Rafale fighters make emergency landing
Video: Paul Spiteri Lucas
Two French Air Force Rafale fighters landing in Malta last night after one of them reported a technical problem.
The Rafale is the most modern fighter in the French Air Force - a rival to the Eurofighter.
This was the fifth time that pairs of French military aircraft needed to make an emergency landing because of technical or fuel problems.
The French aircraft arrivals included relatively old Mirage fighters and two Super Etendard bombers.
Advert
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
Advert
82 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr Joe Gatt
Jul 2nd 2011, 17:46
`The Rafale is the most modern fighter in the French Air Force - a rival to the Eurofighter.
Should Gaddafi read the Times of Malta on line, he may get the impression that given time, the French Air Force will be out of the action and pretty soon.
What was it this time, Fuel or Ammunitions??
Christian Sciberras
Jul 2nd 2011, 23:05
Yeah, AS IF Malta even has that kind of ammunition. Dream on...
Mrs Carmen Borg
Jul 1st 2011, 23:44
These French aircraft are a joke. Do they ever get serviced or maintenanced regularly?
Christian Sciberras
Jul 2nd 2011, 23:05
No, they do like we do in Malta, fuel once and throw away...!
Mr Stephen Borg
Jul 1st 2011, 23:43
I think it is better to put forward suggestions of what the Government should do when faced with such emergencies rather then stating that we are a neutral country and the usual bla bla bla. If an aircraft declares an emergency all assistance should be given by Maltese authorities at once. Try to imagine what would happen if we do authorize them to land. If NATO did not intervene many more Libyan people would have been killed by now. If we want to stay neutral we should also stay neutral from useless comments about neutrality and an obsolete constitution.
Reg Fitzpatrick
Jul 2nd 2011, 11:47
An obsolete constitution or not, it still requires the duly elected Parliament to change it, if there is a need to do so!
And as a Neutral country these planes ought to be allowed to land in a genuine emergency but they should then be impounded for the duration of the hostilities, just like the two Libyan planes!
That is the precise and correct action the Maltese Government SHOULD take in observing it's Constitution and in LAW! Anything else is ILLEGAL!
Mr Peter Korsten
Jul 2nd 2011, 12:25
@Reg Fitzpatrick
What you say would make sense, if war had been formally declared. Such is not the case. And it's an UN-sanctioned operation, and Malta is a UN member.
Reg Fitzpatrick
Jul 3rd 2011, 00:10
@ Mr Peter Korsten
What makes you think it is not a war?
Obama and Cameron have both referred to "The Libyan War" or the "War in Lybia" numerous times in the last few weeks alone!
Cameron even spoke in parliament last week of the cost of £250million of bombs and missiles for UK jets in the "War in Libya".
A war does not have to be formally declared - ask the families of the hundreds of civilians who have been killed by the bombing of the "UN-sanctioned operation".
OOPs! I forgot this is all being done to "protect civilians"! Silly me!
Tonio Bone
Jul 1st 2011, 21:14
Seems that with our airspace spanning from Tunisia to Crete, and us being a permanent aircraft carrier in the central mediterranean, our country seems to maintain a level or strategic importance in this theatre, notwithstanding how military warfare has progressed leaps and bounds in the last decades!
Sandro Pace
Jul 1st 2011, 17:35
The fixation with neutrality and the lack of pragmatism some are exposing is on the limit of ridicule.
To begin with, what is there to fear if we are percieved as non-neutral against a dictator on its death-bed and who almost every one else including other Arabs are against? Even Sweden sent aircraft.
Secondly, and related, we will soon be dealing with the new government in Libya, and there is no way we can be percieved as at least not collaborating in parts of this 'liberation' effort, particularly in emergencies.
Thirdly, irrispective of strict legalistic, rigid arguments about the resolution, it is in malta's interest that this conflict end AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, and every means aimed at that end is now a good one.
Fourthly, no government, of whatever colour, can refute such requests in such a situation, if it has the national interest and bilateral relations with the French and with the future Libyan government, at heart.
