26 ms·

Unbelievable that they'd go through this charade to arrest ~Snowden~ Protasevich.

intricatedetail 5y ago
It is mostly testing Biden administration. First Israel now Belarus. Probably more disruption is coming as so far responses are weak.
morelisp 5y ago
Every time someone makes this comparison all it does is strengthen Lukashenko and Putin's propaganda machine. It doesn't help Protasevich, it doesn't help Snowden, and it doesn't create room for any positive political change.
- Blackthorn 5y ago
  If the comparison to a recent event is strengthening the propaganda machine of those regimes, that says a lot more about said recent event than it does about those regimes.
- mempko 5y ago
  You are assuming there is a neutral third party. Yes, the comparison does strengthen Putin's propaganda machine. But not mentioning it strengthens the US propaganda machine. You are picking sides either way.
  - morelisp 5y ago
    Not mentioning it does nothing. The US propaganda machine is not hurt in any way by mentioning it. It happened nearly a decade ago and is not really a similar situation in any way except that it involved a plane.
    - Aperocky 5y ago
      It wasn't similar because Snowden wasn't actually on that plane. If he was, you think he wouldn't be arrested and would just fly with Morales to Bolivia? The agents that searched the plane was just there to say hi?
    - gugagore 5y ago
      > Not mentioning it does nothing. I don't understand how you assert this.
- Svettie 5y ago
  It's an apt comparison. And if we don't like the consequences, all the more reason to reflect on our own actions
  - mola 5y ago
    How is it apt? In one case a fake bomb threat and a fighter jet force land a commercial flight for political reasons of a despot. on the other side refusal to allow air travel through sovereign air space of democratic countries, and was "downed" after failing to comply. This is far from apt comparison.
    - Svettie 5y ago
      politically motivated interference with airliners in flight, to force a landing and arrest people in transit who are currently not within your jurisdiction
somethingwitty1 5y ago
Denying access to airspace of a private plane feels a little different than forcing a commercial plane to land with threat (and real actions) of violence. The level of crimes involved is also an important distinction. What Snowden did is illegal in pretty much every single country in the world (if committed against that country). On the other hand, what Protasevich did, many countries have laws to protect such actions. I'm not saying I agree with how either situation was handled (or laws involved, etc), but a 1:1 correlation between the two is ignoring important details.
- Svettie 5y ago
  I think you're choosing an arbitrary standard to defend your narrative. "Protasevich broke laws, but these are not laws that we consider bad." I could also say that "being a whistleblower about a government agency violating the rights of millions of it's citizens" is something that Western democracies claim to protect, when it's not happening to themselves.
  - lazide 5y ago
    The denying permission vs kidnapping distinction does seem important though, regardless of motives doesn’t it?
    - Svettie 5y ago
      To me it seems minor in the grand scheme of things. It's still trickery. I assume that in the Snowden case the permissions were withdrawn precisely to force a landing in a country where Snowden could be arrested. Belarus doesn't have the same alliances, so they resort to dirtier trickery to accomplish the same goal
      - lazide 5y ago
        It definitely is not. Denying someone access to airspace the way they did for Snowden to a gov’t level official is the equivalent of a bouncer stopping just the head of a competing club from entering - so the cops could grab him. Not seen as supportive, but not that crazy. What happened in this case is the state level equivalent of holding someone and their friends who were walking on the sidewalk in front of your house at gun point - and then dragging the one you thought had spray painted your house a week earlier into your basement never to be seen again. There is zero expectation that someone would or could use state level military assets to force a civil airplane flying under legal authorization and long standing agreements with no expectation of it landing in your country, under the flag of another nation, to grab someone you like. It’s not like it hasn’t been possible, it’s just exceptionally hostile to everyone else and in violation of pretty much every international norm.
Glavnokoman 5y ago
They do it more often than you think. For another one see this https://112.international/society/belavias-passenger-plane-forcibly-landed-in-zhuliany-airport-in-kyiv-10365.html https://112.international/society/belavias-passenger-plane-f... . Precisely the same action but by the good guys, so no shit-storm in the media.

