Bella ciao.
U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
731–740 of 838 posts
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#732Everyone’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?
[dead]
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#733Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spraying paint into the jet engine of a military aircraft is not "terrorism". It may be criminal, but it was not in any way a violent crime. Given that it disabled the aircraft, it counts as more than mere vandalism, but calling this an act of terror is outrageous. The logic seems to be that Hamas has committed terrorist attacks against Israel, and is also the government of Palestine, so anyone fighting for the human…
Terrorism is often defined as actions designed to invoke political change. There's no actual requirement for violence for it to be terrorism.
I think that's down to people stretching the definition of terrorism to suit their political ends.
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#734Earlier 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.
Just because it's part of the government's definition doesn't mean that it's true. It's in the government's interest to define as much as possible as terrorism.
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#735Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 i…
>any kind of property "Any kind" is quite the load bearing argument there. Let me remind you Europe is under an ongoing land invasion, which is why fucking with its defensive capabilities is unlikely to solicit much sympathies.
So the idea is that Russia is planning on invading the UK?
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#736Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Damaging property for political ends Damaging military equipment is a military end, not a political one. If it were otherwise, then a military attacking a military would definitionally be terrorism. At that point, you've removed the utility of the word "terrorism" from English and made it synonymous with "armed conflict." Terrorism being done chiefly to change policies by terrorizing people through symbolic acts is…
I suppose the UK could declare Palestine Action as combatants and hunt them down and shoot them.. but that doesn't seem very uh, appropriate. I sort of prefer them being arrested and going through courts.
Or you know... they could just prosecute them for their crimes like an actual functioning democracy.
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#737Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can't be because of a PKK link because then the US would have to designate themselves as terrorist. They literally armed and supplied to YPG to fight ISIS. The Kurds proved to be the most effective at stopping ISIS
It's because the US hates everyone who disagrees with it, and the PKK thing is just a rationalisation, like when Musk says he banned people from X to support free speech.
[deleted]
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#738noblogs encourages and hosts violence and other terrorist activities.
They doxx people they don't like and pass around kids schools/addressess/home addresses/names of spouses, for the sole purpose of violence.
They had a flier for 'laser tag' hosted there, which was a group meet to flash laser pointers in the faces of ICE agents.
I've been following this 'collective' since 2016.
It's about time the US did something about it.
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#739Earlier quoted context omitted.
Terrorism used to be defined as attacking civilian targets to aid in political messaging. Attacking military targets is somewhere between an insurgency, partisanism, or an armed conflict. If we let terrorism mean “any act against the state”, then people who burn police cars are the same as people who plant bombs in shopping malls.
> Terrorism used to be defined as attacking civilian targets to aid in political messaging. Not consistently, and its not a clear definition. The same groups that attacked civilians in places I have lived in also attacked military targets as part of the same strategy. Terrorism is used to threaten, divert resources from front lines, cause economic damage, etc. Civilian targets are attacked in most wars. Is a car bomb…
A police car is not a human being.
If the same group attacks civilian and military targets then the civilian targets are terrorism and the military targets are not.
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#740Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Palestine Action has been designated a terrorist group in the UK as well after sabotaging military aircraft (the article says they sprayed paint, but does not say it was sprayed inside jet engines, rendering them inoperable). That pretty much tells you everything you need to know. Definitions of "terrorism" that extend to sabotage against occupying or invading militaries and their allies are meaningless and hollow…
> That pretty much tells you everything you need to know. Definitions of "terrorism" that extend to sabotage against occupying or invading militaries and their allies are meaningless and hollow dilutions. British people attacking British forces are not sabotaging an occupying or invading military.
Are the British allies of Israel? Do they support Israel militarily? Whether or not they are right, I don't think you are engaging with the actual point of the message you are replying to.