|
|
|
|
|
|
by shakermakr
1848 days ago
|
|
|
>> And it's now being employed as a "whatabout" distortion by those sympathetic to (or uncritical of) the Belarusian action. You've made a huge assumption there, and characterisation, and that's exactly the problem. I and many others are not sympathetic or uncritical of the action at all. I'm just critical of not having debate about the differences between this and other actions and removing the debate. I'd say, yes, it was a civilian airliner. It affects more people. However to do it to a private jet too shows precedent to abandon international norms.
Nobody being arrested is merely because Snowdon wasn't aboard. If he was, he'd have been arrested.
And the diversion of any plane to an airspace where the arrest of someone on board can take place by a foreign power, is ultimately what is the issue here isn't it? And there are enough obvious parallels that at least we have the discussion, not just remove the discussion forthwith. |
|
|
Morales flight was denied the airspace in advance before it approached any of those airspace. They could go back to Russia if preferred. They chose to land in Vienna. Ryannair's flight was only informed of the fake bomb threat when it was already in Belarus's airspace. They were escorted by military jets. They didn't have a choice.
Morales incident, while being a bullying action, is legal, since countries have exclusive right over their airspace and can allow or deny any flight at their discreetion. At no time passengers were in danger, not to mention they were free to pick another course of action such as going back to Russia. No military jets involved.
Ryannair incident is unprecedented. Belarus hijacked another country's aircraft, faked bomb threats for their own gain. Passengers were at risk, as with any time a flight is disrupted by military jets. No wonder EU's reaction is swift and strong.