5 ms·

The main point of the article seems to be that anonymous cryptocurrencies pose a threat to US national security since the US Governmeent can't just cut off acce

by anondon 10y ago

The main point of the article seems to be that anonymous cryptocurrencies pose a threat to US national security since the US Governmeent can't just cut off access to funding for terrorists which supposedly was very effective so far. Ignoring all the BS in the article, is this argument valid?

tajen 10y ago
Wasn't middle-East terrorism funded by US and Europe in the first place? Isn't Newsweek posing a threat to the CIA (and NSA) by arguing for the ban of cryptocurrencies for illegal operations? If they want to continue their illegal things, they do need smuggling currencies, and it's the role of the American citizen to enable them to do it.
- throw2016 10y ago
  The Saudis are the principal funders and ideological exporters of terrorism and our closest friends in the region so it doesn't take genius to figure out what is happening. Its nearly impossible for terrorists organizations and certainly not anything like ISIS to exist without state support. Its now well know they are being funded by Turkey, Saudis and the US intelligence forces. So we are funding terrorism on one hand and then spending billions of dollars on to build a surveillance state to protect ourselves from our own actions, both of which benefit the state, intelligence agencies and defence contractors. I think things are now are farce level and democracy is near meaningless if these state actors are allowed to do whatever they want.
tdkl 10y ago
Manufacturing machetes pose a threat to US national security at some point.
maxerickson 10y ago
I think it's a pretty valid argument if you are talking about the US government having some people that understand cryptocurriencies. There's lots of situations where they need investigative capabilities (or to just understand where effort would be fruitless). It's a stretch as a justification for things like acts of war against some other country (say some country in South America decided to back an anonymous digital currency...) or even just legislation banning crytocurrencies.

by anondon 10y ago

tajen 10y ago

Wasn't middle-East terrorism funded by US and Europe in the first place? Isn't Newsweek posing a threat to the CIA (and NSA) by arguing for the ban of cryptocurrencies for illegal operations? If they want to continue their illegal things, they do need smuggling currencies, and it's the role of the American citizen to enable them to do it.

throw2016 10y ago
The Saudis are the principal funders and ideological exporters of terrorism and our closest friends in the region so it doesn't take genius to figure out what is happening. Its nearly impossible for terrorists organizations and certainly not anything like ISIS to exist without state support. Its now well know they are being funded by Turkey, Saudis and the US intelligence forces. So we are funding terrorism on one hand and then spending billions of dollars on to build a surveillance state to protect ourselves from our own actions, both of which benefit the state, intelligence agencies and defence contractors. I think things are now are farce level and democracy is near meaningless if these state actors are allowed to do whatever they want.

tdkl 10y ago

Manufacturing machetes pose a threat to US national security at some point.

maxerickson 10y ago

I think it's a pretty valid argument if you are talking about the US government having some people that understand cryptocurriencies. There's lots of situations where they need investigative capabilities (or to just understand where effort would be fruitless). It's a stretch as a justification for things like acts of war against some other country (say some country in South America decided to back an anonymous digital currency...) or even just legislation banning crytocurrencies.