Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

France to LA jets cancelled. WHY did they talk to people who didn't board

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 06:14 PM
Original message
France to LA jets cancelled. WHY did they talk to people who didn't board
We all know they cancelled a bunch of flights. People were interrogated and, go figure, not an iota of supporting evidence was found.

So they decided to look for the 6 people who didn't show up for the flights.

This makes no sense unless these 6 people were terrorists who found out at the 11th hour 59th minute that they were discovered. The chances of this being likely, what with college kids surreptitiously putting box cutters onto planes without getting caught and all, is NIL. I don't think our security is good enough and, as we all remember, Shrubbie* hates the French because they were against the war. So make 'em suffer for it.

Unless these 6 people had put baggage on the planes but then did not show up. That would make sense. Except the media hasn't said a syllable since they said they were going to find those 6 people who didn't show up (especially a pilot, who could easily have done his dirty work without the need of anybody else pointing guns and boxcutters at the passengers :eyes: ), nor did they say anything about those 6 people even suggesting they had left luggage and vamoosed.

I smell a rat that escaped an elephant's bum (that's British slang...).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Don_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. Either "Non-News" Or
Government officals that couldn't travel that day on one pretext or another and thus censored because of "National Security" concerns.

It's not like we're shutting down London again....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. I guess from now on if you're flight is cancelled
you'd best show up at the airport anyway and not make alternate plans on your own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Wu Donating Member (139 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. The French screwed us again
They cancelled the flight instead of allowing to board then questioning everyone on the plane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. "The French screwed us again"?
Would you mind elaborating?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Wu Donating Member (139 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. France warning tipped off terrorists
<<<

France warning tipped off terrorists, say U.S. officials

From combined dispatches
One or more terror suspects may have escaped due to a premature disclosure in France of the security concerns behind the cancellation of Christmas flights to Los Angeles, U.S. officials said yesterday.
One official said "a chorus of groans" from the Department of Homeland Security to the White House went out when the French made clear at the time the cancellations had been ordered for security reasons.
Washington believed that the longer publicity could have been avoided, "the greater the chance to catch anybody else who was suspected of being involved," he said. "The French announcement caught everyone off guard." >>>

The French have never been a friend of the US.

Remember Kadaffi's bombing of the German discotech?

The US retaliation almost didn't take place because the French would not let US bombers fly through its airspace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devlzown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. You wouldn't happen to know looiewu, would you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. They gave us a big statue and kept Britain from exterminating us in 1776
France sounds like a considerable friend if you ask me.

Did the Brits give us the Statue of Liberty? Nope, they call us "Yanks".

If anything, this incident supports the theory that the French, much like the Americans, aren't always perfect. Both sides obviously have work to do to ensure safety in flights. That's what we need to concentrate on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Wu Donating Member (139 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. You still holding a 230 year old grudge
against the Brits?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radwriter0555 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. You're holding an imaginary tawk radio grudge against france, now
doesn't that seem a wee bit silly?

LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Hmmm yes...
your true colors are showing now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. BTW where is the link to the text you so
deftly cut and pasted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Wu Donating Member (139 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I am very deft... highlight, cut, copy, paste.
France warning tipped off terrorists, say U.S. officials




From combined dispatches
One or more terror suspects may have escaped due to a premature disclosure in France of the security concerns behind the cancellation of Christmas flights to Los Angeles, U.S. officials said yesterday.
One official said "a chorus of groans" from the Department of Homeland Security to the White House went out when the French made clear at the time the cancellations had been ordered for security reasons.
Washington believed that the longer publicity could have been avoided, "the greater the chance to catch anybody else who was suspected of being involved," he said. "The French announcement caught everyone off guard."
U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials had hoped all the suspects could be detained as they showed up for the flights, said a senior U.S. official familiar with the situation who did not want to be identified.
Six flights between Paris and Los Angeles were canceled on Wednesday and Thursday at the urging of Washington after U.S. officials spotted what they believed were suspicious names on the manifests of three Los Angeles-bound flights.
Nine persons on the passenger list for Air France Flight AF068 to Los Angeles on Dec. 24 — the first flight grounded — were questioned and released. One was French and the others were four Americans, two Germans, an Algerian and a Belgian, a French Interior Ministry spokesman said.
A source close to French anti-terror investigating judges told Reuters in Paris: "We have not detected passengers with the profile of people belonging to a radical Islamic group. ... All the checks so far have come to nothing."
U.S. concerns centered on passengers whose names matched those on a U.S. terrorism watch list, but who failed to show up for the flights, officials said.
Among them was a Tunisian passenger reported to be a licensed pilot and suspected of having ties to al Qaeda, which orchestrated the September 11 hijacked airliner terror attacks on the United States.
The French news agency Agence France-Presse quoted a French anti-terrorist police source as saying the Tunisian had been the focus of a U.S. intelligence warning, but the man was still in Tunisia, not France, and was not known to French police.
Another senior U.S. official said it was too early to say whether a terror plot had been thwarted.
"It's still being looked at with this whole situation," the official said. He said crew members were of concern to U.S. investigators along with the no-show passengers.
U.S. investigators still want to speak with a small number of people in Paris who failed to show up for flights to Los Angeles. U.S. officials have not publicly discussed the issue of whether potential hijackers would be likely to check in under names known to U.S. intelligence.
Air France resumed service to Los Angeles yesterday, though the initial flight, AF068, was delayed for nearly three hours by security checks amid heightened airline vigilance.
The flight cancellations added to Americans' unease during the holidays after the Bush administration increased the national threat level to its second-highest level, orange.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday the government was working to "make sure we are doing everything we can to protect the American people and prevent possible attacks from happening in the first place."
Officials in Washington and Nevada disputed a published report yesterday that the flight cancellations thwarted a possible terrorist plot to crash an airliner in Las Vegas. Jerry Bussell, Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn's adviser on homeland security, said federal Homeland Security officials told him there was no known threat to Las Vegas.
Meanwhile, U.S. counterterrorism officials were turning to possible threats next week that might target large public gatherings, such as New Year's Eve celebrations. One U.S. official said there was no specific information such an attack was likely, but said such gatherings obviously would be an attractive target for terrorists hoping to inflict large-scale casualties.


