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

771–780 of 854 posts

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

#771

Post by edgyquant »

inigyou wrote: post #600
rayiner wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m happy to admit it. But I think that there’s lots of democrats who are fine with it too—folks who agree on how to handle terrorists, but just want more generous social welfare. I don’t think its a real dividing line in the electorate.

Note that democrats and republicans are both right-wing parties.

Only according the far left, in reality this is not true and shouldn’t even be entertained except to a laugh at people trying this hard to shift the Overton window in their favor

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

#772

Post by Synaesthesia »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #559
RIMR wrote: post #464

Earlier 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.

Terrorism has to include violence, by my definition at least.

It's in the name. Terrifying people into compliance. Well that isn't the case here.

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

#773

Post by michael0church »

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.

MIC influence is very likely, but 24 was written before 9/11.

The neoconservative wing of the Republican Party had a hardon for war before the attack. What they couldn’t agree on was where… an invasion of Colombia under pretext of drugs, or something in the Middle East after the second intifada.

Once the planes hit, they could all agree where. South America was forgotten for a while.

Any direct connection to 24 would likely be tenuous, if only because (a) MIC propaganda is all over Hollywood even in peacetime, and (b) dark (i.e., on-camera physical interrogation) political thriller was already a high-selling genre in 2001.

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

#774

Post by wewro »

dlahoda wrote: post #757
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?

Are not they sanctioned because of Free Palestine label? Any sanctioned org for just being p2p/crypto so far? Seems you misdirect reasons.

[dead]

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

#775

Post by suslik »

inigyou wrote: post #645
bentley wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have had their homes raided in Germany and electronics seized for calling politicians dicks on Twitter or Facebook.

That's actually a crime though and everyone knows it's a crime.

The fact that it is a crime (if it is, indeed, a fact), only makes it even more fucked up.

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

#776

Post by marcosdumay »

GolfPopper wrote: post #467
antonvs wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't forget the X-Files spinoff The Lone Gunmen . During its pilot episode, first airing March 4th, 2001, members of the U.S. government remotely hijack an airliner and try to crash it into the World Trade Center, blaming anti-American terrorist groups in order to start a new global war on terrorism for the profit of defense industry contractors.

Both throwing airplanes at buildings and taking the World Trace Center down were pretty widespread "hidden" ideas at the time. It's not surprising that several people connected them.

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

#777

Post by ls612 »

inigyou wrote: post #619
ls612 wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sabotage of military aircraft is political violence.

It's direct action. Violence is direct action against people's bodies, not property directly involved in genocide.

If you don’t like your government’s policy vote for someone else. If you try to change it by force I will cheer on your suppression and incapacitation by force.

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

#779

Post by frumplestlatz »

asib wrote: post #379
frumplestlatz wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You're appealing to another proscription decision that is extraordinarily controversial.

Controversial -- particularly amongst those of a particular political persuasion that supports a terrorist state -- doesn’t mean preposterous.
Post reply on HN