NationStates Jolt Archive

The last time I posted about CIA planes landing in parts of Canada, I was told not to worry, as these were not planes capable of travelling great distances, and going to parts of Ontario or Manitoba - most likely people were going hunting and fishing using the CIA aircraft.

Well, now it's a Hercules, landing in Gander. I suppose this is still nothing at all to worry about, right guys? Just another bit of reality to ascribe to the stereotypically tin-foil hatted semi-loons out there?

This is from one of Canada's most populist, and rabidly right-wing, news agencies, Sun Media:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/11/21/1317052-cp.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CIA-linked plane en route to UK airport
By JIM BRONSKILL




OTTAWA (CP) - A plane owned by an alleged front for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency recently flew from Newfoundland to a Scottish airport that's under scrutiny as an apparent destination for numerous covert flights.

Records obtained by The Canadian Press show the Hercules aircraft landed at Gander, Nfld., on Nov. 28 before heading the next day to Prestwick Airport near Glasgow, Scotland.

The C-130 plane, with tail number N4557C, is registered to Rapid Air Transport Inc. of Beltsville, Md., identified by the New York Times as one of several shell companies controlled by the CIA.

The Hercules, which flew
to Newfoundland via New Hampshire, began its journey Nov. 27 at Bob Sikes Airport in Crestview, Fla., a reported hub for CIA-owned aircraft.


Scotland's Prestwick Airport has become the focal point of British controversy as the stopover point for a Gulfstream jet used to transport al-Qaida suspects to prisons in Egypt and Jordan.

The CIA has declined to comment on the movements of its alleged aircraft.

Though numerous planes appear to be tied to U.S. intelligence or law-enforcement services through front companies, it is sometimes unclear which agencies own or lease the aircraft.

Amnesty International has expressed concern about the use of British airfields, including Prestwick, by planes the human rights group believes have transferred detainees to countries where they risk torture.

Flight logs indicate the N4557C Hercules was among at least seven planes with alleged CIA links that have landed at Canadian airports in recent months.

Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty's Canadian chapter, wrote Transport Minister Jean Lapierre on Nov. 22 inquiring about reports of possible CIA landings in Canada.

"Has the government sought clarification from U.S. authorities as the nature and purpose of any such flights that may have landed on Canadian soil?" Neve asks in the letter.

He also wants to know if the government has received "reliable assurances" such planes are not associated with activities that breach international human rights obligations.

"Is the government prepared to refuse landing rights to such flights if assurances are not provided?"

Amnesty says there are a range of serious human rights concerns associated with these cases, citing the fate of Ottawa engineer Maher Arar, deported to Syria by U.S. officials three years ago.

Arar, who denies involvement in terrorism, says he was tortured into falsely confessing extremist connections.

In an interview, Neve acknowledged the possibility that the ongoing federal election campaign is proving a distraction, but said he was disappointed nonetheless that there had been no reply to Amnesty's letter.

"Obviously, we understand and recognize that there is an election campaign underway. But it is a pressing issue," he said.

"I would hope and expect that it was something being given priority attention at high levels within government. And that as part of that, concerns and questions from Amnesty International would receive a quick and ready response."

Leslie Swartman, a spokesman for Lapierre, said Amnesty's letter was likely passed to Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan, whose department is investigating the reports of Canadian landings.

McLellan said repeatedly in the days before the election was called Nov. 29 that she had no information to indicate such aircraft had used Canadian soil to transfer terrorism suspects to foreign prisons.

The Canada Border Services Agency, part of McLellan's department, is responsible for screening foreign visitors. The agency refers questions about CIA flights to Public Safety.

Gary Vey, president of the Gander International Airport Authority, said his agency does not vet lists of passengers moving through the facility on civilian aircraft.

"We wouldn't have any interest in who's on them."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I'm not buying the huntin'-and-a-fishin' CIA operatives crap anymore. Anyone else?

I'm wondering why a Hercules would need to land in Canada to make it to Europe, considering it could do it from just about anywhere inside the U.S.

BUT, if they are transporting prisoners, just go on with your life. These are people whom we suspect of being terrorists, and we'll do what we deem necessary to protect our country (and yours, I might add.)

