Columbia turns back deportation flights

[CdnFox]

Just now, User said:

You can't be this dumb or dishonest. You can't. 

If he withdrew authorization, there had to be authorization to withdraw. 

Pay attention, i'll go slowly for you. 

American military flights are allowed to land in columbia in general.   Just like american citizens are allowed to cross the border into canada in general. 

But that does not mean a specific flight is authorized.  If that specific flight is doing something that is not authorized then that specific flight is not allowed. Just like if an american is bringing something illegal across the border that specific person may not be authorized to cross even tho americans in general are. 

So if an american citizen wanted to bring something that MIGHT be illegal or rejected at the border across, then they would be wise to contact canada first and get permission.

America changed its policy and decided to start using military flights to move deportees whereas previously that had been illegal. THEY DID NOT CHOOSE TO ADVISE OR CLEAR THIS ACTIVITY WITH COLUMBIA BEFORE THE FLIGHT OR ADVISE THEM THIS WOULD BE HAPPENING. 

As a result, due to misunderstanding about how the people were being treated, the flight was turned back.  Just like a person attempting to bring something unauthorized into canada would be turned back, even tho americans generally speaking are allowed. 

AFTER THAT they said no more military flights at all. 

That is what happened. 

Had the Americans used their brains and contacted Columbia first and said hey we are now using military aircraft to transport deportees and we expect a flight to be traveling to your Airport in a few days, then Columbia could have written back and said well we have some concerns with that, can you assure us our people are not being mistreated on these flights? And America could have said yes we can offer those guarantees. And none of this would have happened.

But they did not. They did not contact columbia prior to the flight and get authorization for this specific activity or flight.

 

Do you have that through your teeny tiny little brain yet? Or do I have to go get a box of crayons to draw this out for you

[Black Dog]

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

The guy who's averaging about three lost arguments A day posts this   hell you're losing to betsy, i wouldn't be throwing any stones kiddo  

[Black Dog]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The guy who's averaging about three lost arguments A day posts this   hell you're losing to betsy, i wouldn't be throwing any stones kiddo  

The only one losing to betsy is the poor nurse who has to change her adult diaper.

But I knew you couldn't let a post of mine pass without replying because you're obsessssssed.

[User]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Pay attention, i'll go slowly for you. 

No, once again, you just prove what an incompetent liar you are.

You claim:

"American military flights are allowed to land in columbia in general. "

Then you say:

"America changed its policy and decided to start using military flights to move deportees whereas previously that had been illegal. THEY DID NOT CHOOSE TO ADVISE OR CLEAR THIS ACTIVITY WITH COLUMBIA BEFORE THE FLIGHT OR ADVISE THEM THIS WOULD BE HAPPENING. "

So... which is it? Were military flights allowed or was it something new that was not approved of?

And again... what do you base any of this bullshit on? Where do you get these flights were not advised or cleared ahead of time?

You keep asserting this and running away from answering what you base it on. 

Just keep being the pathetic liar you are. 

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, User said:

No, once again, you just prove what an incompetent liar you are.

You claim:

"American military flights are allowed to land in columbia in general. "

Then you say:

"America changed its policy and decided to start using military flights to move deportees whereas previously that had been illegal. THEY DID NOT CHOOSE TO ADVISE OR CLEAR THIS ACTIVITY WITH COLUMBIA BEFORE THE FLIGHT OR ADVISE THEM THIS WOULD BE HAPPENING. "

So... which is it? Were military flights allowed or was it something new that was not approved of?

 

It absolutely amazes me that you can actually be this stupid. So crayons it is. 

Both are true.

Generally speaking American Military flights can  land in Colombia. That is a true thing. Provided they file a flight plan they are allowed to do so

That does not mean they can do anything they want. For example they would not be allowed to bring in tons of cocaine to distribute to Colombian citizens. They would not be allowed to land and dump garbage all over the runway and take off. They would not be allowed to disembark a plane load of people infected with bubonic plague.

Therefore it is also true that while they can generally operate and land in Columbia, there are some things that they are not allowed to do specifically

How do you not get this? How can you possibly not understand that while they are generally allowed to do something specifically they are not. As a licensed driver I am generally speaking allowed to operate my vehicle on public roads. However, that doesn't mean I can carry illegal contraband or wild animals or escaped felons or anything like that in the vehicle.

Do you get this yet?

So can us aircraft land in columbia generally? Yes. 

Do they need permission to do some activities specifically? Yes.

Did they reach out to discuss this new activity prior to commencing it to see if it was allowed?  No 

Did that cause  problems? Yes. 

