July 8, 2008 -- US spy plane incident with China more serious than reported

The April 1, 2001, incident between a U.S. Navy EP-3E signals intelligence (SIGINT) aircraft and two Chinese J-8 fighters 70 miles off Hainan island was worst than reported by the media at the time. According to National Security Agency (NSA) sources, the Navy aircraft, after being intercepted by the two Chinese fighters, was forced to land at Lingshui airbase on Hainan by one of the two Chinese aircraft. The other Chinese fighter crashed after it collided with the wing of the EP-3E SIGINT aircraft. The nose and a propeller of the US Navy plane was damaged in the collision.

NSA intercepts of the incident reveal that the plane, piloted by Shane Osborn, who later received the Distinguished Flying Cross for "heroism," did not land at Hainan voluntarily but was forced down by the other Chinese jet. In addition, the EP-3E flight crew was not able to destroy much of the plane's classified equipment and other material because of the threat it would be shot down if the Chinese pilot saw material being thrown from the plane into the South China Sea. This editor described the standard emergency destruction protocols for aircraft such as the EP-3E and P-3 anti-submarine warfare aircraft on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer on April 3, 2001.

Reports at the time stated that the US Navy plane conducted an emergency landing on Hainan without Chinese authorization. According to the NSA intercepts of Chinese communications, the original story about the unauthorized landing now appears to be false. China retained possession of the "black boxes" from the EP-3E aircraft that would have shown that China demanded the aircraft land on Hainan or be shot down.

Based on NSA intercepts of the event, it now appears that the Chinese not only obtained classified SIGINT and electronic intelligence (ELINT) material but also extremely classified and sensitive cryptographic keying material. In effect, the worst case scenario as described by this editor on The News Hour played out: " if they [the Chinese] got those keys, that means they could decode all past U.S. intelligence, military communications around the world, not just in that area [Southeast Asia] but in other places as well."

The forcing down of the EP-3E aircraft may represent the worst compromise of US classified information since North Korea captured the NSA spy ship, the USS Pueblo, on January 23, 1968.

(snip)

NSA intercepts of the Hainan incident also reveal that before the US crew was released on April 11, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Beijing of U.S. military action against China if it did not immediately release the crew and plane.

(snip)


The Washington Post and New York Times hailed George W. Bush's handling of the spy plane incident with China. However, based on the NSA intercepts, the forcing down of the Navy plane with its treasure trove of classified information represented the most damaging compromise of US classified material since 1968. The NSA director at the time, Air Force General Michael Hayden, was promoted to Deputy Director of National Intelligence and Director of the CIA.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/jan-ju.../china_4-3.html

So shrub covered this up too, and he gave the guy a medal, so shrub, fail and get a medal, I see a pattern here...

That's how Tenent got his medal. Rewarding falure is what the Bushs do!

Don't have access to your linked material.

In any case, the material you supplied keeps refering to NSA intercepts, but doesn't state who is making the claim regarding the NSA intercepts or how WMR came into possesion of these intercepts. In other words we have no idea where these claims are coming from.

They never do.

Got this [new] thing called google ....... http://www.google.com/


china+"SPY PLANE" - news category
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1...tnG=Search+News


china+"SPY PLANE" - web category
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=c...%22SPY+PLANE%22

Downed spy plane gave secrets to China - By Associated Press -© St. Petersburg Times
published September 12, 2003
...
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/12/Worldand...lane_gave.shtml



SPY PLANE STANDOFF - web category
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=S...G=Google+Search

If you will go back and read the original post, you will find the author is claiming US spy plane incident with China more serious than reported, as supposedly confirmed by NSA intercepts. My response was made within the specific context of the WMR material.

Your generic links point to the likelihood that you never took the time to bring yourself up-to speed on the progress of the discussion.

I got this far and stopped to think: Hey, so supposedly the nose was damaged accidentally, despite the fact that the pilots were trying to destroy equipment there? Why doesn't this add up...Who wrote this...This better not be another...

