| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Down Under | |
| Sydney Hijack Hoax No Joke | |
| 2004-12-19 | |
| A MAN on board a flight from Sydney Airport caused a major international security alert when he text messaged his wife overseas to tell her his plane had been hijacked by Islamic terrorists. Italian tourist Antonio Casale, 35, sent SMS messages as a joke after taking off on Lauda Austrian Airlines flight OS2 at 6.30pm last Sunday. The Sunday Telegraph understands Casale, who was travelling to Vienna via Kuala Lumpur, sent the messages during a re-fuelling stop in the Malaysian capital. He claimed terrorists were in control of the plane and were taking the passengers to an unknown destination. Casale's distressed wife alerted police within minutes of receiving the flurry of messages at home in Milan. Australian Federal Police were then informed a group of terrorists had possibly boarded the flight in Sydney and were asked by Italian authorities to carry out background checks on passengers. The Italian Embassy in Canberra was drawn into the full-scale operation and provided details of Casale's movements in Australia. Anti-terror agents in Kuala Lumpur were also tipped off about the possibility of another September 11-style terror attack. They were able to raise the pilot and connect him to counter-terror negotiators. Casale's message was confirmed as a hoax when negotiators contacted the pilot mid-flight and found him oblivious to any hijacking attempt. The flight was allowed to continue and authorities arrested the man upon his arrival in Vienna. Other passengers on the flight had no inkling of the drama unfolding around them. Casale was taken aside by the plane's captain. When the plane landed in Vienna, police detained Casale for questioning but later released him without charge.
| |
| Posted by:God Save The World |
| #49 :-) cooool |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-19 7:48:59 PM |
| #48 Heck, Frank, I wasn't gonna go there! :) I can only remember the rudiments of the punchline, and not enough to make it fit. |
| Posted by: Asedwich 2004-12-19 7:45:24 PM |
| #47 OK, which of those two comments is the punchline, guys? They're both rather good. ;) |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-12-19 7:41:41 PM |
| #46 No, you can't.... wanna get hurt? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-19 7:35:06 PM |
| #45 OK, so the other day Frank and Aris found themselves naked in the back of a pickup truck with an alligator, and then Aris sez... Oh nevermind, I just can't pull it off. |
| Posted by: Asedwich 2004-12-19 7:16:40 PM |
| #44 That's a view that essentiatelly ends up demanding an extremely loose interpretation of what the words of the constitution (especially the amendments) *really* meant....Judicial activism ends up becoming a necessity. Not so much a loose interpretation, as a constant defining by citizens of what the envelope is. Frankly, judicial activism (or activism by any unelected or appointed body unaccountable directly to the citizenry) is the least desirable way to establish and define responsibilities and/or codify rights. Enough for me on the subject. It's getting too close to being 'scholarly' again. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-12-19 4:54:04 PM |
| #43 ;-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-19 4:53:00 PM |
| #42 Aris, check your wings. Crazy Frank the Moral Midget is running around with your 3rd, it's horrible to see. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-12-19 4:47:54 PM |
| #41 Has anyone said anything since it showed up? |
| Posted by: .com 2004-12-19 4:42:50 PM |
| #40 did he say something? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-19 4:39:21 PM |
| #39 The guy who ignores first is the adult. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-12-19 4:22:50 PM |
| #38 I'll ignore him if he'll ignore me. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-12-19 4:19:53 PM |
| #37 Merry Christmas, Aris |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-19 4:19:52 PM |
| #36 OK now if we just stopped calling people names and carried on with a real debate? Name calling has never advanced anything but bitterness and resentment, of which we get enough in other blogs. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-12-19 4:17:27 PM |
| #35 Frank apologized to you for calling you a Nazi. Only an ungrateful bastard will take that as winning an argument. No dear, you have the timeline messed up and you misunderstood my words. *First* I won the argument, *then* he cravenly fled from the argument's battlefield by calling me a Nazis (or rather saying he expects I would love their regime, which amounts to the same thing). Then after much non-argument on his behalf, he ended up apologizing. In short my victory in the argument came *before* the whole Nazi thing, and it has nothing to do with the apology. and now you are calling people cowards Actually I'd called him a coward yesterday as well. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-12-19 4:11:47 PM |
