Thank God we're not Russia

"William W. Plummer" wrote in message

This seems bizarre to me, as it makes a relatively pointless act
COMPLETELY
pointless -- but whoever said terrorists were very bright?

NPR is heavy on opinion and light on facts.

So, it appears, are you. With what do you support your opinion?

-c

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:39:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

I thought this, too, but NPR did a piece yesterday in which they stated that
"most terrorist acts in Russia have occurred with no one claiming
responsibility."

This seems bizarre to me, as it makes a relatively pointless act COMPLETELY
pointless -- but whoever said terrorists were very bright?

Well that was yesterday's news. Apparently a Chechnian group has now
claimed responsibility according to a blurb I heard this morning.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote in message

Well that was yesterday's news. Apparently a Chechnian group has now
claimed responsibility according to a blurb I heard this morning.

Again I say, Thank God we're not Russia.

BTW, kudos to Greece. Americans, Iraqis, Afghanistan and Jews competing at
the apex of human capacity, and except for a few screwballs in tutus or
skirts, (and some dubious judges) nobody managed to screw it up.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message ...
Something suspicious here?
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/...246621809.html

"The pilot of one of two Russian planes that crashed almost simultaneously
had sent a hijack alert,"...and, in the same story:

"FSB officials had not yet found evidence of a terrorist act or
explosion..."

Do the Russians really believe people are that stupid?

-c

Aren't you a journalist, gatt? I would have thought you would have
been the first to recognize some good journalism, where the reporter
reports the facts instead of jumping to conclusions and actually gives
investigators the time needed to investigate all the possibilities.

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message

Aren't you a journalist, gatt?

Where's my rec.aviation.piloting paycheck?

where the reporter reports the facts instead of jumping to conclusions and
actually gives
investigators the time needed to investigate all the possibilities.

The facts are witnesses reported explosions and the Russian officials say
there's no evidence of explosions.

And, again, I say: Thank God we're not in Russia. Let me amend this: Go
live there if you want, and have a ball. Thank God I'M not in Russia.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message ...
"Ace Pilot" wrote in message

Aren't you a journalist, gatt?

Where's my rec.aviation.piloting paycheck?

So, you can't apply your knowledge of journalism unless you get paid
for it??? Wow. I truly hope the same rules don't apply to your
recreational flying...

where the reporter reports the facts instead of jumping to conclusions and
actually gives
investigators the time needed to investigate all the possibilities.

The facts are witnesses reported explosions and the Russian officials say
there's no evidence of explosions.

Actually, the facts pertaining to the article you quoted are that the
media reported witnesses heard explosions, as well as other events -
reported by the media. There was nothing in the news article
indicating what FSB officials had found out at that point, or were
even aware of, other than two aircraft had crashed. Are you suggesting
that FSB officials should just take media reports at face value
without independent confirmation?

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message

Aren't you a journalist, gatt?
Where's my rec.aviation.piloting paycheck?
So, you can't apply your knowledge of journalism unless you get paid
for it??? Wow. I truly hope the same rules don't apply to your
recreational flying..

Tell you what, "Ace" (really?), you don't tell me how to do my "job" and I
won't tell you how to do yours. (I work in computers, write novels, play
music and build robots for television shows. Why you folks ASSume that I'm
a professional journalism speaks of somebody else's ignorance, not mine.)

But my knowledge and experience in journalism says that when witnesses all
report something virtually identical and the government officials wrap the
whole thing in red tape and then stonewall, the truth is going to lie
somewhere closer to the witnesses than it is to the bureaucrats. "Nothing
to see here. Move along." Remember the Kursk.

There was nothing in the news article indicating what FSB officials had
found out at that point, or were even aware of, other than two aircraft had
crashed. Are you suggesting
that FSB officials should just take media reports at face value without
independent confirmation?

Are you putting words in my mouth, "Ace"? Do you do this to ATC too? ("I
surely hope the same rules don't apply to your recreational flying") All
I said is, when witnesses report explosions...write this down or sound it
out...there is EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIONS.
Not proof, not fact, not conclusive data. EVIDENCE. The point is that
there was evidence, the bureaucrats ignored it and then, gee, Comrade...they
found evidence of explosions and of terrorism. WOW! I mean, that's some
real Sherlock work, isn't it?

