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

Submarine cables cut in the Red Sea.Authorities looking at potential terrorism

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 48 posts

Re: Submarine cables cut in the Red Sea.Authorities looking at potential terrorism

#21

Post by 15457345234 »

FpUser wrote: post #20
15457345234 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's categorically terrorism by that definition. Objectively intended to coerce or intimidate governments: do as you're told if you want to have a viable economy, because so much of today's economy relies on communication.

>"It's categorically terrorism by that definition." Another BS. You are forgetting "violence" in that definition. Bar that any attempt to influence government is a terrorism.

I mean, cutting cables is a violent act, property destruction is violence. Unless we're going to go with the weird reddit anarchist definition in which you can destroy whole structures and it isn't violence if nobody gets hurt because property isn't real, man

Re: Submarine cables cut in the Red Sea.Authorities looking at potential terrorism

#22

Post by XorNot »

floating-io wrote: post #17
XorNot wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrorism[1] is committing crime for political purposes, rather then for personal gain, and this definition is well recognized. Terrorism has never been exclusively categorized as mass casualty attacks (and that's a relatively recent phenomenon, compared to the 70s and 80s with hijackings). [1] https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority...

No. Terrorism is when people use terror for political purposes. While it is often synonymous with crime, the "terror" part is rather critical. Most often, the terror is over the target's personal safety, or that of the target's loved ones. Having an undersea cable cut does not terrify a sane person without extenuating circumstances. Therefore it may be an act of war, but it is not terrorism in the slightest. Redefini…

So if someone blows up a transformer substation, but no one dies, is that terrorism?

What about a building? A government office? An empty school?

Or here's a better question: what then do you call the use of criminal means, for political purposes, to gain compliance from local population and political authorities, when it doesn't include direct harm against humans and focuses on destruction of property?

Re: Submarine cables cut in the Red Sea.Authorities looking at potential terrorism

#23

Post by friend_and_foe »

XorNot wrote: post #22
floating-io wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Terrorism is when people use terror for political purposes. While it is often synonymous with crime, the "terror" part is rather critical. Most often, the terror is over the target's personal safety, or that of the target's loved ones. Having an undersea cable cut does not terrify a sane person without extenuating circumstances. Therefore it may be an act of war, but it is not terrorism in the slightest. Redefini…

So if someone blows up a transformer substation, but no one dies, is that terrorism? What about a building? A government office? An empty school? Or here's a better question: what then do you call the use of criminal means, for political purposes, to gain compliance from local population and political authorities, when it doesn't include direct harm against humans and focuses on destruction of property?

Terrorism is acts to instil fear for political ends. Intent matters. If someone blows up a building to make people fearful, then it's terrorism. If someone does it to destroy someone's property, then its vandalism. By your logic, striking and blocking scabs is terrorism.

Re: Submarine cables cut in the Red Sea.Authorities looking at potential terrorism

#24

Post by XorNot »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #23
XorNot wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if someone blows up a transformer substation, but no one dies, is that terrorism? What about a building? A government office? An empty school? Or here's a better question: what then do you call the use of criminal means, for political purposes, to gain compliance from local population and political authorities, when it doesn't include direct harm against humans and focuses on destruction of property?

Terrorism is acts to instil fear for political ends. Intent matters. If someone blows up a building to make people fearful, then it's terrorism. If someone does it to destroy someone's property, then its vandalism. By your logic, striking and blocking scabs is terrorism.

And so in the current moment, why do you think the Houthis (if they are indeed responsible, but let's assume so for the sake of this argument) are cutting submarine cables?

What do you think the intent behind that was?

Re: Submarine cables cut in the Red Sea.Authorities looking at potential terrorism

#25

Post by friend_and_foe »

XorNot wrote: post #24
friend_and_foe wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrorism is acts to instil fear for political ends. Intent matters. If someone blows up a building to make people fearful, then it's terrorism. If someone does it to destroy someone's property, then its vandalism. By your logic, striking and blocking scabs is terrorism.

And so in the current moment, why do you think the Houthis (if they are indeed responsible, but let's assume so for the sake of this argument) are cutting submarine cables? What do you think the intent behind that was?

I would guess, to be as much of a nuisance as possible to those they percieve themselves to be at war with with what limited capabilities they have. They can't possibly believe that this will have significant economic impact so as to hamper their enemies' capability to continue to wage war. This will strike fear into the hearts of no one. But it's damage, and they can do it, so they do.

Re: Submarine cables cut in the Red Sea.Authorities looking at potential terrorism

#26

Post by senectus1 »

dontknowmuch wrote: post #7
bastawhiz wrote: post #4

Didn't the Houthis threaten to do this last month? https://gulfif.org/the-next-casualty-of-the-red-sea-attacks-... What's the practical effect of this? Other than some inconvenient latency and decreased redundancy...not as much as the headlines suggested?

Can't be cheap to repair it.

no, and pretty impressive if they managed it. I'm getting the feeling they're an underestimated force

Re: Submarine cables cut in the Red Sea.Authorities looking at potential terrorism

#28

Post by r00fus »

cuckatoo wrote: post #11
olliej wrote: post #9

I'm sorry, cutting undersea cables is not terrorism.

Anything can be terrorism if it is politically beneficial. This is 2024, after all.

Same as in 2004. It's so political powerful, you can even start a war against it.

Re: Submarine cables cut in the Red Sea.Authorities looking at potential terrorism

#30

Post by jemmyw »

simonblack wrote: post #29

[flagged]

Yes, but I don't recall many people claiming blowing up the gas pipelines was good, whoever it was that did it. Even if you wanted that pipeline gone, releasing all that methane wasn't a good thing to do.
Post reply on HN