What about the claim that there was a bomb on that plane? From what I have read there was an email sent from a protonmail account and was talking about the Israel/Hamas situation.
Are there any developments in that field?
Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
81–90 of 207 posts
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every time someone makes this comparison all it does is strengthen Lukashenko and Putin's propaganda machine. It doesn't help Protasevich, it doesn't help Snowden, and it doesn't create room for any positive political change.
You are assuming there is a neutral third party. Yes, the comparison does strengthen Putin's propaganda machine. But not mentioning it strengthens the US propaganda machine. You are picking sides either way.
Not mentioning it does nothing. The US propaganda machine is not hurt in any way by mentioning it. It happened nearly a decade ago and is not really a similar situation in any way except that it involved a plane.
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t get why comments mentioning the forced landing of Morales’ plane in Austria, and searching for Snowden in the plane (under Obama) get downvoted. US/EU made a precedent and now everyone is surprised when Lukashenko simply copied their tactics.
It's now flagged. A comment saying that the forced landing of the President of Bolvia's plane in Austria, due to the US belief that Snowdon was on board, could be somehow relevant to the forced landing of a Ryanair flight in Belarus of someone the government believes is damaging them. Free speech in action...
There was no such forced landing, the plane had enough fuel to return to its departure airport.
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#84This is the most interesting part for me: PILOT ASKS FOR FURTHER DETAILS Pilot: Again, this recommendation to divert to Minsk where did it come from? Where did it come from? Company? Did it come from departure airport authorities or arrival airport authorities? There he was on the right track to do what we always recommend to avoid being fished: Independently verify from the original source. Controller: This is our r…
Wasn't this "recommendation" accompanied by a fighter jet? That isn't exact a Milgram scenario.
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#85> Pilot: Again, this recommendation to divert to Minsk where did it come from? Where did it come from? Company? Did it come from departure airport authorities or arrival airport authorities? Is it usual for a pilot to ask for all this information? From a "casual reader" perspective, it looks like the pilot really did not want to divert, but this might just be my reading.
Not an airline pilot, but I am a private pilot. Yes, I think it's normal to ask for more information while complying with instructions from ATC, [their] workload permitting. And you're required to comply with ATC instructions except in an emergency (doesn't necessarily have to be declared).
You’re required to follow ATC instruction, yes, but usually in order to avoid other traffic and sequencing, not anything more.
I mean, as a driver you’re required to obey traffic lights, but they would not normally impose a destination on you.
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#86> Pilot: Again, this recommendation to divert to Minsk where did it come from? Where did it come from? Company? Did it come from departure airport authorities or arrival airport authorities? Is it usual for a pilot to ask for all this information? From a "casual reader" perspective, it looks like the pilot really did not want to divert, but this might just be my reading.
Anecdotal but Ryanair also really really don’t want to be diverting.
I remember circling an airport for 2 hours with them waiting for very heavy snow to be cleared for a runway! Eventually they diverted.
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> the forced landing of Morales’ plane in Austria, and searching for Snowden in the plane I hadn't heard about that. Any good references? Edit: Found it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
A better one https://greenwald.substack.com/p/as-anger-toward-belarus-mou...
If it's better then use it to improve the wikipedia entry, unless you run into NPOV issues.
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is an enormous leap between "violating airspace" and "shooting down a passenger plane while violating airspace"
The Russians, via their proxies in Ukraine, blew up an airliner a few years back.
But only through carelessness. They thought they were shooting at a Ukrainian military transport plane.
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t get why comments mentioning the forced landing of Morales’ plane in Austria, and searching for Snowden in the plane (under Obama) get downvoted. US/EU made a precedent and now everyone is surprised when Lukashenko simply copied their tactics.
It's not analogous. The Morales incident was wrong, but not the same. Firstly, Morales' plane wasn't a civilian airliner, it was his government's private jet. Secondly, no fake bomb threat was involved. Thirdly, nobody was arrested. And it's now being employed as a "whatabout" distortion by those sympathetic to (or uncritical of) the Belarusian action. The two incidents differ drastically. Actions of a state against…
I don't believe those making the analogy are sympathetic to or uncritical of the Belarus government, rather they are saying "I told you so" or "the Morales incident set a precedent, surprise!". Now, Belarus might have pulled this stunt even if the Morales incident had never happened, and that's a fine counterpoint, but you really should not ascribe malice to those who point to the similarities in the two incidents because it's clearly not [always] the case. Should I ascribe malice to your ascribing malice? Please be polite.
> Actions of a state against another state's leaders is one thing. Actions against civilian aircraft is another thing entirely.
Wars have been fought over both, attacks on state ships, and attacks on civilian ships. Both are casus belli. Attacks on ships carrying heads of state are particularly problematic absent war, so technically the Morales incident was the worse one, yes (though, of course, if he'd been carrying Snowden then that would in itself have been casus belli), but that does not excuse attacks on civilians.
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#90This is actually a good development. A number of countries purporting to hold the highest standards on human rights were actually the ones to use this tactic of diverting flights to apprehended those they deemed to be their enemies. I am referring to the United States and EU countries in the Snowden case and other cases before that. They lowered the bar first. Now Belarus joined to the new level. It’ll be interesting…
I don’t get why comments mentioning the forced landing of Morales’ plane in Austria, and searching for Snowden in the plane (under Obama) get downvoted. US/EU made a precedent and now everyone is surprised when Lukashenko simply copied their tactics.
Because most of those comments are of the form "the US did this once, so why is everyone upset about Belarus doing this?" as if trying to point out some hypocrisy, or defend Belarus. (I can't read the original comment now since it's flagged, so maybe it's not such a comment.)
Which presupposes that the readers are "supporters" of either the US/EU or Belarus/Russia. As if geopolitical conversations are sports matches, and nuanced observations based on dispassionate logical thought and not political or national affiliation are not possible. Gag me with a spoon.
At best, these comments derail the conversation. At worst, they are trolling or borderline nationalist propaganda. Either way they drag down the quality of discussion here on HN.
Pointing out that the US's earlier actions gave Belarus cover to "justify" such actions is at least mildly interesting as dispassionate geopolitical conversation, but that's not what most of these comments are.