Lastly. if anyone think that without these landings Malta is closer to neutrality, you are more than wrong. Our air traffic controllers direct these aircraft to almost their last stage (NATO tactical control) before they release their payload.
Of course with these landings there are some noise issues more than anything else, no one is calling for malta being an operation base. But 2 in a while, is a storm in a teacup.
B. Pollacco
Jul 1st 2011, 16:52
heard them last night, didn't think they were going to land though, just thought they are passing very low.....who needs the airshow when planes are coming down :)
M. Bezzina
Jul 1st 2011, 18:27
And if there is a Civil Crash??Who is going to take responsibility??Tkellem bis sens Fred hi!!!!
Alfred Farrugia
Jul 1st 2011, 16:35
A NATO F-16 fighter-bomber crashed on landing at Sigonella in April after a mission over Libya. Who is going to take responsibility if this were to happen in Malta? What will happen to our civil aviation - assuming that the aircraft crashes within the airport, and not outside with more tragic consequences? How are the people of Luqa and the surrounding areas being protected from these war machines?
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/04/27/20110427libya-f16-jet-fighter-crash.html
Are any of these Rafale fighters responsible for the violation of the United Nations arms embargo – operative paragraph 9 of UN Security Council Resolution 1970 (2011)? Was the French Ambassador at Luqa last night to welcome the pilots on this occasion? Can the French Ambassador let us know which operative paragraph of UNSC Resolution 1973 (2011) allows for the arms embargo to be violated? The NATO Secretary General has disassociated himself and NATO from the French violation of the arms embargo. The arms embargo is in fact one of the 3 elements of the NATO mission according to its website, together with “a no-fly-zone and actions to protect civilians from attack or threat of attack”!
NATO has not reported any of these “emergency landings” in its daily “Operational Media Update” for 31 May or for yesterday. Are our authorities being taken for a ride by the French? If NATO needs Malta’s assistance in genuine emergency landings, then it should list them in its daily operational media updates.
http://www.jfcnaples.nato.int/resources/24/Daily%20OUP%20Uddate%20June/1June%20oup%20update.pdf
http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_07/20110701_110701-oup-update.pdf
L Tabone
Jul 1st 2011, 19:28
well as much as an F16 can crash land in luqa, and I live opposite the runway, so can all the big and small planes that pass over me everyday at any hour. At least a rafale and an F16 are nice to watch. So please wake up and smell teh coffee. If a big plane crashed the disaster would be 10 x bigger so in your case should we ban all planes from entering Maltese airspace???
Darren Portelli
Jul 1st 2011, 15:50
The irony with the French is that these were the same type of jets they offered to sell to the Libyan government just a few months ago before the conflict started. They had Saiif on speedial trying to lure him to buy them. The French are pros at hypocrisy. They supported Ghaddafi until the very first second an opponent appeared. Then they rush to support the rebels and inflame this war at every chance possible. They read between the lines of bogus UN resolutions to find loopholes, and they back the rebels so that refuse peace talks of any kind. Why negotiate when its better to bomb the heck out of everything?
Raymond Sammut
Jul 1st 2011, 16:33
It is a French firm, and not the French government, that sells jets. On the other hand, it was a French government official who voted at the UN Security Council, and not the CEO of the French firm. Your argument, and all the allegations that went with it, are therefore a load of wack.
Sandro Pace
Jul 1st 2011, 17:14
The people of Benghazi, who were on the brink of a massacre just 'seconds' away, beg to differ. There is no problem that the French grabbed the opportunity to topple the dictator at the very first chance. First we talk against dictators, one of the major causes of migration and hardship, then we speak against efforts to topple them, citing every conspiracy theory under the sun.
Of course the French government will now be privileged. If it did help rid the libyans from gaddafi, what do you expect? Yet the French were also on very good terms with the gaddafi regime, and if it comes to that, they had no other reasons to topple the regime other than a humanitarian one.
The irony and hypocrisy is that, we dont want dictators in our house, but then have the cheek to speak against efforts against them, from wherever they come.