Could the problems have been avoided with communicating and getting authorization to ship deportees by military aircraft which previously had not been allowed? absolutely 

Hopefully that answers the rest of your questions. Pls find a gradeschooler to explain it to you. 

 

[Five of swords]

On 1/26/2025 at 7:39 PM, Aristides said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/colombia-turns-away-deportation-flights-rcna189335

What an arrogant, ignorant, dumbshit. You would think he would clear it with another country before trying to dump undocumented people on them. 

Trump seems intent destroying any credibility the US has left.

The usa should simply release its most dangerous criminals and smuggle them into columbia.

[User]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Hopefully that answers the rest of your questions. Pls find a gradeschooler to explain it to you. 

LOL, I had no idea you could be this much of a pathological liar... so, here you are. Lets see you spin your way out of accepting reality this time. 

"The feud began early Sunday over the US miliary flights carrying deportees to Colombia. Documents reviewed by CNN show Colombia had previously approved the flights, though Colombian President Gustavo Petro disputed he had authorized them – and US officials claim the authorization was revoked once the planes were en route."

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/26/politics/colombia-tariffs-trump-deportation-flights/index.html

So, once again liar, what do you base any of your assertions on?

 

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, User said:

LOL, I had no idea you could be this much of a pathological liar... so, here you are. Lets see you spin your way out of accepting reality this time. 

 

I had no idea you could be such a left-wing piece of shit and yet here we are. This is as simple as it gets. At no time did the united states contact Colombia and say we are flying a buttload of prisoners down on a military flight which we have never done before. Are you okay with that?

Never happened. So everything else you say is wrong and normally we don't see this kind of self-delusion coming from anybody but the left. Congratulations you are now Kamala Harris level stupid

 

Quote

"The feud began early Sunday over the US miliary flights carrying deportees to Colombia. Documents reviewed by CNN show Colombia had previously approved the flights, though Colombian President Gustavo Petro disputed he had authorized them

That sounds like a flight plan. So they filed a flight plan and when the Colombians found out what they were hauling they canceled the authorization.

So again, for the 15th billion time, uS military planes are allowed to fly and land in Columbia. But if it is discovered they are doing something that is not authorized in Columbia then that changes.

What they needed to do is go and say hey we're bringing a bunch of prisoners back on a military flight just so you know are you guys okay with that. Because historically that wasn't allowed and wasn't you as policy.

It's like if you file the flight plans to go land an airport And then it was discovered you were hauling nuclear weapons, the government might very well turn around and say the flight isn't a problem but your cargo is.

I have absolutely no doubt that they filed a flight plan. Even when they're flying within the united states they file flight plans. When I was a pilot I filed flight plans all the time. That does not mean that the activity that they were doing was authorized or that it had been discussed beforehand

All the flight plan says is hey, we're taking off at 11:00 from this airport and we intend to land at your airport at 12:00 and this is what type of plane we are etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with going to the government beforehand and saying listen it's our intention to begin shipping Deportees to your country using military aircraft.

 

 

Do you get it now? The actual flight can be authorized but the activity that's happening can be unauthorized. 

 

Honestly if my dog was as dumb as you I'd shoot it out of sympathy

 

 

[User]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I had no idea you could be such a left-wing piece of shit and yet here we are. This is as simple as it gets. At no time did the united states contact Colombia and say we are flying a buttload of prisoners down on a military flight which we have never done before. Are you okay with that?

You keep claiming this and have produced NOTHING to back it up. 

I have provided 2 sources which show otherwise. Logic and common sense say this is absurd on its face. 

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That sounds like a flight plan. So they filed a flight plan and when the Colombians found out what they were hauling they canceled the authorization.

LOL... yes, America had the authorization to fly down, and it was canceled after they had already taken off, just as I have been saying. 

We did not just decide to fly planes down there hoping that they could land without talking to anyone. 

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So again, for the 15th billion time, uS military planes are allowed to fly and land in Columbia. But if it is discovered they are doing something that is not authorized in Columbia then that changes.

That is not what happened. Any other things you want to fabricate and continue to prove what a sad pathetic liar you are?

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Black Dog said:

The only one losing to betsy is the poor nurse who has to change her adult diaper.

 

You and your weird fantasies again  

I take it that makes you the diaper?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, User said:

You keep claiming this and have produced NOTHING to back it up. 

 

That's because you can't prove a negative. What kind of proof would you like that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist?

Here's what I said. I said that they should have confirmed what they were doing with the columbans and gotten approval to do it first and then this wouldn't be a problem. 

