Slavic goes a long way ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Slavic_sentiment

My goodness you do know a lot about international aviation. Not

Are you writing from Belarus or from CH?

You may have missed it, but there's a lot of people in Western countries who disagrees with the actions of their current governments. These people do not take any action of their government or armies as moral by default. On the contrary, these opposition groups enjoy their freedom to scrutinize and criticize their governments.

The funny thing is Western countries are also regarded as decaying and weak precisely because there's no monolithic culture. There's respect for the heterogeneous mix of languages, religions, ethnicity, etc.

So, choose one. Western countries are: A) monolithic cultures that assess any action of their and foreign governments and armies as moral, or b) weak and decaying plural societies.

Can you please show me the 7 pages long (and counting) EF rant against Vienna when they hijacked the Bolivian president plane? Can you please show me the list of EU sanctions against Austria when they hijacked the Bolivian president plane?

No, I'm not Belarusian, nor do i happen to like the despicable despot by the name of Lukashenko. What i happen to dislike even more is the Western sense of moral superiority when it's in fact the same body in different clothes

Hm, but do you understand that one bad deed doesn't legalize the other one. So, for a sake of keeping some ethical perspective let's go:
USA shooting down Iranian plane => BAD
Austrians playing lackeys for the USA => BAD
Lukašenko kidnapping planes => BAD

.....
and so on
Yes, Homo Sapiens had probably exterminate Neanderthals, but this doesn't mean that King Leopold was justified in Kongo, or that Srebrenica was ok
This excusing of wrongs with pointing on other, not connected wrongs tells a lot about people doing it. Something in a line: people are often bunch of hypocritical idiots, unable to critically evaluate themself.

That's not the point, that's true anywhere. What's being pointed at here is the level of coordinated, targeted outrage that is quickly assembled by Western countries against crimes real or perceived in "other" places (eastern countries, global south, etc) and used to mobilize harmful action quickly, using the massive economic power differential between the west and these places. Today Lukashenko, yesterday Gaddafi or Saddam, before that Mossadegh: and if the past has a lesson it's that the harm is spread very widely, even if particular leaders are almost exclusively the targets of the polemic. This is the kind of dialectic that destroys lives on a massive scale. Where it falls short of harm it still carries an unacceptable subtext: the west is assumed good, will not receive condemnation or punishment for action X, except in ways that have no effect; other places are assumed bad, receive widely repeated condemnation and effective collective punishment for the same action, with wide ranging and brutal effect, and the apologies and regrets may come in a few articles decades after the dead have been buried. At the European level the same kind of double standard means Orban is a fascist dictator for rejecting refugee settlement (and of course everybody knows his name and agrees he's a villain) while Danish leaders like Stojberg can tear up the right to equality before law by writing different laws for people of non-Western (ikke-Vestlige) origin in black and white, without more than a ripple of bad press and no consequence. Not everyone is comfortable with perpetuating this dialectic of double standards.

Civil registered aircraft used by a State for other than military, customs and police service shall not qualify as State Aircraft." - EUROCONTROL Provisional Council session 11, 12 July 2001.

Morales flew on Military aircraft ( registered ) and piloted by Military active officer (which would make even commercial registered aircraft to be Military flight status ).

Flight history for aircraft - FAB-001
AIRCRAFT
Dassault Falcon 900EX
AIRLINE
Bolivian Air Force


Paris Convention regulations and plenty other apply to any aircraft - never heard of unregulated state-aircrafts ...

(Warning: history geek)

Going back, here are two early cases - though in both cases, as in the recent US-initiated cases, the state went outside of its own territory to catch its prey (or supposed prey in the Morales case).

The mother of them all: In 1954 Israeli air force jets force down a Syrian passenger jet to take civilian Syrians hostage. The hope was to exchange them for Israeli soldiers captured on Syrian soil.
https://www.wrmea.org/1994-november-...-airliner.html

In 1956 the French Air Force forced a passenger plane bound for Tunis to land in Algiers, capturing five political leaders of the FLN (main Algerian independence movement). One of the leaders, Ahmed Ben Bella, says upon capture "it won't make a difference". Less than six years later, he will become the first post-independence president of Algeria.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Détour...9;avion_du_FLN

Guys, really? There is a brutal dictator who arrests and tortures opposition... and you really claim we are racist to be against his actions? That’s just bullshit.

