15 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Get it right first, huh? Only some times...

Hamas is such a reliable source though so you can’t fault NYT for that one 🙄

Damn how many nationalities were on this Fing plane? Netflix is jealous of the diversity here.

15 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

I guess there's still a crowd in here for Israel that really needs a bone to chew on. Chew away. hell, even Diehard slunk from the shadows.

It has nothing to do with "needing a bone to chew on”. It’s a very obvious agenda driven reporting happening, period.

No one in their right mind would report a hijacking of a plane as "an altercation happened”, or "two people engaged in a fight mid flight”.

If you were walking home from work one day, and someone jumped you and stabbed you multiple times, and then held you hostage while holding a bomb up, and then people around you subdued the attacker, you wouldn’t tell your friends and family that you "got into an altercation” on your way home from work. Nor would it be reported as such.

1 hour ago, dawkins4prez said:

Damned if you do and damned if you don't in reporting, I think you guys might be jumping the shark a bit. First reporting is allowed to be cautious in its wording until the facts come out.

Yeah I do think we need to let outlets have a couple hours to issue updates or clarifications. We can't complain about the social media age being the "death of journalism" by rushing in to report details which end up being erroneous, and then at the same time bash them for not jumping to some conclusions without waiting to confirm certain aspects. Even if they were 95% sure this was premeditated or related to terrorism, it's fair for them to leave that fact out until confirming it as 100%. Now if it's like a day or two later and they're still framing it as an altercation, that's obviously different.

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

yeaaaaah except for the fact that those same news outlets were running with "Israel Bombs hospital in Gaza!" after a HAMAS rocket landed in the parking lot of said hospital. Seems like this goes beyond "exercising caution"

Also, sure let's say we don't want to assume it's a terrorist attack until more facts come out about the suspect and his motives. Ok, well 1 pilot stabbing the other pilot and then trying to crash the plane is still NOT an example of "an altercation happening on the flight". And it's also very safe to say this was a "possible terrorist attack" at this point in time.

Even the WSJ had similar framing on this, though. I don't know if they ran with the Gaza hospital story but I'm not sure why you'd accuse them of a similar agenda.

52 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Not here for the political BS but it was a great story of heroism and a miracle they survived

That it is

16 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah I do think we need to let outlets have a couple hours to issue updates or clarifications. We can't complain about the social media age being the "death of journalism" by rushing in to report details which end up being erroneous, and then at the same time bash them for not jumping to some conclusions without waiting to confirm certain aspects. Even if they were 95% sure this was premeditated or related to terrorism, it's fair for them to leave that fact out until confirming it as 100%. Now if it's like a day or two later and they're still framing it as an altercation, that's obviously different.

The good thing about terrorist organizations is they are like Bond villains, they will totally relish in telling you the plot. So no need to get your panties in a bunch, if it was an organized terrorist attack they will take credit for it (multiple groups at once) before the news cycle is even over.

35 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

It’s a very obvious agenda driven reporting happening, period.

Again, bash the NYT all you want, they deserve it especially given their track record and overly defensive statement claiming only activists and partisans rush to judgement before confirming all the facts. But when the AFP, WSJ, BBC, Reuters, et al used similar phrasing as well, maybe it's not because of some obvious agenda but a genuine lack of information at the time. Hell, I even saw a screenshot of a fox news headline referring to it as a "fight in the cockpit" and I don't think anyone on planet Earth would ever accuse them of having a pro-muslim agenda that you're implying.

Here it is...

46 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

It has nothing to do with "needing a bone to chew on”. It’s a very obvious agenda driven reporting happening, period.

No one in their right mind would report a hijacking of a plane as "an altercation happened”, or "two people engaged in a fight mid flight”.

If you were walking home from work one day, and someone jumped you and stabbed you multiple times, and then held you hostage while holding a bomb up, and then people around you subdued the attacker, you wouldn’t tell your friends and family that you "got into an altercation” on your way home from work. Nor would it be reported as such.

Talk about a straw man. The facts so far is an Oman pilot stabbed the other pilot and tried to crash the plane. Anything else is speculation and would be irresponsible to report as fact.

1 minute ago, dawkins4prez said:

Talk about a straw man. The facts so far is an Oman pilot stabbed the other pilot and tried to crash the plane. Anything else is speculation and would be irresponsible to report as fact.

Yeah, who could say what the motive is for an Oman pilot trying to intentionally crash a plane full of Israelis? I saw a post here it might be postpartum depression. Don’t want to speculate.

4 minutes ago, paco said:

Yeah, who could say what the motive is for an Oman pilot trying to intentionally crash a plane full of Israelis? I saw a post here it might be postpartum depression. Don’t want to speculate.

The other pilot was Indian, so "he was just too f'ing annoying" is on the table

1 hour ago, dawkins4prez said:

Talk about a straw man. The facts so far is an Oman pilot stabbed the other pilot and tried to crash the plane. Anything else is speculation and would be irresponsible to report as fact.

On a scale of "completely out of the question, no way" and "yeah, that could possibly be it" where does the speculation of an Islamic terrorist tried to go back to their playbook of hijacking an airplane primarily full of Israelis and crash it killing everyone on board rank?

32 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

On a scale of "completely out of the question, no way" and "yeah, that could possibly be it" where does the speculation of an Islamic terrorist tried to go back to their playbook of hijacking an airplane primarily full of Israelis and crash it killing everyone on board rank?

Somewhere between probably to very probably. That's not the threshold for serious reporting to say it is. There's one fishy aspect to it and that's that apparently it was the co-pilot. Not passengers taking over the plane, the actual co-pilot of the airline with clearance and god knows how many hours of commercial service. That's a hell of an asset to burn with a box knife attack on a plane full of pilots.

So yeah, probably. But I'm sure we'll find out for sure soon enough.

What's Oman's deal again? I always kinda lumped them into the "Arabic but too rich to involve themselves in ME bullshít often" group.

1 minute ago, DEagle7 said:

What's Oman's deal again? I always kinda lumped them into the "Arabic but too rich to involve themselves in ME bullshít often" group.

Exactly, a neutral as anyone can be around there, throwing his nationality around like evidence is silly.

12 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Exactly, a neutral as anyone can be around there, throwing his nationality around like evidence is silly.

Meh I wasn't thinking about that. I was genuinely asking because I definitely know the least about them on the peninsula. Just a vague "UAE-lite" impression that could be totally wrong

2 hours ago, dawkins4prez said:

Talk about a straw man. The facts so far is an Oman pilot stabbed the other pilot and tried to crash the plane. Anything else is speculation and would be irresponsible to report as fact.

Right, so the Oman pilot hijacked the plane and tried to crash it into the ground, but thankfully the passengers on board were able to overtake him and prevent the plane from crashing. It’s not irresponsible nor speculation to say that this was a hijacked plane situation with the intention to crash the plane. A little more involved than "there was an altercation onboard”.

A person hallucinating and thinking they see a ghost on the plane and having to be subdued by the crew and forcing the plane to land at the nearest airport to get the looney toon off the flight is an example of there being an "altercation onboard”

1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:

"Israeli child interupts Muslim prayer in plane cockpit” is how the NYT is framing it.

20 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

"Israeli child interupts Muslim prayer in plane cockpit” is how the NYT is framing it.

No organization has taken credit yet. That's odd, especially if we are talking about a deep sleeper type agent.