391–400 of 445 posts
> When the two civilian dressed masked men entered the apparentment I think this is very irresponsible. What would happen if the owner was armed and harmed the police thinking that they were criminals?
This is Denmark, nobody except gang members is armed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may be of the same order, but it is a different thing. No one, not even techies like here on HN, are going to see his actions as valid.
It’s not fundamentally different than indiscriminately scanning everyone’s private communication (what the Danish government is trying to accomplish on the EU level)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
25 years? Why stop there? How about the US terror attacks on other countries civilians since at least the 1960s?
When did USA bomb a civilian house that wasn't a part of a larger operation? Terrorist attacks only target civilians, I have never seen such an attack by USA. They always try to target military or leaders. The last time I know USA did a terror attack was japan in ww2, but everyone did terror bombing during that war, and the first world stopped doing terror bombings since then. If USA still ran that doctrine you would…
I guess it's okay we napalmed Vietnam and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians because it was "part of a larger operation"?
American Exceptionalism is a disease.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Taliban's terrorism very much did work.
Not really. The Taliban’s attacks on civilians didn’t help their cause. They found success when they started acting as a more-competent government than our fucks in Kabul. If we want to debate whether the Taliban under occupation had any success with its terrorist tactics, I guess I’d concede that one man’s terrorist is another’s guerrilla fighter. But even then, guerilla tactics rely on a sympathetic local populatio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That same prime minister supports the warrant-less use of medical records in police work and the ban of encryption through chat control. She wants to prevent the Danish population from having privacy, but demands it herself. Sorry, but that's not the Western way.
Politicians these days are expected to have harder and harder skin. I've seen lots of stories in the news lately of (in particular young) politicians from scandinavia who dropped out of politics due to harassment, anonymous threats etc. And even more people who never get into politics, because of hearing about such stories. I sure as hell would not get into politics today. I fear for what our political system will lo…
It’s still preferable to doing nothing when that politician is publicly declaring their support of indiscriminately violating inherent personal freedoms on an unlimited scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tone of the post sounds like smear since it entirely dismisses his advocacy of personal liberty with claims that havn't been published in Danish media as far as I know. It would be interesting if you could elaborate on the claims that be was a corrupt police officer and drug dealer. My understanding of his own account is that he left the force when he wasn't comfortable arresting people over weed and that he saw…
> you could elaborate on the claims that be was a corrupt police officer and drug dealer. This is public record. It’s entirely published he’s charged and received a prison sentence for the crime, the investigation into corruption started but needed early when he handed in his resignation. which is just proof that he was a corrupt cop in a corrupt system. I mean no drug dealer who gets charged is going to get off by g…
If that’s true then by definition its not corruption but a completely different crime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, not at all. Methods and targets/victims also matter. Using violence to achieve specific military objectives or as a response to violence is not the same as indiscriminate murder and terrorism.
> as a response to violence Literally every terrorist group ever claims they are responding to some sort of violence or oppression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Terrorist is often a term used to describe freedom fighters Do you have an historical example?
Basically all of history. Terrorist is a term people use for people who use violence and intimidation to attempt to cause political change. Freedom fighter is a term used for people who use violence and intimidation to attempt to cause political change that you are sympathetic to. Both words have identical meanings, the only difference is if you happen to agree with the people commiting the violent acts or not.
Only online. The Viet Cong weren’t targeting civilians. They hit American soldiers. Targeting military and narrow political power are the hallmark of proper rebellions. Targeting civilians is how terrorism works.
The closest analog to terrorism in warfare is actually strategic air campaigns. Dresden and the London Blitz are closer to terrorism than e.g. the uprising in Bangladesh or even the Taliban toppling the Karzai regime. And lo and behold, strategic air campaigns have a history of uniting the enemy much more than undoing them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not the law here in Sweden, at least. We don't have precedent in the way that common law countries do, and the judgements in actual cases point in slightly different directions-- in one case a court felt that the failure to fire a warning shot made it not self-defence, in another fighting people trying to get into an apartment with a knife was deemed acceptable. Generally though, if someone is breaking into y…
I am Swedish, and it’s very true that ”it depends”. This guy for example was convicted of murder because he got his gun out without even trying to contact the police directly or indirectly. So even if he pulled the trigger under reasonable circumstances (a know violent offender was trying to take his rifle) he was found guilty because he should not have gone for the gun without considering alternatives like locking t…
Notice again the lack of warning shots. The courts really want you to do one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> A successful case might be Luigi Mangione. There have been several public opinion polls that included questions about Luigi Mangione. He’s consistently unpopular among the average population and his actions are generally unsupported. Not at all surprising for an extremist activist who literally committed murder in public. It’s only when you visit smaller internet bubbles like Reddit where you can start to get into…
You're missing the story here. Any popularity of a murder in the streets is exceptional. The expected value for "What fraction of the population supports this (alleged) murderer?" is much closer to zero than the ~25% that Mangione polls at, never mind the 40-odd% that he polls with young people.