Darren Portelli
Jul 1st 2011, 19:01
Raymond, its a known fact that governments call governments to help secure contracts for local firms. Thats how former prime ministers and MPs secure lucrative jobs in the private sector after leaving office, with one hand looking after the other so to speak. The French government is on record as having contacted Saiif prior to the troubles in Libya
Sandro, yes we stopped a massacre. And the resolution was intended in doing so. But who now is the aggresor and who is on the defensive?
Raymond Sammut
Jul 1st 2011, 14:59
These landings show how important Malta continued to be to NATO, following the departure of the British forces from Malta in March 1979.
It is historically ironical that the main aim of the then Mintoff government was to mollify the Tripoli government. Back then, the Mintoff government believed, or at least duped the Maltese people to believe, that the departure --followed by a pledge to neutrality-- would enhance a privileged foreign relation with the Tripoli government.
Those of you not old enough to remember how Mintoff and the Mintoffiani used to boast about this "privileged relation" --back in the 70s-- should refrain from commenting here in the negative.
"Neutrality" is a Mintoffian political ruse dating back to the early 70s. The reality is that Malta cannot afford to spend big on defense. "Neutrality" is mere camouflage to this reality --the dumb ostrich burying its head in the sand.
Malta cannot afford to spend big on defense for lack of natural resources. That is fair enough. But the least Malta can do is to provide gratis military assistance to NATO in time of need, and also in peace time. On the basis of Malta's long history, NATO is Malta's natural alliance. Anything else would either reflect on poor knowledge of history or amount to political deceit.
Alfred Farrugia
Jul 1st 2011, 16:53
Why don’t you take a look at Cyprus and see how useful NATO is when one of its own members – Turkey – has been occupying 37 per cent of the island in the north for the past 37 years? What has NATO done to help Cyprus during the past 37 years to persuade Turkey to withdraw its troops from Cyprus, where it has been violating operative paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the UN Security Council Resolution 353 (1974)?
We do not need NATO. It has turned its “partnership for peace” into a partnership for war. If the Labour Party under former Prime Minister Dom Mintoff did nothing right, it certainly did the right thing when it closed the British bases – they still enjoy their two sovereign bases in Cyprus – and when NATO was asked to leave.
Raymond Sammut
Jul 2nd 2011, 02:32
Malta's historical military role has been unique and very different from any other island in the Med; including Cyprus.
The issue of the division of Cyprus is in reality the issue between Greece and Turkey. The two have a long history of animosity. NATO has been a restraining force between the two.
The Maltese never had a vote on whether to close down the British bases or whether to become a member of NATO.
In the 1970's, all that the Mintoffiani cared about was to go to work in Libya and make the money. No-one ever cared --since then-- what the Tripoli government was all about. The money just kept coming in.
The events unfolding over recent weeks bare open the immorality of Mintoff misleading the Maltese people when he rubbed shoulders with the Tripoli government back in the 70's. From his prime-ministerial position, no-one else knew as much as Mintoff did back then. But Mintoff concealed the truth from the Maltese.
My guess is that, as early as the 80's, Mintoff knew for sure that he had done the Maltese wrong in terminating the bases, and by then it was too late. But never will he admit his wrong doing. He will take his Tripoli affair with him to his grave.
For the Maltese it shall be good riddance. --a most liberating new era. The only thing that will make a small dent is when the Bormilizi stick up a piece of bronze for the guy.
Mr Tony Camilleri
Jul 1st 2011, 14:52
These froggies should be prevented from landing by blocking the runway and I am sure that none of them will crash and make it back to their own base.
If they are taking GONEZI for a ride he is falling for it bait hook and sinker, but if he is not being taken for a ride and has secretly agreed to allow them to land in Malta in violation of the constitution then it is a much more serious matter as the Prime Minister himself in breaching the Constitution.
Also what about the President who is the guardian of the Constitution?
SECOND SCHEDULE
Articles 50 and 89
Oaths of Office
(a) Oath for the due execution of the office of President.
I................................. solemnly swear/affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of President (perform the functions of the President) of Malta, and will, to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of Malta. (So help me God).
