While I agree that an argument of the form: "Well X does Y too, so Y is not that big a deal." is fallacious and poisonous, I do think it is important to talk about issues like this in their larger context and I feel firstOrder's comment mostly kept on the right side of that line. (I guess I think the context of the first paragraphs is important but the latter paragraphs verge on something that's less about adding context and more about excusing things.)
In this discussion, it is important to have the context that many governments engage in this behavior. Not so that it can be excused, but so that when we discuss how to deal with it, we can do it in a way that's informed and tackles the actual issues including the nuances of escalating bilateral cycles.
While I think it is perfectly reasonable to make a moral and ethical judgement based on a unilateral context, but it is a mistake to examine the foreign policy without discussing the bilateral or multilateral interactions that help create and sustain it.
The latter paragraphs don't "verge on" anything, they just go straight into anti-American and pro-Chinese apologetics without even trying to pretend otherwise.
I mean, this says it all, right here:
"In April 2001 the U.S. rammed a Lockheed EP-3 into a Chinese plane just outside the PRC border, killing the Chinese pilot, then landed on PRC territory without permission."
The only way you can possibly think that a four-engined turboprop can "ram" a fighter jet is if you have a bias so large that its gravitational field affects the orbits of nearby planets.
More information is on Wikipedia [1]. After reading that article, it definitely sounds like the quoted statement was created from within some kind of reality distortion field.
To add to your original comment: the US pilot insisted that the plane was on autopilot (and thus he was hit by the Chinese pilot, not vice versa), the Chinese pilot had a history of flying way too close to US planes, and the US plane "landed without permission" because it was so damaged after the event that the crew was on the verge of bailing out.
It's funny, it didn't occur to me that there'd be anyone who didn't already know all about it. Not meant to be a comment on you, just me not thinking about it enough.
Your elaboration is exactly right on all counts. And to add a bit more, even if none of that were true, it still makes no sense for a lumbering reconnaissance plane to "ram" a maneuverable fighter jet that intercepted it. It would be like a container ship "ramming" a jet-ski. Even if it wanted to, it simply can't maneuver to make it happen.
> Not meant to be a comment on you, just me not thinking about it enough.
No slight taken. I was still in middle school when the Hainan Island incident happened, and I figured there's a sizable young population on HN that's in the same boat. Young kids tend not to pay as much attention to the machinations of foreign policy.
I figured it was probably due to age. I was in college at the time and it was big news for quite a while, although very much in a "if you're paying attention to the news" kind of way, not something that made people stand up and pay attention like the events that overshadowed it later that year.
Not only that, but why the hell would someone want to risk their life "ramming" a fighter jet. I'm terrified enough of scratching the paint on my car bumping into something, I couldn't imagine the mindset you'd have to have to deem it worthwhile to "ram" a fighter jet midair.
I quite agree that its important to place issues within the larger context. But the original comment did not attempt to. It simply was a list of whatabouts. If the original comment had been a nuanced response aware of the different responses and policies relating to visiting countries with drastically different ideologies and policie, then I don't think anyone would have been put out except the tl;dr crowd.
In this discussion, it is important to have the context that many governments engage in this behavior. Not so that it can be excused, but so that when we discuss how to deal with it, we can do it in a way that's informed and tackles the actual issues including the nuances of escalating bilateral cycles.
While I think it is perfectly reasonable to make a moral and ethical judgement based on a unilateral context, but it is a mistake to examine the foreign policy without discussing the bilateral or multilateral interactions that help create and sustain it.