5 ms·

You realize plausible deniability is part of tradecraft right? When conducted with any intelligence there will always appear to be a chance nefarious actions "

You realize plausible deniability is part of tradecraft right? When conducted with any intelligence there will always appear to be a chance nefarious actions "might not have been nefarious". Your odds of a correct judgment are better if you take into account the motives of the parties involved and how directly the inputs/outputs of the system align with said motives. Or do you think it's just a happy coincidence when a politician votes no on a bill the day after a lobbyist opposed to the bill makes a donation? Or one of President Xi's political opponents just goes on an extended and very silent vacation? Or a used car salesman being super friendly to you is just because he's a really friendly guy?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
croutonwagon 5y ago
Of course I do. I never said the bomb threat wasn't planned as a false flag, or that the timing wasnt done in a specific manner to ensure the flight was redirected to Minsk. Only that I have doubts that the pilots did NOT follow the proper protocols or were somehow involved in a conspiracy here. Commercial aviation is one of the few jobs where theres little tolerance for deviation of established protocols and checklists, especially in declared emergencies. And a lot of the routing decisions arent necessarily made by them. I understand some may find that offensive.. But it doesn't change my view on the matter. Nonetheless, i dont really see what is so controversial about stating it. It doesn't really excuse anything here....
- JshWright 5y ago
  I think you're overlooking the fact that the pilots were not the ones who chose to land at Minsk. The fighter jets "escorting" them make that decision for them.