| #34 pedantic little A-hole. I can't ignore your snide jabs at your betters |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-19 4:00:33 PM |
| #33 Aris, You need to simmer down, bubble boy. Frank apologized to you for calling you a Nazi. Only an ungrateful bastard will take that as winning an argument. You have been trolling since late last night and now you are calling people cowards. Frank, I know you are more than capable of fighting your own fights, but I had to say something. Carry on... |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2004-12-19 3:53:16 PM |
| #32 Clearly you have no intention to take up the "I'll ignore him if he'll ignore me" offer, do you Frank? In that case let me repeat that I consider you a tremendous moral midget and coward -- whenever you lose a battle of arguments you bravely, bravely run away to hide behind random irrelevant personal insults or attacks instead. Yesterday you took refuge by randomly calling me a Nazi when you lost *that* argument. Now you use the random "you'll get fragged by your squad" thing as your brave brave hiding place. Whatever, coward. What'll be the next refuge? The lack of updates in my website, perhaps? My being a nightowl? Brave, brave, Sir Frank. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-12-19 3:30:28 PM |
| #31 yep, wouldn't be surprised if ya got fragged by your own squad, Aris |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-19 2:47:02 PM |
| #30 2b, it was the employee who thought up the cardiac arrest, as a prank. It wasn't Atomic Conspiracy. You've misread the relevant sentence. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-12-19 2:34:59 PM |
| #29 Atomic Conspiracy - wow! There is some serious bad Karma in firing a guy who called 911 because you told him you were having a cardiac arrest. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-19 2:31:03 PM |
| #28 The last sentence is actually true, at least for Germany. It's the German government that tries to prevent a referendum about the EU constitution, same as it prevented a referendum about the Euro (which could very well have failed). |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-12-19 2:08:21 PM |
| #27 The EU will blow up, and your kind will go down with it, saying: "but we did it for all you ignorant people! You should be thanking us!" Whether the EU will blow up or not is an open question, but my "kind" has never done anything without the consent of the majority. So the comment you attribute to me "we did it for all you ignorant people" is quite inappropriate. My "kind" only wants the nations that *want* to be in the EU to be a part of it. Let each nation freely decide yea or nay. Last year 9 nations freely voted yea. Which is a fact that anti-EU folk still can't stomach. I know some nations like UK and Germany have grievances because their people aren't consulted through referenda often enough, but the people of those countries should recognize that as a grievance against the political regimes of their *own* nations. The EU never prevented referenda to take place. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-12-19 2:03:15 PM |
| #26 The U.S. Constitution is a work of conscision and precision Of concision perhaps, but of precision? LOL!! Yeah, right. After 200 years you are still debating what the Second Amendment really means. And you needed a civil war to determine whether "people" truly referred to all people or just white people. And you've reinterpreted a thing about "Congress passing no law concerning an establishment of religion" as meaning "separation of church and state" instead -- that's precision according to you? And "free speech" doesn't truly mean all speech it seems (like shouting fire in a crowded theater), only the things you think it is reasonable for free speech to mean. That's not precision. That's guesswork. Nothing I can see is added to the concept by substituting opinion and expression for speech, since any unexpressed opinion is pretty clearly beyond the reach of the law anyway. How about flag-burning? How about artistic expression like Piss Christ? As for the European Constitution, don't get me wrong, I'd also love a much slimmer and tighter Constitution, reduced to one tenth its size. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of clarity. To call the Bill of Rights a work of "precision" is sheer ridiculousness. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-12-19 1:53:53 PM |
| #25 Are you guys going to continue that? There is no such thing as total free speech, even if you're just voicing a (correct) opinion. If your wife asks you: "Darling I seem to have put on weight, what do you think?" I tell you this: If you love life and peace, FORGET about free speech and lie like hell! |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-12-19 1:52:12 PM |