DOH!

Wayne Madsen again...More clinging to actual news stories to weave parallels with anonymous sources.
I don't buys it.

You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie.

CHINA risks war with most powerful nation after ramming their plane into our plane............and...........this US plane was filled with electronics and national security info..............AND YOU DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE A MAJOR BREACH OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.


So Madsen repeats some intel comm grapevine gossip......that is obvious.


How could he source this....without jeopardizing his source?


Granted Madsen's reporting is always anonymous....so it becomes sort of a gossip column.


But...it's all we got.

Not good enough.

Why don't you just skip it then, along with most other news articles you don't like? It makes absolutely no difference to me.

I am posting this INFORMATION for those on this message board who are open to receiving INFORMATION. By your arbitrary standards of journalism, most articles by anyone are not credible. So good luck getting your news from Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC, the NY Times, the Washington Post and other grand dragons of the corporate-controlled mainstream media.

Those sources did not tell you Bush was lying about the alleged dangers of Saddam. They did not tell you about the proven irregularities of the stolen elections. They did not tell you about the Downing Street Memo. They did not tell you about the Unocal pipe line deal which caused the Bush administration to threaten military action against Afghanistan before 9/11. They have not told you that Bhutto said that Bin Laden is dead. They did not tell you that the BBC reported the destruction of WTC 7 twenty minutes before it occurred. There is no end to what they did not tell you. As Randi says, the news has been cancelled. In most cases, if you know about what really is going on, apart from trivia and celebrity updates, you learn it from the alternative media.

Nah, you're driving hits to waynemadsen.com, which has the effect of inflating his rating on search engines.

Because I'm not overly fond of people trying to trick us. I'm into this whole "truth thing" ... so when I see something that has a serial credibility problem like prisonplanet, waynemadsen, alexjones, and that kind of thing - especially when they beat that fear drum...then I feel a need to ask: Why should I take this seriously? If the answer is "Because of ABC" then that's not an answer at all. I'm not saying WayneMadsen is no abc...I'm saying he is as bad as - if not worse than ABC. He posts scattershot nonsense routinely. He posts dire warnings that always appear to be in vain.



Oh which I do not exclude Madsen.



Some did. But I'm not promoting them. They have nothing to do with the fact that nutball stories that never ammount to anything routinely end with a link to Madsen's site.



Neither did Madsen that I can tell. He spun one hell of a yarn..."the check never cleared" my ass. He had all these details, and no facts - nothing actionable. Just a meandering schizophrenic whirwind of arbitrary nothings feeling quite a bit like the trail left by the ever sought after crimson herring.



Yeah...but that doesn't make Madsen credible. He's either a willing disseminator of BS, or easily duped.

Fine..if his stories panned out routinely. Most of them never come to anything - duds. I don't see a strong reason to discount Madsen save for the fact that his record on dire warnings and plots "just about to come to ligt..." are nearly always wrong.

Tell me about your latest "piece of investigative journalism" that covered any buring issue like:

ENRON....ENERGY TASK FORCE....ENERGY DE REG IN GOP STATES....CHRISTINA MOORE MURDER...ROBERT MOORE'S REPORTING AT CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY....PATSY CALLS MEDIA AND SAYS, "...I didn't do it, but I know who did" and STATES ATTY DOES NOT FLIP THE PATSY TO GO AFTER UNINDICTED CONSPIRATOR?

1) Exactly. Why not move on...if you don't like the WMR or Flocco or Hopsicker, or Ruppert, Levine, Caylor.

Why not...save energy and "move on"?



2) I've thanked you before, and I'll thank you again for POSTING THE LATEST FROM WAYNE MADSEN REPORT[size="5"][/size].



3) yUP. That's why I like WMR...and others. MSM is a joke whore idiot factory...not worth anybody's time but for the fact "you can read between the lines" by using "the one hundred and eighty degree rule" in which "you spin everything the Gov says, 180 degrees to get a possible glimpse of the truth.

