the classics are the best

on low end phones and you will have the fewest issues.

er no, I am saying primary fault is with the airline. secondary "fault" are the combatants. If you, as a civilian, go into a known war zone and then are shot (intentionally or not) the primary blame is with you for going where you clearly should not be. That you perceived the area of the war zone you were traversing to be "safe" is immaterial. You went into a warzone, you take the risk of death.

I have heard some on the news say that the plane was rerouted because of "weather". Again, there were many other rerouting choices which would not include flying through this region but they all probably cost a few bucks more. And it is not like a tornado suddenly emerged, this was a large weather system and known prior to departure.

Sorry, this is an airline risk management fail first and foremost. Arguing that combatants (and probably poorly trained ones) should know the difference between an AN-26 and a commercial jet misses the point.

He has lied, willfully exaggerated and generally acted like a complete piece of shit countless times. Do not believe anything out of that man's mouth, ever.

Planes have already been shot down as part of the hostilities. To assume that because your commercial flight is flying higher than those it can't possibly be targeted is the height of stupidity. Likewise falling back on the 'well, Ukraine never closed their airpsace'. Just because a road is open does not make it wise to take it.

I'm sure flying over Ukraine is a cheaper route for the airlines. Until something bad happens and your bird drops. This is all about a failure of risk management. It is one thing if your final destination is in/near the hostilities. Then you make a decision if you are going to fly that route, well thats the only way to go and everyone knows whats what before you start. But to do a fly over when you can easily route around it (even within Urkraine) is stupid.

Kuwait: bombing went on for a month prior to that. Grenada: Operations were already well underway before a small Marine amphibious landing

Few landings of Marines happen in contested zones and one of the only reaons they continue to try to build things like this is the ego of the Marine's who feel without the amphibious capability they are just Army. Rather than think of better ways of delivering equipment they just try to make a new spin on an old story.

Is it really a good idea to continue flying your normal route when it now goes over a war zone? And one where planes and helis have already been downed? Its not like there aren't any number of safer alternatives.

And the last time Marines stormed a beach was? The last time US ground forces were put in the fight prior to aerial decimation of the opposition was?

Take the same chart from Forbes that goes back to 1900. Cut 1995- present and insert in the middle of the series. Do you still see a trend? Or do you just see a lot of noise around the median?

Please read some histories of MI-6 and UK Prime/Foreign/Defense ministries. Pay particular attention to their actions in north Africa and the middle east on out to the subcontinent..

Fail there too. Studies have shown that as miles per gallon go up, people drive more.

You could say the same thing about reports (or lack thereof) of rural crime of all times. I spend a large part of the year in a fairly remote rural area. We have no police department. The only option is the state police who can take up to 45 mins to respond after 8pm. End result is a lot of shit goes unreported, not just because it seems pointless to do so, but also beause of potential retribution.

This is nothing new for the UK. The only thing new is that it is done electronically rather than by old fashioned methods (ie, bribes, cajoling, blackmail). Just about every fucked up situation in the world today can be traced back to root causes that are result of UK colonial policies and the use of "intelligence" agencies from the late 1800's thru the late 1960s (when they finally became a has been).

Don't just look at "violent" crime rates. Look at property rates too. NYC is one of the lowest out there regardless of size. What source are you using? in 2012 per the UCR database, of agencies in populations > 100K NYC ranked # 97 in violent crime rate and #272 in property crime rates (both out of 287 reporting) For murders it is #131, Even robbery (as opposed to burglary) it is only ranked #74.