5 ms·

I’m generally pro Israel. But quite happy to criticise them when and where warranted on specific issues/incidents. In this case, it certainly sounds like a ve

I’m generally pro Israel. But quite happy to criticise them when and where warranted on specific issues/incidents. In this case, it certainly sounds like a very serious and incongruent disconnect between the public affairs officer for Cyber and the actual kinetic response. The Israelis have always been pretty quick to kill or capture not only leadership, but technical talent. In this case, if I had to guess, there was a rare opportunity to hit apex and/or volume technical talent the IDF justified by the rocket attacks and/or it’s signalling that moving forward insurgent cyber will be considered a valid target for kinetic action. It’s also worth mentioning that the people targeted may not be hackers, but social media camapigners/influencers.

PavlovsCat 7y ago
> But quite happy to criticise them when and where warranted on specific issues/incidents. It rather seemed you came up with a rationalization for the deed just because it was done. Presented with facts, you don't skip a beat either. > In this case, if I had to guess That's the thing, you don't have to. So why do you? And what's with the weasel words like "kinetic action"? If someone mistook someone you loved for a threat and killed them, and someone else just said "oh yeah, they've always been quick to capture or kill people", and "this may be signalling that going forward people mistaken for threat are considered a valid target for physical removal", would you like that? > Every powerful state relies on specialists whose task is to show that what the strong do is noble and just and, if the weak suffer, it is their fault. In the West, these specialists are called "intellectuals" and, with marginal exceptions, they fulfill their task with skill and self-righteousness, however outlandish the claims, in this practice that traces back to the origins of recorded history. -- Noam Chomsky When I said "start there", I meant start with the deed. Start with the principles, and if you would like them to be applied to you and people you love. There are things we cannot bless. We can support them, but that just degrades us, it doesn't enoble these things one bit. > People who call themselves supporters of Israel are actually supporters of its moral degeneration and ultimate destruction. -- Noam Chomsky I rather consider Yeshayahu Leibowitz "pro Israel" -- in a sense of supporting the heart, body and soul, not just the body come what may -- just like I would have considered Sophie School "pro Germany", not "anti Germany". Principles, and applying them equally, and not having double standards, those are real, being pro this or that is just rhetoric.
- chriselles 7y ago
  I’m not rationalising what has happened. I’m clinically describing it. I don’t have skin in this particular “game” so I’m emotionally detached. Feel free to change kinetic action to violence, death, or murder. I’ve seen and experienced enough conflict up close and personal so I hope you don’t think my remarks are flippant. It’s not my fight. I’m simply describing what should be obvious extensions of violence by one group of humans directed at another, based on their behaviour in a new domain(digital). Leveraging a new domain(digital) as a weapon(cyber/information operations) can expect to have weapons from across other domains(air land sea space) used to detect, deter, destroy them. My posting doesn’t equate to agreeing with all of it. But based on consistent human behaviour of one tribe towards another, isn’t shock in seeing it more than a bit naive?
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    Fair enough, sorry for reading it as flippant, which I kinda did. > But based on consistent human behaviour of one tribe towards another, isn’t shock in seeing it more than a bit naive? I'm not expressing shock. I'm expressing anger and the refusal to normalize this. It's not like Hamas and IDF enjoy the exact equal respect in (the polite companty of) the Western world. I can mention Leibowitz, and nobody in their right mind would attempt to smear the man; but quoting him would be different, and saying it in my own words ouldn't go over smoothly at all. Netanyahu goes around talking about how the Palestinian Mufti gave Hitler the idea to kill Jews instead of just re-settle them, a German protester holds up a sign just quoting Netanyahu, and gets arrested. It's been an unadulterated shitshow for a long, long time, and it seems that as a German citizen, I can't claim neutrality, the actions and flowery words of my government make that impossible. That goes tenfold for US citizens. That ship has sailed in my books. So the least I can and must do do is say "not in my name". Also, Israel isn't a monolith, Palestine isn't a monolith. Individual actions and reasons for them are on a wide spectrum, and are culpable for what they do. There's warmongers on all sorts of "sides", and they use each other to justify each other. It's not human behaviour, it's corporate behaviour for lack of a better word. People do and justify things in groups they cannot justify as individuals. For me the dividing line is not between various tribes or nations, but human individuals on one hand, and any and all "tribes" (that rise to the rank of nationalistic, jingoist delusion and express themselves in murder) on the other. Maybe that stuff was good for something 50k years ago, but we kind of have to decide if we want our technology, or that. Insisting to keep both together might just mean we won't have either.

PavlovsCat 7y ago

> But quite happy to criticise them when and where warranted on specific issues/incidents. It rather seemed you came up with a rationalization for the deed just because it was done. Presented with facts, you don't skip a beat either. > In this case, if I had to guess That's the thing, you don't have to. So why do you? And what's with the weasel words like "kinetic action"? If someone mistook someone you loved for a threat and killed them, and someone else just said "oh yeah, they've always been quick to capture or kill people", and "this may be signalling that going forward people mistaken for threat are considered a valid target for physical removal", would you like that? > Every powerful state relies on specialists whose task is to show that what the strong do is noble and just and, if the weak suffer, it is their fault. In the West, these specialists are called "intellectuals" and, with marginal exceptions, they fulfill their task with skill and self-righteousness, however outlandish the claims, in this practice that traces back to the origins of recorded history. -- Noam Chomsky When I said "start there", I meant start with the deed. Start with the principles, and if you would like them to be applied to you and people you love. There are things we cannot bless. We can support them, but that just degrades us, it doesn't enoble these things one bit. > People who call themselves supporters of Israel are actually supporters of its moral degeneration and ultimate destruction. -- Noam Chomsky I rather consider Yeshayahu Leibowitz "pro Israel" -- in a sense of supporting the heart, body and soul, not just the body come what may -- just like I would have considered Sophie School "pro Germany", not "anti Germany". Principles, and applying them equally, and not having double standards, those are real, being pro this or that is just rhetoric.

chriselles 7y ago
I’m not rationalising what has happened. I’m clinically describing it. I don’t have skin in this particular “game” so I’m emotionally detached. Feel free to change kinetic action to violence, death, or murder. I’ve seen and experienced enough conflict up close and personal so I hope you don’t think my remarks are flippant. It’s not my fight. I’m simply describing what should be obvious extensions of violence by one group of humans directed at another, based on their behaviour in a new domain(digital). Leveraging a new domain(digital) as a weapon(cyber/information operations) can expect to have weapons from across other domains(air land sea space) used to detect, deter, destroy them. My posting doesn’t equate to agreeing with all of it. But based on consistent human behaviour of one tribe towards another, isn’t shock in seeing it more than a bit naive?
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  Fair enough, sorry for reading it as flippant, which I kinda did. > But based on consistent human behaviour of one tribe towards another, isn’t shock in seeing it more than a bit naive? I'm not expressing shock. I'm expressing anger and the refusal to normalize this. It's not like Hamas and IDF enjoy the exact equal respect in (the polite companty of) the Western world. I can mention Leibowitz, and nobody in their right mind would attempt to smear the man; but quoting him would be different, and saying it in my own words ouldn't go over smoothly at all. Netanyahu goes around talking about how the Palestinian Mufti gave Hitler the idea to kill Jews instead of just re-settle them, a German protester holds up a sign just quoting Netanyahu, and gets arrested. It's been an unadulterated shitshow for a long, long time, and it seems that as a German citizen, I can't claim neutrality, the actions and flowery words of my government make that impossible. That goes tenfold for US citizens. That ship has sailed in my books. So the least I can and must do do is say "not in my name". Also, Israel isn't a monolith, Palestine isn't a monolith. Individual actions and reasons for them are on a wide spectrum, and are culpable for what they do. There's warmongers on all sorts of "sides", and they use each other to justify each other. It's not human behaviour, it's corporate behaviour for lack of a better word. People do and justify things in groups they cannot justify as individuals. For me the dividing line is not between various tribes or nations, but human individuals on one hand, and any and all "tribes" (that rise to the rank of nationalistic, jingoist delusion and express themselves in murder) on the other. Maybe that stuff was good for something 50k years ago, but we kind of have to decide if we want our technology, or that. Insisting to keep both together might just mean we won't have either.