7 ms·

These are not mutually exclusive.

djsumdog 6y ago
True. The United States is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world (School of the Americas, Bay of Pigs, Iranian-Contra, Operation AJAX, COINTELPRO, Operation Mockingbird, United Fruit...)
- keeganpoppen 6y ago
  got anything from the past 50 years?
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    You gotta wait for it to be declassified. Syria was likely CIA funded. Same with Libya. Just wait a bit. It all comes out after everyone's stopped caring.
    - jonnybgood 6y ago
      Are you speaking about Syria and Libya today that was a result of the Arab Spring in multiple Arab countries, which took everyone including CIA by surprise? Do you really believe the CIA is capable of something on that scale? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring
      - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
        If it took the CIA by surprise, why were Syria and Libya on the short list of countries that General Wesley Clark identified as regime change targets in 2007, three years before the Arab Spring? https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw
        sgift 6y ago
        Because that's a wish list vs. a "we assume this will happen/are actively working on it list"? I'm pretty sure the CIA also shortlisted every Eastern Bloc state in the 80s for regime change. Doesn't mean the SU fell because of the CIA.
      - mushbino 6y ago
        There have been many parties involved in both Syria and Libya. Just take the NATO involvement in Libya for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_... Syria is just as complicated if not more so. It turned into a proxy war between the US and Russia and don't forget ISIS and the many different factions who have received funding from multiple sources. How many people have been killed in the US this year causing and because of the protests at the hands of government and extremists? I don't think we'll be getting a NATO bombing anytime soon. I also can't picture that happening in Nigeria.
  - internet_user 6y ago
    The entire year of 2020?
  - BigBubbleButt 6y ago
    Well, a lot of the turmoil in the Middle East is at least partially (I'd argue mostly) to blame because of the US. Al Qaeda was trained by the CIA. I think it's relatively accepted that there were no WMDs in Iraq, so that entire invasion/war could be classified as terrorism. There are countless drone strikes with civilian casualties around the world. Whether or not you agree with why we did it, the CIA is credited with Stuxnet (it's terrorism even if you think this is one of the "good" ones). There are certainly more, but let's not pretend like the US isn't intimately involved in directly inserting itself into international affairs illegitimately. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/ https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/
    - jonnybgood 6y ago
      You should read your links and learn the differences between middle eastern extremists groups. The mujahideen are not Al Qaeda. Most people say the Taliban are trained by the CIA. But even that’s not technically correct. Taliban are also not Al Qaeda.
      - pmachinery 6y ago
        From one of the links you said they should read: "Haqqani - one of bin Laden's closest associates in the 1980s - received direct cash payments from CIA agents, without the mediation of the ISI. "This independent source of funding gave Haqqani disproportionate influence over the mujahideen." "Haqqani and his network played an important role in the formation and growth of al Qaeda, with Jalalhuddin Haqqani allowing bin Laden to train mujahideen volunteers in Haqqani territory and build extensive infrastructure there." From a more extensive page linked from there: "Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, an associate of Bin Laden's, was given visas to enter the US on four occasions by the CIA [...] Rahman was a co-plotter of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing." "Afghan Arabs 'benefited indirectly from the CIA's funding, through the ISI and resistance organizations [...] at an estimated cost of $800 million in the years up to and including 1988'" "The Guardian alleges that the CIA helped Osama bin Laden build an underground camp at Khost, which bin Laden used to train Mujahideen soldiers." In a 2004 article entitled "Al-Qaeda's origins and links", the BBC wrote: "During the anti-Soviet war Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA." "Two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto said Osama bin Laden was initially pro-American [and] Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary in the UK from 1997–2001, wrote, 'Throughout the '80s [Bin Laden] was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis'. And what do the Saudis have to say about it? Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia stated (in the wake of 9/11): "He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn't it ironic?"
  - ikiris 6y ago
    stuxnet...
    - et2o 6y ago
      Designed to destroy nuclear production facilities. Not terrorism.
      - tossmeout 6y ago
        What makes it not terrorism? Because the target was government-run facilities instead of civilians, or something else?
        petre 6y ago
        Yes. It's cyber warfare. No civilians harmed, UF4 centrifuges disabled. I guess you can call it a surgical strike only without air to ground missiles?
        Phlarp 6y ago
        It also acted as a starting gun for every other country on earth to create and/or massively expand their cyber warfare capabilities. Sparking a new arms race for the 21st century, normalizing acts of (cyber) aggression against foreign infrastructure during peacetime. Pandora's box
        sailfast 6y ago
        Maybe, but in this thread we're discussing whether Pandora was a terrorist. I think the answer is still no.
        bawolff 6y ago
        I think the argument would be because its a military target (equipment used to manufacture weapons). Also probably a bit of, because we did it instead of it being done to us.
        6y ago
- kortilla 6y ago
  Takes a goofy definition of terrorism to get Bay of Pigs to fit. A military attempt to overthrow a violent leader of another country doesn’t really land in the same category of shutting down hospitals and killing sick people with no political power.
  - jazzyjackson 6y ago
    Bringing a country to its knees by weakening morale and trust in government is textbook regime change. Ransoming hospitals is fairly depraved, but if you could overthrow an enemy superpower without launching any missiles, would you do it?
  - bawolff 6y ago
    Using violence to attempt to cause a regime change without formally declaring war, sounds much more like the traditional definition of terrorism to me [although maybe not the perfect fit], then randsomware which sounds like organized crime to me.
    - bostik 6y ago
      > Using violence to attempt to cause a regime change without formally declaring war, sounds much more like the traditional definition of terrorism Or insurrection. Unless we're talking about some fourth-world wish-we-had-even-bananas republic, there will be geopolitics in play. The rebelling groups are almost certainly being funded, either directly or indirectly, by foreign governments. Those rebels, are they terrorists or freedom fighters? Are the foreign governments funding terrorism or supporting unnecessarily violent grass-roots opposition? Where does political meddling end and waging a covert war begin? Can you ever be cynical enough?
    - kortilla 6y ago
      Sorry, to be clear. The definition of terrorism that most people are used to is the one that involves attacking people not anywhere in the government leadership hierarchy. For example, blowing up a commuter bus serves no purpose to take over a regime (unless the president was on that bus). The end goal is purely to cause fear. Trying to quickly or quietly overthrow a government is pretty much the opposite of that effect. You want a quick change and the end goal is power, not fear for the sake of fear.
- Teever 6y ago
  Do you actually think that this comment adds to the conversation at hand or are you just using this as an opportunity to wedge in the 'but America does it too!' trope?
  - tossmeout 6y ago
    I think it's an interesting comment and see no reason America deserves some special shield from criticism, trope or not. It should be responded to on its own merit, just like anyone sharing any other opinion on HN.
    - sillysaurusx 6y ago
      I thought it was interesting too. It didn’t seem inflammatory or political flamewar. Sometimes I miss the days when such conversation was permitted. I’d vouch it, but I like my vouch privileges too much to risk it.
      - adventured 6y ago
        It's not interesting. Every major thread on HN has at least one comment trying to force the America Bad angle into the conservation regardless of whether the discussion is about the US. If the primary conversation - derived from the linked article - is about the US and about a topic having to do with something negative about the US, then it's both interesting (as the root source) and makes reasonable sense that it should be in the thread. Otherwise it's nothing more than a political agenda - someone being triggered and unable to control theirself - being force-wedged into a conversation where it doesn't belong and it degrades the quality of HN dramatically. As it would if the same treatment were applied to any other nation. Imagine if every large thread had someone trying to force comments about all the bad things France or Britain have done. Every single major thread. Now apply it to dozens of nations. Of course that wouldn't be allowed because it would be insane. It's insane to allow it for the US just the same.
        tossmeout 6y ago

