Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/598356
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 8 NOVEMBER 2015 24 W e can, I suppose, be reasonably certain it isn't Superman. It is, after all, rather difficult for DC comics superheroes to actually be spotted 'up there, in the sky', when we all know they don't exist. So whatever it is you saw, travelling 'faster than a speeding bullet' (which incidentally also rules out the 'bird' hypothesis…) we can safely eliminate Clark Kent's alter-ego from our list of suspects. But that, I fear, is the extent of our certainty in the matter. Any matter. It doesn't have to actually involve unidentified flying objects in fancy blue and red costumes. Even much more pertinent, relevant questions are becoming increasingly difficult to answer, in a world where the 'truth' seems to vary according to different interests and perspectives. Take, for instance, a question like: what caused the Russian air disaster in the Sinai peninsula on 31 October? Was it an accident, or a terrorist attack? Given that over 200 people died in the tragedy, and that their grieving families have a right to know the truth… not to mention all the safety/ security implications for both scenarios… I'd say that's a rather important question to answer. And on the surface, it seems a fairly straightforward choice between two factual possibilities. Either there was a bomb on the plane – as claimed by ISIS, which took responsibility for the attack – or there wasn't. No other option, really. Logic therefore dictates that one should await the emergence of evidence – which, in plane crash investigations, tends to eventually come to light – before venturing an entirely useless opinion about what 'might have happened'. But then again, logic only comes into the equation if you really are interested in establishing the truth. Judging by media reports, this isn't always the case. Here, for instance, is an excerpt from a Reuters report on reactions by world leaders: "British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Thursday it was increasingly likely a bomb brought down a Russian airliner over Egypt with the loss of 224 lives, and U.S. President Barack Obama said Washington was taking that possibility 'very seriously'. "But Moscow, which launched air strikes against Islamist fighters including Islamic State in Syria more than a month ago, said it was premature to reach conclusions that the flight was attacked…" Separately, the airline itself has already excluded the bomb hypothesis out of hand: "[Metrojet] 'absolutely' excludes technical failure, pilot error or 'a human factor' as the cause of the crash. The company did not provide any evidence to support those statements." Elsewhere, the widow of one of the co-pilots has also claimed that, "her husband had complained about the mechanical condition of the plane… [and] said before the flight that the 'technical condition of the airplane left much to be desired'." Incidentally, not a jot of evidence has so far been brought forward in support of any of these claims. OK, something must also be said for the 'balance of probabilities' argument; that, while neither 'bomb' nor 'accident' theory can be proven at this stage, both are possibilities worth studying in their own right. The problem is, both seem equally plausible. I have never flown on a Russian airline, and for all I know they might be the best in the world. But back in the day, the name 'Aeroflot' doubled up as a standard aviation industry joke… much in the same way as 'Skoda' did for cars. Perhaps it was a Cold War era prejudice (I've never driven a Skoda, either)… but it gives you an idea of how Russian safety standards in transport technology are perceived on a global level. You cannot (as Metrojet did) realistically exclude the possibility of 'technical' or 'human error'. I would argue you never can in any scenario, anyway… and in this one least of all. As for terrorism: we live in an age when any form of atrocity, on any scale, against any target, has become perfectly conceivable. So yes, of course, like Obama we all take that possibility 'very seriously', too. But we are still no nearer to establishing what happened. All we now know with any certainty is how each (involved) spectator would like things to have Opinion Raphael Vassallo For trade enquiries phone 2138 2741 INGA BOISSEVAIN'S NOVEL AT ALL LEADING STATIONERS Is it a bird? A plane? Well, that