So quit bitching, and take up a noble cause, like feeding the homeless or something. Let the mean people do the bad jobs, so us nice people can live our lives in peace.

It takes a C-130 roughly 7-9 hours to fly from East Coast to West Coast.

If they wanted to take prisoners over to Europe, they would not use the C-130s. They'll use a faster airplane.

C-130s stop off in canada for gas and Crew rest.

BUT, if they are transporting prisoners, just go on with your life. These are people whom we suspect of being terrorists, and we'll do what we deem necessary to protect our country (and yours, I might add.)

So quit bitching, and take up a noble cause, like feeding the homeless or something. Let the mean people do the bad jobs, so us nice people can live our lives in peace.
How nice shall we all pretend to be, then, as we live our lives of peace, turning blind eyes to each and every act that strains our pretension past all credulity?

So I'm not buying the huntin'-and-a-fishin' CIA operatives crap anymore. Anyone else?I'm not buyin' it either. But do you know what, we should put up parking meters for CIA/American military/gov't planes only. $50 an hour + 10% landing/take-off tax, 2 hour limit, $200 per hour fine for overtime. Now that's business. :D

How nice shall we all pretend to be, then, as we live our lives of peace, turning blind eyes to each and every act that strains our pretension past all credulity?

Why would the CIA use C-130s? They don't fly all that fast.

BUT, if they are transporting prisoners, just go on with your life. These are people whom we suspect of being terrorists, and we'll do what we deem necessary to protect our country (and yours, I might add.)
Seeing a conviction...or even a trial...or even just some bloody evidence would be good.

Whatever happened to presumed innocent until provent guilty?

So quit bitching, and take up a noble cause
Like defending the right to a fair trial, and freedom from torture?

I'm not buyin' it either. But do you know what, we should put up parking meters for CIA/American military/gov't planes only. $50 an hour + 10% landing/take-off tax, 2 hour limit, $200 per hour fine for overtime. Now that's business. :D
Add two zeroes and multiply by 2.5 to find your Happy Number. It's like tying to persuade any major corporation - if you don't charge through the nose, they'll not only devalue you, they'll devalue the goods or services you provide. Go for the gusto, TCR.

So I'm not buying the huntin'-and-a-fishin' CIA operatives crap anymore. Anyone else?

Now, arguably this aircraft could be used for extraordinary renditions. It's unlikely, because the Gulfstream V is the normal aircraft of choice, but possible nontheless.

So, even though it's not likely, it's still reasonable for Canadians to demand that their government tell them what is going on in Canada's soveriegn territory in this case, or at least give assurances that no extraordinary renditions and the like are occuring. (It could be totally legit, but still secret).

Anyway, it's a lot more compelling than the twin otter story. Which was silly.

Edit: Of course that is assuming that Rapid Air Transport is a CIA shell, which it doesn't seem to be, predating the CIA by twenty years or so. But who knows? More information is required.

Seeing a conviction...or even a trial...or even just some bloody evidence would be good.

Whatever happened to presumed innocent until provent guilty?


Like defending the right to a fair trial, and freedom from torture?

It only applies to White Anglo Saxon Protestant Americans. Anyone else is a terrorist or an enemy combatant. The United States under Bush is looking more and more like Orwell's nightmare warnings made manifest as more news leaks out.

Here's a picture if anyone wants to see it.

LINKY (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/758785/L/)

I'm wondering why a Hercules would need to land in Canada to make it to Europe, considering it could do it from just about anywhere inside the U.S.

Listed range of a C-130 Hercules: 2050 miles

Distance between New York and Shannon, Ireland: 3677 miles

That *splash* noise you just heard was Man in Black's plane just making a wet landing.

I really don't see why they'd be stopping in Canada though. Unless they're flying to a secret Arctic Base or something...but that sounds so Dr. Evilly that it isn't funny. I doubt the CIA would be dragging people into the Canadian Wilderness.

IF they needed Artic wilderness, we've got Alaska. I don't think people care much about what they do up there.

I really don't see why they'd be stopping in Canada though.

Something to do with the fact that a Hercules can't make the distance across the Atlantic from the USA to the UK without running out of fuel, perchance?

