throwaway21_

5 ms·

1.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
Maybe you should follow your own advice - your numbers are wildly inflated (can easily be checked at Wikipedia), Ukrainians weren't the only ones in USSR who were starving to death and they were part of USSR leadership as any other nat
2.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
So something like Assange.
3.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
Everybody is doing that. Even here on the HN you'll get shadow banned - couple of weeks ago whole thread that someone else started just disappeared. I become aware of that only when searching for my own message from that thread. It was
4.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
Impressive level of paranoia from a citizen of a country with 800 bases around the world. Mad propz for your mass media.
5.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
You mean you want US to be even more jingoistic? It won't be an easy task for sure as I'm reading propaganda pieces almost every day for a last few years in a places that earlier were almost politics free (ars technica, hn...) - r
6.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
Why would he do any time at all? Because the people who actually should be doing time are the people in power so they are somehow immune? Also, Chelsea could transition to a woman without prison too. The fact that they ended/will end i
7.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
Nobody cares what Canada fears or not. Simple fact is that there's no Chinese hegemony now and there won't be one in foreseeable future because there's existing hegemon that won't just give up. btw one man's whatabo
8.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
Sure, I clearly remember how Bush Jr. along Cheney, Powel and Rumsfeld went to court and were imprisoned for life for all the misery they inflicted. Oh, wait...
9.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
Yeah, EU investing money - good, China investing money - bad. - Why it's bad? - Because they get influence over government. - But EU also gets even more influence when they invest money and finance myriads of NGOs? - Yeah, but that&#x2
10.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
Passengers were in danger in a same way passengers are in danger over New York if pilot refuses ATC directions. Yeah, Morales's pilot could choose a different path provided there's air refueling available. Otherwise it had to land
11.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro_hijacking#Interc... Looks like they learned from the best.
12.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
US allies kept CIA black sites on their territory without raising a voice (I guess they were very happy to prove their usefulness to the big boss), I certainly doubt they would protest for landing a plane for a few hours.
13.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
A said 'right' in the sense that they are free to do it like any other state - Lukashenko isn't nice guy at all but he didn't do anything unusual here - shooting that plane down would be extraordinary, but forcing it to
14.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
Don't be silly - Belarus is a sovereign state, they control their airspace and they had every right to land that plane down. Assange made US looked stupid in that incident while Lukashenko made Protasevich looked stupid yesterday. btw
15.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
Nope, that airplane was in Belarus airspace so it's up to them to decide if they want it landed or not. If you don't like it nobody is forcing you to fly over Belarus. Their airspace - their rules. Same thing happened on 9/11
16.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
US bombs landed on Croatian Serbs on multiple occasions thus enabling ethnic cleansing. But no biggie, what's small ethnic cleansing between NATO friends?
17.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
Belarus airspace - Belarus rules. If EU civilian aircrafts doesn't like it they are free not to enter that airspace.
18.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
Yeah, you have such a great legacy when defending democracy all over the world even in cases where you were absolutely dominant military power that this one would be walk in a park - Russia would just stand down, peacefully looking NATO inv
19.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
No, they certainly didn't have to land in Austria. But somehow, god knows why, certain countries closed their airspace for that specific plane. I'm inclined to belive that more countries would suddenly close their airspace too if
20.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
> What happened in the Snowden case was DIPLOMACY ("you may not travel here if you carry this man"), not force. And MiG-29 sprinkled same kind of diplomacy here - they weren't shot down, they just were diplomatically notif
21.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
It's not exactly the same but it's almost the same - multiple countries synchronously closing their airspace so plane can't just go around single one thus basically forcing plane down as it could run out of fuel is quite simi
22.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
> The thing about a destabilised world order is that it works both ways. Maybe it took 30 years to become obvious to you but at least you got it - sadly that happened only when you ended being on a receiving end.
23.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
NATO to "protect" airways over Belarus? When pigs fly, I guess.
24.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
Sure there are differences - in one case it was us (and we are good guys of course) and in another case it was them (and they are bad guys). Nothing new under the sun, it has always been like that, us vs them.
25.
by throwaway21_ 5y ago
Great work in the Libya guys - 10 years later country is still at war, 10s of thousands dead (and counting), people are worse in every possible way than during Gadaffi rule... Can't wait to see more similar interventions in the future.
26.
by throwaway21_ 6y ago
Because this is straight from James Bond movies - when villains fail to kill him as they always give him a chance to escape. They could easily kill Navalny with gun, bomb, polonium... But no, let's poison him with something that's