Quote: Originally Posted by Spade
There were a number of things in the original aricle that simply didn't add up. i won't list them all because I could be wrong. But, the most glaring was that we were not informed, yet we scrambled perhaps a couple of hours (?) before the "incident."
I tend to give people and governments the benefit of the doubt when it comes to accusations of lying. But the following from the original article concern me:
"Obviously what they were doing was testing Canadian security knowing full well that all of our security attention would be focused in Ottawa around the president's visit," Fife said.
Obviously? Does he have proof? It appears that though I won't question the basic truth that a Russian plane may have been intercepted, it does appear that the government is trying to use it to its political advantage by stirring it up a little. This is a big claim to make, not tomention that it is libel and defamation if untrue. And it certainly doesn't help Russo-Canadian relations, especially if it proves untrue. The government's job is to protect Canada's best interests, and I would interpret that to include maintaining friendly relations with neighbouring countries so as to de-intensify any potential military tensions between our nations, not create them or intensify them as the government seems to be trying to do here.
"For that reason, it puts the emphasis back on the importance of Norad, the importance of our being diligent in defending our airspace, exercising that sovereignty," he said.
And from that, we go to NORAD. Yet he hasn't even proven yet that the Russian plane had any ill intent. Just as we all have a right to our day in court, does Russia not have a right to be heard too before such accusations are laid? I'm not challenging the basic claims of the article, but I am challenging its interpretation by the government. And scarily enough, it is starting to appear like a prelude to Harper's intention to increase government spending. A red flag operation of sorts, but the government was smart enough to choose a real incident and blow it ot of proportion rather than create a fake one from scratch. But the same principles apply.