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

381–390 of 837 posts

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

#381

Post by TiredOfLife »

NewJazz wrote: post #349
vorpalhex wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I notice people always respond with "but the US does this too!" and never actual incidents. No, I'm not going to just high five your vague head nod at wrong doing you can't even describe. Seriously, sit down, make a list of incidents, including weighing the outcome of those incidents. If it's a case where an officer or a soldier did something wrong, list what happened after (court, punishment, cleared of wrongdoing,…

The shootings took place on May 4, 1970, during a rally opposing the expanding involvement of the Vietnam War into Cambodia by United States military forces, as well as protesting the National Guard presence on campus and the draft. Twenty-eight National Guard soldiers fired about 67 rounds over 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom sustained permanent paralysis. Eight of the shooter…

the difference is literally 10000x

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

#382

Post by CMay »

adtra wrote: post #380
CMay wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't start World War 1, or World War 2, or the Korean war, or the Vietnam war. We didn't make Russia attack Ukraine. We didn't make Iraq attack Iran or Kuwait. We didn't make Iran fund terrorism around the region and the world. We have promoted peace in Europe through NATO. We're trying to achieve a similar Europe-like stability in the Middle East so it isn't constantly at war, often caused by Iran proxies. What…

I don't know where to start. The US supported Saddam after his Iran invasion : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq... Maybe read how de Gaulle viewed the US "promoting peace in Europe" or how the British did after the US stole the Suez canal and kicked the British out of the Middle East.

Yes, after Saddam invaded Iran, because Iran was trying to export its revolution to Iraq. We didn't make Iraq attack Iran though. It was just one more war caused by Iran exporting revolution which has happened several times in the Middle East already.

It was an opportunity to weaken Iran which is a far worse problem in the Middle East than Iraq was. Iran had fired most of its airforce pilots for not being Islamic radical enough and with their airforce in shambles, Saddam saw an opportunity. Then Iran had to rush to rehire their old airforce pilots regardless of their dedication to the revolutionary cause or regime just to fight back.

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

#383

Post by NewJazz »

TiredOfLife wrote: post #381
NewJazz wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shootings took place on May 4, 1970, during a rally opposing the expanding involvement of the Vietnam War into Cambodia by United States military forces, as well as protesting the National Guard presence on campus and the draft. Twenty-eight National Guard soldiers fired about 67 rounds over 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom sustained permanent paralysis. Eight of the shooter…

the difference is literally 10000x

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49482598

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

#384

Post by RobotToaster »

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.

I was going to say the same about James Bond, but it turns out they literally boast about helping in its production on their website, so it's not really a conspiracy theory https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/the-cia-and-pop-culture/

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

#385

Post by spullara »

OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #377
spullara wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i wouldn't characterize it as very expensive or even expensive. it is in fact super cheap. even in italy.

Maybe help donate then? 13000 Euro is a lot of money to poor people

[flagged]

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

#386

Post by jijijijij »

tptacek wrote: post #374
jijijijij wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's based on three designated foreign terrorist organizations, notably the PKK. In this context, "designated foreign terrorist organizations" is not an explanation, but a tautology. The matter at hand is how and why something got onto that list. The antifa remark relates to the Rote Hilfe situation. In my opinion, it's an example of how populist rhetoric became a major overreach with real consequences prior to the…

It's neither an explanation nor a tautology; it's an element of US law.

So if those prior sentences or yours are not related, your argument is part wrong, part irrelevant/nonsensical. Good talk.

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

#388

Post by mr_roboto »

classified wrote: post #284
nomadpenguin wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that even a conspiracy? It's well documented how closely the military works with Hollywood -- of course government apparatuses are interested in funding media that aligns with their goals.

And it was a Fox production. Using the most obvious shill isn't very covert.

The democrats introduced the patriot act...

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

#389

Post by hackable_sand »

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.

You cannot hide behind convenience.
Post reply on HN