A threat of violence is a very large difference, I would not call that just window dressing.
Also lying (fake bomb threat) is a big difference.
It's like the difference between someone stealing your wallet, vs. letting you play some kind of street game where you don't actually have a chance of winning.
The method employed matters, it's not just about the final result.
Today's hijacking: the result was that the journalist was arrested and now may be facing the death penalty.
The denial of flyover rights to Morales' jet: there was no risk of capture to Snowden - worst case, he'd just have to back to Moscow. If he had been on the flight.
Again, if Snowden had been on the flight, they could have returned to Moscow.
Yes, there was obvious BS from Morales' pilots about uncertain fuel readings - if that had been true the actions of those EU countries saved the life of Morales and others onboard.
In addition, it was a scheduled passenger flight between two capitals of EU/NATO countries, not some private flight with special clearances. Completely unrelated civilians returning from a holiday inside the EU were taken hostage.
> A threat of violence is a very large difference, I would not call that just window dressing.
They forced the plane to land by locking all airspace around it. And yes, they would also have started fighter jets if the plane would enter the forbidden airspace.
Also lying (fake bomb threat) is a big difference.
It's like the difference between someone stealing your wallet, vs. letting you play some kind of street game where you don't actually have a chance of winning.
The method employed matters, it's not just about the final result.