171–180 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any indication that the pilots were aware of the military jet?
Are you for real? When a fighter jet intercepts you, you damn well know it. That's the whole point of fighter jets intercepting planes; they are impossible for pilots to ignore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a source for that? The official investigation concluded it was a mistake by poorly trained soldiers who thought they were downing a military An-26 plane. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
Sources are in Russian. Russian separatists told shortly after the incident: "В районе Тореза только что сбили самолет Ан-26, валяется где-то за шахтой Прогресс. Предупреждали же - не летать в "нашем небе". А вот и видео-подтверждение очередного "птичкопада". Птичка упала за террикон, жилой сектор не зацепила. Мирные люди не пострадали. А также еще есть информация о втором сбитом самолете, вроде бы Су", - говорится в…
An-26 is a military cargo plane, a legitimate target in their eyes. Why on earth would they shoot down neutral civilian airliners, of which there were many?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sources are in Russian. Russian separatists told shortly after the incident: "В районе Тореза только что сбили самолет Ан-26, валяется где-то за шахтой Прогресс. Предупреждали же - не летать в "нашем небе". А вот и видео-подтверждение очередного "птичкопада". Птичка упала за террикон, жилой сектор не зацепила. Мирные люди не пострадали. А также еще есть информация о втором сбитом самолете, вроде бы Су", - говорится в…
Also https://youtu.be/_rbzlMeGToI?t=83 the "Cossack" referred in other tapes as a unit commander to whom the battery belonged pretty much says "and so? fuck them, we'll say they are spies, it's war" It's surprising to see it being 7 years since, and there are still people from the West still dead convinced in finding "alternative facts." There is one, and only ground truth. A battery had an order to "shoot everything…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not uncommon in US for ATC to offer pilot options for diversion or emergency landing when pilot declares an emergency. Good controllers understand that pilot might be dealing with flying airplane and dealing with emergency (e.g. engine failure) and offering help with navigation. Of course, it is PIC responsibility to select the best option and communicate to ATC about it.
The radio exchange with Captain Sully is burned in my brain. Departure control (15:29:21): Cactus fifteen twenty nine turn right two eight zero, you can land runway one at Teterboro. [...] Sullenberger (15:29:25): We can’t do it. [...] Departure control (15:29:27): Kay which runway would you like at Teterboro? [...] Sullenberger (15:29:28): We’re gonna be in the Hudson. Departure control (15:29:33): I’m sorry say aga…
Not particularly.
"I intend to ditch into the Hudson River as we cannot reach an alternative airport" would have been clearer and avoided wasting time clarifying intentions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also https://youtu.be/_rbzlMeGToI?t=83 the "Cossack" referred in other tapes as a unit commander to whom the battery belonged pretty much says "and so? fuck them, we'll say they are spies, it's war" It's surprising to see it being 7 years since, and there are still people from the West still dead convinced in finding "alternative facts." There is one, and only ground truth. A battery had an order to "shoot everything…
What? Look at the transcript again, they're wondering why it's a civilian plane and not an An-26, and thinking of a way to deal with that...
There is no "alternative facts" there. An order to shoot everything that flies, and they did it.
There are hours, and hours of Ukrainian intercepts, probably listened by every Western intelligence agency 100 times over.
If that doesn't seal the deal, it's for people who fully willingly choosing to believe in a lie for sake of playing a cause celebre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot#:~:text=In%20poli....
Ukrainians blew their extremely valuable intercept source to bring this to attention of the world.
Now, seven year later, EU keeps soiling their pants, and still can't gather enough courage to point a finger on Russia. They are trying their hardest to pretend that they don't know what's going on.
Even if the shutdown was genuinely inadvertent, it would still be a cause for an immediate retaliation to any normal country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The radio exchange with Captain Sully is burned in my brain. Departure control (15:29:21): Cactus fifteen twenty nine turn right two eight zero, you can land runway one at Teterboro. [...] Sullenberger (15:29:25): We can’t do it. [...] Departure control (15:29:27): Kay which runway would you like at Teterboro? [...] Sullenberger (15:29:28): We’re gonna be in the Hudson. Departure control (15:29:33): I’m sorry say aga…
> Stone cold and matter-of-fact! Not particularly. "I intend to ditch into the Hudson River as we cannot reach an alternative airport" would have been clearer and avoided wasting time clarifying intentions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is asinine to compare the two situations. Greenwald is wrongly equating the two together for his puppeteers. 1) Snowden had already been charged at that point and was running from the law. Morales's plane was diverted because it was believed to be providing passage to a criminal. While I don't know what Snowden did was right or wrong, it is clear that Snowden broke laws. His intentions might have been good but he…
Even if you believe that there's little difference between Snowden and Protasevich, the scenarios are clearly different. Rescinding permission to transit is a far cry from falsely reporting a bomb threat, backing it up with military force, and then searching the plane and taking multiple passengers into custody as a condition of the plane's release.
Thought experiment: what could have been the immediate consequences of disregarding that rescindment and continuing with the flightplan as filed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're choosing an arbitrary standard to defend your narrative. "Protasevich broke laws, but these are not laws that we consider bad." I could also say that "being a whistleblower about a government agency violating the rights of millions of it's citizens" is something that Western democracies claim to protect, when it's not happening to themselves.
The denying permission vs kidnapping distinction does seem important though, regardless of motives doesn’t it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what you are doing ia astroturfing but just in case anyone believes this bullshit, there is zero doubt that a fighter jet went up and 'escorted' the plane. https://apnews.com/article/belarus-europe-edcf633281e3e9a55b... https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/05/belarus-journ... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-23/belarus-d... In case of any doubt left, here is an official sanction decision…
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
Estaseuropano should have read a news article rather than ask a useless (at best) question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely not usual. As for the pilot being suspicious, I agree. The plane was also only about 30 km (=2-3 min flying time) from the Lithuanian border. Imagine if the pilot had decided to make the attempt. A Belarusian MiG violating NATO airspace?
Russian airforces regularly violates NATO airspace in Norway. They never get any consequences for it, so why wouldn't they?