[throwaway21_]

> 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 notified that in their best interest is to land down. See, no force, pure diplomacy.

[newacct583]

Again, there was no force with the Morales plane. No one can enter another nation's airspace without permission. They were simply denied permission. It's the difference between being denied boarding for an international flight because you forgot your passport and being arrested once you land. One is "force", one is not.

Denying Morale's plane permission was an act of diplomacy, albeit a very uncommon one and one in pursuit of an unjust goal.

Forcing down a foreign airplane on an international flight to arrest someone on it is an act of war. Sorry.

[throwaway21_]

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 - US chose do land all aircrafts, and in case that anyone disobeyed orders it would be promptly shot down - foreign planes or not, it didn't matter in slightest.

[newacct583]

First, no, there are no international treaties about forcing aircraft to the ground. That is an extraordinary thing done in circumstances of immediate safety concerns. There are, however, treaties that have been in place about unfettered airspace transit access (no idea which exactly Belarus is a signatory to), and this was pretty clearly in violation of those. There is no "you're in our airspace so we do what we like" rule in international air travel, and that's ridiculous to suggest.

Second: they let the plane in on a flight plan that clearly took it to Vilnius. Again, that's false pretenses.

Per the analogy above: consider a consulate telling someone "sure, you can board this plane without your passport, it's fine" and then arresting the person for a visa violation on landing.

[throwaway21_]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro_hijacking#Interc...

Looks like they learned from the best.

[newacct583]

The whataboutism here is just insane. Ronald Reagan OK's an interception of a plane containing a known terrorist 36 years ago and now it's OK to hijack airliners anywhere in the world for any reason?

Yeah, this is trolling.

[caf]

What would have happened if his plane had tried to cross into Spain regardless? Do you think 'force' might have been involved? Is not denying overflight ultimately backed by force?

[newacct583]

> What would have happened if his plane had tried to cross into Spain regardless?

A major international incident (the head of state of one nation violating the airspace of another) that completely and utterly dwarfs whatever nonsense was going on with Snowden. I know it's hard for geeks here to understand, but Snowden just isn't that important.

Again: he wasn't even on the plane. And Morales apparently had no intention of putting him on there. He was just pissed off that no one trusted him about that.

[caf]

It would have been intercepted and forced to land, that's what.

[newacct583]

You're completely missing the point, or else trolling.

The Ryanair plane didn't deliberately violate the airspace of Belarus in violation of withdrawn permission, they filed a flight plan to Vilnius just like they had every day for years and years. It was an airliner on a scheduled flight.

Your counterfactual involving a deliberate invasion of another country seems... extraordinarily weird. I mean, yes, countries defend their airspace when it's invaded by other nations in violation of established treaties. Duh. That is not what happened yesterday at all and you fucking know it. Stop this.