The lack of superhuman bravery is not cowardice.
Cowards
211–220 of 240 posts
Re: Cowards
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two points 1. The US has killed many many more children in its retaliation for attacks than any so called 'terror' organization has. ( http://www.policymic.com/articles/20884/is-america-like-adam... ) 2. The fear of your children dying is the ultimate weapon for people to control you. There is a strange dichotomy between the pride parents of soldiers have in their child's courage to defend liberty, and the 'do-anythi…
I am not sure what your point is here, unless it is to argue that communists are morally equivalent to terrorists. Also, a question: do you think there is anyone online reading HN that has not already heard this line of argument, that both governments and terrorists kill children? Finally, not that I think it's necessary to rebut your post point by point, but: I'm not ok with the USG doing anything to protect my kids…
Depends on how you define "communists" and "terrorists". If you say communists are members of the organisation called Communist Party (including main - USSR - party and foreign branches) and terrorists are members of an organisation like Al Qaeda that has terror as its tactics - then yes, they are - or, more correctly, were - nearly equivalent. Communist Party's official goal - at least back in the middle of the last century where it was at the peak of its power - was the overthrow of the capitalist governments, or at least sufficient weakening of them to render them unable to interfere with the Party's goals. In the service of this goal, they did not hesitate to use violence, murder and any other criminal activity. They also waged a multitude of actual wars in many places, including against the US and US allies. Of course, not every rank Communist Party member was engaged in active violence - but also not every rank member of terrorist organisation blows himself up in Baghdad market or flies a plane into a New York building. There are many supporters and enablers that contribute their part to make the final strike possible - by giving money, material support, logistics, cover, etc.
Of course, now that communist parties are mostly a sad joke, the equivalence is absent, but back in the day I would say being a communist - especially outside of Communist block were you didn't have much choice and also almost always did not possess relevant information to make correct conclusions - was not much different on the substance than being, say, Hamas supporter now, even though I realize many people did not understand that. But many people don't understand it now too.
Re: Cowards
#213There's a meme on Reddit that revolves around 'so brave': basically calling people/posts/comments out for obvious pandering. This reads like a pastiche of Keith Olbermann, all bravado and empty gusto. Arrington writes: What has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth? and then acknowledges that doing so,…
It's pretty simple, Arrington is stirring the pot, and the bees are coming in. In this case bees are good for his business.
Re: Cowards
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The government would go after Facebook as an entity when Zukerberg speaks out. You honestly think the government is going to go after a multibillion dollar international corporation? Doing that is what gets the government into trouble, because the corporation has the resources to defend itself. And they're clearly not going to destroy Facebook and Google in any event -- can you imagine the public outrage, to say not…
More likely though they'd go after corporate officers for real or alleged criminal behavior (think of the "honest services fraud" charges against Jeff Skilling, reversed by the Supreme Court on the basis that the law was being stretched well beyond breaking point) and refer to the SEC for investigations.... The government has in the past gone after some extremely powerful corporations and when they had the endurance…
The government create AT&T's monopoly on long distance.
Re: Cowards
#215Rather than calling anyone a coward, I will acknowledge that standing up for freedom is never easy. I know through direct personal acquaintance people who spent hard prison time during Taiwan's transition from dictatorship to democracy, who were arrested after leading peaceful public protest demonstrations of the kind that happen every day here in the United States. I have seen what kind of sustained effort--and, yes…
It's a hell of a lot easier when you're rich beyond belief; have access to the best legal counsel; have an enormous media platform; have access to lobbyists; have cultivated personal connections to legislators; can pick a very public fight which the NSA dreads getting dragged into; and can threaten obama / the democrats' link to a rich, donor heavy constituency. What John Kiriakou did took courage. What these ceos need is a hell of a lot less.
edit: We've seen how these ceos can react when they care, ie when something threatens their income.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA
edit2: punctuation
Re: Cowards
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whistleblowers and illegal aliens might be morally equivalent to trade unionists and socialists, but terrorists are not equivalent to communists; I said nothing when they came for the terrorists because the terrorists were trying to murder my children.