Tu Quoque.
- Attacking Carmen's journalistic record doesn't help Madsen's.

Ad Hom
- Attacking Carmen doesn't make Madsen any more or less correct.

Appeal to Authority
- One need not be a journalist to know a fraudulent one. For example, were I to say 'You can criticize Bush when YOU become president.', we would know that to be a load of malarkey. Similar here.

These three logical fallacies invalidate your criticism.
It remains that Madsen is a crank.

Don't forget CONDI IS BONKING THE PRESIDENT!

You just violated your own rules of truth....AD HOM attack on WMR as a crank....no?

Because I'm not overly fond of people trying to trick us. I'm into this whole "truth thing" ... so when I see something that has a serial credibility problem like prisonplanet, waynemadsen, alexjones, and that kind of thing - especially when they beat that fear drum...then I feel a need to ask: Why should I take this seriously? If the answer is "Because of ABC" then that's not an answer at all. I'm not saying WayneMadsen is no abc...I'm saying he is as bad as - if not worse than ABC. He posts scattershot nonsense routinely. He posts dire warnings that always appear to be in vain.



Doesn't this make it easy for somebody to mislead you if you let them set your compass?

"This compass doesn't work, the needle spins every which way, and it always lies." Complained the helmsman.
"No problem! If the compass always lies, we will just do the opposite of what it says."

And so the ship sailed in circles.

A compass has 360 degrees - much like the truth. A liar can be off by any number of degrees and rarely the same number twice in a row. Steering 180 from a given source just because we know they lie does not guarantee the truth...the MSM tends to be more like 30 degrees off. This is probably an extension of the false dilema logical fallacy where it is assumed that a given situation has only two valid options when in fact hte situation is more dimensional.

Not at all. The subject is Madsen's credibility.

It would be an ad hom if I said YOU were a crank.
(which I am not saying).

Please do not provide a link to that. It's a visual I don't even want to contemplate.

Cheer up Boo, there are repigs you should be helping catapult.

Wow, China has our deepest secrets, maybe that is why our defence contractors are setting up over there. Nothing to worry about now but Islamo Fascists.

1) You made an "ad hom" attack on Madsen that goes to his credibility...yes?

Apparently you refuse to admit your own violations of your own rules for truth--"use of Ad Hom attacks"....because, in your own words, "...The subject is Madsen's credibility" and therefore the "Ad Hom attack was NOT TOWARDS Madsen, BUT AN AD HOM ATTACK ON MADSEN'S credibility"?!.... and therefore not an "Ad Hom attack on Madsen"?


Hate to tell you but...an ad hom attack on Madsen's credibility, is an ad hom attack on Madsen.


Therefore...you violated your own rules.






2) If you call Madsen a crank...that is an ad hom attack on Madsen.


If you call me a crank...that is ALSO AN AD HOM ATTACK, and violates your own rules.

Well, I don't follow Hamoth's rules, so I'll say it without breaking mine.

Madsen is a crank, and preys on the gullible and weak of mind.

If he's got your money or your attention - well, even the weak of mind can fill in that blank.

Madsen is a crank.

Not "ad hom", just a very obvious, observable fact.



Nobody called you a crank.

Would you like for somebody to call you a crank?

LOL!

There is no such thing as an Ad Hom attack in the discussion of logic. My use of ad hom is a reference to the Argumentum ad Hominem logical fallacy. One that I have not, to my knowledge commited. I tell you that Madsen is not a dependable source, and then back that up with reasons. An ad hom would be what you are doing here...changing the subject from Madsen's credibility to an attack against the person questioning it.

Specifically, this is the Ad Hom Tu Quque


You can read more about how to spot logical fallacies, including the argumentum ad hominem at this page:http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/



1. I didn't author any "Rules of Truth" - I have no idea what you are on about. Nor do I profess any "rules". I have identified, for your benefit, some commonly known logical fallacies...these are older than Jesus and not my invention.



