I could have, and still you on the previous page (page 47) didn't accept that it was a partial transcript - and claimed that the gaps were normal.
We still don't know what else is missing, and if the plane has a recording whether/when it will be made available; but we do know that Belarus hijacked a plane flying between two EU-countries and that additional sanctions were added again.
I'm sure a decade of civil war, a crippling socio economical situation, zero improvements on issues like corruption and management and finally the introduction of extreme right wing groups and paramilitary groups in everyday politics are all good indications that the place is fucked up.
Exactly - we still don't have any alternative transcript to show that the one provided by Belarus is partial or that skipped parts, if any, are changing anything substantial.
Speculating about it can be fun, but you're going from predetermined conclusion and trying to imagine how it could be justified by missing parts.
Who did RyanAir contact on given frequency after it was provided to them? Was that even right frequency to begin with?
- - - Updated - - -
Reuters - Ryanair: Belarusian airspace ban is not a long-term solution
LONDON, June 15 (Reuters) - Ryanair (RYA.I) does not support a ban on Belarusian airspace in the long term, its chief executive said on Tuesday and called on international authorities to secure assurances from the country that there would be no repeat of last month's forced landing.
Belarus scrambled a warplane to force a Ryanair flight to land in Minsk on May 23. The plane was carrying an opposition journalist who was then arrested, prompting punitive measures against Belarus in response.
Belarusian carriers are now banned from flying over European Union and UK territory, while EU and British authorities issued a safety directive saying their aircraft should avoid Belarusian air space unless in an emergency.
Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary told a British parliamentary committee that while he supported those measures, the aviation industry depended in the long term on unrestricted access to all airspace and that this must be restored.
"We need to have an outcome where the European and the UK authorities, hopefully assisted by international partners, receive appropriate assurances from the Belarusian, and or Russian authorities, that this will never happen again," he said.
Short-term sanctions were necessary to deter other states from copycat behaviour, he added, but in the long term the politicisation of airspace was not the answer as it would hurt the aviation industry and international connectivity.
"The freedom to overfly states is something that we have perhaps taken for granted for the last 70-80 years," O'Leary told the lawmakers. "We must restore it as quickly as possible."
The United Nations' International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is investigating the forced-landing incident and due to report back in two weeks.
Last edited by Shalcker; 2021-06-17 at 08:52 AM.
hey shackler who poisoned the skripals and who shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17?
Strange question to ask since west has never provided any evidence for their claims.
And why are u hiding the skripals, let them talk to media so they can explain why its hidden what substance, n if chemical WMD how they miracolously don't die from it? Oh don't leave out navalny, he is immune to chem WMDs as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison..._Yulia_Skripal
I'd take guess at incompetence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison..._Yulia_Skripal
https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/ne...united-kingdom
OPCW confirmed the UK analysis that it was Novichok. Why didn't they die from it?
The Skripals' survival was possibly due to the weather – there had been heavy fog and high humidity, and according to its inventor and other scientists, moisture weakens the potency of this type of toxin.
I specifically said present the evidence, not claim you have evidence, is it difficult to understand?
Imagine in a court of law where the judge demands evidence n the prosecution says "we claim we have it, that is evidence in our eyes!"
Last edited by Ihavewaffles; 2021-06-18 at 07:30 PM.
So I need like...a test sample at my home? Or is the conclusion of multiple different agencies at different countries, including international agencies, not "evidence"?
What counts as evidence other than, "Literally having some of the Novichok used to poisoned the Skripals"?
You really need it explained to you to showcase said evidence? Imagine standing in front of a judge n "but why do I have to show evidence!"
As for allegedly showing something to allies n they surprisingly agree. What a shocker.
evidence /ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
noun
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.Didn't they say it could only come from Russia? Then Czech rep admitted they possessed it too, n then others followed suit.claim /kleɪm/
state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
When did the politics forum of MMOC become a court?
Also, expert witness testimony is accepted as evidence, including reports like this that conclude it was Novichok.
So did the OPCW.
Yeah, just ignore that there were Russian spies identified as the ones who likely brought it in.
I mean, if we're just ignoring reality, ignoring evidence, ignoring context, and choosing to believe a fictional reality that's fine dude. Just don't get upset when people point out that your headcanon doesn't hold much weight.
You could write any sort of report. You are just going back to making claims again........
I'm still looking for evidence, not claim, I explained the two words above quite clearly
At least before we got an absurd show of nonsense, now just claims
"Expert witnesses and reports don't count because I say so!"
Ok, buddy. FYI, courts routinely accept expert witness testimony and official reports as evidence.
Again, like what? Should I have some of that Novichok at my house just chilling in the fridge?
"Here's an example of a huge lie that was sold, so because they fabricated evidence in reports for this lie literally all reports can't be believed anymore. Also, because it's terribly inconvenient to my argument!"
Ok, buddy.