Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alberta.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-visi!alberta!stephen From: stephen@alberta Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Foreign Policy Flaming - (nf) Message-ID: <515@alberta.UUCP> Date: Tue, 11-Oct-83 22:47:35 EDT Article-I.D.: alberta.515 Posted: Tue Oct 11 22:47:35 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 14-Oct-83 02:36:16 EDT References: <3107@uiucdcs.UUCP> Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada Lines: 64 If had expected the soviets to do little more than force the plane down, then the soviets were too trigger happy/violent/stupid for their own (and possibly our) good. "escorting" a plane that was 800 miles off course could have been played up as "a neighbourly act of kindness". If you want a REAL right-wing interpretation of the shooting down of the plane, consider that the soviets may have shot the plane down for the engineering/metaluirgical(sp) value of the wreckage. If you consider that they were quite happy to get metal shavings from the L1011 tristar it seems reasonable that they might want to analyze a 747 which is an equally megalithic air-monster for its troop carrying abilities/sophisticated electronics. This would explain why they followed the plane for 2 hours before shooting it down over open sea. Not only would open sea give them a good excuse for not returning significant wreckage, but it would also prevent most of the plane from being destroyed by a dry-land impact. Although this may seem to be a rather cold-hearted thought, I still can't see much chance of justifying the murder of 269 civilians even if they WERE way off course. Nor can I see how one could expect the KAL pilots to see the jet fighter wiggle it's wings if the fighter didn't get close enough to tell the difference between a spy-plane and a 747. This would lead me to the conclusion that either they knew that it was a 747 or they did not make a REAL attempt to signal the airliner in the internationally prescribed manner. ALSO: Since you mentioned Israel, let's drag them into THIS issue as well. Israel ALSO shot down a civilian airliner. At the time, the Black Septemberist movement was threatening to load an airliner with TNT and fly it into downtown Tel-Aviv. The airliner was heading towards Tel-Aviv and did not respond to standard signals. There were only a few minuites to make a decision, and the decision was made to shoot it down. While the circumstances still DO NOT justify Israli actions, they DO constitute a much better explanation for the action than any of the many explanations which the Soviets have come up with for their actions. More important is what Israel did AFTER they shot down the aircraft: They explained what had happened and made what restitution was possible to the families of the dead (and I assume to the airline as well). The Soviet Union, on the other hand, took almost a week to even acknowledge the KAL incident (I am still not sure that they have officially stated that their fighter used missiles on it). They have, on at least 3 seperate occasions refused to accept or returned a note of protest from the Canadien government RE the Canadiens who died in the crash and have REFUSED to make any sort of retribution to ANYBODY for the loss of life and property. Whose reaction do YOU think was more humane? Stephen Samuel (alberta!stephen)