Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Zimphire · Mar 30, 2004, 09:48 AM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...airline_banned

PARIS - France has banned Egyptian airline Luxor Air from flying in the country after one of its planes took "a completely abnormal" flight path at low altitude over a French city, the head of civil aviation said.

quandarry · Mar 30, 2004, 10:05 AM

yeah so what's your point.

is this more baiting?

daimoni · 12:26 AM

.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 30, 2004, 10:12 AM

Wouldn't a more appropriate title read: "Luxor Air Banned From French Airspace for Being Incompetent ****s"?

Oh, come on, Kevin, post us that funny, funny Darth Vader picture that nobody every seemed to understand but you and your imaginary friend.

Go on.

Humor us.

-s*

Shaddim · Mar 30, 2004, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by quandarry:
yeah so what's your point.

is this more baiting?

No, I think he's just saying that the French Gov't is a hypocritical bag of shite.

That, and, if that plane had gotten any closer France would have been forced to surrender.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 30, 2004, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, I think he's just saying that the French Gov't is a hypocritical bag of shite.

What is hypocritical about banning an airline for incompetence resulting in the endangerment of thousands of people?

dcolton · Mar 30, 2004, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, I think he's just saying that the French Gov't is a hypocritical bag of shite.

That, and, if that plane had gotten any closer France would have been forced to surrender.

LOL

Are there any French members here? If so, I wonder why they never defend themselves.

At any rate...I got Z's point. And French bashing should be an everyday thing. I appreciated your's Mac!

Shaddim · Mar 30, 2004, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
What is hypocritical about banning an airline for incompetence resulting in the endangerment of thousands of people?

How about, not helping to eliminate the threat of Terrorism in that area so they wouldn't have to live in that fear? Hmmm...

Imean, hell, I know that France hasn't "had a pair" since Waterloo, but they could at least send our soldiers some pastries for doing them such a big favor.

Zimphire · Mar 30, 2004, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, I think he's just saying that the French Gov't is a hypocritical bag of shite.

Not quite the way I'd put it but..

That, and, if that plane had gotten any closer France would have been forced to surrender.

Heh

SubGeniux · Mar 30, 2004, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
What is hypocritical about banning an airline for incompetence resulting in the endangerment of thousands of people?

Difference being, the French actually acted on what they deemed might become a serious situation with an airline crashing into things; whereas the US somehow manages to allow 2 planes to destroy the WWTC, a third to crash into the Pentagon, and hey, according to runours, they managed to shoot down the fourh plane. Hmmm.

quandarry · Mar 30, 2004, 10:38 AM

so much for being compassionate christians.

you guys sound more like the guys who tease people to feel that you are manly...does that get your penis up?

maybe you're trying to hide something.

have fun....i'm leaving this flame fest.

Lerkfish · Mar 30, 2004, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
LOL

Are there any French members here? If so, I wonder why they never defend themselves.

At any rate...I got Z's point. And French bashing should be an everyday thing. I appreciated your's Mac!

We do have french members, and they have defended themselves in the past. However, I would guess they soon realized the proportions of the sisyphean effort required to overcome such a high steaming mound of ignorance and bigotry that is spewed out by some members on a regular basis were prohibitive.

It reminds me of a famous quote, in that the problem with trying to teach a dog to speak english is that the task is impossible, and further it annoys the dog.

Zimphire · Mar 30, 2004, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Oh, come on, Kevin, post us that funny, funny Darth Vader picture that nobody every seemed to understand but you and your imaginary friend.

Go on.

Humor us.

-s*

Zimphire · Mar 30, 2004, 10:40 AM

BTW my point wasn't to BASH the French. Just to show the hypocrisy in this situation.

SubGeniux · Mar 30, 2004, 10:43 AM

I find the whole anti-French thing pretty strange, seems to be purely US based too which says a lot, but hey, isn't that the norm just now, the Us shouts and screams about being 'with us, or against us', but no-one really cares, or listens? Glad the French opted to say: 'screw you, we'll just side with the rest of the sane world.'

Lerkfish · Mar 30, 2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW my point wasn't to BASH the French. Just to show the hypocrisy in this situation.

ROTFLMAO!

riiiiiiiiiight.

SubGeniux · Mar 30, 2004, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW my point wasn't to BASH the French. Just to show the hypocrisy in this situation.

