41–50 of 54 posts
This should provoke swift, hard, and overwhelming reactions from G7 countries. The undersea cables have to be inviolate or we'll see this happen all the time, with major negative impacts to internet stability and effective international commerce.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol how can you possibly call our response feeble
Considering how we arrived at this point (Houthis threatening and attacking trade and communications), I would say the US government's obvious inability to rein in its ally (Israel) despite having a huge amount of leverage demonstrates a pretty weak administration. Feeble is precisely the right word to describe US pressure on Israel. Saying "We've asked them" over and over again just doesn't cut it. It's weak and eve…
The USA hasn't had any of that for decades. The illegal invasion and destruction of Iraq in 2003 was the beginning of the end of the worlds' tolerance for American exceptionalism. The only ones who don't seem to understand this, are Americans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It clearly counts as terrorism if it's intentional damage to key international infrastructure by a non-state actor for political purposes. (while the Houthis control much of Yemen, they are not its internationally recognized government)
That's leaning pretty hard on the technicality of who has the UN chair, with the detail that it's effectively us (NATO) vetoing their recognition. Not that I'm cool with the cable cuts, but "rogue state" would be more fair imo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's leaning pretty hard on the technicality of who has the UN chair, with the detail that it's effectively us (NATO) vetoing their recognition. Not that I'm cool with the cable cuts, but "rogue state" would be more fair imo.
I'm not entirely clear why state acts can't be called "terrorism"; examples would include the Libyan Lockerbie bombing, the French bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, and the Russian Salisbury poisoning incident.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Terrorism is an interesting word choice in this context.
It clearly counts as terrorism if it's intentional damage to key international infrastructure by a non-state actor for political purposes. (while the Houthis control much of Yemen, they are not its internationally recognized government)
This should provoke swift, hard, and overwhelming reactions from G7 countries. The undersea cables have to be inviolate or we'll see this happen all the time, with major negative impacts to internet stability and effective international commerce.
We are losing allies in the world with our constant vetoing in the UNSC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
80's?
I can't see why the internet would reset us to the the bronze age. I think what they're saying is it's more likely to reset us to similar state to when the internet wasn't common-place, ie, the 80s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This right here is why there is a divide the size of the Grand Canyon in America. Some will see it as obvious satire, some are 100% convinced this is the truth. When did we reach the point that the same text can be read as fact or satire with such strong conviction that the dress being blue and black (no, it's white and gold!) would seem like compromise?
I always thought this would make a good movie. Parody both sides so hard each thinks you are "representing their views" while the opposing side thinks it's a comedy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It clearly counts as terrorism if it's intentional damage to key international infrastructure by a non-state actor for political purposes. (while the Houthis control much of Yemen, they are not its internationally recognized government)
I was more focused on the "terror" part. I would guess there's some line where a destructive act transitions from "attack" or "vandalism" to "terror".