(b) Oath for the due execution of the office of Prime Minister or other Minister or Parliamentary Secretary.
I ................................. solemnly swear/affirm that I will faithfully and conscientiously perform my duties as (Prime Minister/Minister/Parliamentary Secretary) in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of Malta, without fear or favour. (So help me God).
M. Bezzina
Jul 1st 2011, 12:59
Always Moaning ....
jack bristow
Jul 1st 2011, 11:38
The maltese goverment should really consider a taxation system for each plane that lands here, WAR PLANE I INTEND... like that the maltese tax payer could get some relief from the everyday bills.
James Borg
Jul 1st 2011, 12:11
I agree...at least we start reaping something out of all this!
Mr Christan Brincat
Jul 1st 2011, 11:19
Maybe i am not quite literate with the law and especially our laws, but arent we supposed to be neutral.
All we have seen is french jets making 'emergency landings' which at this point i am beignning to doubt. They seem more like re-fuelling.
So if we are assisting them with re-fuelling to go again and bomb libya, then we are assisting the french with war, be it under whoevers flag, french, nato whatever.
WE ARE NO LONGER NEUTRAL AND JUST BECAUSE THE POLITICIANS KEEP SAYING WE ARE, THE ACTIONS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
DISGUSTED. OVER AND OUT.
Jesmond Micallef
Jul 1st 2011, 13:05
Literacy about the Law of the Land is often missed out by experts who identify educational shortcomings in Maths, Science, Languages and yes, Citizenships ! Even citizenship on it's own has so much permutations and combinations, about which one could write a good treatise on. Further to your comment, consider weapons exports from within the EU. This industry produces alot of income and it's quite good business too, so as long as the money generated from this industry is shared throughout it's member states, one sees potential validity with regards to Malta's "non-neutrality".
It is just a defunct concept of human imagination most especially when money gets into it. Furthermore but what about traditional CITIZENS of ex colonies who never sparked an international war because they physically cannot yet share the joys and prides of winning them ?
These French machines will perhaps oneday appear in the Malta International Air Show in September each year as invited guests ! A spectacle of FASCINATION shared by so many but flown by the selected chosen few !!
How many FASCINATED Maltese CITIZENS fly such combat aircraft ?
Mr Andrew Scicluna
Jul 1st 2011, 13:23
How can you be a neutral with all this technology, with a press of a button all will be finished.
It is the least we can do to help in an emergency is always right no matter what is our position.
We will not be sending any of our planes to bomb Gadaffi army.
Hope this will finish soon too many sufferings and inocent blood.
Mr Neville A Cassar
Jul 1st 2011, 10:41
Dan ghax rahas il petrol ? / sarcasim tag in case some one goes on a flame war
Sandra Camilleri
Jul 1st 2011, 10:37
What is the problem with all the french fighters? Is it possible they like our airport? It's impossible they all have damage. If so, never hire french fighters.
Anthony Falzon
Jul 1st 2011, 11:24
They have their own way of doing it. It is not their fault, it is in the DNA. Dropping arms to the rebels without
consulting their counter parts; the NATO, for example
Mr JC Sullivan
Jul 1st 2011, 14:20
Non!
They like the Cafe Mocha or Espresso
R. Abela
Jul 1st 2011, 10:32
Russia is accusing Nato of breaching UN resolution. Yes it's breach of local Costitution as well.
The UN resolution is to protect the civilians and rebels from being attacked, not of dropping bombs on Tripoli.
James Borg
Jul 1st 2011, 10:10
Come on Monsieur Sarkozy, stop beating around the bush and tell us what you need from us! I'm sure that we Maltese would be happy to close an eye (even two) on any international resolution or whatever convention we might have signed or any other neutralty clauses we might have in our constitution as long as you start pumping millions of French Euros into the Maltese economy... they're as good as Maltese Euros, you know?!!
Reg Fitzpatrick
Jul 1st 2011, 10:04
The same old "let's bend the rules if they don't suit us" again!!!!! But you can’t ignore the facts!
By our democratically designed constitution Malta is NEUTRAL in all conflicts of war. No matter by UN mandate or not!