I really don't see why they'd be stopping in Canada though. Unless they're flying to a secret Arctic Base or something...but that sounds so Dr. Evilly that it isn't funny. I doubt the CIA would be dragging people into the Canadian Wilderness.
No, it's the secret bases in eastern Europe, and unfortunately, it's not about Mike Meyers and laser-tipped sharks in pens. It's about transporting people in secrecy and sending them to areas external to the US where acts of tortutre could be more easily or legally carried out either in the US or it's territories.

They're not dragging them into the Canadian Wilderness, for crying out loud, they're taking them to former east-bloc nations.

They stop in Canada to re-fuel.

Something to do with the fact that a Hercules can't make the distance across the Atlantic from the USA to the UK without running out of fuel, perchance?
Yeah, but as has been said before, a Gulfstream Jet, or a C17 would do the job far more effectively. Maybe they're ferrying folks up to far northern listening posts or something. We still poke our noses into Russia's business even though the cold war is over...

Here's a picture if anyone wants to see it.

LINKY (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/758785/L/)
Waaaaaaaiiiiit a minute.

Remember this (http://www.bmlv.gv.at/images_skaliert/02_768x516_1133942324.jpg)?

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,387185,00.html
The planes do look remarkably similar...

Yeah, but as has been said before, a Gulfstream Jet, or a C17 would do the job far more effectively.
Is that your response? "they're not transporting prisoners because it's not as effective a plane for the job as another"?

This is getting creepy. Like, how-Germans-denied-there-were-trainloads-of-people-being-moved-around-the-countryside-to-secret-camps kinda creepy.

No, it's the secret bases in eastern Europe, and unfortunately, it's not about Mike Meyers and laser-tipped sharks in pens. It's about transporting people in secrecy and sending them to areas external to the US where acts of tortutre could be more easily or legally carried out either in the US or it's territories.

They're not dragging them into the Canadian Wilderness, for crying out loud, they're taking them to former east-bloc nations.

They stop in Canada to re-fuel.
It still doesn't make sense to use the Hercules. It's a short/rough landing strip cargo plane, not an intercontinental transport.

Is that your response? "they're not transporting prisoners because it's not as effective a plane for the job as another"?

This is getting creepy. Like, how-Germans-denied-there-were-trainloads-of-people-being-moved-around-the-countryside-to-secret-camps kinda creepy.
No, I'm just saying it's a very odd plane for the job, and I'm just tossing another theory out there.

Yeah, but as has been said before, a Gulfstream Jet, or a C17 would do the job far more effectively. Maybe they're ferrying folks up to far northern listening posts or something. We still poke our noses into Russia's business even though the cold war is over...

C17 Range:

* C-17: 2,400 nm (4,400 km)
* C-17ER: 2,800 nm (5,200 km)

So that's still going to need refuelled.

A Gulfstream Jet could make it without refuelling, so that just opens the question: does the USAF/CIA own one of them?

Listed range of a C-130 Hercules: 2050 miles

Distance between New York and Shannon, Ireland: 3677 miles

That *splash* noise you just heard was Man in Black's plane just making a wet landing.
If your gonna talk smack, learn your material (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-130.htm).


Range

2,356 miles (2,049 nautical miles) with maximum payload;
2,500 miles (2,174 nautical miles) with 25,000 pounds (11,250 kilograms) cargo;
5,200 miles (4,522 nautical miles) with no cargo.

I'm assuming 5-20 suspects doesn't constitute anywhere near 25,000 pounds.

And the more I think about it, it would be just silly to transport suspects in a damn Hercules.

Is it disturbing anyone else, that the debate has rapidly switched to whether or not the planes the CIA use could or could not make a crossing without re fueling, and not on the actual facts that these former secret flights seem to be becoming more and more prevalently reported? No?

Have we all just accepted that this goes on, and we're all ok with this?

I really find the disregard for civil liberties and Geneva protections by this administration troubling. We're fighting a "war against terrorism" that seems to be destroying our own constitutional protections. What will be left after this "war" is over? Covert, unrestrained spying on Americans? Wholesale torturing of prisoners (research the Chicago PD)? I am concerned. Big Brother is closer than ever and conservatives seem to be quite willing to give up my personal life in pursuit of a political end. In the worst case, they're quite willing to provide sacrificial lambs to further an agenda. I am politically in-the-middle...no threat to any party. However, Richard Clark provides a classic example in the "destroy anyone who disagrees with Bush" method of operation employed by the Rove-Cheney-bush white house. Ms. Plame is another good example.

