4 ms·

Morales’ plane was not forced down, and there was no chance of a political arrest actually happening (because the plane would not have landed if Snowden had bee

by comex 5y ago

Morales’ plane was not forced down, and there was no chance of a political arrest actually happening (because the plane would not have landed if Snowden had been on board). Moreover, the European countries would have known in advance that their actions would not force the plane down or create the possibility of an arrest. So your simple question is not relevant to the situation.

vkou 5y ago
You are still avoiding the question, while misinterpreting my point. I'm not saying that the two situations are 100% identical in what happened. I am, however, saying, that the two situations are 100% identical in intent. So, again - yes or no - is it appropriate to disrupt a third party flight, in order to make a political arrest of a passenger on that flight? We've been dodging this question for the better part of a day, but nobody seems to be willing to stand up and say "Yes, it damn well is." Instead, everyone seems to be splitting hairs about the definition of 'disrupt'. I don't care about your definition of disrupt. [1] Is it, or is it not the sort of thing that we do? Is the intent behind this the kind of intent that you're going to sanction? Or the kind of intent that you're going to condemn? > (because the plane would not have landed if Snowden had been on board) Unsubstantiated speculation, and completely irrelevant. You have no idea what the pilot would have done if he were. > Moreover, the European countries would have known in advance that their actions would not force the plane down or create the possibility of an arrest Also unsubstantiated speculation, and completely irrelevant. You have no idea what the people who made that call were thinking. Your interpretation also fails to account for why four countries did just that. For shits and giggles? Because they were expecting that stunt to fail? Because someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed, and decided to play airspace roulette? [1] Further up in the thread, people keep saying that the plane was closer to Vilnius than Minsk, as if that is at all relevant. Were it closer to Minsk than Vilnius at the time of the call, would that have made this entire affair kosher for you? You seem to be incredibly concerned about the form, as opposed to the intent.
- relativ575 5y ago
  > I am, however, saying, that the two situations are 100% identical in intent. Why does it matter that the intent is the same? Victim of a crime obviously intends to punish the criminal, but there is much difference between taking the matter in one's own hands and relying on the justice system. Can't you see the difference? > So, again - yes or no - is it appropriate to disrupt a third party flight, in order to make a political arrest of a passenger on that flight? You accused the GP of speculation, yet you're doing exactly that here. How do you know that Morales incident was to capture Snowden? It could have been just a political message to deter those who were thinking of harboring Snowden, especially if they weren't sure he was onboard. They weren't forced to land in Vienna. The plane could have come back to Russia. Perhaps they did what they did for their own PR game.
pyuser583 5y ago
It’s relevant to the original post. Do you think it’s appropriate?

by comex 5y ago

vkou 5y ago

You are still avoiding the question, while misinterpreting my point. I'm not saying that the two situations are 100% identical in what happened. I am, however, saying, that the two situations are 100% identical in intent. So, again - yes or no - is it appropriate to disrupt a third party flight, in order to make a political arrest of a passenger on that flight? We've been dodging this question for the better part of a day, but nobody seems to be willing to stand up and say "Yes, it damn well is." Instead, everyone seems to be splitting hairs about the definition of 'disrupt'. I don't care about your definition of disrupt. [1] Is it, or is it not the sort of thing that we do? Is the intent behind this the kind of intent that you're going to sanction? Or the kind of intent that you're going to condemn? > (because the plane would not have landed if Snowden had been on board) Unsubstantiated speculation, and completely irrelevant. You have no idea what the pilot would have done if he were. > Moreover, the European countries would have known in advance that their actions would not force the plane down or create the possibility of an arrest Also unsubstantiated speculation, and completely irrelevant. You have no idea what the people who made that call were thinking. Your interpretation also fails to account for why four countries did just that. For shits and giggles? Because they were expecting that stunt to fail? Because someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed, and decided to play airspace roulette? [1] Further up in the thread, people keep saying that the plane was closer to Vilnius than Minsk, as if that is at all relevant. Were it closer to Minsk than Vilnius at the time of the call, would that have made this entire affair kosher for you? You seem to be incredibly concerned about the form, as opposed to the intent.

relativ575 5y ago
> I am, however, saying, that the two situations are 100% identical in intent. Why does it matter that the intent is the same? Victim of a crime obviously intends to punish the criminal, but there is much difference between taking the matter in one's own hands and relying on the justice system. Can't you see the difference? > So, again - yes or no - is it appropriate to disrupt a third party flight, in order to make a political arrest of a passenger on that flight? You accused the GP of speculation, yet you're doing exactly that here. How do you know that Morales incident was to capture Snowden? It could have been just a political message to deter those who were thinking of harboring Snowden, especially if they weren't sure he was onboard. They weren't forced to land in Vienna. The plane could have come back to Russia. Perhaps they did what they did for their own PR game.

pyuser583 5y ago

It’s relevant to the original post. Do you think it’s appropriate?