In any case the UN mandate clearly stated action to be taken was to “protect civilians”. Not bomb whole sections of residential areas whether it is in Tripoli or Benghazi or wherever. Remember a few weeks ago – five house and numerous civilians, women and children killed! Even two of Ghaddafi’s own grandchildren dead? “Protect civilians”! What rubbish!
Sarchozy of France simply wants to obliterate all the records of the millions he has had from Libya for his election; Obama wants Libyan oil; And Cameron simply wants to suck up to Obama and be seen as a “world statesman”.
As in Switzerland in the second world war, all war planes involved in aggressive actions, landing in Malta for whatever reason, should be impounded and kept for the duration until hostilities cease!
Malta is either neutral or not! There is no in-between ground in law! The Constitution says it is neutral, and only the duly elected Parliament can change that, not the comment pages of The Times!
Peter Xuereb
Jul 1st 2011, 15:51
It is the parliament taking the decisions on our neutrality not a comment page of the Times of Malta. And the parliament agrees that it is, as you stated, a neutrality in between. Deal with it.
Charles Micallef
Jul 1st 2011, 09:56
The French have never shown to be very competent during any combat, one only has to look at their record during the second world war.
Does this mean that if Malta did not permit them to land, they would have lost 10 aircraft by now, because of mechanical problems or run out of fuel or have they got the right to use Malta as a base for the cost of the fuel?
Mr mario gellel
Jul 1st 2011, 09:47
SEEMS THE FRENCH GET TECHNICAL PROBLEMS IN PAIRS. THEY SHOULD ASK GONZIPN FOR HIS PAIR OF STRONG HANDS
Warmer Libri
Jul 1st 2011, 09:47
Why should malta support the countries like France who severely broke UN resolution 1973 regarding Libyan issue????? THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE AND CONTRADICTS 100% WITH THE NEUTRAL PEACEFUL FACE OF REAL MALTA!!!!! refueling these french fighter planes who will go back to libya to kill civilians and to break UN resolution is definitely putting malta polcy in doubt!!!! We hope peace will come soon to all mediterranean countries. God bless you all.
Karl Busuttil
Jul 1st 2011, 11:47
Read the constitution before talking. The neutrality is void once the UN resolution came into effect.
arthur borges
Jul 1st 2011, 09:46
If you intern Libyan fighter jets and release NATO aircraft, you are not neutral.
Mr Patrick Zammit
Jul 1st 2011, 09:43
The US, France and Britain have long exceeded the UN resolution to "protect civilians from attack". They are themselves killing civilians when they bomb civilian areas to try and kill Gaddafi which is not part of the resolution. They have continued to arm rebels who in turn, kill other civilians as well.
I never supported Gaddafi and felt disgusted whenever our politicians were pictured licking his boots.
I was also very dismayed when Megrahi was freed on supposedly compassionate grounds by the Scottish Government on 20 August 2009 on the evidently false notion that he had only 3 months to live. After 22 months, he is still alive and kicking.
Our constitution does not allow us to take part in this dirty war more so when it is evident that the west does not have a right to interfere in the internal affairs of another country and should do the same like it is doing in Syria, just to mention one country.
Steve Mifsud
Jul 1st 2011, 13:23
Try a Citroen!!!!
Mr A Grech
Jul 1st 2011, 09:34
I'm sure people with a Peugeot can relate
Mr Ernest Vella
Jul 1st 2011, 09:13
Those French have no respect towards people. They flew at low level during the night and they woke me up. I am thinking of placing an anti-aircraft on my roof so next time they wouldn't tempt to do it again. I am not believing those emergency landings but its just an excuse so not to return to base because of fuel consumptions
Alfred Falzon
Jul 1st 2011, 14:13
Funny indeed!
Only village festa petards and gelignite well past midnight keep you fast asleep, it seems!
In an emergency such landings are normal!
Mr J Demicoli
Jul 1st 2011, 08:55
They should at least have had the decency to come in at a slower speed.
