KGB Hijacks Flight to Arrest Journalist.

[Shalcker]

Imo this is the kind of thing I can support a war over. You let this happen once. It's only going to get worse

It is only going to get worse either way.

[alkyd]

The plane was hijacked by the Belarusian dictator.

Plot twist: the pilot in command is the dictator's nephew.

[Gorsameth]

Agreed. At some point the world needs to take a harder stand on these kinds of actions. Sadly, it doesn’t seem likely in the next 20 years.

The problem is what is that harsher stance supposed to be?
A military invasion? That leads to the question if we are willing to go to war with Russia when they rush in to 'protect' the Russian population.
They are already under sanctions I believe. More sanctions would hit the ordinary people and has there ever been an authoritarian regime that disbanded and made way for a new Democracy just because of sanctions? Nor are people likely to violently rise up as a response.

[Theodarzna]

Imo this is the kind of thing I can support a war over. You let this happen once. It's only going to get worse

As has been established, this isn't the first time its happened, various western powers did this to a plane that had a foreign countries head of state on it in hopes of rounding up Edward Snowden and kidnapping him to whatever detention facility they had ready for him.

So, I mean if forcing down a plane with a head of state wasn't a war starting event, why would this be? Unless this specific journalist was someone of specific value to NATO, and the United States. What was he a spook?

[postman1782]

When a bomb threat is made against an aircraft that is already airborne, a hijacking cannot be ruled out either. In the case of RyanAir when they decided to land in Minsk, fighter jets were sent to escort it in order to avoid another 9/11. Any country would have done the same.

Yeah, make excuses for a fucking murderous dictator.

[Slant]

Imo this is the kind of thing I can support a war over. You let this happen once. It's only going to get worse

Nobody got hurt except that Belarussian dude. Let's not get carried away here...

- - - Updated - - -

The people who lied about the bomb sent the jets. Stop making up bullshit.

I like it how he's now just making shit up in a fantasy scenario just to keep his argument alive... 1. Now Belarus is concerned about a hijacking, trying to appropriate yesterday's headlines for their own argument? 2. RyanAir decided to land? More like, they decided to comply with ATC instructions and a fighter jet showing up next to them. 3. Fighter jets were sent in order to avoid a 9/11? You know the one successful terror attack using airplanes that didn't involve bombs?

As I said yesterday, if they would at least research the stuff they bring up a little bit... this isn't even challenging.

[Corvus]

Its good to know that the Russian now have no problems with all of their agents with warrants out for them can have their planes hijacked and have them arrested whenever anyone else wants to do so.

[Shalcker]

Apparently, one of people who got off at Minsk was Greek who otherwise had flight to Minsk from Vilnus (to visit his wife).

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/24/w...e=articleShare

[Forogil]

Okay, so i went straight to the source - Telegram Channel pul_1.

It doesn't matter what source you look at since you ignore the important parts:

1. The ATC told the plane to divert; according to the transcript.
2. The transcript state that Belarus claimed that the bomb threat was sent to multiple airports, but earlier prevaricated whether it was sent to the relevant ones (Athens and Vilnius), these other airports haven't been reported before because it is such an obvious lie to cover this hijacking.

And this makes it obvious that not only were the ATC in Belarus reporting a bomb threat that was false - but also that they knew it was false threat - because they fudge around with the truth exactly as someone who is lying themselves.

Note that the time-stamps are for articles from the Belarussian state news agency; https://eng.belta.by/

There are no threats, and Mig-29 isn't mentioned anywhere, so i guess it indeed went up after plane already prepared to turn.

Except that we have an incomplete transcript so if something isn't mentioned it can be because Belarus is hiding it (e.g., "we have contact..."), and it could be that the pilot saw the fighter jet and that visual indication isn't included directly.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody got hurt except that Belarussian dude. Let's not get carried away here...

Well, and dude and dudette. His girlfriend was also arrested. But still we shouldn't get carried away.

[Slant]

Well, and dude and dudette. His girlfriend was also arrested. But still we shouldn't get carried away.

Arrested, but I suspect not harmed for a lack of evidence. The little drill bit mark on his forehead seems like there may have been something physical happening to him. It would be in line with Soviet-style authoritarian regimes to... uh, encourage "confessions" with torture.

God knows why they do it, everyone knows it's a lie. And they know we know it. It's so weird why they strive to maintain some sort of moral justificaton for what they do when everyone sees them for what they are.

[Slant]

Stop with conspiracy theories. Yes, bomb threat was bogus. No, fighter jet was not involved. It was only sent AFTER plane has changed course to Minsk.

The fuck you on about .. that is what happens when an airliner follows ATC instructions. How fast do you think a mig 29 is?

[TEHPALLYTANK]

But it wasn't the first time it happened though. And probably not the last time.

I've not been paying much attention to Belarus over the past few decades, can you cite an example of another time that a Belarusian dictator used a terrorist threat to force an international flight to land?

[Shalcker]

It doesn't matter what source you look at since you ignore the important parts:

1. The ATC told the plane to divert; according to the transcript.

I noted that. Stop talking with voices in your head and try reading what i actually say.

2. The transcript state that Belarus claimed that the bomb threat was sent to multiple airports, but earlier prevaricated whether it was sent to the relevant ones (Athens and Vilnius), these other airports haven't been reported before because it is such an obvious lie to cover this hijacking.

They are saying email was shared with other airports, not that it was sent to multiple airports in the first place.