YOU are the one claiming they did so.  So the burden of proof is on you 

So far you've provided no such evidence and in fact the evidence you have provided strongly suggests you are wrong. The president was surprised, previously this was not us policy, etc. 

So they jump on a plane, file a flight plan and say 'hey were' on our way down there and we've got deportees on board" and the gov't turns around and says "what the hell? No way" and turns them around

And all of this could have been avoided by reaching out before hand and saying 'new policy, we're doing this now" and things would have been sorted. 

2 hours ago, User said:

That is not what happened.

the information you provided says it is. 

I can't quite tell, are you calling your own sources a liar or yourself? or both somehow?

[User]

42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's because you can't prove a negative. What kind of proof would you like that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist?

LOL, if the US did not file any reports or clearance, yes, you can prove that by citing a source that says that. With this being in the news, there are tons of articles on this. Just like I found. 

You can't find any of them to support your claim?

Then to my point, you just made it up. You are asserting it as fact, not that there is no evidence to show they did get authorization. You have been arguing affirmatively they did not get any. 

You see how dishonest you are being here?

44 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

YOU are the one claiming they did so.  So the burden of proof is on you 

I had provided two different sources that clearly say these flights were authorized before and then canceled after. 

Stop being such a pathetic, sad, pathological liar. Grow up. Get some integrity. 

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, User said:

LOL, if the US did not file any reports or clearance, yes, you can prove that by citing a source that says that. With this being in the news, there are tons of articles on this. Just like I found. 

All right, the article that you posted specifically doesn't say that they had okayed this with the Colombians prior to the flight, therefore by your own logic it's proof that they didn't.

You're being an !diot

And seeing as it's your claim that they did it's incumbent upon you to make that proof which you have failed to do

 

Quote

You can't find any of them to support your claim?

Sure I can. There's hundreds of articles that don't mention them not doing something they didn't do either. Seeing as that's your new measure of proof

There is no proof that they did and the president of Columbia says they didn't. So there you go. 

And again, It is YOUR claim that they did, so the burden of proof is on you. And you have failed to prove they did. 

But I love that you're trying desperately to suggest somehow it's my job to prove that something that you claimed happened never happend instead of your job to prove it did 😮  LOLOLOL

Sorry kiddo, you made a claim and it's turned out not to be accurate as far as anyone can tell.

And as I said it's too bad that they didn't because it would have avoided all of this crap

[User]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

All right, the article that you posted specifically doesn't say that they had okayed this with the Colombians prior to the flight, therefore by your own logic it's proof that they didn't.

Stop being a pathetic pathological liar. 

"Documents reviewed by CNN show Colombia had previously approved the flights"

[Venandi]

It's quite possible that you're both closer to being right than either of you think.  

I have no idea what happened of course but in general:

Standing diplomatic clearances between nations with routine traffic flows are common enough, it saves the paperwork otherwise required on an individual basis,  it really is pretty routine.

Usually every flight to a military aerodrome also requires a "prior permission request" or PPR number, it's a flow control, ramp availability, and flight authorization reference number often done with a phone call and you would quote the assigned number on the flight plan. 

Notice of visiting aircraft messages (NOVA) in different forms and by different names are commonly used as well, it lists the flight itinerary and support services required... everything from special power/fuel requirements to hotels, car rentals and customs.

The ICAO flight plan would also include ADCUS (or advise customs) and mention the total number of people onboard This is all pretty routine, low lever stuff, usually handled by an Air Ops officer.

BUT, I can see it now and i'm laughing as I type this.... the flight was likely considered routine, the PPR was issued at shift change and no one in the ops centre thought much about it after that.

At morning brief the next day a senior officer asks "what's that US flight carrying I wasn't expecting anything?" There's a shuffle of papers and some one says "apparently it's deportees from the US sir."

What follows is a WTF moment and the paper shuffling gets louder. Then...the station commander is notified and because he knows nothing about any of it there's another WTF moment but it's considerably (very considerably) louder this time.

Literally within minutes (maybe 30 of them), an aid is whispering in the presidents ear and the station commander has his first ever one on one with the president... POOF national authority to land under the standing diplomatic clearance is revoked.

OK, over active imagination maybe, I have no idea if it played out that way but I'm still laughing none the less... it was a long day so thanks for that.

 

Edited January 30 by Venandi

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, User said:

Stop being a pathetic pathological liar. 

"Documents reviewed by CNN show Colombia had previously approved the flights"

You're the only one lying kiddo.  A flight plan is not what we're discussing. I was very clear about that earlier.  A flight plan is not a diplomatic contact to advise of an intended change of policy regarding repatriation of nationals, is it. 

