It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: India Adopts Tough Hijack Policy

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
India has adopted a policy to shoot down hijacked commercial airliners deemed to have become 'missiles' heading for strategic sites. India's Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee has also ruled out giving in to hijackers demands. The policy, approved this week by the security cabinet, deems hijacking an act of aggression against the country and anyone convicted of hijacking will be sentenced to death.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
According to the new policy, fighter jets will take off immediately to escort any plane that is hijacked and is airborne.

The aim would be to try to get the plane to land and not let it take off again.

A plane will be declared "rogue" if it deviates from flight plans, refuses to heed warnings and is headed for a strategic target.

The decision to shoot down the aircraft will lie with the security cabinet. But if there is no time for it to convene, the prime minister, defence minister or home minister- or failing that a senior air force official - can make the call.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Although it seems a tad harsh to blow a civilian airliner out of the sky this is the only option in a day where aircraft can and are used as missiles.

Im sure there would be uproar around the world if a passenger jet was shot down by the military but at the end of the day, India would be better off blowing a jet up then having their own version of 9/11!




posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I can see what the Indian government are getting at, but this protocol proposal has to be very carefully tuned.

There could be a huge mistake, by any government on Earth, due to a "lack of communication" between ground stations and a stray airliner.

KAL Flight 007
Links
What Happened to Flight 007?

Sanc'.
edit:bb code

[edit on 14-8-2005 by sanctum]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Would the Indian government be able to shoot down an airliner from say...the US or UK?

What would the implications be if the Indian government deemed a western plane a 'missile' and fired upon it?





posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Plane = in their air space.
Plane = not responding thus breaking the law.
Jets go up.
Plane does not divert.
They have no choice.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   
No doubt the US or UK would blow up an Indian airliner that had been hijacked so why shouldnt they be able to do the same?

There would be the obvious (massive) investigation into it all but as long as they were 100% sure it was heading for a strategic target i feel they would have no other option then to fire!


Mic



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   


Would the Indian government be able to shoot down an airliner from say...the US or UK?


There would be a public outcry and India would face mass scrutiny from the west, but they would have done the right thing whether the west liked it or not!

We wouldnt think twice about shooting down a hijacked Indian aircraft!



Edit: How many views and replies has this thread got and it still hasnt been upgraded!
Silly voting system


[edit on 15/8/2005 by Identity_Unknown]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
This is mere propaganda. Every nation on the planet would do the exact same thing in the same circumstances described by India.

Which nation would allow a known hijacked plane to crash into a site of strategic importance? Answer: None

What this, for all intents and purposes, 'press release' news story does is merely announce to all and sundry would be terrorists "you better re-think hijacking a plane in our territory 'coz we've got expressed permission to vapourize it". Information which all terrorists know any way (unless you happened to be a very lucky hijacker on a certain sunny American September morning
)

[edit on 15/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
It was actually a rather cold September morning for me. Day I got kicked out of School for good and slayer's new album came out.

One thing I've never seen mentioned is how a few of Slayer's songs on that album are about terrorism and hi-jacked planes being used to destory buildings.

Massive coincedence.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure we have an almost identical policy. Given the times, I consider this protocol to be more than reasonable.


A plane will be declared "rogue" if it deviates from flight plans, refuses to heed warnings and is headed for a strategic target.

The decision to shoot down the aircraft will lie with the security cabinet. But if there is no time for it to convene, the prime minister, defence minister or home minister- or failing that a senior air force official - can make the call.

source



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
GradyPhilpott, hasnt NORAD had expressed permission to shoot down any plane that deviates from its flight path and doesnt respond when hailed for decades? No different to the British (as you posted) or Indian policies.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   
112 views, 10 replies and this submission still hasnt been upgraded or binned.....


I herby announce my resignation from ATSNN!


If other people cant be bothered to vote then i cant be bothered to submit!


Bye ATSNN!



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Would you believe it?

30 secs after i posted it was 'up'


I retract my previous post but it still annoys me that people cant find the time to click their mouse once!


Mic



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I can see where this is heading. Soon the US will adopt this policy, and then it will be used to easily assasinate anyone they want by merely faking a terrorist hijacking and blowing the plane to smithereens. Simple plan, simple laws, big picture.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm pretty sure we have an almost identical policy. Given the times, I consider this protocol to be more than reasonable.


We have the same one as we had on 911.

The Secretary of Defense must Authorize any actions that would employ commander in Chief forces.

CJCSI 3610.01A, AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING)

If it happens again in America, and Rumsfeld is again in a meeting with instructions to not be disturbed, and Bush is again busy reading goat stories to children, and Cheney is again busy hiding in a bunker then again America will be attacked by hijackers as our military sits on the ground waiting for permission to defend us.


Sleep well......



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
GradyPhilpott, hasnt NORAD had expressed permission to shoot down any plane that deviates from its flight path and doesnt respond when hailed for decades? No different to the British (as you posted) or Indian policies.


They have permission to ask for permission to do something, but they can't do anything as long as Rumsfeld does nothing.

Even after four planes were hijacked all at once, and even after two of them crashed into the WTC, and even as another plane was heading straight for Washington Rumsfeld sat in his closed door meeting, and aides dared not disturb him in his closed door meeting.

On 911 the only man who could have authorized the US military to protect America knew nothing of what was happening until after a PLANE FLEW INTO THE PENTAGON.

Even at that moment he did not know what had happened.

He said he thought a bomb went off.

How long do you think it was before he was brought 'up to speed' on the issue?

How long will it be before this happens again, and will America ever give power to uniformed military to protect our country?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   
ArchAngel, are you claiming he didn't know a plane had gone into the World Trade Centre buildings?

I mean...sorry but that is laughable to me.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
ArchAngel, are you claiming he didn't know a plane had gone into the World Trade Centre buildings?

I mean...sorry but that is laughable to me.


He did not know it until after a plane went into the Pentagon.


"The American military air defence command was told by the federal aviation administration that a hijacked commercial airliner was heading towards Washington 12 minutes before it hit. But during that crucial time the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and his top aides remained unaware of any imminent danger.
Defence command also failed to inform Pentagon authorities responsible for guarding the building and so no steps were taken to order an evacuation or otherwise alert the building's 20,000 employees.

But while officials knew of the attacks in New York, few imagined that the Pentagon itself could be a target."

Continued


[edit on 16-11-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
The U.S. Government just gets worse and worse by the days in my eyes...

I am sorry, but this is shocking. If he is who they have to speak to about shooting planes down than he should have been contacted straight away. No questions asked.



American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the north side of the north tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) at 8:46:40 AM local time (12:46:40 UTC). At 9:03:11 AM local time (13:03:11 UTC), United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the south tower, covered live on television. American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37:46 AM local time (13:37:46 UTC).


It hit the Pentagon nearly an hour after it hit the first building... I am sorry but if I was half as neglagenct as that in my job, I would be fired no questions asked...



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join