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

U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

inventati.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 833 posts

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#191

Post by jst1fthsdys »

Marha01 wrote: post #149
deaux wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they choose to support the PKK, which the EU, UK, and US have all deemed a terrorist organization for over 20 years, then of course the US should sanction them and they have no moral ground to stand on. No moral ground to stand on? Would you say that about Amazon who supports the US regime, which is in the business of bombing Iranian schoolgirls? Is that less terrorist? This collective of course has much more of…

> Would you say that about Amazon who supports the US regime, which is in the business of bombing Iranian schoolgirls? Is that less terrorist? Strictly speaking, unintended collateral damage of civilians in a war does not fulfill the definition of terrorism. The attack on Iranian school was to the best of my knowledge a mistake stemming from old intel. Terrorism is deliberate attack on civilians to achieve a politica…

Oh okay, how about the deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure?

I love how governments (in the west) are absolutely incapable of campaigns of terror.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#192

Post by someguydave »

mrtesthah wrote: post #72
criddell wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The consequences may include the loss of: • Bank accounts and payment processing. • U.S.-linked donations and fundraising services. • Hosting, cloud infrastructure and upstream network services. • Domain registration and related technical services. • Certificate, security and email-delivery accounts. • Software and communications services. • Relationships with non-U.S. providers frightened by American secondary sanct…

My question now is whether European hosting providers sprouting up in the face of the US CLOUD act will step up to provide those services.

Do you think many banks worldwide would enjoy declaring themselves the enemies of the US government in order to assist left-wing lunatics?

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#193

Post by ModernMech »

inigyou wrote: post #154
nonethewiser wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project ruled that knowingly providing material support to designated terrorist organizations is not protected by the first amendment. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/1 But I'm curious about your take on this. How would you argue the first amendment protects this?

So it's trivial that if you are the government and you want to arrest someone for speech, you first call them a terrorist organisation and then you can arrest them for speech? Ridiculous.

Not only that, you can disappear them to a remote location and torture them forever without charging them for any crime whatsoever.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#194

Post by tremeouh0 »

mrtesthah wrote: post #49
nonethewiser wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Is that more, or less, than the 1.2 million people Musk has killed so far with the illegal dismantlement of USAID? Musk aggressively advocates for the forcible ethnic cleansing of Europe. I see people posting links to x.com which he uses to promote those views as well as platform other hate groups calling for violence and genocide against immigrants, trans people, etc. Do acts gain moral validity under color of law a…

[dead]

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#196

Post by bsian »

In threads about the Russian war if you mention that the US has done worse your comments are removed and people complain about "whataboutism".

In this thread, on the other hand, people keep bringing up that the US has done worse but those comments are upvoted and there is no mention of "whataboutism" in the entire thread.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#198

Post by sroussey »

dpc050505 wrote: post #117
iamnothere wrote: post #45

Everyone’s missing the big picture here which is that this targeting of infrastructure providers as “terrorists” is unprecedented and concerning: https://decode39.com/16319/autistici-inventati-case-sets-a-n... If a radical group sets up shop on I2P, are I2P users and devs now terrorists? This is a problem. What about Monero users/devs? Veilid? Tox? Signal?

Monero is delisted from exchanges in Canada because the anonymity makes it impossible to comply with anti-money laundering regulations. It makes it a lot harder to acquire the coins or to turn them into liquidity. The government is also going hard against encryption with law c-22, which will make Signal stop providing service in the country.

They will only catch the amateurs. But they can pat themselves on the back I guess that did something.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#199

Post by ModernMech »

zmgsabst wrote: post #175
inigyou wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about intended collateral damage?

I don’t think it was intended. I think that when you’re bombing thousands of targets, a 0.1-1% targeting error rate leads to dozens of unintended collateral hits (and thousands of civilians dead) — and is among the many reasons wars are horrific.

They hit the correct target. It's that although they could have, they didn’t check to see if it was a school first.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#200

Post by MSFT_Edging »

32aGh wrote: post #70
nonethewiser wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

They should have hosted for Al Qaida and ISIS. Then they would have been invited to the White House and been sprayed with perfume by Trump: https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/11/12/donald-trump-ahmed-al... "Al-Sharaa, who until recently was known by his alias "al-Julani," was a longtime jihadist who was part of the ranks of organizations associated with al-Qaida and ISIS, and even orchestrated an attack against Israel…

This tidbit should show people how the line between "terrorist", "freedom fighter" and "useful lackey" is razor thin.

You should never take the "terrorist" label at face value.

The US funded the Mujaheddin in the 80s in Afghanistan. Their first moves upon receiving the weapons was to throw grenades through the windows if Girls' schools.

They began as the "useful lackey", and the US lost control of the Wahabist movement that was amplified to fight Communism. Then they were "freedom fighters" to the religious extremists, and "terrorists" to fight a war against.

In your own example, Al-Sharaa(a product of weaponizing Wahhabism) did actual terrorism, and then was able to squeeze back into the "useful lackey" position, like many "terrorist"s have before him.

Post reply on HN