IS THERE ANY FALLACY IN THIS DISCUSSION? OR WHATABOUTISM ONLY?

The discussion you've provided includes elements of a few logical issues, including hints of whataboutism and potentially an implied false dilemma.

1. **Whataboutism**: This is present when the response to mourning specifically for the vice president (VP) shifts focus to the other victims of the crash. Although it’s a valid point to recognize all lives lost, using it to question the legitimacy of mourning the VP more intensely can be seen as an attempt to sidestep or diminish the specific grief for the VP by redirecting attention to others. This doesn’t necessarily address the original emotional expression but rather diverts the conversation.

2. **Implied False Dilemma**: There is a suggestion that one cannot mourn the VP more or differently than the other victims without being unfair, which oversimplifies the complexity of human emotions. People can grieve differently for various individuals due to personal or national significance, relationships, or the roles the deceased played.

3. **Potential Assumption**: The question "how was he supposed to die?" may also imply that any additional mourning for the VP implies others were less valuable, which isn't necessarily the case. People may express more public grief for figures they recognize due to their roles or impact, without suggesting that those lives are inherently more valuable.

The response rationalizes the focus on the VP by noting that the VP was a national figure, which, while possibly true, doesn't entirely refute the original point about acknowledging the grief for others. Both perspectives are valid, but the dialogue lacks acknowledgment of the multifaceted nature of public mourning.

When a statement express feelings, I think there are no fallacies. If I understand correctly, the person talking was a supporter of the VP so was hoping that the VP would improve the people's lives if he was still alive. So I guess the underlying premise is that the VP would be more beneficial and thus more important for your interlocutor than the rest of the plane crew. And now you may say, if that's the case, why didn't the person say so instead of what he actually said. The answer is because people in general can't express themselves accurately, especially when they have to express their feelings or identify the psychological reasons when taking a decision or expressing an opinion.

So, if they are more upset about the VP's death than the other victims that's just an emotional response. I don't think there are fallacies in that. The only question after an emotional response is whether people are consciously aware about the reason they favor one over the other. And the answer to that question in that particular example is 'because the vp was a national figure'.