And the Morales case was very different as countries refused him to use their airspace- not scrambling fighter jets to force him down. Lukashenko has all the rights in the world to not allow a plane to enter Belarusian airspace. But he doesn’t have the right to make up lies, force a plane down and arrest people he doesn’t like. I really don’t see any sensible reason to defend this.

P.S. if you have to bring up France during the last years of their colonial era to proof your point are you almost certainly on the wrong side of an argument... nobody ever claims that their actions in Algeria were legal or morally acceptable.

Whatever. I get the sentiment. Let's do our home works first and then point a finger at Western Europe though.
I can't stand their grandstanding and double standards either, especially considering colonialism, imperialism etc but it does't mean some EE countries don't really have issues re. democracy, justice etc. etc.

And to even try to (somehow) defend the Belarusian dictator??? Invoking the "anti-slavic" sentiment?? Wow, just wow. Putin's house ideologists must congratulate themselves now. For a job well done.

Extreme demonization of non-Western leaders (you just repeated two examples yourself) is precisely the problematic dialectic in question. People are no longer naive, we saw how it was used against Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad.. even if we weren't around for the days of Mossadegh.. Sorry, no, the western-consensus idea that non-Western leaders can be easily and trivially consigned to an "evil and indefensible" category, but never Western leaders, no matter how many they kill, that silly idea is way past its expiration date.

No, you don't get the sentiment. The point is not to justify what Lukashenko did because the Austrians did the same earlier. The point is to have the same level of outrage and response when a western country does it.

A bad deed is a bad deed irrelevant if it was done by an Austrian or a Belarussian and yet our response is different, ask yourself why

I think a lot of people should stop watching the world through the lens of their education, i.e. television and movies (AKA load of crap) coming from their country celebrating the victory over fascists power in the second World War.

How many extra-judicial killing are needed to transform a president in a bloody ruthless oligarch?

Please give only integer numbers.

No, it was not different. The means used were slightly "more clever". By denying entry into neighbouring airspace, the US with the assistance of several EU countries did indeed force Morales' plane to land. Not much different from what lukashenko did. That they did not capture Snowden in the process is only due tot he fact that he was not onboard. But the intention was all the same.

In the last 10 months Lukashenko proved many times that he fully deserves this demonization. I cannot imagine what negative word could be too extreme for him.

That is somewhat not precise.

Its commerical airline in Belarus vs Military plane in Presiden Morales case.

In Morales case - Authorities of any country for a fact - had no right to enter the airplane neither to detain anyone on board - until commanding officer of the plan granted permission. Commanding officer on ground being President Morales .

Plane was flying under with military status and enjoys exterritorial privilege- best Austrians could do is let it take off .

There is no provisions to let on board of Military plane

"The result of Article 32 of the Paris Convention is that military aircrafts are exempt from the application by other states of legal enforcement measures applicable to civil aircrafts.'9 Further- more, the crew of military aircraft benefit from immunity from the jurisdiction of the territorial sovereign only in so far as to acts performed during official duties."


Ryanair doesn't enjoy above privilege once landed and as above stated - local state law is applicable to civil aircrafts once on the ground but not military ones.

"It is also important to note that foreign officials may not board a state or military air- craft without the consent of the commander.' Should a dispute arise regarding customs, immigration, or quarantine, the host nation is limited to requesting that the state aircraft leave the national territory.22
The Chicago Convention,23 as we shall see later in this note, was very eloquent in its omissions; as it neither explicitly nor implicitly negated the customary norms affecting the legal status
of military aircraft as initially codified within the Paris Conven- tion."

'exactly. Same for other examples too.

Absolutely no question! In fact, there's a simple acid test: if your only friend is Putin, you're likely to be on the wrong side of history.

That thread has the same number of pages Evo Morales spent on an Austrian jail: zero.

As said, the means used by the US with the assistance of the EU were more "clever". But all you list as differences are technicalities. The intention was the same: shut down government critics at any cost.