It is mostly testing Biden administration. First Israel now Belarus. Probably more disruption is coming as so far responses are weak.

morelisp 5y ago

Every time someone makes this comparison all it does is strengthen Lukashenko and Putin's propaganda machine. It doesn't help Protasevich, it doesn't help Snowden, and it doesn't create room for any positive political change.

Blackthorn 5y ago
If the comparison to a recent event is strengthening the propaganda machine of those regimes, that says a lot more about said recent event than it does about those regimes.
mempko 5y ago
You are assuming there is a neutral third party. Yes, the comparison does strengthen Putin's propaganda machine. But not mentioning it strengthens the US propaganda machine. You are picking sides either way.
- morelisp 5y ago
  Not mentioning it does nothing. The US propaganda machine is not hurt in any way by mentioning it. It happened nearly a decade ago and is not really a similar situation in any way except that it involved a plane.
  - Aperocky 5y ago
    It wasn't similar because Snowden wasn't actually on that plane. If he was, you think he wouldn't be arrested and would just fly with Morales to Bolivia? The agents that searched the plane was just there to say hi?
  - gugagore 5y ago
    > Not mentioning it does nothing. I don't understand how you assert this.
Svettie 5y ago
It's an apt comparison. And if we don't like the consequences, all the more reason to reflect on our own actions
- mola 5y ago
  How is it apt? In one case a fake bomb threat and a fighter jet force land a commercial flight for political reasons of a despot. on the other side refusal to allow air travel through sovereign air space of democratic countries, and was "downed" after failing to comply. This is far from apt comparison.
  - Svettie 5y ago
    politically motivated interference with airliners in flight, to force a landing and arrest people in transit who are currently not within your jurisdiction

somethingwitty1 5y ago

Denying access to airspace of a private plane feels a little different than forcing a commercial plane to land with threat (and real actions) of violence. The level of crimes involved is also an important distinction. What Snowden did is illegal in pretty much every single country in the world (if committed against that country). On the other hand, what Protasevich did, many countries have laws to protect such actions. I'm not saying I agree with how either situation was handled (or laws involved, etc), but a 1:1 correlation between the two is ignoring important details.

Svettie 5y ago
I think you're choosing an arbitrary standard to defend your narrative. "Protasevich broke laws, but these are not laws that we consider bad." I could also say that "being a whistleblower about a government agency violating the rights of millions of it's citizens" is something that Western democracies claim to protect, when it's not happening to themselves.
- lazide 5y ago
  The denying permission vs kidnapping distinction does seem important though, regardless of motives doesn’t it?
  - Svettie 5y ago
    To me it seems minor in the grand scheme of things. It's still trickery. I assume that in the Snowden case the permissions were withdrawn precisely to force a landing in a country where Snowden could be arrested. Belarus doesn't have the same alliances, so they resort to dirtier trickery to accomplish the same goal
    - lazide 5y ago
      It definitely is not. Denying someone access to airspace the way they did for Snowden to a gov’t level official is the equivalent of a bouncer stopping just the head of a competing club from entering - so the cops could grab him. Not seen as supportive, but not that crazy. What happened in this case is the state level equivalent of holding someone and their friends who were walking on the sidewalk in front of your house at gun point - and then dragging the one you thought had spray painted your house a week earlier into your basement never to be seen again. There is zero expectation that someone would or could use state level military assets to force a civil airplane flying under legal authorization and long standing agreements with no expectation of it landing in your country, under the flag of another nation, to grab someone you like. It’s not like it hasn’t been possible, it’s just exceptionally hostile to everyone else and in violation of pretty much every international norm.

Glavnokoman 5y ago

They do it more often than you think. For another one see this https://112.international/society/belavias-passenger-plane-forcibly-landed-in-zhuliany-airport-in-kyiv-10365.html https://112.international/society/belavias-passenger-plane-f... . Precisely the same action but by the good guys, so no shit-storm in the media.