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

291–300 of 817 posts

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

#291

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

fchicken wrote: post #202
foul wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not unprecedented, but a lot of fools lauded moves like this when these kind of instruments were used with barely a legal net around them against islamic terrorism or cybercrime. I'm not crying for no Al-Qaeda or 8chan, mind you. In this very year UN and ICJ officials have been targeted in a similar fashion though. When the pax americana ends like this, I don't know what else is needed for EU and Asia to raise…

[flagged]

Erm, but what about saying mean hateful words??

That makes them, like, the bad guys, don't you think?!

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

#292

Post by CMay »

rileymat2 wrote: post #270
CMay wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Google says the Chinese military budget is 281 billion. They probably get lower cost labor and production, but that’s significantly lower than the United States. Adjusting for Purchasing Parity, an imperfect measure, that still only like 600 billion, significantly lower than the United States.

They're vertically integrated so a lot of materials are cheaper. They also steal a lot of technology, so they save a lot of money on having to do the research the US already paid for. Finances alone don't make the military and your argument doesn't change anything I said.

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

#293

Post by aftbit »

exiguus wrote: post #4

There is also an article on we will free us [1] if you want to dive deeper into that rabbit hole. [1] https://www.wewillfreeus.org/the-server-called-paranoia-defe...

>[The US State Dept's] examples include alleged railway and pipeline sabotage in Europe, attacks on energy infrastructure, Rose City Antifa, resistance to Atlanta’s proposed police-training center, Jane’s Revenge and publications carrying statements attributed to armed organizations.

At least one of these things is not like the others. Why are peaceful protests against "Cop City" (Atlanta's proposed police-training center) lumped in with violent attacks on infrastructure? This isn't the first time either - Samuel Tunick, the man who was charged with destruction of evidence for giving his duress pin to the CBP agents, was being investigated for his connection to the Cop City protests.[1]

And as others have said, what does it say about the current US admin that they are designating "anti-fascist" groups as terrorists? I will say, at least unlike Cop City protests afaik, Rose City Antifa seems willing to use violence to accomplish their goals.[2]

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-pro...

[2]: https://rosecityantifa.org/articles/statment-on-strategy-and...

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

#294

Post by cdrnsf »

einpoklum wrote: post #277
cdrnsf wrote: post #273

This administration is on a witch hunt for anything they can identify as "antifa" when no such central organization insists. Instead it's being used as an over broad label to attack organized opposition to it's broadly unpopular policy agenda. (If you're opposed to antifascists what does that make you?)

> when no such central organization insists No any such organization exists. It is a movement, and a description one can describe one's self or actions: "anti-fascist". But of course, their logic for sanctioning-by-association would mean that they all - Trump, Bessent, Rubio etc. - with their innumerable contacts with "violent terrorist groups and regimes" everywhere around the world, and just themselves really - sho…

Yes. The president fomented a violent insurrection and then pardoned its participants (who should all still be in prison). He shouldn't be in office and you could similarly sanction his own social media platform, X and any other number of their supporters.

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

#295

Post by xdennis »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #240
BeetleB wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ouch. A good friend of mine was charged with providing material support to terrorists for providing similar donations. And all his donations were prior to the US designating the recipients as terrorists. The government's arguments were "Yes yes, but you knew what you were supporting even though we hadn't designated them as such..." Hope you're not in the US.

Your friend has integrity and should hold their head up high they are fighting against oppressive bullshit

Do you really not care to know what the terrorist organization was before you assume that "they are fighting against oppressive bullshit"? Is A/I and ISIS the same to you?

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

#297

Post by deaux »

vorpalhex wrote: post #259
deaux wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think its likely they do have sympathy for violent groups The US regime is an extremely violent group, so I that's certainly the issue.

[flagged]

You're not suggesting that most, if not all of these, are things the US hasn't done, are you? Surely not. The one you might try and dispute is the "50,000 protestors" one, as you know the other ones are clear as day.

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

#298

Post by nish__ »

vorpalhex wrote: post #259
deaux wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think its likely they do have sympathy for violent groups The US regime is an extremely violent group, so I that's certainly the issue.

[flagged]

Right. But when when a group blows up hospitals, schools and other infrastructure and murders 70,000 civilians (Israel)... Why is that not disignated terrorism?

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

#299

Post by anigbrowl »

graemep wrote: post #208
giraffe_lady wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Palestine Action has been designated a terrorist group in the UK as well after sabotaging military aircraft This is already an extreme perversion of justice all on its own. Damaging military equipment is absolutely outside any useful definition of terrorism. This is simply armed conflict.

Damaging property for political ends has been part of the definition in the UK, and I think the US, for decades. I would say the case for targetting military equipment is stronger than for damaging most other things. > This is simply armed conflict. Armed conflict by residents and citizens against the state is usually a serious criminal offense everywhere.

Well the definition is flawed, or as the British say, the law is an ass.

Terrorism is widely understood to be the deployment of military force against civilian populations. Of course states do this all the time, but 'state terrorism' is basically dependent on whether politicians in country A align with country B or not; if they don't, they'll call out state abuses in country B as state terrorism, if not they'll say it's law and order.

Regardless of these nuances, extending the definition to include any kind of property damage is just laughably opportunist.

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

#300

Post by mindslight »

antonvs wrote: post #254
xg15 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the logic of Jack Bauer taken to the end. "Come on, it's obvious who the bad guys are, who needs rules?" until suddenly it's not obvious anymore...

My conspiracy theory is that "24" was funded by the CIA (etc.) to build public support for measures like the Patriot Act. "24" debuted 11 days after the Patriot Act became law, so they were being worked on at the same time.

Why do you need the detour through the CIA? Our de jure Constitutional government is merely part of a much larger de facto government formed by large corporations and the billionaire (oligarch) class. The same group of people who funded the lobbyists that had the "Patriot" Act ready and waiting on September 10th also funded "24", the politicians and think tanks behind the Iraq War, and so on. The main difference is that production of "24" was a direct bona fide business expense for tax purposes.
Post reply on HN