Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

statewatch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–279 of 279 posts

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#271

Post by llm_trw »

rbanffy wrote: post #233
concordDance wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because I find people Are you sure these are the same individuals? I can imagine them being different members of a nebulous group where different people talk louder at different times.

The justification is that the group they oppose is against the democratic values they espouse and, therefore, must be violently suppressed by any means necessary, in order to protect their democracy. "Communism/socialism" is usually a straw-man used in those cases.

The last 10 years have seen it become fascism/nazism.

One need only quote what Churchill said to see that it's nothing of the sort. Unless of course you think the man who kept the world war against nazism and fascism going for a year by himself was himself a fascist nazi at which point words don't mean anything.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#272

Post by rbanffy »

llm_trw wrote: post #271
rbanffy wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The justification is that the group they oppose is against the democratic values they espouse and, therefore, must be violently suppressed by any means necessary, in order to protect their democracy. "Communism/socialism" is usually a straw-man used in those cases.

The last 10 years have seen it become fascism/nazism. One need only quote what Churchill said to see that it's nothing of the sort. Unless of course you think the man who kept the world war against nazism and fascism going for a year by himself was himself a fascist nazi at which point words don't mean anything.

> was himself a fascist nazi

His reputation in India is not as stellar as you might think.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#273

Post by llm_trw »

rbanffy wrote: post #272
llm_trw wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last 10 years have seen it become fascism/nazism. One need only quote what Churchill said to see that it's nothing of the sort. Unless of course you think the man who kept the world war against nazism and fascism going for a year by himself was himself a fascist nazi at which point words don't mean anything.

> was himself a fascist nazi His reputation in India is not as stellar as you might think.

One might ask Indians what Hitler's reputation there would be had he won the war.

There is after all a difference between callous indifference and industrial genocide.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#274

Post by ThalesX »

rbanffy wrote: post #235
ThalesX wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far I'm an EU citizen. I have minimal saying in who our commissioner is and what members of the cabinet get chosen. I have a vote which I give to whatever party. After that, the vote for commissioner is secret; I have no idea who voted for what. After that, the negociations for the cabinet are secret; I have no idea what the criteria are and what the plans are. I…

> I have minimal saying in who our commissioner is and what members of the cabinet get chosen. We get to vote for our country representatives, who then vote for the MEPs. I don't think there is any EU-wide rule that prevents the MEP nomination process from being open - that'd be country-specific legislation.

I'm not talking about MEPs. The commissioner is not a country representative, I'm talking about the head of the European Commission, miss Ursula von der Leyen as it currently stands.

There is no rule preventing it from being open, there is also no rule forcing it to being open.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#275

Post by komali2 »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #269
komali2 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is exactly what the second person you quote does, and can be safely ignored because it is obviously dishonest mental gymnastic. I disagree that highly cited Solnit is engaging in "obviously dishonest mental gymnastics" and can be safely ignored. Now what? Great, you found another definition of violence, let's apply your definition to your own example. Note that your definition includes "intended or likely." F…

> For some reason you ignore the "intended to" when discussing firefighters Hmm, this is an excerpt from my previous comment: "you'll note that what firefighters might do is not intended to cause damage while vandalism obviously is". You do also seem not to understand the meaning of "intent"... Anyway, this is obviously useless, and in a way illustrates the issue when trying to tackle extremism, which is that it is o…

You don't believe the firefighters intend to damage the door preventing them from entrance? Or are you conjecting that the firefighters dream of a platonic door that functions stoutly as a door should, but magically vanishes when the firefighters (perfectly identified without fault) appear at it and need to force entry? And since this doesn't exist they don't intend to damage the door but do so anyway?

Because if that's the case, then vandals also dream of a platonic city that doesn't require statements to be made through thrown rocks in order to achieve systemic justice.

> Anyway, this is obviously useless, and in a way illustrates the issue when trying to tackle extremism, which is that it is outside the bounds of logic and reason, so bye

It saddens me that when you find someone you disagree with, you assume they're simply irrational lunatics and thus not worth paying attention to.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#276

Post by rbanffy »

ThalesX wrote: post #274
rbanffy wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have minimal saying in who our commissioner is and what members of the cabinet get chosen. We get to vote for our country representatives, who then vote for the MEPs. I don't think there is any EU-wide rule that prevents the MEP nomination process from being open - that'd be country-specific legislation.

I'm not talking about MEPs. The commissioner is not a country representative, I'm talking about the head of the European Commission, miss Ursula von der Leyen as it currently stands. There is no rule preventing it from being open, there is also no rule forcing it to being open.

Your MEPs could certainly propose that.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#277

Post by aguaviva »

kalrnh wrote: post #180
TomK32 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AfD has a serious right-wing problem and doesn't want to clean up their act. Banning the party might lead to failure as with the NPD (which since renamed itself) but it's worth a try and in parallel axing their funding like just happened earlier this year with the NPD should be attempted. I disagree with your "totalitarian measure" comment, it is the AfD who are not compatible with the German constitution and the…

The "Reichsbürger" are a tiny group of completely irrelevant nutcases, and according to the FAZ Malsack-Winkemann is no longer in the AfD: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/ex-afd-abgeordnet... Connections to the AfD exist, because extreme right people will always choose the most right wing viable party (NPD or successor is too small) as their home. The question is the percentage of these people and if all o…

Tiny?

  In April 2018, Germany's domestic intelligence service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), estimated that Reichsbürger movement membership had grown by 80% over the previous two years, more than estimated earlier, with a total of 18,000 adherents, of whom 950 were categorized as right-wing extremists. [Wikipedia]
Apart from numbers -- given that their ranks include former KSK members, they've had some success infiltrating local police departments, and are part of a much broader cloth of revisionist/antidemocratic movements; on top of the events of December 2022 -- the description of "completely irrelevant" is weirdly hyperbolic.

For context: the RAF probably had no more than 100 members at any point, but no one would think to call them "irrelevant".

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#278

Post by zxcb1 »

aguaviva wrote: post #260
zxcb1 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“One of the most audacious acts of sabotage in modern history, the operation worsened an energy crisis in Europe—an assault on critical infrastructure that could be considered an act of war under international law.” Which other potential terrorists are they looking for?

An act of sabotage is not, per se, "terrorism". Check your definitions, please.

Yes, and Azov are / were only ultranationalists, not neo-Nazis; it's all very postmodern

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#279

Post by aguaviva »

zxcb1 wrote: post #278
aguaviva wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An act of sabotage is not, per se, "terrorism". Check your definitions, please.

Yes, and Azov are / were only ultranationalists, not neo-Nazis; it's all very postmodern

No it's called war, and there's nothing postmodern about it at all actually.

It's really quite antimodern, in fact.

Post reply on HN