The SINAI peninsula is filled with insurgents, mainly targeting Egyptian security forces, especially since the military toppled Mohammed Mursi of the Muslim Brotherhood from power, and conducted elections which brought one of theirs, (former General) Abdul Fatah Al-Sisi into power as president.


Some of these terrorist groups are allied with the ISLAMIC STATE, IS (ISIS) which is in control of large swathes of land in Iraq, while battling the governments in Iraq and Syria. A few weeks back, Russia waded in on the side of President Bashar Al-Assad of Syria in a bid to rid the country of elements of the Islamic State, to the anger of the terrorist groups operating in Syria, as well as the opposition groups and to the chagrin of the Americans and her western allies.


So, when a Russian airliner ferrying more than two hundred tourists back home to Russia, disappeared over the Sinai peninsula this morning, only one thing came to my mind, considering recent threats issued by ISIS to their cells to target Americans and Russians, as well as their interests worldwide, which was followed by recent arrests claimed by Russia's security agencies, even in Moscow of people alleged to be planning attacks on the homeland, that maybe this was the outcome of a terrorist attack, probably by ISIS.


When it came over the wire later today, that a group loyal to ISIS had claimed responsibility for downing the plane, I wasn't surprised especially considering the region in which the plane disappeared from the radar. What surprised me however, was how Russia swallowed its pride to claim that the crash could likely be due to the age of the aircraft (something it may not do under different circumstances), citing examples of other planes of its kind which had also experienced unfortunate endings and near-unfortunate situations to buttress its point, rather than agree that the plane was downed by terrorists, which would be sure to draw discontent at home amongst the Russian people, who may begin to question the Kremlin's position on Syria.


I really would like to believe the Russian narrative that there could be no way the terrorists' portable surface-to-air, anti-aircraft missile launchers could reach the airliner at the height it was flying when it went off the radar, but you know how with these terrorists one couldn't be too certain about their capabilities, till one finds them exceeding long held limited expectations of them, and compared with a Kremlin that needs a supportive populace for the kind of news they will find convenient to put out as cause of the crash. For now what is most politically correct to do (while awaiting the result of investigations into the likely cause of the crash), is to pray for the repose of the dead, and wish their families the fortitude to bear the huge losses and void this crash would have brought them. Hmmmmmn!


'kovich

PICTURE CREDIT:
http://www.cbc.ca

noesis: SINAI PENINSULA CRASH: TERRORISM OR MECHANICAL FAULT? http://madukovich..com.ng/2015/10/sinai-peninsula-crash-terrorism-or.html?m=1

[b]thinking that the Airbus was shot down with MANPAD is far-fetched. In a statement made by Cairo - the plane took off at 5:15 a.m Cairo time (0351GMT) and later
disappeared from radar screens 23 minutes which means 5:15 a.m + 23minutes = at around 5:38 a.m was when the plane went off radar and later and the Egypty's civil aviation recorded that the plane was at the altitude of 31,000ft (9,800mi) before it vanished from radar.
Now with these statistic- if the
altitudinal range of the radar is below 9,800mi downward, then it must be able to read the altitude of the plane and if the
altitudinal range of the same radar is not up to 9,800mi, then anything above the range
of 9,800mi would make the plane to be off the radar screen. Another possibility is, if the radar range is above the flight altitude then the radar can detect anything above 9,800mi.
Now, no Man-portable surface to air missile is capable of attaining the target of 31,000ft, and neither American Stinger MANPAD nor Russian Igla MANPAD can reach that ''mi''
Never!! MANPAD can only pose a threat to low-flying objects especially helicopters, the heighest MANPAD range I
have seen is 10km (6mi) so any object flying at 6,100m/20,000ft are relatively safe. Even
American FIM-92 stinger-RMP's range is 8km and Russian 9k38-igla- SA-24's range is 5.2
km. With this, it has ruled out every possibility of Manpad target even if the Manpad is hit-to-kill enhanced. No Manpad
can attain the altitude of 31,000ft .So in my own view, I
would say that it's either the plane developed technical fault or it was blown up[/b]

mazeltov:
[b]thinking that the Airbus was shot down with MANPAD is far-fetched. In a statement made by Cairo - the plane took off at 5:15 a.m Cairo time (0351GMT) and later
disappeared from radar screens 23 minutes which means 5:15 a.m + 23minutes = at around 5:38 a.m was when the plane went off radar and later and the Egypty's civil aviation recorded that the plane was at the altitude of 31,000ft (9,800mi) before it vanished from radar.
Now with these statistic- if the
altitudinal range of the radar is below 9,800mi downward, then it must be able to read the altitude of the plane and if the
altitudinal range of the same radar is not up to 9,800mi, then anything above the range
of 9,800mi would make the plane to be off the radar screen. Another possibility is, if the radar range is above the flight altitude then the radar can detect anything above 9,800mi.
Now, no Man-portable surface to air missile is capable of attaining the target of 31,000ft, and neither American Stinger MANPAD nor Russian Igla MANPAD can reach that ''mi''
Never!! MANPAD can only pose a threat to low-flying objects especially helicopters, the heighest MANPAD range I
have seen is 10km (6mi) so any object flying at 6,100m/20,000ft are relatively safe. Even
American FIM-92 stinger-RMP's range is 8km and Russian 9k38-igla- SA-24's range is 5.2
km. With this, it has ruled out every possibility of Manpad target even if the Manpad is hit-to-kill enhanced. No Manpad
can attain the altitude of 31,000ft .So in my own view, I
would say that it's either the plane developed technical fault or it was blown up[/b]

You do have a point there, and even the British and Americans agree with that, favouring rather the possibility that the plane must've been blown apart by a bomb smuggled into the plane.