No, the terrorists were trying to protect their children, whom the "troops" were heroically murdering. Do you not know about the drone "signature strikes" that bomb randomly in Yemen and Pakistan, followed by targeted strikes against first responders ? And do you not know that all it takes to become a "terrorist" is to be male, medium age, and killed in such a strike? Unless proven innocent ? Or are you under the del…
There are a lot of videos on youtube taken by US/British/Whoever troops with helmet cameras on youtube where they get sucked into a gunfight. I've watched a few, usually linked to me by reddit or family members who are in the military. Generally the way it goes is that the camera man will be walking around with his buddies, cracking the crude jokes you would expect, and all of a sudden a mortar round lands near them or the dirt in front of them starts getting whipped up by bullets. Everyone scrabbles and starts firing at various adjacent hilltops or ridges. Fairly intense stuff.
The part that gets me though is how the videos are always labelled. It is always "Gun battle with Al Qaeda" or "Taliban sneak attack"* or whatnot. I don't blame the camera man and company for shooting back or anything, but where are they getting the "Al Qaeda/Taliban" part from? It is not like the attackers are wearing uniforms (or can even be seen in most cases...) It really does seem to be implicitly assumed that anyone who sees value in shooting at foreign troops in their country must be members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban. This rubs me incredibly wrong.
Re: Cowards
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two points 1. The US has killed many many more children in its retaliation for attacks than any so called 'terror' organization has. ( http://www.policymic.com/articles/20884/is-america-like-adam... ) 2. The fear of your children dying is the ultimate weapon for people to control you. There is a strange dichotomy between the pride parents of soldiers have in their child's courage to defend liberty, and the 'do-anythi…
I am not sure what your point is here, unless it is to argue that communists are morally equivalent to terrorists. Also, a question: do you think there is anyone online reading HN that has not already heard this line of argument, that both governments and terrorists kill children? Finally, not that I think it's necessary to rebut your post point by point, but: I'm not ok with the USG doing anything to protect my kids…
> Also, a question: do you think there is anyone online reading HN that has not already heard this line of argument, that both governments and terrorists kill children?
So? Does this make the argument wrong? Or does this mean that arguments that have been used once, cannot be used again? Arguments as toilet paper, in some way?
I'm French. France was occupied by Nazi Germany (as every American I ever speak to likes to remind me).
Resistants were ordinary French people who blew up trains in order to make the life of Germans in France as difficult as possible -- and of course German propaganda called them terrorists. I'm not putting this word in quotes, because of course that's what they were. They were trying to terrify the occupiers. It was a good thing.
Terrorists try to murder your children because your compatriots murder theirs.
Re: Cowards
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You have to realize: Mark Zuckerberg isn't just looking out for Mark Zuckerberg by posting what he did. He has a family, a social life, and a whole lot of people at Facebook who depend on him. To whom, perhaps, it would not be fair for Zuck to martyr himself on the great gallows of the United States of Atrocity in futile protest of its horrifying surveillance subterfuge. He also has over a billion people who would…
To be fair, Khodorkovsky was a billionaire, too. He'll get a third prison sentence on more trumped-up charges shortly. The existence of various kangaroo courts ("military tribunals") in the US security apparatus since the Bush 43 administration suggests that Zuckerberg's money and influence are nowhere near enough to protect him. The buck for such decisions stops at the Oval Office, and its current occupant has no re…
Khodorkovsky is a Russian, in Russia. The USA courts' credibility may be in decline, but they aren't on par with those in Russia.
Re: Cowards
#219First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a terrorist. Then they came for the whistle blowers, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a whistle blower. Then they came for the illegal aliens, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not an illegal alien. Then they came for the hackers--and there was no one left to speak for us.
Whistleblowers and illegal aliens might be morally equivalent to trade unionists and socialists, but terrorists are not equivalent to communists; I said nothing when they came for the terrorists because the terrorists were trying to murder my children.
[deleted]
Re: Cowards
#220First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a terrorist. Then they came for the whistle blowers, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a whistle blower. Then they came for the illegal aliens, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not an illegal alien. Then they came for the hackers--and there was no one left to speak for us.
[deleted]