=c

"gatt" wrote in message ...
"Ace Pilot" wrote in message

Aren't you a journalist, gatt?
Where's my rec.aviation.piloting paycheck?
So, you can't apply your knowledge of journalism unless you get paid
for it??? Wow. I truly hope the same rules don't apply to your
recreational flying..

Tell you what, "Ace" (really?), you don't tell me how to do my "job" and I
won't tell you how to do yours. (I work in computers, write novels, play
music and build robots for television shows. Why you folks ASSume that I'm
a professional journalism speaks of somebody else's ignorance, not mine.)

Read carefully, gatt. I'll type slowly so you can keep up. I didn't
assume you were a journalist – I simply asked the question. And I
wasn't telling you how to do your job. Based on your statements, I do
know that you've had some training in journalism. I was using irony to
point out how absurd it is for you to use your knowledge and training
ONLY when you are getting paid for it.

But my knowledge and experience in journalism says that when witnesses all
report something virtually identical and the government officials wrap the
whole thing in red tape and then stonewall, the truth is going to lie
somewhere closer to the witnesses than it is to the bureaucrats. "Nothing
to see here. Move along." Remember the Kursk.

If you want to rehash the Kursk example, start another thread since
that is a different matter.

There was nothing in the news article indicating what FSB officials had
found out at that point, or were even aware of, other than two aircraft had
crashed. Are you suggesting
that FSB officials should just take media reports at face value without
independent confirmation?

Are you putting words in my mouth, "Ace"? Do you do this to ATC too? ("I
surely hope the same rules don't apply to your recreational flying")

No – just trying to clarify what you are trying to say.

All I said is, when witnesses report explosions...write this down or sound it
out...there is EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIONS.

I agree that's what you said. But when someone else says someone else
said (in this case the media said that witnesses said) it is called
hearsay, not evidence.

Not proof, not fact, not conclusive data. EVIDENCE. The point is that
there was evidence, the bureaucrats ignored it and then, gee, Comrade...they
found evidence of explosions and of terrorism. WOW! I mean, that's some
real Sherlock work, isn't it?

Not really. It's called deliberate investigative work. Investigators
don't use hearsay as evidence (otherwise investigation would simply be
reading the newspaper). They use it to help find evidence and pursue
investigative theories. Look at the quote you used to start this
thread"

"FSB officials had not YET found evidence of a terrorist act or
explosion..." [my emphasis added]

The part of the quote you left off (conveniently) was "...but ruled
nothing out." Hardly what most people would call "stonewalling" as you
called it earlier, but you can believe whatever you choose to.

Getting back to my original point, the journalist that wrote that
original article did a fine job. He reported what he heard from
witnesses and gave government officials a chance to comment. The quote
he used showed that it was early in the investigation and that
government officials were keeping an open mind as to the cause.

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
where the reporter reports the facts instead of jumping to conclusions
and
actually gives
investigators the time needed to investigate all the possibilities.

The facts are witnesses reported explosions and the Russian officials say
there's no evidence of explosions.

And, again, I say: Thank God we're not in Russia. Let me amend this: Go
live there if you want, and have a ball. Thank God I'M not in Russia.

Over a hundred people saw a missile go up and hit TWA800.

Take from that as you will.

Paul

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message

And, again, I say: Thank God we're not in Russia. Let me amend this:
Go
live there if you want, and have a ball. Thank God I'M not in Russia.

Over a hundred people saw a missile go up and hit TWA800.

No evidence, huh?

http://www.twa800.com/index.htm

"The FBI was briefed by military missile experts in the Fall of 1996 that
Flight 800 was well within the range of a shoulder fired missile. The FBI
conducted a covert dredging operation for stinger missile parts between
November 1996 and April 1997. CDR. Donaldson brought this new evidence to
the House Aviation Subcommittee in testimony on May 6, 1999. Unfortunately,
the major media and the Congress are content to swallow the official line
without question. "

The website is "Associated Retired Aviation Professionals." But, I mean,
really...what do THOSE guys know about anything?

Nothing to see here. Move along.
-c