No, they most likely sent that message from protonmail to themselves then forwarded it to others.

They don't "prevaricate earlier" as it's basically their third line after first few of "(our) security services got info about bomb".
They are asked by pilot if that info came from Vilnus or Athens; they simply respond that it came from airport security. The implications are clearly that it comes from their airport security.

And this makes it obvious that not only were the ATC in Belarus reporting a bomb threat that was false - but also that they knew it was false threat - because they fudge around with the truth exactly as someone who is lying themselves.

No, they are clearly talking with security guys right there - there are plenty of delays where they are asked something by pilots and they ask for standby before coming back with answer. Clearly ATC guys are not prosecutors questioning suspects - they ask, they get answer, they relay it.

Just like in Ukrainian case the guy talking to plane was clearly from security services rather then ATC - breaking protocol by talking in Russian instead of English and all.

Note that the time-stamps are for articles from the Belarussian state news agency; https://eng.belta.by/

I'm not sure which article or part of site do you want me to check out there; there doesn't seem to be any way to view how timestamps went in previous days.

Pul_1 is clearly much closer to "official stance" then Belta.

[Slant]

Apparently, one of people who got off at Minsk was Greek who otherwise had flight to Minsk from Vilnus (to visit his wife).

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/24/w...e=articleShare

Ρωσικές νύφες ταχυδρομικής παραγγελίας . gr

[alkyd]

I've not been paying much attention to Belarus over the past few decades, can you cite an example of another time that a Belarusian dictator used a terrorist threat to force an international flight to land?

It was his first time though. I meant in general around the world, this is not the first incident of this kind and not the last.

[Slant]

It was his first time though. I meant in general around the world, this is not the first incident of this kind and not the last.

Still doesn't excuse it, from any nation. Breaking ICAO rules is a big no-no.

[Forogil]

They are saying email was shared with other airports, not that it was sent to multiple airports in the first place.

You are still covering for a number of lies by the terrorist regime in Belarus that hijacked a plane just passing through their territory flying between two EU airports.

The transcript says:

ATC: RYR 1TZ airport security stuff informed they received e-mail.
Pilot: Roger, Vilnius airport security stuff or from Greece?
ATC: RYR 1TZ this e-mail was shared to several airports.

That means that the pilot asked if the threat was sent to Vilnius or Athens.
Belarus ATC doesn't go with the official lie that it was received by Minsk as it would be too obvious.
Instead Belarus ATC says it was "shared to several airports", where the pilot interprets "shared" as sent by the threating party to the relevant airports and others.

Note that we still haven't seen this alleged e-mail; neither from Minsk nor from the "several airports" it was allegedly shared with.

They are asked by pilot if that info came from Vilnus or Athens; they simply respond that it came from airport security. The implications are clearly that it comes from their airport security.

That's a bald-faced lie. The pilot assumed it was from airport security staff in Vilnius or Greece, and the ATC said "several airports" which in no way implies it was from their airport security.

- - - Updated - - -

God knows why they do it, everyone knows it's a lie. And they know we know it. It's so weird why they strive to maintain some sort of moral justificaton for what they do when everyone sees them for what they are.

The point isn't to make people believe the lies, but to make people distrust the truth - or think that it's perfectly normal by false equivalences.

That's why they don't care about presenting multiple contradictory lies, as the goal isn't to spread any particular lie, but to suppress the truth: That Belarus hijacked a civilian plane merely passing through their territory.

[Shalcker]

You are till covering for a number of lies by Belarus.

I'm not covering anything, i'm just matching known facts as they appear.

The transcript says:

ATC: RYR 1TZ airport security stuff informed they received e-mail.
Pilot: Roger, Vilnius airport security stuff or from Greece?
ATC: RYR 1TZ this e-mail was shared to several airports.

That means that the pilot asked if the threat was sent to Vilnius or Athens.

As far as i see pilot asks which airport security staff sent out this notification, not which airport received it.

Belarus ATC doesn't go with the official lie that it was received by Minsk as it would be too obvious.

That implies there had to be any kind of "official lie" at this point and dispatcher was "in" on entire thing; which is unnecessary.

The guy from security came to dispatcher, said "we got email there might be bomb on that plane, relay it to them and ask them to land here" - that's enough.

He wouldn't need to take "standby" breaks if he had a script prepared.

Instead Belarus ATC says it was "shared to several airports", where the pilot interprets "shared" as sent by the threating party to the relevant airports and others.

Should probably ask pilot about that; how he interprets it is irrelevant however as pilot asks for other things to ascertain his course of action.

Note that we still haven't seen this alleged e-mail; neither from Minsk nor from the "several airports" it was allegedly shared with.

As far as i understand they did read it on press-conference, and they apparently said it came from protonmail.

That's a bald-faced lie. The pilot assumed it was from airport security staff in Vilnius or Greece, and the ATC said "several airports" which in no way implies it was from their airport security.

On what basis are you making assumptions for pilot here?

I'm talking about what they actually said, and how it can be naturally interpreted given the question. He given them two options and they pretty clearly indicated "neither".

And then reiterated that it's them later on "who recommends that".

[Slant]

I'm not covering anything, i'm just matching known facts as they appear.

You're straight up making up shit is what you're doing.

[Shalcker]

You're straight up making up shit is what you're doing.

Nope, i'm operating from what i have available.

Some of which is "made up shit" (as it happens in developing situations - just like "they threatened plane with fighter jet" assumption we've seen here), some later proves to be true, and some gets clarified in unexpected ways.