I didn't realise you did comedy too.

Zimphire · Mar 30, 2004, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ROTFLMAO!

riiiiiiiiiight.

I know you want to turn it into something else Lerk. There are plenty of other things to BASH France about.

This is a legitimate complaint. The French Government is talking out of BOTH sides of their mouths.

Zimphire · Mar 30, 2004, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
I find the whole anti-French thing pretty strange, seems to be purely US based too which says a lot,

No, it's just not US based. But I found it funny that you needed to bash the US along with complaining about people bashing France.

Are you French?

j/k

but hey, isn't that the norm just now, the Us shouts and screams about being 'with us, or against us', but no-one really cares, or listens? Glad the French opted to say: 'screw you, we'll just side with the rest of the sane world.'

The rest of the world? Heh the rest of the world doesn't all agree with France either.

But I understand, it's ok to Bash the US, but don't you DARE bash France!!11

lil'babykitten · Mar 30, 2004, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
This is a legitimate complaint. The French Government is talking out of BOTH sides of their mouths.

Care to explain why you think the French government are being hypocritical here?
It's quite hard trying to decipher what the point of this thread is amongst all the bullsh1t that has flooded it.

Zimphire · Mar 30, 2004, 11:15 AM

They are taking away the rights of Luxor because they assumed it was an "attack" or could be an attack without knowing the facts.

They made fun of the US for making such "knee-jerk" decisions.

If the US had done this, it would have been called Xenophobic. knee-jerking without knowing the facts first.

Not that I am condemning what France did. Because they did the right thing.

Better safe than sorry.

lil'babykitten · Mar 30, 2004, 11:22 AM

OK.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 30, 2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW my point wasn't to BASH the French. Just to show the hypocrisy in this situation.

I acknowledge and appreciate that you have finally learned to spell "hypocracy".

Zimphire · Mar 30, 2004, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I acknowledge and appreciate that you have finally learned to spell "hypocracy".

Now, if only we could get you to stop the petty personal attacks on forum members that you make a habit of doing in just about every thread.

THAT would be progress.

phoenixboy · Mar 30, 2004, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
They are taking away the rights of Luxor because they assumed it was an "attack" or could be an attack without knowing the facts.

flying into french airspace is a privilege, not a right! /french accent

Spheric Harlot · Mar 30, 2004, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Now, if only we could get you to stop the petty personal attacks on forum members that you make a habit of doing in just about every thread.

THAT would be progress.

I thought you were big on humor!

Shaddim · Mar 30, 2004, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by quandarry:
so much for being compassionate christians.

you guys sound more like the guys who tease people to feel that you are manly...does that get your penis up?

maybe you're trying to hide something.

have fun....i'm leaving this flame fest.

Never said I was compassionate, or a Christian, Mon Sewar.

Shaddim · Mar 30, 2004, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Difference being, the French actually acted on what they deemed might become a serious situation with an airline crashing into things; whereas the US somehow manages to allow 2 planes to destroy the WWTC, a third to crash into the Pentagon, and hey, according to runours, they managed to shoot down the fourh plane. Hmmm.

Sorry, but they didn't DO anything. AFTER the fact, they decided to ban an airline for a flight being off course... the banning which is caused by their fear, fear they never decided to do anything about, in light of the terrorist sources.

France = Wussies

Furthermore, the proper procedure for this is to investigate that particular flight and question the flight crew... not ban an entire airline.

phoenixboy · Mar 30, 2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
How about, not helping to eliminate the threat of Terrorism in that area so they wouldn't have to live in that fear? Hmmm...

what, by invading iraq???

wait a second, i need to call the "ROFL copter"!!1!!11!1!

Shaddim · Mar 30, 2004, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
what, by invading iraq???

wait a second, i need to call the "ROFL copter"!!1!!11!1!

Duh... maybe because they've been training the terrorists?

phoenixboy · Mar 30, 2004, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Duh... maybe because they've been training the terrorists?

errm...no, that would have been the cia and the american military. *duh*

Shaddim · 01:59 PM

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
errm...no, that would have been the cia and the american military. *duh*

uh, no. That would be Al Quada, which was seen as late 2002. Duh.

phoenixboy · Mar 30, 2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
uh, no. That would be Al Quada, which was seen as late as late 2002. Duh.

ehrmmm, nope. the cia trained mainy to-be terrorists in the 80s and 90s when teh commies were still the enemy.

the french do a lot better job actually combating islamic terrorism than the us. sorry. they knew all along that invading iraq wouldn't help.

the french secret service also knew about what al quaida planned on 9/11, and warned the us, which the cia and the us govt. chose to ignore (i wonder why??).