Had to vent a little...any comment appreciated.....K

Is it disturbing anyone else, that the debate has rapidly switched to whether or not the planes the CIA use could or could not make a crossing without re fueling, and not on the actual facts that these former secret flights seem to be becoming more and more prevalently reported? No?

Have we all just accepted that this goes on, and we're all ok with this?
I have. It's a small price to pay to win a war. Welcome to warfare kids. It aint pretty. Quit crying about it. You aren't changing anybodies minds. Your just making yourself look more like a target, and less like an ally.

If your gonna talk smack, learn your material (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-130.htm).


Range

2,356 miles (2,049 nautical miles) with maximum payload;
2,500 miles (2,174 nautical miles) with 25,000 pounds (11,250 kilograms) cargo;
5,200 miles (4,522 nautical miles) with no cargo.

I'm assuming 5-20 suspects doesn't constitute anywhere near 25,000 pounds.

And the more I think about it, it would be just silly to transport suspects in a damn Hercules.

You're trying to put it mildly, aren't you?

The Hercules is nominally a military transport aircraft, and as such would likely arouse suspicion. If I were the CIA I'd use small private or commercial jets for getting to Europe and then switch over to a Tupolev liner for the rest of the way. That being said, if they use Hercules in Europe and land mostly at American Airbases in Europe or joint Euro-American airbases, it wouldn't look too odd.

However, the Canadians probably have a right to know what's going on and I'd be willing to wager that the Canadian government knows what's going on.

I have. It's a small price to pay to win a war. Welcome to warfare kids. It aint pretty. Quit crying about it. You aren't changing anybodies minds. Your just making yourself look more like a target, and less like an ally.

It's a sad day when a cynic is born. They say that a demon gets it's horns when such an entity is created....

A Gulfstream Jet could make it without refuelling, so that just opens the question: does the USAF/CIA own one of them?

Yes, lots and lots of them.

It's a sad day when a cynic is born. They say that a demon gets it's horns when such an entity is created....
So are you calling me a cynic or a demon? :confused:

I have. It's a small price to pay to win a war. Welcome to warfare kids. It aint pretty. Quit crying about it. You aren't changing anybodies minds. Your just making yourself look more like a target, and less like an ally.

I think it should be "Welcome to warfare America"

Lots of countries have been dealing with terrorism for decades before this, particularly so in Europe. Corsican seperatists, Basque seperatists, IRA, Red Brigades, RAF in Germany---- seems like the USA has only recently joined the party and woken up.

They have successfully dealt with this without the need to infringe on citizens rights- and when they were infringed, it did not work- in fact it only served to counter act the progress made (See: Internment in Northern Ireland or Franco in the Basque Lands)

Well, at least you're here now; bring any dip?

Yes, lots and lots of them.
Really? I wasn't aware we owned any. Care to enlighten us all as to how you know this?

Because last I knew, we were leasing them when we used them for Extraordinary Renditions.

You're trying to put it mildly, aren't you?

The Hercules is nominally a military transport aircraft, and as such would likely arouse suspicion. If I were the CIA I'd use small private or commercial jets for getting to Europe and then switch over to a Tupolev liner for the rest of the way. That being said, if they use Hercules in Europe and land mostly at American Airbases in Europe or joint Euro-American airbases, it wouldn't look too odd.

However, the Canadians probably have a right to know what's going on and I'd be willing to wager that the Canadian government knows what's going on.

If you look at the picture I posted though, it would look odd landing at an airbase in that livery.

I don't really want to speculate what it's doing (if indeed it is a CIA plane). It's possible that it's transporting prisoners. But unlikely, given that it is not the best suited airframe for the job.

I think it should be "Welcome to warfare America"

Lots of countries have been dealing with terrorism for decades before this, particularly so in Europe.
Yeah, and they've done such a fucking wonderful job stopping it too. :rolleyes:

We should just do as Europe has done. It will only take us 2-3 hundred years to get a foothold on it.