The French ambassador should be reminded that Malta is not at war and for the Maltese the time they came in is normally considered sleeping time. Waking up to the monstrous roaring sound of these death machines is not the best way to wake up in the middle of the night. The pilots should have the least of decency expected and make a difference between flying over densely populated areas and flying over the desert at that time of night.
Absolutely shameful and I would say scandalous both of the French and Maltese governments to let the south of Malta especially those on the approach path of Luqa airport at the mercy of these bullies.
Andre Grech
Jul 1st 2011, 11:01
Mr J Demicoli they canot come with slower speed, because otherwise they would stall and you have to under stand that their engine is powerful too so you cant make it silent. And do you think that in an emergency landing the pilots are going to say wee cant pass with high speed because we are going to wake up people its stupid to say that ....
Adrian Borg
Jul 1st 2011, 11:14
I fully agree with you Mr. Demicoli. I live in Birzebbugia and my house is directly underneath the landing flight path of airplanes. They woke me, my wife and my 1 year old son at 1am!!!! This was a very shameful act and as you correctly said the pilots should at least have had the decency to fly over in a more decent way..... TOTAL DISGRACE TO ALL WHO ARE CONCERNED!!!!
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
Jul 1st 2011, 08:25
Would you buy a French Fighter?
Imagine if they were fighting a REAL war.
At present they go for a ride, drop some bombs on Libya and return back. Cannot be that difficult.
The Libyans havien't got the means to defend themselves. Yet all these mishaps. Its like playing football against a team with no defence and no goalkeeper and still not winning.
Mark Mangion
Jul 1st 2011, 09:36
Makes you think why no pc or console games maker never issued a Rafale flight simulator - it would probably crash once a day :-)
Mr Joseph N. Attard
Jul 1st 2011, 10:12
You make it sound so simple. It IS a real war, but the attacking fighters are greatly hampered by the fact that they do not want to cause civilian casualties. Gaddafi's forces reportedly use hospitals and schools to hide their anti aircraft armaments, and the plane/s might have been hit.
Franco Abela
Jul 1st 2011, 10:24
If Malta didn't exist.... would these planes and the others that have landed here crash into sea?
Gabriel Chatrousse
Jul 1st 2011, 10:47
Stop saying nonsenses, Rafale has beat many times the F16, F18, eurofighter and of course the grippen in air fights. It has even knocked the F22 in dogfight... See the MMRCA competition in India. Stop believe the US propaganda used to sell its war planes and kill Europe's defense industry...
Adrian Borg
Jul 1st 2011, 11:16
@ Andre Grech.. I'm sure you wouldn't have posted that comment if they flew over your residence at 1am!!!
Steve Mifsud
Jul 1st 2011, 13:20
Dear Mr. Sbiberras.....please next time before you comment, do your homework. The Rafale is an awesome military aircraft, rest assured. They land simply as a precaution, this you would understand if you knew how much each individual modern fighter aircraft costs.
Jesmond Micallef
Jul 1st 2011, 14:15
Gabriel Chatrousse,
The defense industry in europe makes good money that's forsure and we all enjoy the benefits of that. European nations armed with nukes never lose, never ever, irrelevant of how superior this French flying kite is. One does not need to be French to be proud. Furthermore, those who need British or French nuclear weapons to defend themselves are those nations who need help in self defense. Germany, europe's largest honey suckle, with all it's technological might and expertise cannot have it's own nukes ! But then again nations like Malta, europe's smallest honey suckle, does not have the physical possibilities neither !!
Presently, the collection of nations the EU, is simply not enough. The presence of the USAF, US Navy and US Army in europe is required unless the EU nations remove and dismantle thier own militaries and forming just one unified EU military. An EU Air Force, an EU Navy, and an EU Army. This way, european CITIZENS, including Maltese aspirants could have an opportunity to fly a French Dassault Rafale or Mirage, a Eurofighter Typhoon, a Panavia Tornado, an Airbus A400M, a Eurocopter Tiger and everything that is solely european.
Here, enjoy some soft tissue human muscle power, for a change ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-GBxpLQsek&feature=related
Alfred Falzon
Jul 1st 2011, 14:38
@Franco Abela
And what if ruthless Gaddafi didn't exist?!