Shaddim · Mar 30, 2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
the french do a lot better job actually combating islamic terrorism than the us. sorry. they knew all along that invading iraq wouldn't help.

the french secret service also knew about what al quaida planned on 9/11, and warned the us, which the cia and the us govt. chose to ignore (i wonder why??).

Bull, I saw the evidence of this, and it's questionable to say the least... lying would be a more accurate term.

Yes, the CIA did train some troops in the 80s, doesn't mean that gives Iraq the right to train terrorists in 2000-2002.

Also, yes, it has helped. Terrorist attacks, even in Israel, are at a 10 year low.

phoenixboy · 02:19 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Bull, I saw the evidence of this, and it's questionable to say the least... lying would be a more accurate term.

pffff. yeah right. too bad the story has been verified by several different international sources.

Originally posted by MacNStein:

Yes, the CIA did train some troops in the 80s, doesn't mean that gives Iraq the right to train terrorists in 2000-2002.

the right?????? do you have any idea what you are talking about? bin laden HATES saddam probably more than bush and the western infidels. as a matter of fact he was pissed that he couldn't do the honor of removing hussein and the iraqi army from kuwait himself.

the whole iraq/terrorist connection was an american/british scam to justify the invasion of iraq. just like the whole bullcrap about wmds.

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Also, yes, it has helped. Terrorist attacks, even in Israel, are at a 10 year low.

you must be f*cking joking! does "madrid" ring a bell? each day there is yet another story of some planned terrorist attack that was busted (and not because of the war on terror, but because there are so many more than there were before).

christ · Mar 30, 2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
...Terrorist attacks, even in Israel, are at a 10 year low.

Except where they aren't. (Spain, Bali, anyone?)

Do we count 'terrorist' attacks in Iraq in those numbers, or are they only terrorist attacks when there is propaganda value in calling them that, but not when statistics are being prepared?

Bush: 'We are winning!'
Knee-jerk Bush supporters: 'Yay, go us! Take that America-haters'
Others (inc. non-knee-jerk Bush supporters): 'Where is the evidence?'
Bush & Knee-jerk Bush supporters (together): 'anti-Americans - boo hiss'

Zimphire · Mar 30, 2004, 02:14 PM

http://www.hudson.org/files/publicat...damarticle.pdf

SubGeniux · Mar 30, 2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Sorry, but they didn't DO anything. AFTER the fact, they decided to ban an airline for a flight being off course... the banning which is caused by their fear, fear they never decided to do anything about, in light of the terrorist sources.

France = Wussies

Furthermore, the proper procedure for this is to investigate that particular flight and question the flight crew... not ban an entire airline.

You missed my point. Accoring to many, the US had plenty of warnings of hijackers flying planes into the WTC, or buildings prior to 9/11, but as history has shown us, not a lot happened to stop it.

Actually, a country can ban any airline it deems to be a security hazard to its people, France wer equite rightly in their remit to ban Egypt Air if they thought that:

A: the planes might be below the required maintenance standards requrid to fly into French airspace.

B: That the actions of this pilot might be indicactive of something more serious, such as an attempt at flying planes into buildings on French soil.

So wussies? Nah, just loking after their soil after the US inteliigence services just delivered to France (prior to this incident) a statement saying that they, adn the UK wer ethe next targets after Spain.

SubGeniux · Mar 30, 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
uh, no. That would be Al Quada, which was seen as late 2002. Duh.

Hmm, not sure what bubble you'r ein just now, but hey, if it works, good on you. It seems that supposed Al-Qaeeda attacks are at their worst now, spread out all over the world, and only time will allow them, and peopel who sympathise with them,. to garner support, then attack bigger in the future. Great plan of Bush, to start his war on terrorism.

Zimphire · Mar 30, 2004, 02:18 PM

But why are France targets?

Must have been that ban on headscarves.

SubGeniux · Mar 30, 2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Bull, I saw the evidence of this, and it's questionable to say the least... lying would be a more accurate term.