Fortunately, Canada has developed a special stealth aircraft for tracking suspicious flights.

http://www.csc.ca/set/jun-01/fair.jpg

Yeah, and they've done such a fucking wonderful job stopping it too. :rolleyes:
Okay.

Tell me:
- The last time the RAF bombed a place in Germany.
- The last time the IRA bombed a place in Britain.
- The last time the ETA bombed a place in Spain.
- The last time the Red Brigades bombed a place in Italy
and so on...

Face it: Dealing with Terrorism is not an issue of warfare. It's a legal issue - and you don't convict criminals by going around the legal system. And especially not by bombing countries and changing governments.

If you look at the picture I posted though, it would look odd landing at an airbase in that livery.

I don't really want to speculate what it's doing (if indeed it is a CIA plane). It's possible that it's transporting prisoners. But unlikely, given that it is not the best suited airframe for the job.
Actually, it can be equipped for up to 90 passengers + cargo.

Funny thing is, when it lands, its so big, everyone looks and goes OOOOHHHHH, while we're landing the prisoners in a little Cesna on the other airstrip 100 miles away.

I love it when people think they're smarter than the CIA. :D

Yeah, and they've done such a fucking wonderful job stopping it too. :rolleyes:

We should just do as Europe has done. It will only take us 2-3 hundred years to get a foothold on it.

What? That only shows your complete lack of knowledge of terrorism abroad.... which really bodes well for solving the current problem :rolleyes:

There is no quick fix to this. Get that thought out of your head.

(You sound familiar......)

Okay.

Tell me:
- The last time the RAF bombed a place in Germany.
- The last time the IRA bombed a place in Britain.
- The last time the ETA bombed a place in Spain.
- The last time the Red Brigades bombed a place in Italy
and so on...

Face it: Dealing with Terrorism is not an issue of warfare. It's a legal issue - and you don't convict criminals by going around the legal system. And especially not by bombing countries and changing governments.
So, ahhhhhhh, how long did it take to accomplish that? And in how many instances were the Americans involved as mediators? (mediators with big guns, big bombs, and no patience for terrorists)

Fortunately, Canada has developed a special stealth aircraft for tracking suspicious flights.

http://www.csc.ca/set/jun-01/fair.jpg

But what about the dumbo aircraft?

http://www.wdw-photos.com/rides/dumbo.jpg

Yeah, and they've done such a fucking wonderful job stopping it too. :rolleyes:
You do realise that the Brits infiltrated the IRA to such an extent that the British intelligence services, and in particular Northern Irish Special Branch, knew about things the IRA were doing almost before the IRA themselves? And that they have, effectively, forced the IRA into admitting defeat?

And that they've done such a good job that NI now has (according to the UN) the developed worlds lowest crime rate?

Actually, it can be equipped for up to 90 passengers + cargo.

Funny thing is, when it lands, its so big, everyone looks and goes OOOOHHHHH, while we're landing the prisoners in a little Cesna on the other airstrip 100 miles away.

I love it when people think they're smarter than the CIA. :D

Ahh, so the C-130 may just be a distraction from the real flight? Hmmm, that does make sense.

What? That only shows your complete lack of knowledge of terrorism abroad.... which really bodes well for solving the current problem :rolleyes:

There is no quick fix to this. Get that thought out of your head.

(You sound familiar......)
My lack of of knowledge? Enlighten me, oh wise one.

And as for being familiar, I was here last year for about 3 weeks, but a bunch of nutball Liberals pissed me off so bad I quit. But considering I've got a bit of time off, I figured I'd come back and play for a while. ;)

So, ahhhhhhh, how long did it take to accomplish that? And in how many instances were the Americans involved as mediators? (mediators with big guns, big bombs, and no patience for terrorists)

Not long actually for the most of them- at the longest- 75 years.

Yeah, I would have loved to see America threathen the UK or Spain with 'big bombs' if they didn't reslove their internal difficulties. That would have been hilarious to watch.

Yes, lots and lots of them.

Judging by the apparent ownership of the plane under discussion here, I guess I should have asked 'do any supposedly secret front companies operated by the CIA own any of them?'

