Thank you
Thank you for your condolences.
Yes the hijacking happened several decades ago, nevertheless, questions persist. The tale of this hijacking seem particularly sordid, irrational, and petty. (Not that any hijacking is anything more than sordid, irrational, and petty). What I don't quite understand is why the bodyguard shot the pilots. Several media accounts state that after the pilot first called into KL to report a hijacking a tensionless conversation in the cockpit followed. Then, all of a sudden, the bodyguard shot the pilots. Why?
1. It would seem that if officials have a record of a tensionless conversation in the cockpit, then they must know exactly who the hijacker was and what it was that triggered the hijacker to kill the pilots and then himself.
2. If the conversation in the cockpit was not tensionless, but rather tension filled, officials would still have a pretty good idea of who the hijacker was and what triggered him to shoot the pilots, then himself and everyone else.
3. What did the body guard have to gain from shooting the pilots?
4. Even if the Minister of Agriculture at the time was in or about to be in political hot water, would the bodyguard's loyalty to his employer have been so broad that it would include suicide and mass murder?
5. Was suicide and mass murder the only option for a Minister in political hot water? In other words, would the alternative, facing his critics have been worse?
6. Would a bodyguard commit mass murder and suicide just because his honor was injured when his gun was put into safekeeping? The action seems a bit disproportionate to the bruised ego he sustained.
Have I got the storyline about right or am I way off the mark? Am I asking the right questions?
Thank you for your comments.