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031226-105058-5481r.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devlzown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Ahhh the Moonie Times!
Finally you reveal your unimpeachable sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Wu Donating Member (139 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Tolerance
... tolerance...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Dr. Wu Donating Member (139 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. You must be French?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. You beat me to it.
I was just gonna say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. washtimes.com is
a poor source to choose, especially when the article simply paraphrases bits and pieces of news agency copy, given their funding source and openly political agenda. Here is a Reuters story:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1016760.htm

The Reuters version includes not only what "a senior US official familiar with the situation said, who did not want to be identified." It also gives a cited source suggesting the opposite conclusion about what happened:
----------
US Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said in an interview with CNN on Friday that US collaboration with the French was "great".
"We ... decided it was in the interest of the safety of the passengers, given the information that we shared, that we canceled those flights," he said.
-----------

The Moonie paper shows its agenda by suppressing info inconsistent with the republiCon talking point's, and is always willing to put out spin pieces like the one you cited.

The "unnamed source" might be simply fabricating. might be doing some CYA diversion of responsibility, might be a nutcase Francophobe, who knows? The only thing that can be concluded is that this uncorroborated accusation was put out in the media deliberately and for some purpose.

As for the actual facts, since either Ridge or Unnamed might be lying (or both given the Straussian ideology guiding the Cons), we are unlikely to learn what agreements between the US and France were actually made until the Cons' trials get underway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Wu Donating Member (139 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. What 'opposite conclusion' are you talking about?
<<<One official said "a chorus of groans" from the Department of Homeland Security to the White House went out when the French made clear at the time the cancellations had been ordered for security reasons.
Washington believed that the longer publicity could have been avoided, "the greater the chance to catch anybody else who was suspected of being involved," he said. >>>

Your article quotes Ridge saying it was in the best interest to cancel the flights.

The Times article says that the real problem was that the French announced to the world that the flights were cancelled for security reasons.

Why would we want to tip off the terrorists?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radwriter0555 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Dear Doctor, the 'terror threat' was a hoax. The officials were allegedly
worried about a Tunisian pilot who never left Tunisia.

It was a bogus hoax designed to flame you gopers all up... make you hate the French again.

And you fell for it. It's cute though.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. I think Tom Ridge and the entire
Homeland Gestapo are the real terrorists.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Wu Donating Member (139 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Examples please
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. "Why would we want to tip off the terrorists?"
Why would France want to tip off the terrorists? Are those the only options?

How would anyone know what anyone's "real" motives are, much less the amorphous phantasm referenced by "we" or "the French"?

The choice is not between believing the unsupported charge against France made by Unnamed, or the non-sequiter assertion that the only alternative to accepting the spin by Unnamed is to believe that "we" (whoever that might be) "want to tip off the terrorists?"

There are lots of less bizarre possibilities for why the announcement was made in the form it was. Apparently the US operatives only asked Air France to cancel the flights and failed to instead put in place some sort of trap you suggest. If they had wanted to do this they could have, but the facts suggest that they either did not want to do this or they did not think to do this. Ridge says canceling the flight was done at the request of those controlling the US gov't. No one says that plans were underway to set some snare by NOT canceling the flights, as you and Unnamed sort of imply.

As for the Air France announcement that this was done "for security reasons," well, duh! I guess they could have done the Con thing and just made up some wild story, but I doubt it would have been very persuasive at that particular time. If those who run the US gov't wanted to set up some trap it was their responsibility to make it happen, not Air France's. And if France didn't want to bait the trap with several hundred innocents, well, that's probably the difference between their values and those of the republiCons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sujan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. Air France sucks anyway
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Chill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
26. Are you serious with this question? hahahaha
They aren't suspected of putting bombs of the planes. They are suspected of wanting to HIJACK THE PLANE!!!! Thus if a terror warning went out, was reported to be specific to France, it stands to reason that the terrorists would call it off and not show up for their flights.

This all seems like common sense to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC