6 ms·

> saber rattle Trolls and their bots have turned this phrase into a dog-whistle. Talking about how Putin is a dangerous autocrat? That's sabre rattling. Breaki

> saber rattle Trolls and their bots have turned this phrase into a dog-whistle. Talking about how Putin is a dangerous autocrat? That's sabre rattling. Breaking with long-standing policy vis-à-vis Taiwan to China's chagrin? A bold move. > everyone would already be at war with the US The post-Cold War balance of power contradicts this. Provoking a great power makes little sense for obvious reasons.

dmix 10y ago
But Russia and China don't go around enforcing human rights and their morality on other countries. So it's not just superpowers playing their advantage. It's become a recent American diplomatic tradition to push hard on this stuff (externally) where it's convenient. Not just the state department but Human Rights Watch and similar orgs often push an American agenda, where it often seems to be in coordination with the CIA. Human rights include electoral freedom yes - but also freedom from unjustified violations of privacy by the state, free media, freedom of speech (silent all-seeing eyes chills people's speech via self-censorship). That's why there is more of an irony or hypocrisy when America calls out a country like Russia which doesn't do this type of preaching. While simultaneously operating the largest and most effective sigint and hacking operation in the world, along with the rest of the five eyes. Their access goes far beyond what Russia or China could ever do thanks to all of the Internet backbone, mobile companies, and tech companies within their (and UK, Australia, etc) geographic range. Along with the five eyes having wayyy more money to spend on defence. While Russia's economy is the size of Spain. So let be honest the only reason this charade works is because most people are oblivious to how this all works. It's just complicated "computer stuff". And those that do often rationalize it away as "everyone does it", regardless of unbridled scale - uncomparable in access to anything during the cold war - or the moral agenda being pushed by their countries. Also the US seems much better at not getting caught (publically). When they do it's 3yr+ old malware, that their adversary was able to play catch up enough to catch, or no longer needed to hide the fact they had it. Old hacks are far less newsworthy and people move on. The question is how long this one way street will be viable without blowback.
- WalterSear 10y ago
  > Not just the state department but Human Rights Watch and s similar orgs often push an American agenda where it often seems in coordination with the CIA. I would have disagreed with you until I watched the horror of Aleppo unfold quietly on the back pages for months, and then suddenly become breaking news the moment the 'wrong' side started winning.
  - jamesgblaine 10y ago
    This seems like a stretch as HRW has been one of the main organizations casting a light on CIA torture: https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/03/us-ex-detainees-describe-unreported-cia-torture https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/03/us-ex-detainees-describe...
    - dmix 10y ago
      Red Cross exposed that not HRW. There was no way they could ignore that after it became public, everyone jumped on that. But without cherry picking the few times they did something, there are far far more times they didn't. Their politicized role in Syria is a great example. But there are plenty of other times they don't call out the CIA. One example: > HRW’s accommodation to U.S. policy has also extended to renditions—the illegal practice of kidnapping and transporting suspects around the planet to be interrogated and often tortured in allied countries. In early 2009, when it was reported that the newly elected Obama administration was leaving this program intact, HRW’s then Washington advocacy director Tom Malinowski argued that “under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place” for renditions, and encouraged patience: “they want to design a system that doesn’t result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured,” he said, “but designing that system is going to take some time.” And their connections run deep: > The advisory committee for HRW’s Americas Division has even boasted the presence of a former Central Intelligence Agency official, Miguel Díaz. According to his State Department biography, Díaz served as a CIA analyst and also provided “oversight of U.S. intelligence activities in Latin America” for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.9 As of 2012, Díaz focused, as he once did for the CIA, on Central America for the State Department’s DRL—the same bureau now to be supervised by Malinowski. > One underlying factor for HRW’s general conformity with U.S. policy was clarified on July 8, 2013, when Roth took to Twitter to congratulate his colleague Malinowski on his nomination to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). Malinowski was poised to further human rights as a senior-level foreign-policy official for an administration that convenes weekly “Terror Tuesday” meetings. In these meetings, Obama and his staffers deliberate the meting out of extrajudicial drone assassinations around the planet, reportedly working from a secret “kill list” that has included several U.S. citizens and a 17-year-old girl. > Her HRW biography, the vice chair of HRW’s board of directors, Susan Manilow, describes herself as “a longtime friend to Bill Clinton,” and helped manage his campaign finances. (HRW once signed a letter to Clinton advocating the prosecution of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes; HRW made no case for holding Clinton accountable for NATO’s civilian-killing bombings despite concluding that they constituted “violations of international humanitarian law.”). Etc, etc. http://nacla.org/news/2014/2/4/hypocrisy-human-rights-watch http://nacla.org/news/2014/2/4/hypocrisy-human-rights-watch Diplomacy is full of compromise and backroom dealing. I'm not naive about that. But it's hard to have an organization this big and influential without being itself compromised by agencies and agendas, without some real outward effort, transparency, and clear separation from the state - which I don't see here at all. Not to mention it having a natural slant from the various board members and financers who are all powerful Americans. But regardless you can't deny HRW is very slanted to US policy. It's impossible to follow geopolitics in the media without seeing their name constantly pop up in support of attacking Americas current adversaries of the day, in a very narrow way.
Clubber 10y ago
>Provoking a great power makes little sense for obvious reasons. It makes great sense for an autocratic-esque states. See Iraq (Sadam era), Iran, Russia, ISIS, DPRNK, Lybia, Grenada, Philippines, Al Qaida, Somalia. Instead of looking at your cruel leadership, you can blame all your problems and rally all your citizens against the US.
- __derek__ 10y ago
  Even then, it tends to be non-state or revolutionary actors -- or those backed by another (would-be) great power in the case of DPRK.
pdx 10y ago
> Talking about how Putin is a dangerous autocrat? > That's sabre rattling. Yes, that is indeed sabre rattling. You should also be unhappy with Obama putting sanctions on Russia because he is unhappy that some dirty laundry on Hillary was released to the voters, even after Assange and many others have assured us that this was an inside leak, not Russia related. You should be unhappy that Obama has been sabre rattling against Russia for years. There are many who believe that his motivations to topple Assad are to deny Russia it's only warm water port in Tartus, Syria. This would explain why he keeps sending weapons to extremist groups that tell us they're not ISIS affiliated but still end up burning and decapitating people. Obama is already engaged in a proxy war with Russia, which is pretty much the ultimate form of sabre-rattling.
- peteretep 10y ago
  > he is unhappy that some dirty laundry > on Hillary was released to the voters Even the Ecuadorians were pretty pissed off about it[0], and they seem to have no problem giving the US the finger > even after Assange ... have assured us It's funny, I find Snowden very very credible, but Assange I find not-in-the-least credible. Also I can't find a source for this, just "an associate of" Assange -- this[1] is the best source I could find, and it's ... weird. > You should be unhappy that Obama has > been sabre rattling against Russia > for years Hrm[2]. [0] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6f997f97c5f140a29f385ea05f1b642c/wikileaks-assanges-internet-link-severed-state-actor http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6f997f97c5f140a29f385ea05f1b6... [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-a... [2] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/22/barack-obama/obama-romney-called-russia-our-top-geopolitical-fo/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/...
  - pdx 10y ago
    > It's funny, I find Snowden very very credible, but > Assange I find not-in-the-least credible. That's a shame. Assange has earned your trust by never, once, being shown to have provided incorrect information. If you can cite a single instance where his information was not correct, I am very interested. Until then, he's gone through more hell even then Snowden with nobody able to dispute his releases. What more could he possibly do to earn your trust?

dmix 10y ago

But Russia and China don't go around enforcing human rights and their morality on other countries. So it's not just superpowers playing their advantage. It's become a recent American diplomatic tradition to push hard on this stuff (externally) where it's convenient. Not just the state department but Human Rights Watch and similar orgs often push an American agenda, where it often seems to be in coordination with the CIA. Human rights include electoral freedom yes - but also freedom from unjustified violations of privacy by the state, free media, freedom of speech (silent all-seeing eyes chills people's speech via self-censorship). That's why there is more of an irony or hypocrisy when America calls out a country like Russia which doesn't do this type of preaching. While simultaneously operating the largest and most effective sigint and hacking operation in the world, along with the rest of the five eyes. Their access goes far beyond what Russia or China could ever do thanks to all of the Internet backbone, mobile companies, and tech companies within their (and UK, Australia, etc) geographic range. Along with the five eyes having wayyy more money to spend on defence. While Russia's economy is the size of Spain. So let be honest the only reason this charade works is because most people are oblivious to how this all works. It's just complicated "computer stuff". And those that do often rationalize it away as "everyone does it", regardless of unbridled scale - uncomparable in access to anything during the cold war - or the moral agenda being pushed by their countries. Also the US seems much better at not getting caught (publically). When they do it's 3yr+ old malware, that their adversary was able to play catch up enough to catch, or no longer needed to hide the fact they had it. Old hacks are far less newsworthy and people move on. The question is how long this one way street will be viable without blowback.

WalterSear 10y ago
> Not just the state department but Human Rights Watch and s similar orgs often push an American agenda where it often seems in coordination with the CIA. I would have disagreed with you until I watched the horror of Aleppo unfold quietly on the back pages for months, and then suddenly become breaking news the moment the 'wrong' side started winning.
- jamesgblaine 10y ago
  This seems like a stretch as HRW has been one of the main organizations casting a light on CIA torture: https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/03/us-ex-detainees-describe-unreported-cia-torture https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/03/us-ex-detainees-describe...
  - dmix 10y ago
    Red Cross exposed that not HRW. There was no way they could ignore that after it became public, everyone jumped on that. But without cherry picking the few times they did something, there are far far more times they didn't. Their politicized role in Syria is a great example. But there are plenty of other times they don't call out the CIA. One example: > HRW’s accommodation to U.S. policy has also extended to renditions—the illegal practice of kidnapping and transporting suspects around the planet to be interrogated and often tortured in allied countries. In early 2009, when it was reported that the newly elected Obama administration was leaving this program intact, HRW’s then Washington advocacy director Tom Malinowski argued that “under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place” for renditions, and encouraged patience: “they want to design a system that doesn’t result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured,” he said, “but designing that system is going to take some time.” And their connections run deep: > The advisory committee for HRW’s Americas Division has even boasted the presence of a former Central Intelligence Agency official, Miguel Díaz. According to his State Department biography, Díaz served as a CIA analyst and also provided “oversight of U.S. intelligence activities in Latin America” for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.9 As of 2012, Díaz focused, as he once did for the CIA, on Central America for the State Department’s DRL—the same bureau now to be supervised by Malinowski. > One underlying factor for HRW’s general conformity with U.S. policy was clarified on July 8, 2013, when Roth took to Twitter to congratulate his colleague Malinowski on his nomination to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). Malinowski was poised to further human rights as a senior-level foreign-policy official for an administration that convenes weekly “Terror Tuesday” meetings. In these meetings, Obama and his staffers deliberate the meting out of extrajudicial drone assassinations around the planet, reportedly working from a secret “kill list” that has included several U.S. citizens and a 17-year-old girl. > Her HRW biography, the vice chair of HRW’s board of directors, Susan Manilow, describes herself as “a longtime friend to Bill Clinton,” and helped manage his campaign finances. (HRW once signed a letter to Clinton advocating the prosecution of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes; HRW made no case for holding Clinton accountable for NATO’s civilian-killing bombings despite concluding that they constituted “violations of international humanitarian law.”). Etc, etc. http://nacla.org/news/2014/2/4/hypocrisy-human-rights-watch http://nacla.org/news/2014/2/4/hypocrisy-human-rights-watch Diplomacy is full of compromise and backroom dealing. I'm not naive about that. But it's hard to have an organization this big and influential without being itself compromised by agencies and agendas, without some real outward effort, transparency, and clear separation from the state - which I don't see here at all. Not to mention it having a natural slant from the various board members and financers who are all powerful Americans. But regardless you can't deny HRW is very slanted to US policy. It's impossible to follow geopolitics in the media without seeing their name constantly pop up in support of attacking Americas current adversaries of the day, in a very narrow way.

Clubber 10y ago

>Provoking a great power makes little sense for obvious reasons. It makes great sense for an autocratic-esque states. See Iraq (Sadam era), Iran, Russia, ISIS, DPRNK, Lybia, Grenada, Philippines, Al Qaida, Somalia. Instead of looking at your cruel leadership, you can blame all your problems and rally all your citizens against the US.

__derek__ 10y ago
Even then, it tends to be non-state or revolutionary actors -- or those backed by another (would-be) great power in the case of DPRK.

pdx 10y ago

> Talking about how Putin is a dangerous autocrat? > That's sabre rattling. Yes, that is indeed sabre rattling. You should also be unhappy with Obama putting sanctions on Russia because he is unhappy that some dirty laundry on Hillary was released to the voters, even after Assange and many others have assured us that this was an inside leak, not Russia related. You should be unhappy that Obama has been sabre rattling against Russia for years. There are many who believe that his motivations to topple Assad are to deny Russia it's only warm water port in Tartus, Syria. This would explain why he keeps sending weapons to extremist groups that tell us they're not ISIS affiliated but still end up burning and decapitating people. Obama is already engaged in a proxy war with Russia, which is pretty much the ultimate form of sabre-rattling.

peteretep 10y ago
> he is unhappy that some dirty laundry > on Hillary was released to the voters Even the Ecuadorians were pretty pissed off about it[0], and they seem to have no problem giving the US the finger > even after Assange ... have assured us It's funny, I find Snowden very very credible, but Assange I find not-in-the-least credible. Also I can't find a source for this, just "an associate of" Assange -- this[1] is the best source I could find, and it's ... weird. > You should be unhappy that Obama has > been sabre rattling against Russia > for years Hrm[2]. [0] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6f997f97c5f140a29f385ea05f1b642c/wikileaks-assanges-internet-link-severed-state-actor http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6f997f97c5f140a29f385ea05f1b6... [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-a... [2] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/22/barack-obama/obama-romney-called-russia-our-top-geopolitical-fo/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/...
- pdx 10y ago
  > It's funny, I find Snowden very very credible, but > Assange I find not-in-the-least credible. That's a shame. Assange has earned your trust by never, once, being shown to have provided incorrect information. If you can cite a single instance where his information was not correct, I am very interested. Until then, he's gone through more hell even then Snowden with nobody able to dispute his releases. What more could he possibly do to earn your trust?