So, ahhhhhhh, how long did it take to accomplish that?
Depends on the country. But I have a feeling that you have no idea who these groups were...
So there you go, because I'm so nice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_Armee_Fraktion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Brigades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army

And in how many instances were the Americans involved as mediators? (mediators with big guns, big bombs, and no patience for terrorists)
Let me see....ZERO! :rolleyes:

My lack of of knowledge? Enlighten me, oh wise one.


What, and take away the joy of learning from you? No my friend, it wouldn't feel right.

Needless to say, before you go about proclaiming one way is right and dismissing ways thats were successful, you should probably do a bit of research on terrorist groups like the Red Brigades, RAF, PIRA, ETA,UVF etc etc etc.

Really? I wasn't aware we owned any. Care to enlighten us all as to how you know this?

Because last I knew, we were leasing them when we used them for Extraordinary Renditions.

The USAF has 9, C-37, and in 2002 was awarded a ten year contract to deliver twenty more. It's on the gulfstream website, it's not a secret.

The Gulfstreams that were used by the CIA, N8068V and N379P were registered to the Premier Executive Transport Service - CIA shell company - by the FAA. Those numbers have since been reassigned.

Here's a picture of one.

Linky (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N8068V&distinct_entry=true)

I am not surprised that the hulls were leased. It's a fairly common practice.

And that they've done such a good job that NI now has (according to the UN) the developed worlds lowest crime rate?

Really? Kudos! :p

Not long actually for the most of them- at the longest- 75 years.

Yeah, I would have loved to see America threathen the UK or Spain with 'big bombs' if they didn't reslove their internal difficulties. That would have been hilarious to watch.
I'm not implying we threatened the UK or Spain. But our role as mediators was not a small part in the end results.

Unfortunately, the terrorists we fight today have no problem dying, so we just have to grant them their wish in order to win.

Same wars, different tactics. Been that way for centuries. You guys just never had the USA around 1000 years ago. We are all the people from all the nations of the Earth who got fed the hell up with all the bullshit and have finally said "Fuck it, you wanna play?" ;)

Look, the CIA is a Secretative operation. It's the Central Intelligent Agencey. It's not about to go around handing out their plans and flight path etc. It's a secretative organization, so just get over it. We still have men and women who are inside Osama structure of terror, and we still have people who are under cover doing stuff that tells our men and women in uniform what the terrorist will do on such and such date. Do you REALLY want to make all of CIA information public and risking those lives?

I'm assuming 5-20 suspects doesn't constitute anywhere near 25,000 pounds.

And the more I think about it, it would be just silly to transport suspects in a damn Hercules.

Start totalling up the weight of the guards and extra security measures that are likely put in place, along with a generous margin of error in case of problems, and that range (taken figure for figure from the advertising bumpf put out by Lockheed) starts looking a hell of a lot shorter.

Add two zeroes and multiply by 2.5 to find your Happy Number. It's like tying to persuade any major corporation - if you don't charge through the nose, they'll not only devalue you, they'll devalue the goods or services you provide. Go for the gusto, TCR.
Hmmm... let's see:

Rate: $12500 an hour + 10% landing/take-off tax

Limit: 2 hours

Overtime charge: $50000 an hour

Hmmm... I'm happy with that. :D

Really? Kudos! :p
Rate by country
http://www.investni.com/victimisation_rates.gif
Source: U.N. International Crime Victimization Survey 2000

The 2005 one says the same, but I can't find it.

:)

edit: here's something..."Crime rate in the north ‘world’s lowest’, says UN" The Sunday Times - Ireland (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1785801,00.html)

So are you calling me a cynic or a demon? :confused:

Given that you are a far more demonic cynic than I, I think I shall call you both. I'm the type of cynic that laughs, you seem to be the type that hardens its heart.

edit: here's something..."Crime rate in the north ‘world’s lowest’, says UN" The Sunday Times - Ireland (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1785801,00.html)

However, these only cover a particular range of crimes. Corruption and crime remains endemic in Northern Ireland culture, even though it may not be the kind which shows up in surveys like these which are focused on crimes against the individual.

If you look at the picture I posted though, it would look odd landing at an airbase in that livery.

I don't really want to speculate what it's doing (if indeed it is a CIA plane). It's possible that it's transporting prisoners. But unlikely, given that it is not the best suited airframe for the job.

