5 ms·

I don’t get why comments mentioning the forced landing of Morales’ plane in Austria, and searching for Snowden in the plane (under Obama) get downvoted. US/EU m

I don’t get why comments mentioning the forced landing of Morales’ plane in Austria, and searching for Snowden in the plane (under Obama) get downvoted. US/EU made a precedent and now everyone is surprised when Lukashenko simply copied their tactics.

phkahler 5y ago
>> the forced landing of Morales’ plane in Austria, and searching for Snowden in the plane I hadn't heard about that. Any good references? Edit: Found it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
- neves 5y ago
  A better one https://greenwald.substack.com/p/as-anger-toward-belarus-mounts-recall https://greenwald.substack.com/p/as-anger-toward-belarus-mou...
  - iso1631 5y ago
    If it's better then use it to improve the wikipedia entry, unless you run into NPOV issues.
    - phkahler 5y ago
      If one is not really up to par as a wikipedia editor, the more informative link could be dropped on the talk page for the main article. Then maybe an editor will incorporate it.
shakermakr 5y ago
It's now flagged. A comment saying that the forced landing of the President of Bolvia's plane in Austria, due to the US belief that Snowdon was on board, could be somehow relevant to the forced landing of a Ryanair flight in Belarus of someone the government believes is damaging them. Free speech in action...
- iso1631 5y ago
  There was no such forced landing, the plane had enough fuel to return to its departure airport.
  - plank 5y ago
    My information is different (e.g. Greenwalds account: Without enough fuel to fly an alternative route, the Bolivian pilot was forced to make a U-turn and land in Vienna.)
    - notahacker 5y ago
      If the pilot had enough fuel to reach his original proposed refuelling stop in the Canary Islands, he had enough fuel to get back to Russia (The cockpit audio suggests the pilot actually was worried about the amount of fuel he had left as he reported an issue with his fuel gauge, but "Morales forced to land by minor technical issue" isn't quite as compelling a story...)
cmrdporcupine 5y ago
It's not analogous. The Morales incident was wrong, but not the same. Firstly, Morales' plane wasn't a civilian airliner, it was his government's private jet. Secondly, no fake bomb threat was involved. Thirdly, nobody was arrested. And it's now being employed as a "whatabout" distortion by those sympathetic to (or uncritical of) the Belarusian action. The two incidents differ drastically. Actions of a state against another state's leaders is one thing. Actions against civilian aircraft is another thing entirely.
- cryptonector 5y ago
  I don't believe those making the analogy are sympathetic to or uncritical of the Belarus government, rather they are saying "I told you so" or "the Morales incident set a precedent, surprise!". Now, Belarus might have pulled this stunt even if the Morales incident had never happened, and that's a fine counterpoint, but you really should not ascribe malice to those who point to the similarities in the two incidents because it's clearly not [always] the case. Should I ascribe malice to your ascribing malice? Please be polite. > Actions of a state against another state's leaders is one thing. Actions against civilian aircraft is another thing entirely. Wars have been fought over both, attacks on state ships, and attacks on civilian ships. Both are casus belli. Attacks on ships carrying heads of state are particularly problematic absent war, so technically the Morales incident was the worse one, yes (though, of course, if he'd been carrying Snowden then that would in itself have been casus belli), but that does not excuse attacks on civilians.
  - colanderman 5y ago
    > they are saying "I told you so" To whom? No-one on this site was instrumental in deciding to hinder Morales's flight, and I doubt many supported the action at the time. It's obnoxious and comes off like trolling for an argument. Dispassionately making the link is one thing, but most of the comments of this form I've seen are borderline tu quoque nationalist trolling.
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    The thing is that there have been many incidents like this, not just the Snowden incident. Israel has done this kind of thing before, dating back to decades ago (and kidnapped people [NAZI war criminals, so frankly probably justified] from other countries territory, too). I doubt Belarus needed the Morales thing as a cover. > Wars have been fought over both, attacks on state ships, and attacks on civilian ships. Yes, this was the casus belli for the war of 1812, supposedly. But the reality in statecraft is that this is rarely the actual reason and there's much more in depth and structural reasons for the start of war.
ddalex 5y ago
There is a bit of a difference between using a legal framework to enforce a policy (the parties know what to expect) and arbitrarely chasing a commercial jet with a MiG (the parties don't know what to expect). The tactics are not remotely the same.
colanderman 5y ago
Because most of those comments are of the form "the US did this once, so why is everyone upset about Belarus doing this?" as if trying to point out some hypocrisy, or defend Belarus. (I can't read the original comment now since it's flagged, so maybe it's not such a comment.) Which presupposes that the readers are "supporters" of either the US/EU or Belarus/Russia. As if geopolitical conversations are sports matches, and nuanced observations based on dispassionate logical thought and not political or national affiliation are not possible. Gag me with a spoon. At best, these comments derail the conversation. At worst, they are trolling or borderline nationalist propaganda. Either way they drag down the quality of discussion here on HN. Pointing out that the US's earlier actions gave Belarus cover to "justify" such actions is at least mildly interesting as dispassionate geopolitical conversation, but that's not what most of these comments are.