2. You put this text in quotes, but I never said it.



That's not what I'm talking about, or what the usage of Ad Hom in logic means.



I'm not sure that's correct use of the term.
It would be fair to say that I am attacking Madsen's character. However, insulting as my asseriton may be, it is not used to back up a claim. It IS my claim.



http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

For a journalist, there is nothing more relevant than their reliability as a source. Madsen is unreliable. I have built a case based on observation and logic that one should not assume something is true because Madsen says it.

Your a lying, bullshitting, rationalizing Narcissistic Personality Disorder--Grandiose Type.


YOu called MADSEN A CRANK.


That is an ad hom attack.


Then you state the subject of your ad hom attack (calling someone a crank) was Madsen's credibility?


An attack on Madsen's credibility...is an attack on Madsen.


2+2= 4...yes?

Though misspelled, this is nonetheless a personal attack on a member.


Why EVER would someone called a lying, fraudulent, POS charlatan like Madsen something as milquetoast as a "crank?" I'll have to discuss that with Hamoth. After all, for many "crank" implies or carries with it the potential for some sort of mental disorder for which the subject may not be entirely responsible, and Madsen certainly should be held accountable.


It's also an observable fact.

Very good. Now work on the times tables.

1) Apparently.....you are the grand feudal king of "the discussion of logic"? And AD HOM attack is the collouqualized reference to "Argumentum ad Hominem logical fallacy" (QUOTING YOUR WORDS).

You understand the above?


2) Don't like Madsen...don't read it.


3) I didn't change the subject of your AD HOM ATTACK...you did. YOu said your ad hom attack was focusing on the subject of MADSEN'S CREDIBILTY.

I said, "an ad hom attack on Madsen's credibility" is an AD HOM ATTACK ON MADSEN.

IF YOU REFUSE TO ADMIT "that you committed a violation of your own bullshit reference to latin logical fallacy's of logic" then..............................I THINK I KNOW YOUR STUPID PUNK GAME--Never admit your wrong, when caught red handed.

Bravo shithead....you and Addington, Yoo, and Cheney would make a team of smoke machine bullshiters wasting your time, and everyone else's.

You've hoisted yourself...proving that YOU DON'T HAVE CREDIBILITY when you cannot admit "you made an ad hom attack on Madsen" that you tried to slip out of by claiming "you were focusing on the subject of Madsen's credibility"?

Good luck jerkoff....I got better things to do.



4) I'm impressed. You've ignored the admission of your own hypocrisy by clouding the issue with references to latinized words colloqualized as: ad hom attack.



5)


6)


7) You called Madsen a crank. I called you on using an AD HOM attack. Then you claimed you were focusing on the subject: MADSEN'S CREDIBILITY. Now you shift rationalizations claiming "...I am attacking Madsen's character...".


Well what exactly is "your consistent story" that you are sticking with?

You called him a crank....that is an AD HOM ATTACK on Madsen...his credibility and his character.



8) You've smugly refused to admit that you made an AD HOM ATTACK On MADSEN. Then you shifted your punk con claiming you were focusing on "MADSEN'S CREDIBILTY"....then you shifted your punk excuse claiming you were "attacking Madsen's character?


An AD HOM ATTACK is an ad hom attack...no?


Now you smugly trumpet your own hubris extoling the brilliant "case against Madsen" that amounts to your own subjective opinion.

Show Madsen's stories....and assertions...disproven by other sources from "valid MSM" stories or sources or "MSM stories with sources" that are not anonymous?


You've won a victory over yourself with a self serving, self deluded Narcissitic belief that you have saved a pathetic ego from my cany accusation that YOU MADE AN AD HOM ATTACK ON MADSEN, prior to ADMONISHING ANYONE FROM USING AD HOM ATTACKS as a logical fallacy.


NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDERS have a hard time making admissions against their ego's defensive grandiosity.