Do you have an answer to this?
Mr carmel tonna
Jul 1st 2011, 08:23
These are not coincidences. They are emergency landings because they are so. In all probability one of the planes would have been hit or damaged by enemy fire and try to make it to the nearest port, escorted by a teammate.
Mr M Farrugia
Jul 1st 2011, 10:22
kif taf li dawn l-ajruplani li qed jigu malta qed jarma lil ribelli libyani. Kont maghhom fuq it-titjira jew inkella infurmatek l-intelligence franciza. Ma inlabalbuh bl-addocc ghax paprati nghidu
Mr M Farrugia
Jul 1st 2011, 10:22
kif taf li dawn l-ajruplani li qed jigu malta qed jarma lil ribelli libyani. Kont maghhom fuq it-titjira jew inkella infurmatek l-intelligence franciza. Ma inlabalbuh bl-addocc ghax paprati nghidu
Alfred Falzon
Jul 1st 2011, 14:37
@M.Farrugia
Whatever these aircraft are doing, it's under a UN mandate in accordance with Resolution 1973.
Their job is to protect the civilian population and ensure that freedom fighters are ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD as their murderous foes!
And by the way, they are welcome in Malta, for we represent the majority of the Maltese and are not the least scared by stooges of a foreign tin pot dictator on his way out!
Mr Joseph Brincat
Jul 1st 2011, 08:00
FRENCE
ARE BREAKING THE UN RESOLUTION BY ARMING
THE REBELS ! !, SO MALTA SHOULD NOT ALLOW
FRENCH AIR FORCE LAND IN MALTA !! ?? !!
Mr Joseph Brincat
Jul 1st 2011, 08:59
@ IT IS THREATENING OUR CONSTITUTION ! ! !
Andre Cilia
Jul 1st 2011, 09:14
*bangs head with table*
Karl Busuttil
Jul 1st 2011, 10:03
Mr. Brincat, if you are relay interested on this topic please do inform your self a bit better. The UN resolution stipulated that international action can be taken in order to protect the civilians of Libya. This has been done and rightly so.
Now the arming of the rebels with ammunition for the guns that they already have and new guns plus providing them with MILAN anti tank shoulder mounted missiles is a direct extension to the UN mandate. The rebels need to be able to defend them selves against the tanks that are still attacking with no regard, if the people that they are attacking are rebels or civilians.
Now I can sympathize that seeing armed military jets landing in Malta (except for air shows) is a bit concerning for some, seeing that if was was to come to our shores we could not hope to defend our selves. We are however forgetting that we form part of the EU and with that we have a responsibility to the same countries of the block so that we assist them in any way that we can. We also have to remember that we form part of the international community and that when an aircraft is in trouble nothing is more paramount then to have it land safely, no matter if it is civilian or military of which nationality.
I know that my post was a bit long but please do understand that I watch the news just like most of you and not just the local news but the international as well. I read about the topics that are mentioned in the news. This way when i voice my opinion it can be a well thought and justified one. Please do try to put more effort before voicing your thoughts rather then show the world that the Maltese speak and act before thinking it through, for I know that it is not the case for most.
Mr David Ganado
Jul 1st 2011, 10:14
What country is FRENCE??
Mr Joseph Brincat
Jul 1st 2011, 13:16
KARL BUSUTTIL
YOU THINK YOU KNOW EVERYTHING
YOU CAN TWIST THE UN RESOLUTION HOW MUSH YOU LIKE
BUT I SAY BUT
CAN YOU GUARANTEE THAT THOSE ARMS ARE ONLY TO
PROTECT CIVILIANS ? ? ? ? ?
Alfred Falzon
Jul 1st 2011, 14:20
@Joseph Brincat
It's a pity Gaddafi has yet to hear about your comments!
He would have sent you to represent what's left of his crumbling regime to the UN!
No moaning and squeaking will stop the free world from defending the freedom fighters of Libya, and we Maltese stand foursquare with them, save a few Gaddafi stooges who may have a hidden agenda which they are reluctant to divulge!
