5 ms·

Obama was wrong then and Lukashenko is wrong now. Greenwald is right to bring up the comparison, but it should only be used to shame errors in the past, not to

• CarelessExpert 5y ago
  Exactly right. I don't actually fully understand what Greenwald is trying to do, here. This article reads as an attempt to justify the actions of Belarus (as opposed to criticizing the actions of the US and the EU, of which there was certainly no shortage back in 2013), which I find utterly astonishing and makes me further wonder what the heck is going on with Greenwald these days. In the past he never really struck me as an apologist for a dictator, but something has clearly changed.
  • mhoad 5y ago
    I’m constantly shocked at how otherwise intelligent people still keep holding him up as a serious journalist, that really hasn’t been true for years now. I think it kind of speaks to just how big a deal first impressions matter on a deeply psychological level because many people seem incapable of acknowledging that something major changed with him a while ago. Positions I’ve seen him take in the past few months include: - Matt Gatez did nothing wrong and there is no evidence against him anyways. - Hunter Biden’s laptop is the key story to the 2020 election - There is no meaningful difference between people who believe there was something suspect about Trumps relationship with Russia and QAnon - January 6th was non violent He is a fundamentally unserious person at this point. But like Elon Musk he has some of the strangers defenders on the internet who will aggressively defend him at all costs and I don’t understand it.
  • jules-jules 5y ago
    It is generally useful and helpful for the discussion to read the article in full before commenting >None of what happened with this Morales incident has any bearing on the justifiability of what Belarus did on Sunday. That the U.S. and its E.U. allies committed a dangerous international crime in 2013 does not mitigate the criminal nature of similar actions by Belarus or any other country eight years later. The dangers of forcing down airplanes in order to arrest someone who is suspected to be on that plane are manifest. The danger increases, not decreases, as more countries do it.
    • CarelessExpert 5y ago
      Yup, upon a second reading, I agree, my comment was overstating Greenwald's thesis. I do think he's spinning things in his own way. For example, toward the end of the article he claims: > Indeed, the only two differences between these situations that one can locate are factors against the Western nations responsible for the downing of Morales’ plane. Unlike what Belarus did, the U.S. and its European allies obviously had no confirmation of Snowden's presence on the plane. They forced it to land based on a guess, on rumor, on speculation, which turned out to be utterly false. The second difference is that there are obviously additional international and diplomatic implications from forcing the plane of a democratically elected president to land as opposed to a standard passenger jet: that is, at the very least, a profound attack on the sovereignty of that country. Again, there are no valid justifications for what Belarus did, but to the extent one wants to distinguish its actions from what US/EU nations did in 2013, those are the only identifiable differences. But this conveniently ignores that 1) Belarus scrambled a fighter jet and all but forced the aircraft to land, 2) did so under the guise of a fake bomb threat, all while 3) Russian agents appear to have been on the aircraft. This is clearly and materially different from revoking passports and access to airspace. So I reject Greenwald's claim that what Belarus did, here, was indistinguishable from actions of Western governments back when Snowden was on the run, and IMO Greenwald is guilty of misrepresenting the facts in service of his own narrative, which appears to be as simple as: everyone is equally bad.
      • mhoad 5y ago
        Belarus’s KGB kidnapped a journalist from a civilian aircraft who criticised the government while he was flying between two EU nations and very likely may kill him. The comparison is ridiculous on so many levels.
        • CarelessExpert 5y ago
          I absolutely agree. I debated whether to get into this point, as there's probably a lot of people that view Snowden, his actions, and the US/EU response as somehow being equivalent to Protasevich, his actions, and the Belarussian response. IMO that's utterly absurd, but I wasn't sure I wanted to invite that debate...
• littlestymaar 5y ago
  This is exactly the point of this article, and Greenwald made it clear that he's condemning what happened in Belarus and that he's not defending Lukashenko's action in any way. > There is little doubt that the forced landing of this plane by Belarus, with the clear intention to arrest Protasevich, is illegal under numerous conventions and treaties governing air space. Any forced landing of a jet carries dangers, and safe international air travel would be impossible if countries could force planes flying with permission over their air space to land in order to seize passengers who might be on board. This act by Belarus merits all the condemnation it is receiving. > None of what happened with this Morales incident has any bearing on the justifiability of what Belarus did on Sunday. That the U.S. and its E.U. allies committed a dangerous international crime in 2013 does not mitigate the criminal nature of similar actions by Belarus or any other country eight years later. The dangers of forcing down airplanes in order to arrest someone who is suspected to be on that plane are manifest. The danger increases, not decreases, as more countries do it.
  • inter_netuser 5y ago
    and now thanks to Obama and Lukashenko only more and more countries will do that.