Good luck jerkoff...........................don't read Madsen.....don't read my posts.......and you can save a lot of time and psychic energy constructing more logical fallacies and delusions and rationalizations to somehow "tip your nose in the air" after successfully winning a debate while judging the debate for your own benefit.

This is the internet...not a NSC briefing in secure room.



Not good enough................move along little girl.



Don't read Madsen, if he is not good enough.


Don't comment on Madsen....if it's not good enough.


If it's all a lie....................why dispute it. The lie is so obvious to you.........why waste the energy?

Let me see if I can understand your own illogical fallacy:


1) You said "...it would be an ad hom if I said YOU [reference to thomasBean] were a crank."


2) Yet...you claim that when you said "Madsen is a crank" that is NOT AN AD HOM ATTACK?



If paragraph 1) is correct...then how come your statement "Madsen is a crank" is not an AD HOM attack?



You've lost the game.


YOu cannot admit defeat.


Nice try.


You have wasted my time...for the last time...little girl.

Probably not...Let my try: I think you are offended that I am being specific about context...and accusing me of having a big ego because a: It's easy, and b: it's a way to changethe subject...You again are employing an argumentum ad hominem. You dismiss my observations by attacking me.

I will further guess:
You also appear to feel that anyone who ups the knowledge in a debate is trying to be superior to you, or doing so for self-aggrandizing reasons. I would caution you against this kind of thinking...it will prevent you from ever being able to be told anything you don't already agree with.



But if I only read people I trusted and agreed with, I would be a much poorer man. I wont "shut up" to make you feel better.



Actually, I said no such thing. I showed you the definition of an ad hom argument which is fallacious and hinges on attacks that have nothing to do with the subject at hand...such as my ego. Were I the most egotistical bastard on earth, it would not make Madsen one ounce more or less correct.



So I either agree with you that I am a liar, or I am a liar?



You are thinking of "personal attack". Yes. I am making a personal attack on Madsen's credibility. However I am not basing an argument on that...Nor is Madsens credibility relevant.

I'll provide a few examples of what does and does not count as argumentum ad hominem:

Valid argument:
Bush said that the oil revenues would pay for the Iraq war and oil would be cheaper. Now he wants me to trust him regarding medicare? Fat chance.

(when it comes to matters of what bush promises, his own credibillity is central to the discussion)

Invalid argument:
You want me to trust Bush on medicare, but you are a shit head. Fat chance.

(when it comes to matters of what bush promises, a thrid parties character is irrelevant )

Further:
Valid Argument:
The weekly world news documented Bat-Boy's escape in detail, but the weekly world news was a joke paper that was published for entertainment purposes. Nothing in it was true.

Invalid Argument:
The weekly world new document Bat-Boy's escape in detail, but only an idiot like you would believe it.

There are even more examples on the page I gave you.



I would easily impeach both.



I see these as separate issues...all of which I have a position on.



No. That's what I've been trying to explain to you, but you seem a little freaked out.



Yeah, we have already done that dance a few times here.



You may have a hard time believing this, but the only reason I bother is to help out readers here. People like yourself who have this much indignation and passion shouldn't be taken advantage of by what I think are probably government directed distraction agents. They are like political flares - drawing heat away from the real targets. It's not about my ego...it's not about proving you or anyone else wrong...it's just me thinking for myself, expressing my conclusions, and getting a little closer all the time to that evasive thing called Truth.

You are not my adversary.

Once again...I didn't invent logic, nor do I claim that these are MY rules, MY arguments, or anything like this. It's an established field of study. I really wish this was taught in schools. I was WAY too long discovering the basics of formal logic myself.



An excellent question - well asked. I did provide you with material covering this...but I will repeat it from a different source so that you can see I'm not making this stuff up myself:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem <-- a really good page with lots of good info.

I am saying that as evidence, Madsen's article isn't trustworthy because he has been unreliable. When you dismiss my ARGUMENT with an attack on me, the context is lost since my reliability has nothing to do with Madsen's claims.




It's not a game to me. This is a discussion of real things, with real-world impacts.