| #24 That's a view that essentiatelly ends up demanding an extremely loose interpretation of what the words of the constitution (especially the amendments) *really* meant. Given that, I'm afraid that people here really have no right complaining about "judicial activism". Judicial activism ends up becoming a necessity. you are so dangerously ignorant of the consequences from your nanny-state religion, Aris. The EU will blow up, and your kind will go down with it, saying: "but we did it for all you ignorant people! You should be thanking us!" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-19 1:46:57 PM |
| #23 Another bandwidth brushfire out of control. The thread was originally about an assclown airline passenger who text messaged a phony hijack threat and got into trouble. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-12-19 1:43:44 PM |
| #22 In civil law countries when we want to clarify points of the constitution, I think we generally *clarify* them within the constitution. And you folks are oh so good at writing constitutions, you just keep going and going and going until you have a completely unworkable mess that collapses under its own imponderable weight. The U.S. Constitution is a work of conscision and precision. Nothing I can see is added to the concept by substituting opinion and expression for speech, since any unexpressed opinion is pretty clearly beyond the reach of the law anyway. As Mark Steyn pointed out "The U.S Constitution is older than the French, German, Italian, Greek, and Spanish constitutions combined." The U.S. Constitution has a preamble, 23 articles, and 27 amendments. The first ten of the latter grant no rights, they constrain the goverment from interfering with those rights. The rights themselves are a priori. The proposed EU constitition has over 600 articles, promising, among other things, "adequate housing", "education", and a host of other things that are nice to have, but a government that is dedicated to providing all these things is a government that will be on the backs of its subjects from cradle to grave. Furthermore, the constitution goes on to state that "limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognized by the Union," giving themselves an opportunity to quash any - ahem - inconvenient rights if they come up with a good enough reason. Lotsa luck. You're going to need it. |
| Posted by: Darth VAda 2004-12-19 12:58:21 PM |
| #21 So now you're the intellectual superior of James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris? I think it has less to do with intellectual superiority or inferiority, than with the fact they did their thing more than 200 years ago, and without knowledge of the next centuries' worth of arguments. The discussions about, and repercussions from, such a right are an on-going part of establishing the 'responsibilities'. That's a view that essentiatelly ends up demanding an extremely loose interpretation of what the words of the constitution (especially the amendments) *really* meant. Given that, I'm afraid that people here really have no right complaining about "judicial activism". Judicial activism ends up becoming a necessity. I wonder if this is also a civil law-common law thingy. In civil law countries when we want to clarify points of the constitution, I think we generally *clarify* them within the constitution. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-12-19 12:06:32 PM |
| #20 That the American first amendment stupidly uses the term "free speech" instead of the much more sane "freedom of opinion and expression" is what has led to the stupid discussion of non-issues like shouting fire in a crowded theater. The use of the term "free speech" was deliberate. It covers much more than opinion, such as the ability to establish a newspaper without interference from the State(radio and television are a bit different, since the State supposedly 'manages' the frequency spectrum on behalf of its citizens). The discussions about, and repercussions from, such a right are an on-going part of establishing the 'responsibilities'. If you mean by "I think that nobody should be hurt for the opinions he expresses" that no one should be physically harmed - agreed. However, that no one should face consequences for what they express in an opinion is fatuous. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-12-19 11:36:20 AM |
| #19 Yesterday, Aris, I attempted to educate you on the meaning of the First Amendment. I see that I have failed. It was the fault of neither the workman nor his tools: in this case, it was a matter of inadequate raw materials. That the American first amendment stupidly uses the term "free speech" instead of the much more sane "freedom of opinion and expression" So now you're the intellectual superior of James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris? That's a pretty heady claim. I wonder how you will ever manage to back that up. The Framers of the Constitution were neither "stupid" nor "insane" as your comment clearly states. They said what they meant and the meant what they said. |
| Posted by: Darth VAda 2004-12-19 11:27:49 AM |
| #18 I drink. Just not often. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-12-19 11:21:34 AM |
| #17 I don't think Aris drinks... 'Tis the Season to be Trolly, tra la la la la, la la la la...' |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-12-19 11:17:30 AM |