Why do i have to explain everything to you 10 times and in a way that suggests you need to be taking an even shorter bus than the one you're on?

They did not reach out and clear this with the gov't of columbia. They filed a flight plan like EVERYONE does, and that's not a diplomatic exercise.  The president said they didn't clear the deportees being transported in that fashion specifically. 

Do you want me to quote it for you from your story again? Do you need to be spoon fed?

[User]

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They did not reach out and clear this with the gov't of columbia.

"Documents reviewed by CNN show Colombia had previously approved the flights"

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, User said:

"Documents reviewed by CNN show Colombia had previously approved the flights"

That's the flight plan.

[User]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's the flight plan.

Where does it say "flight plan"

You just keep making shit up. 

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, User said:

Where does it say "flight plan"

 

Where it says  previously approved the flights

That's what a flight plan is. It's an approval of the flight. It is not an approval of the transfer of deportes using military transport possibly an unhumane conditions.

It says right there. Approved the flights. Not the transfer.

I realized that for many English can be a challenging language. I don't hold this against you. I blame our education system

[User]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Where it says  previously approved the flights

That's what a flight plan is. It's an approval of the flight. It is not an approval of the transfer of deportes using military transport possibly an unhumane conditions.

It says right there. Approved the flights. Not the transfer.

I realized that for many English can be a challenging language. I don't hold this against you. I blame our education system

That is all your made-up BS. 

The problem is not English, it is that you are just literally fabricating BS that was not said and you have nothing to back it up with. 

You are, without a doubt, the biggest liar on this forum. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, User said:

That is all your made-up BS. 

 

Sure kid, I made up the quotes from the story that you posted.

Their flight plan got canceled. The government of Columbia was quite clear that they had not heard about this before the flights had taken off. Those are right in your story.

I love how your citations are the absolute gospel truth right up until you realize they prove you're wrong and then they're abject lies  

You've lost your damn mind over this. It is obvious they did not reach out to the Columbia government before they decided to proceed with the flights. Maybe they thought they didn't need to and that there wouldn't be a problem but have they done so it would have eliminated the problem and things would be better.

But instead of just cope with that simple fact you've gone on for three pages like a raving madman trying desperately again and again to Try and come up with some spin on it that suggests that they really did actually send a delegation to talk to them about it and everything had been worked out and Columbia had absolutely agreed to it and suddenly without warning they canceled it and the president is completely lying and knew about it the whole time and just completely lied for no particular reason. 

You're being stupid and I think even you realize that at this point.

They didn't think to talk to Columbia beforehand. They loaded up the prisoners and filed a flight plan and took off to drop them off. Columbia got it into their head that the deportes were being mistreated and demanded that the Americans return and send their people home the way they always had in the past. Then trump got angry and the president of Columbia got angry and their respective staffs stepped in and decided to be the adults of the room and calm them both down and this got sorted out

That's what happened. Feel free to continue your meltdown if you like, it's becoming slightly amusing, but I think even you realize you were in the wrong initially when you made that assumption. There's absolutely no indication whatsoever that there was diplomatic activity beforehand and in fact the president of Columbia has said that they were completely unaware of it

[Venandi]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That's the flight plan.

 

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It says right there. Approved the flights. Not the transfer.

A flight plan is an ATC authorization.... ATC is a service not an authorizing body in the context discussed, it certainly doesn't constitute a diplomatic clearance authorization.

Flight plans do not replace the requirement for diploclearances and/or PPRs.  ATC may (on occasion) ask for the PPR # at the time of filing if it isn't included in the remarks section of the ICAO flight plan... same deal with ADCUS. 

Flights outside the parameters of a standing diploclearance protocol are not covered by it and would be scrutinized on a case by case basis. Turning away an en-route flight indicates (at least to me) that national authority for landing was revoked at short notice and likely due to an error of omission... it's likely (I would think) that the omission occurred at a low level in the routine approval process and was caught after the fact in a WTF scenario similar to the one I described above.

I say all that knowing absolutely nothing about the flight in question but would consider it a something of a matter of routine nonetheless. In the event of an emergency all of that would be waved... caging an engine with (say) a chip light or minor oil pressure fluctuation would have introduced an interesting twist into the mix. LOL, the engine might just have ground run serviceable on the ramp after arrival in that scenario too... 

Yup, I laughed as i typed that part too, mostly because it reminds me of why I retired at the rank I did. I can just imagine that conversation with the FO and FE and the debrief back home in the CO's office (with the door closed).

 

Edited January 30 by Venandi

[User]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure kid, I made up the quotes from the story that you posted.

Then quote the story. Liar.