing, that's a lot of people! 30,000 though, sure no problem! My point still stands.

[Harleyman]

I think you do them a disservice to say such things. In Jefferson's original draft of the declaration of independence he strongly condemned slavery but it was taken out for the sake of political expediency and the need to unify quickly for obvious reasons, and he made moves to try to ban slavery in various forms and territories. The were well aware that the words of the constitution and the bill of rights were incompatible with slavery, but they couldn't afford to wipe slavery out immediately, even if they all wanted to (which they didn't).

 

Their ideals do stack up on a high pedestal, they just didn't live up to them entirely themselves, but you're right they were men of vision, and they knew what they were doing with those words. You don't accidentally write "all men" and "inalienable rights" if what you really mean is "all men (except slaves)" and "inalienable rights (except actually not inalienable)".

 

And OK, yeah I probably went too far with the 3 million thing, that's a lot of people! 30,000 though, sure no problem! My point still stands.

 

I agree that political expediency and a compromise of differing ideals for the sake of forming a union was necessary but dont lets forget that Jefferson and Washington both relied completely on cost free slave labour to sustain their well being and way of life so it was all about hard economic reality as well.

If what you say is true about Jefferson's efforts to ban slavery in various forms and territories (which terrritories I wonder) then he was guilty of the highest form of hypocrisy.

Was he saying in effect" Hey! your are wrong in using slave labour but dont you criticize me for doing the same"

 

I never get into arguments with native born Americans about revolutionary matters. While "no taxation without representation" is a very valid reason for taking up arms against the mother country there are other facts to take into account. One of the main ones is that to maintain a large British army in the North American colonies was a costly affair to say the least. After the long French Indian war ended with the defeat of France the British treasury was bankrupt. The British parliament (quite reasonably) expected the colonists to pay taxes to help pay for the war and to maintain a protective British army presence afterwards which the colonists were not prepared to consider.

Furthermore while opposing taxes of any kind the colonists were not prepared to even help feed or quarter British troops.

Facts overlooked or conveniently forgotten by many historians

[Zamo]

 

Poor old Jefferson then! A 18th century equivalent of 9/11 taking place, say a whole fleet of old British navy ships loaded with explosives and sailed into New York harbor manned by crews of suicidal Brirish tars aboard and blowing up half of that city, killing hundred if not thousands and Jefferson appears before Congress to face an enquiry.

I can sse it now:

 

Speaker of the House: Mr President when you took office you swore to protect the country from all enemies foreign and domestic. Isnt that true sir?

 

Jeff: Yes Mr speaker that is true

 

Speaker: Then Mr President were you not aware that the British were capable of carrying out an attack of some sort since at this moment we are at war with that country?

 

Jeff: Yes I was aware Mr Speaker

 

Speaker: Did you take any steps to prevent that possibility taking place Mr President

 

Jeff: Can you elaborate on that question Mr Speaker?

 

Speaker: Well for example knowing that New York, Philadelphia and Boston are riddled with Loyalist and British spies did you employ spies and informers to be present in taverns and other public meeting places to find out from talk that such an act that has already taken place was being planned?

 

Jeff: Well Mr Speaker I did not because I am most strongly opposed to surveillance of any kind irregardless of what the consequences might be.

 

Then launches into speeches regarding freedom and liberty

 

Speaker: Then sir it is my opinion that while your words are fine words indeed American lives have been lost by your inaction. Are you now prepared to address the citizenry and give such explanation to them?

In the meantime Mr President the Congress will meet in session to consider impeachment proceedings against you. By the way sir you are from Virginia State correct?

 

Jeff: You are already perfectly aware of that fact sir?

 

Speaker: I am a Boston man myself. We dont believe in keeping slaves in bondage in my City or State sir. Explain please how you so strongly advocate universal liberty and freedom for all men and yet deny it as the right of others?

 

Jeff: Well golly gee whiz Mr Speaker we're all 18th century men here. I find your remarks distastefully radical sir

 

A better analogy would be for the Speaker to have questioned why Jefferson had not ordered the private letters of every US citizen to be intercepted and checked... which would not have been accepted by the public and, I believe, is a federal offence in the US to this day? But apparently this is only important if you do it to US citizens?

 

Let me tell you that this US strategy is damaging its friendships. When it behavior means former friends are less inclined to do business with it, when they are less inclined to stand at its side when confronted by an enemy, then the US has isolated itself and made itself significantly less secure.

 

Listen to your friends... you have behaved badly and we don't like you very much at the moment. Carry on making excuses for your bad behaviour, carry on treating us different to how you would members of your own family and we won't be friends any more.

[Halibut]

A better analogy would be for the Speaker to have questioned why Jefferson had not ordered the private letters of every US citizen to be intercepted and checked... which would not have been accepted by the public and, I believe, is a federal offence in the US to this day? But apparently this is only important if you do it to US citizens?

 

Let me tell you that this US strategy is damaging its friendships. When it behavior means former friends are less inclined to do business with it, when they are less inclined to stand at its side when confronted by an enemy, then the US has isolated itself and made itself significantly less secure.

 

Listen to your friends... you have behaved badly and we don't like you very much at the moment. Carry on making excuses for your bad behaviour, carry on treating us different to how you would members of your own family and we won't be friends any more.

 

Wise words, which will doubtless be scorned by our resident American chums.

[buck]

Its seems the long arm of the US reaches everywhere, forcing planes down:

 

Bolivia leader's jet diverted 'amid Snowden suspicions'

 

Bolivian President Evo Morales's plane had to be diverted to Austria amid suspicion that US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden was on board, the Bolivian foreign minister has said.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23156360

 

Play from one minute 8 seconds:

It seems you believe this nonsense. I thought better of you.

[dosxuk]

It seems you believe this nonsense. I thought better of you.

 

Would you like to explain what actually happened then? Virtually all the sources I've seen state the aircraft was forced to land in Austria as they couldn't get clearance to continue any further because the countries they would have to fly over all barred permission because of rumours Mr Snowden was on board.