Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk • Hacker News Board

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#191

Post by smartician » Wed, May 26, 2021, 12:51 AM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #184

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that there have been many incidents like this, not just the Snowden incident. Israel has done this kind of thing before, dating back to decades ago (and kidnapped people [NAZI war criminals, so frankly probably justified] from other countries territory, too). I doubt Belarus needed the Morales thing as a cover. > Wars have been fought over both, attacks on state ships, and attacks on civilian ships. Yes,…

Sure, but I don't think people mentioning the much-more-recent Morales incident are doing it because they're shills for Belarus. I seriously doubt Glenn freaking Greenwald is a shill for Belarus just because he wrote an article about the two incidents -- would anyone argue that he is? > [...] (and kidnapped people [NAZI war criminals, so frankly probably justified] from other countries [...] Yes, indeed, Israel's kid…

Greenwald has been shilling for Russia for years now, so it's not a stretch that this would extend to Belarus as well?

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#192

Post by relativ575 » Wed, May 26, 2021, 1:29 AM UTC

shakermakr wrote: post #125

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not analogous. The Morales incident was wrong, but not the same. Firstly, Morales' plane wasn't a civilian airliner, it was his government's private jet. Secondly, no fake bomb threat was involved. Thirdly, nobody was arrested. And it's now being employed as a "whatabout" distortion by those sympathetic to (or uncritical of) the Belarusian action. The two incidents differ drastically. Actions of a state against…

>> 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,…

Perhaps the OP was frustrated because this has been discussed ad nauseam in other threads, so may be you should check them out, but the two incidents are completely different.

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.

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#193

Post by durnygbur » Wed, May 26, 2021, 5:53 AM UTC

nathanaldensr wrote: post #186

durnygbur wrote: post #116

If one attempts to scratch the facade of a "great" long-ruling leader one will be torn down with all available means. Regardless whether the leader is a chancellor of a developed country, member of a major political dynasty in superpower country, or a head of a poor authocratic state. Only difference is Belarus cannot afford to buy some positive press. Go ahead western world, agitate these poor youngsters to hop into…

Sorry, but it sounds like you're making death threats.

It's a mere observation.

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#194

Post by nullifidian » Wed, May 26, 2021, 7:21 AM UTC

Svettie wrote: post #122

somethingwitty1 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denying access to airspace of a private plane feels a little different than forcing a commercial plane to land with threat (and real actions) of violence. The level of crimes involved is also an important distinction. What Snowden did is illegal in pretty much every single country in the world (if committed against that country). On the other hand, what Protasevich did, many countries have laws to protect such action…

I think you're choosing an arbitrary standard to defend your narrative. "Protasevich broke laws, but these are not laws that we consider bad." I could also say that "being a whistleblower about a government agency violating the rights of millions of it's citizens" is something that Western democracies claim to protect, when it's not happening to themselves.

Laws don't really work in countries like Russia or Belarus. Vague laws that encompass anything under the sun + complete lack of judiciary independence means that laws are whatever Lukashenko, Putin, or a careerist prosecutor (who needs convictions) wants them to be in a particular case. There is a saying in Russian speaking countries "Был бы человек, а статья найдётся" which can be roughly translated as "For every man, there's a law to convict him under".

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#195

Post by ddalex » Wed, May 26, 2021, 7:45 AM UTC

baybal2 wrote: post #175

sofixa wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Look at the transcript again, they're wondering why it's a civilian plane and not an An-26, and thinking of a way to deal with that...

He is not looking for a way to "deal with it," he very well knows what's going on, and aware of the order, and tell the caller to fuck off. There is no "alternative facts" there. An order to shoot everything that flies, and they did it. There are hours, and hours of Ukrainian intercepts, probably listened by every Western intelligence agency 100 times over. If that doesn't seal the deal, it's for people who fully wil…

> EU keeps soiling their pants, and still can't gather enough courage to point a finger on Russia

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53367425

https://www.rferl.org/a/dutch-court-rejects-request-to-inves...

I don't think that EU doesn't keep its finger pointed to Russia. Russia is heavily sanctioned already, what do you expect EU to do, invade them ?

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#196

Post by FeeJai » Wed, May 26, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

dingaling wrote: post #177

bb611 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you believe that there's little difference between Snowden and Protasevich, the scenarios are clearly different. Rescinding permission to transit is a far cry from falsely reporting a bomb threat, backing it up with military force, and then searching the plane and taking multiple passengers into custody as a condition of the plane's release.