phkahler 5y ago

>> the forced landing of Morales’ plane in Austria, and searching for Snowden in the plane I hadn't heard about that. Any good references? Edit: Found it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

neves 5y ago
A better one https://greenwald.substack.com/p/as-anger-toward-belarus-mounts-recall https://greenwald.substack.com/p/as-anger-toward-belarus-mou...
- iso1631 5y ago
  If it's better then use it to improve the wikipedia entry, unless you run into NPOV issues.
  - phkahler 5y ago
    If one is not really up to par as a wikipedia editor, the more informative link could be dropped on the talk page for the main article. Then maybe an editor will incorporate it.

shakermakr 5y ago

It's now flagged. A comment saying that the forced landing of the President of Bolvia's plane in Austria, due to the US belief that Snowdon was on board, could be somehow relevant to the forced landing of a Ryanair flight in Belarus of someone the government believes is damaging them. Free speech in action...

iso1631 5y ago
There was no such forced landing, the plane had enough fuel to return to its departure airport.
- plank 5y ago
  My information is different (e.g. Greenwalds account: Without enough fuel to fly an alternative route, the Bolivian pilot was forced to make a U-turn and land in Vienna.)
  - notahacker 5y ago
    If the pilot had enough fuel to reach his original proposed refuelling stop in the Canary Islands, he had enough fuel to get back to Russia (The cockpit audio suggests the pilot actually was worried about the amount of fuel he had left as he reported an issue with his fuel gauge, but "Morales forced to land by minor technical issue" isn't quite as compelling a story...)

cmrdporcupine 5y ago

It's not analogous. The Morales incident was wrong, but not the same. Firstly, Morales' plane wasn't a civilian airliner, it was his government's private jet. Secondly, no fake bomb threat was involved. Thirdly, nobody was arrested. And it's now being employed as a "whatabout" distortion by those sympathetic to (or uncritical of) the Belarusian action. The two incidents differ drastically. Actions of a state against another state's leaders is one thing. Actions against civilian aircraft is another thing entirely.

cryptonector 5y ago
I don't believe those making the analogy are sympathetic to or uncritical of the Belarus government, rather they are saying "I told you so" or "the Morales incident set a precedent, surprise!". Now, Belarus might have pulled this stunt even if the Morales incident had never happened, and that's a fine counterpoint, but you really should not ascribe malice to those who point to the similarities in the two incidents because it's clearly not [always] the case. Should I ascribe malice to your ascribing malice? Please be polite. > Actions of a state against another state's leaders is one thing. Actions against civilian aircraft is another thing entirely. Wars have been fought over both, attacks on state ships, and attacks on civilian ships. Both are casus belli. Attacks on ships carrying heads of state are particularly problematic absent war, so technically the Morales incident was the worse one, yes (though, of course, if he'd been carrying Snowden then that would in itself have been casus belli), but that does not excuse attacks on civilians.
- colanderman 5y ago
  > they are saying "I told you so" To whom? No-one on this site was instrumental in deciding to hinder Morales's flight, and I doubt many supported the action at the time. It's obnoxious and comes off like trolling for an argument. Dispassionately making the link is one thing, but most of the comments of this form I've seen are borderline tu quoque nationalist trolling.
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  The thing is that there have been many incidents like this, not just the Snowden incident. Israel has done this kind of thing before, dating back to decades ago (and kidnapped people [NAZI war criminals, so frankly probably justified] from other countries territory, too). I doubt Belarus needed the Morales thing as a cover. > Wars have been fought over both, attacks on state ships, and attacks on civilian ships. Yes, this was the casus belli for the war of 1812, supposedly. But the reality in statecraft is that this is rarely the actual reason and there's much more in depth and structural reasons for the start of war.

ddalex 5y ago

There is a bit of a difference between using a legal framework to enforce a policy (the parties know what to expect) and arbitrarely chasing a commercial jet with a MiG (the parties don't know what to expect). The tactics are not remotely the same.

colanderman 5y ago

Because most of those comments are of the form "the US did this once, so why is everyone upset about Belarus doing this?" as if trying to point out some hypocrisy, or defend Belarus. (I can't read the original comment now since it's flagged, so maybe it's not such a comment.) Which presupposes that the readers are "supporters" of either the US/EU or Belarus/Russia. As if geopolitical conversations are sports matches, and nuanced observations based on dispassionate logical thought and not political or national affiliation are not possible. Gag me with a spoon. At best, these comments derail the conversation. At worst, they are trolling or borderline nationalist propaganda. Either way they drag down the quality of discussion here on HN. Pointing out that the US's earlier actions gave Belarus cover to "justify" such actions is at least mildly interesting as dispassionate geopolitical conversation, but that's not what most of these comments are.