| #16 Sometimes.Usally it meant when 2 people had a disagrement the stepped into the street and faught it out(not usally with guns).Often as not when the fight was over they helped each other up and whent and had a drink. |
| Posted by: raptor 2004-12-19 10:43:09 AM |
| #15 But tell me Aris,due you understand the quaint American custom of "Frontier Justice"? Nope. Is it connected to lynching? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-12-19 10:24:36 AM |
| #14 Gonna be one of those days. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-12-19 9:54:25 AM |
| #13 After reading yesterday's post,I see Aris has the concept of"Fighting words"down pat.But tell me Aris,due you understand the quaint American custom of"Frontier Justice"? |
| Posted by: raptor 2004-12-19 9:53:13 AM |
| #12 In #10, that should have been "still annoyed at all the idiots". |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-12-19 9:16:40 AM |
| #11 Ah, I wondered if I had misspoken yesterday, but no, I had indeed expressed myself accurately. My exact phrase had been: "I think that nobody should be hurt for the opinions he expresses." The opinions, .com. The *opinions*. So, try again, do please. You've fallen on your face, yet again. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-12-19 9:15:09 AM |
| #10 Remember, TGA, he has the absolute right to exercise free speech - anytime, anywhere, for any reason that suits him. Nothing whatsoever is off limits. So sayeth Aris The Grate, so it must be true There's a difference between free expression of *opinions*, and intentional lies. I'm only supporting an unrestricted right to the former, not to the latter. I don't think that the right to slander should be unrestricted for example. That the American first amendment stupidly uses the term "free speech" instead of the much more sane "freedom of opinion and expression" is what has led to the stupid discussion of non-issues like shouting fire in a crowded theater. Other than that I'm still annoyed at all the annoyed who insist on ever misinterpreting my words. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-12-19 9:10:46 AM |
| #9 Yep, I think he definitely needs some jail-time. He isn't likely to repeat this himself, but it would discourage any future pranksters. At the very least, he should be required to pay all the associated costs, including employee time among the various agencies that had to respond. I have some experience with pranks of this nature and their potential costs. A few years ago, an employee at my company called the fire department after I got stuck in our elevator and, as a joke, happened to tell them he thought I was going into cardiac arrest. I was on the elevator phone with a repairman when the employee called on my cell phone to tell me he had called 9-1-1. I started to say, "You did WHAT?" but, just then, I heard sirens outside. The firemen arrived directly (about 14 of them in 3 trucks). The employee vanished. The fireman, naturally assuming the worst, immediately forced the door open with axes and crowbars (good thing they aren't burglars), soon discovering no emergency worthy of the name. The Fire Department billed me $1469.21 for the unwarranted call. Damage to the elevator door came to another $214.00. The employee was sent packing (the only time I have ever fired anyone). |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-12-19 8:18:06 AM |
| #8 riverdog.. That learning curve works both ways. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-19 7:30:19 AM |
| #7 put him in the same cell as that guy who wore the suicide-bomber gig to the party. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-19 7:28:11 AM |
| #6 Another EEFI (Essential Element of Friendly Information) blunder on somebody's part to reveal this, the chain of investigation and the fact that it took 12 minutes. Buncha maroons. Now Al-Q can refine their technique and try again. We didn't allow total freedom of the press in WW2, and it neither killed us or prevented victory. We seem to have forgotten that lesson. |
| Posted by: Rivrdog 2004-12-19 2:19:56 AM |
| #5 I think that after Mrs. Casale gets done with Antonio, two years in the house-of-many-windows-and-few-doors might have been preferable. |
| Posted by: Darth VAda 2004-12-19 1:12:26 AM |
| #4 Probably his right to "free speech" as well... ;-) |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-12-19 12:57:06 AM |
| #3 LOL, well I guess the Greek military will challenge his right to exercise "free sleep" at least very soon :-) |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-12-19 12:52:48 AM |
| #2 Remember, TGA, he has the absolute right to exercise free speech - anytime, anywhere, for any reason that suits him. Nothing whatsoever is off limits. So sayeth Aris The Grate, so it must be true. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-12-19 12:42:02 AM |
| #1 "released him without charge"??? Put him in jail for at least two years and bar him from EVER flying again. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-12-19 12:21:40 AM |