Mr Joseph Brincat
Jul 1st 2011, 17:49
KARI BUSUTTIL
I REPRESENT MY HOME LAND AND
MY CONSTITUTION AND I WONT OTHERS
TO RESPECT IT TO !!! NO MORE AND NO LESS !!!
Karl Busuttil
Jul 2nd 2011, 08:43
This post is getting relatively old, so this will be my last post here.
I just wanted to tell you that I do not know everything and that I never implied that I knew everything. It is with your comment that you showed that if someone knows a bit more on a topic then you become hostile and belligerent.
Now if you want to have a discussion like adults where we don't have to agree on anything and where you can recognize that there are some things that you don't know and that you might learn from them (I do the same every day and learn every day) then I am up for it. I am not now and never will be in the mood to discuss with people that have a rooted opinion and not willing to concede that there might be a better approach to a discussion.
One final food for thought, Laws change and people change but protecting innocent people will always be the right thing to do. Now if you want to think about yourself first then go right ahead.
Sandro Pace
Jul 1st 2011, 07:51
There is nothing against the constitution. This is a UN mandated mission, against a tyrannical government, who has no say any more and who is near its end or almost, who even declared a demographic war against europe including malta, by opening the floodgates of an african and islamic invasion at worse, or at best keeping europe (incl our taxes) at ransom or blackmail. Who also prevents us from drilling even just within our territory..........
Only rigid idiocy calls for neutrality in this case. Besides, in order to avert a potential migration crisis, malta has every interest to expedite gaddafi's inevitable end, though it is still a matter of time. And we cannot turn a blind eye to France a country which helps us a lot in this issue. So see some sense. Neutrality is not the do all end all of everything. If we are under such a tyrannical government, whether foreign or local (however the possibility is remote), we would have liked others to help us get rid of it. No questions about that.
Mr J Curmi
Jul 1st 2011, 08:44
yeah....sure....next thing you know, the French are going to repeat what Napoleon did when he tricked the Knights into letting him in....get a life!
Sandro Pace
Jul 1st 2011, 11:41
Ebete.
Alfred Falzon
Jul 1st 2011, 14:25
@J. Curmi
Is it possible that people like you are still with their head thrust in the late 17th century, circa 1789?
Are you living on the moon?
We have vowed to respect democracy, human rights and social justice, and this is precisely what the Maltese are doing by helping the freedom-loving people of Libya (and they are the great majority) to get rid of the ruthless one-man Gaddafi regime once and for all!
David Elden
Jul 1st 2011, 07:22
Surely this is happening too many times to be a coincidence - is this the way the government of Malta tricks the people to go against the constitution!!!!!!
Mr Patrik Larsson
Jul 1st 2011, 07:37
I think we have been over this a couple of times now. Allowing planes to land is not going against the constitution. The military action taking place over Libya has a UN mandate, allowing for any constitutional neutrality to be over-ruled. Or perhaps you actually never bothered to read the constitution before posting such nonsense.
Mr Henry Spiteri
Jul 1st 2011, 07:41
@ David Elden: These landings are very few compared to the hundreds of sorties being flown. Also this is a United Nations mandate and nothing to do with the constitution. Good day.
Anatlus formosa
Jul 1st 2011, 07:59
Prosit vera pajjiz tal mickey mouse.U dawn x edin jahsbu li il poplu ghadu iblah.
Ray Gatt
Jul 1st 2011, 08:51
You must enjoy KMB and Privitera on smash.
Mr David Ganado
Jul 1st 2011, 10:13
Mill-kumment tieghek hekk jidher sur Formosa! Aqra il-Kostituzzjoni qabel ma tparla fil-vojt.
Alfred Falzon
Jul 1st 2011, 14:30
@David Elden
It is ruthless and bloodthirsty Gaddafi who has tricked his people by butchering them with heavy weaponry bought from countries like Russia with the people's own money which he made his own!
We MALTESE are more than proud to assist our suffering Libyan neighbours in spite of our very limited resources, and we intend doing so without fear or favour!
Who is going to stop us?!