4 ms·
The pertinent difference here appears to be a falsified bomb threat and the use of a fighter jet to implicitly threaten the lives of the pilot and crew if they
by academia_hack 5y ago
The pertinent difference here appears to be a falsified bomb threat and the use of a fighter jet to implicitly threaten the lives of the pilot and crew if they didn't kowtow to the illegal instructions. Both of these factors seem like more than minor details and much more dangerous precedents. Lying about bomb threats is far beyond the pale of acceptable behavior for a national aviation authority.
- ceilingcorner 5y agoA king merely has to wave his finger to indicate his displeasure, while a peasant uses whatever means available to him. I don’t think what happened in either situation (Snowden and Belarus) is acceptable.
- jlg23 5y ago> The pertinent difference here appears to be a falsified bomb threat and the use of a fighter jet to implicitly threaten the lives of the pilot and crew if they didn't kowtow to the illegal instructions. Different to disallowing refueling? Last time I checked, planes come down without fuel, "threatening the lives of pilot and crew". One does not have to agree on that equivalence, but I think one should accept that the narrative is equally compelling.
- koheripbal 5y agoUnless it was going to refuel mid-air, denying refuelling is not a deadly threat.