> Rescinding permission to transit Thought experiment: what could have been the immediate consequences of disregarding that rescindment and continuing with the flightplan as filed?

They might have been intercepted by military. It is doubtful that they would have been shot down, but it would have been legal to do so.

The big difference is: No one forced them to land at a specific location -- they could have turned around and fly all the way back to Russia had they desired to do so. They landed in Austria because they decided to go to a neutral country and that they wanted to avoid NATO. It is fairly obvious that not letting someone enter is very different from letting enter and then coerce.

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#197

Post by neves » Wed, May 26, 2021, 5:40 PM UTC

Calvin02 wrote: post #106

neves wrote: post #60

Don't forget that the country that started to divert planes to catch democrat dissidents was the United States. But Snowden wasn't in the plane. Details here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/as-anger-toward-belarus-mou...

It is asinine to compare the two situations. Greenwald is wrongly equating the two together for his puppeteers. 1) Snowden had already been charged at that point and was running from the law. Morales's plane was diverted because it was believed to be providing passage to a criminal. While I don't know what Snowden did was right or wrong, it is clear that Snowden broke laws. His intentions might have been good but he…

Asinine Puppeteers

Great way to start a debate.

Snowden case is worse than Protasevich. They diverted a plane of a president of another country. Snowden dennounced a government that was breaking the law. He wasn't convicted of anything, so he as innocent.

The two cases are a menace to democratic societies. I'm appalled that someone can find one terrible and the other one something normal. Great example of double standards.

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#198

Post by neves » Wed, May 26, 2021, 5:44 PM UTC

newacct583 wrote: post #115

neves wrote: post #60

Don't forget that the country that started to divert planes to catch democrat dissidents was the United States. But Snowden wasn't in the plane. Details here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/as-anger-toward-belarus-mou...

The US (really its NATO allies) made no attempt to arrest Snowden (not that he was present) on the Morales plane. They simply said you can't fly him out over NATO airspace. If they wanted to pull the trick used here, they would have let Morales into German airspace and then intercepted the aircraft and forced it down. They did not.

You can't fly over here. And you also don't have enough gas to go anywhere else. See, I'm not really forcing you to do anything.

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#199

Post by newacct583 » Wed, May 26, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

neves wrote: post #198

newacct583 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US (really its NATO allies) made no attempt to arrest Snowden (not that he was present) on the Morales plane. They simply said you can't fly him out over NATO airspace. If they wanted to pull the trick used here, they would have let Morales into German airspace and then intercepted the aircraft and forced it down. They did not.

You can't fly over here. And you also don't have enough gas to go anywhere else. See, I'm not really forcing you to do anything.

> And you also don't have enough gas to go anywhere else.

This is just laughably spun. That airplane was fueled up for a flight To South America. Pretending like somehow it had to go through Germany or else run out of gas is just ridiculous. Turn around, fuel up in Moscow where you took off from, and fly back to the east if you want. It's an airplane. Don't be silly.

And it's a digression anyway. Even if this would have prevented Morales from reaching Bolivia in that jet, it's STILL not the same thing as forcing his plane down with threat of arms, forcing an evacuation, and arresting his passengers.

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#200

Post by Svettie » Wed, May 26, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

lazide wrote: post #190

Svettie wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it seems minor in the grand scheme of things. It's still trickery. I assume that in the Snowden case the permissions were withdrawn precisely to force a landing in a country where Snowden could be arrested. Belarus doesn't have the same alliances, so they resort to dirtier trickery to accomplish the same goal

It definitely is not. Denying someone access to airspace the way they did for Snowden to a gov’t level official is the equivalent of a bouncer stopping just the head of a competing club from entering - so the cops could grab him. Not seen as supportive, but not that crazy. What happened in this case is the state level equivalent of holding someone and their friends who were walking on the sidewalk in front of your ho…

I don't disagree with you. Yes, one is worse than the other.

The point that I'm making is that the distinction is dwarfed by the baseness of the paradigm itself: politically motivated interference with airliners in flight, to force a landing and arrest people in transit who are currently not within your jurisdiction. Anyway you want to look at it this happened in both cases, and we shouldn't be celebrating "ooh, but technically, we just withdrew permissions so it's not that bad is it?"