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

41–48 of 48 posts

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

#41

Post by lupusreal »

15457345234 wrote: post #19
FpUser wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you bullshitting people? Straight from your referenced link: "The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear. Terrorism is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

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.

"to inculcate fear" is an essential part of that definition. Using bombers to drop bombs on a sleeping city is terrorism. Dropping bombs onto an undersea cable is not.

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

#42

Post by chucke1992 »

olliej wrote: post #9

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

But it is a terrorism. By cutting cables you literally can decimate the whole international network for a bunch of countries. Basically for example cut the access to any server outside of intranet.

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

#44

Post by rightbyte »

senectus1 wrote: post #26
dontknowmuch wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You need a boat and an anchor. People do stuff like this all the time by accident.

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

#45

Post by 15457345234 »

orwin wrote: post #33
15457345234 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So the yellow vest were terrorists, as were the red caps. Which is funny, because that last movement was supported by 3 of the richest French industrialist. Can we nationalize them for supporting terrorists? OH! And French farmers are terrorists too according to your definition of terrorism and violence. Maybe violence against people and violence against stuff shouldn't be treated the same.

Violence against stuff that is the support infrastructure for people is violence against people.

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

#46

Post by 15457345234 »

lupusreal wrote: post #41
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.

"to inculcate fear" is an essential part of that definition. Using bombers to drop bombs on a sleeping city is terrorism. Dropping bombs onto an undersea cable is not.

> Dropping bombs onto an undersea cable is not.

Of course it is, that's been covered upthread.

Literally the post you're replying to says:

> It's categorically terrorism by that definition.

So, to be clear:

It's categorically terrorism.

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

#47

Post by orwin »

15457345234 wrote: post #45
orwin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the yellow vest were terrorists, as were the red caps. Which is funny, because that last movement was supported by 3 of the richest French industrialist. Can we nationalize them for supporting terrorists? OH! And French farmers are terrorists too according to your definition of terrorism and violence. Maybe violence against people and violence against stuff shouldn't be treated the same.

Violence against stuff that is the support infrastructure for people is violence against people.

So 40 years ago, Bretons violent actions against road signs that prevented tourists and French people to recognize places and road names, to bolster their political agenda (dual language signs) is terrorism, since it was clearly against regular French citizens (my father was a terrorist then :/) .

But filling Betancourt's swimming pool with pork shit was not terrorism, since it isn't infrastructure?

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

#48

Post by 15457345234 »

orwin wrote: post #47
15457345234 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Violence against stuff that is the support infrastructure for people is violence against people.

So 40 years ago, Bretons violent actions against road signs that prevented tourists and French people to recognize places and road names, to bolster their political agenda (dual language signs) is terrorism, since it was clearly against regular French citizens (my father was a terrorist then :/) . But filling Betancourt's swimming pool with pork shit was not terrorism, since it isn't infrastructure?

1. Correct

2. I don't know

Post reply on HN