Yes, I saw the picture. But if the gents at the air bases get used to seeing an aircraft in similar livery, and those who asked questions about them are told that they're ferrying, say, specops boys, they probably won't think too much of them. Especially if they're at Ramstein AFB (lots of traffic to/from Iraq) or near Hereford (alleged home of the SAS).

However, these only cover a particular range of crimes. Corruption and crime remains endemic in Northern Ireland culture, even though it may not be the kind which shows up in surveys like these which are focused on crimes against the individual.
Yea, corruption etc. aren't 'proper' crimes, if you know what I mean. Corruption is endemic near everywhere, we've just managed to cut down the other stuff more than anywhere.

Rate by country
*Looks at Location*
Ooops. :p

Given that you are a far more demonic cynic than I, I think I shall call you both. I'm the type of cynic that laughs, you seem to be the type that hardens its heart.
Actually, I harden my heart because laughing about such a serious, important issue seems kinda cold.

Sorry, but when dealing with human suffering, I tend to harden my heart so that I don't cry my eyes out. Sometimes, you have to be mean and nasty. Sometimes, you have to do things that make people hate you in order to protect them.

Or I could just look at the whole situation and laugh. "HA HA HA Look at all the dead people! HA HA HA" .................. No, just doesn't seem right to me. Sorry. :(

Yea, corruption etc. aren't 'proper' crimes, if you know what I mean. Corruption is endemic near everywhere, we've just managed to cut down the other stuff more than anywhere.


Elsewhere is not as plagued with ongoing extortion and protection rackets though, is it?

It should also be noted that due to the way the two surveys were carried out they leave murders completely out of the equation (although we do actually have a low murder rate per capita here).

*Looks at Location*
Ooops. :p

:D

Memo to self: Avoid Australia for me holidays. :p

Elsewhere is not as plagued with ongoing extortion and protection rackets though, is it?

It should also be noted that due to the way the two surveys were carried out they leave murders completely out of the equation (although we do actually have a low murder rate per capita here).
Well, yes, you can hardly go round graveyards asking if the corpses have ever been a victim of crime.

The murder rate here is (I think) lower than a fair bit of Europe, and almost certainly the US.

Well, yes, you can hardly go round graveyards asking if the corpses have ever been a victim of crime.

The murder rate here is (I think) lower than a fair bit of Europe, and almost certainly the US.
I'd say a definate yes for some states, and a definate no for some other states. It's a big country here.

Yes, I saw the picture. But if the gents at the air bases get used to seeing an aircraft in similar livery, and those who asked questions about them are told that they're ferrying, say, specops boys, they probably won't think too much of them. Especially if they're at Ramstein AFB (lots of traffic to/from Iraq) or near Hereford (alleged home of the SAS).

True, but I doubt the base personel would question it anyway. What I was thinking of are the people who plane spot as a hobby. They are going to take note and question the civvie livery at a millitary base.

True, but I doubt the base personel would question it anyway. What I was thinking of are the people who plane spot as a hobby. They are going to take note and question the civvie livery at a millitary base.

I don't know about Gander in Canada, but Prestwick is a civilian airport.

True, but I doubt the base personel would question it anyway. What I was thinking of are the people who plane spot as a hobby. They are going to take note and question the civvie livery at a millitary base.

They might get used to watching such aircraft come and go or they could be the ones providing the pictures. Afterall, such a thing would raise eye-brows, but I doubt many people would actively persue knowing what those white-and-blue C-130s are doing.

I don't know about Gander in Canada, but Prestwick is a civilian airport.

Gander is civilian too.

They wouldn't have these problems if they'd kept Loring and RAF Macrinhanish open. :)

Actually, I harden my heart because laughing about such a serious, important issue seems kinda cold.

Sorry, but when dealing with human suffering, I tend to harden my heart so that I don't cry my eyes out. Sometimes, you have to be mean and nasty. Sometimes, you have to do things that make people hate you in order to protect them.

Or I could just look at the whole situation and laugh. "HA HA HA Look at all the dead people! HA HA HA" .................. No, just doesn't seem right to me. Sorry. :(

Given the choice between giving up my ideals and giving up my sanity, I have clearly chosen the latter.

Besides, I don't say "Look at all the dead people, hahaha." I say, "Look at the self-serving beaurocracy serving itself again. Hahaha."