Yes, the CIA did train some troops in the 80s, doesn't mean that gives Iraq the right to train terrorists in 2000-2002.

Also, yes, it has helped. Terrorist attacks, even in Israel, are at a 10 year low.

The evidence of Iraq training any terrorists woudl be questionable, is that from the same source that said Iraq had WMDs in 2000-2002? Maybe we should go look a little closer.

Also, I love how you say that it was ok for the US to train 'troops' in the 80's, but they are considered 'terrorists' in 2000-2002. I guess it depends on how your tackle falls, right leg, left leg, pick or choose.

christ · Mar 30, 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
But why are France targets?

This is a good place to start.

If Bush had sat down and thought why the US were targets, and who else were targets (and potential targets), and why, and then go about addressing why, we may not be in the mess that we are following the knee-jerk 'invade Iraq' response.

Zimphire · Mar 30, 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
It seems that supposed Al-Qaeeda attacks are at their worst now,

They are? News to me.

spread out all over the world, and only time will allow them, and peopel who sympathise with them,. to garner support, then attack bigger in the future. Great plan of Bush, to start his war on terrorism.

Sounds like, not saying you are, but it sounds like you are almost being a terrorists sympathizer.

SubGeniux · Mar 30, 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
But why are France targets?

Must have been that ban on headscarves.

Probably because of the EU, and the counter-terrorism measures being put in place due to the British lobby. See, to a terrorist, any sign of a country even remotely supporting the US, or Britian, would be taken to mean complicity.

Zimphire · Mar 30, 2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by christ:
This is a good place to start.

If Bush had sat down and thought why the US were targets, and who else were targets (and potential targets), and why, and then go about addressing why, we may not be in the mess that we are following the knee-jerk 'invade Iraq' response.

We support Israel that is why.

Too bad.

Zimphire · Mar 30, 2004, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Probably because of the EU, and the counter-terrorism measures being put in place due to the British lobby. See, to a terrorist, any sign of a country even remotely supporting the US, or Britian, would be taken to mean complicity.

If this continues, these terrorists groups days are numbered.

Sad it would have to come to that.

SubGeniux · Mar 30, 2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

They are? News to me.

Sounds like, not saying you are, but it sounds like you are almost being a terrorists sympathizer. [/B]

Nope, not at all. Ok, let's loo kat some attacks which ar ebeing blamed on Al-Qaeeda, and if it's not them, then who is it? A new bogey man? Let's start with the attacks in Iraq after the US invasion. Each bombing is put down to Al-Qaeeda operatives in conjuntion with ex-Saddam loyalists, funny thign that though, since Saddam, and Al-Qaeeda were virtual opposites in ideology, but hey, nothing like invading a Muslim nation to rally the troops. So let's say we've had over 50 major bombings there, on civilians. Now, maybe to an American, that isn't a terrorist attack, since no Americans were killed, but hey, not sure how the average Iraqi would feel.

Afghanistan. We've had more than 3 political figures, propped up by the US, killed already, and numerous attacks too, you might not see this splashed on your papers every morning, but it's happening.

Spain, well, no need to mention the horror of that.

So yeah, according to the US state dept. these attacks are orchestrated by Al-Qaeeda, so I guess they must be still active.

phoenixboy · Mar 30, 2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
But why are France targets?

why shouldn't they be?

Shaddim · Mar 30, 2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
The evidence of Iraq training any terrorists woudl be questionable, is that from the same source that said Iraq had WMDs in 2000-2002? Maybe we should go look a little closer.

Also, I love how you say that it was ok for the US to train 'troops' in the 80's, but they are considered 'terrorists' in 2000-2002. I guess it depends on how your tackle falls, right leg, left leg, pick or choose.

I chose to look at it as "Us" and "Them"

SubGeniux · Mar 30, 2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If this continues, these terrorists groups days are numbered.

Sad it would have to come to that.

Nope, won't work, but it wil serve to blur the lines, in the minds of Muslims, and US critics, of what exactly is a terrorist, how ar ewe actually going about this, where does it end, and why the heck ar ethese people wanting to bomb the West?

If anything, it will just turn Muslim opinion, and thus Muslim youth, into viewing the West wit hmore hatred, and resulting in violence. We can bomb Vietnam into the dark ages to suit our goal, but can we really start bombing an ideology?