True. The United States is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world (School of the Americas, Bay of Pigs, Iranian-Contra, Operation AJAX, COINTELPRO, Operation Mockingbird, United Fruit...)

keeganpoppen 6y ago
got anything from the past 50 years?
- djsumdog 6y ago
  You gotta wait for it to be declassified. Syria was likely CIA funded. Same with Libya. Just wait a bit. It all comes out after everyone's stopped caring.
  - jonnybgood 6y ago
    Are you speaking about Syria and Libya today that was a result of the Arab Spring in multiple Arab countries, which took everyone including CIA by surprise? Do you really believe the CIA is capable of something on that scale? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring
    - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
      If it took the CIA by surprise, why were Syria and Libya on the short list of countries that General Wesley Clark identified as regime change targets in 2007, three years before the Arab Spring? https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw
      - sgift 6y ago
        Because that's a wish list vs. a "we assume this will happen/are actively working on it list"? I'm pretty sure the CIA also shortlisted every Eastern Bloc state in the 80s for regime change. Doesn't mean the SU fell because of the CIA.
    - mushbino 6y ago
      There have been many parties involved in both Syria and Libya. Just take the NATO involvement in Libya for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_... Syria is just as complicated if not more so. It turned into a proxy war between the US and Russia and don't forget ISIS and the many different factions who have received funding from multiple sources. How many people have been killed in the US this year causing and because of the protests at the hands of government and extremists? I don't think we'll be getting a NATO bombing anytime soon. I also can't picture that happening in Nigeria.
- internet_user 6y ago
  The entire year of 2020?
- BigBubbleButt 6y ago
  Well, a lot of the turmoil in the Middle East is at least partially (I'd argue mostly) to blame because of the US. Al Qaeda was trained by the CIA. I think it's relatively accepted that there were no WMDs in Iraq, so that entire invasion/war could be classified as terrorism. There are countless drone strikes with civilian casualties around the world. Whether or not you agree with why we did it, the CIA is credited with Stuxnet (it's terrorism even if you think this is one of the "good" ones). There are certainly more, but let's not pretend like the US isn't intimately involved in directly inserting itself into international affairs illegitimately. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/ https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/
  - jonnybgood 6y ago
    You should read your links and learn the differences between middle eastern extremists groups. The mujahideen are not Al Qaeda. Most people say the Taliban are trained by the CIA. But even that’s not technically correct. Taliban are also not Al Qaeda.
    - pmachinery 6y ago
      From one of the links you said they should read: "Haqqani - one of bin Laden's closest associates in the 1980s - received direct cash payments from CIA agents, without the mediation of the ISI. "This independent source of funding gave Haqqani disproportionate influence over the mujahideen." "Haqqani and his network played an important role in the formation and growth of al Qaeda, with Jalalhuddin Haqqani allowing bin Laden to train mujahideen volunteers in Haqqani territory and build extensive infrastructure there." From a more extensive page linked from there: "Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, an associate of Bin Laden's, was given visas to enter the US on four occasions by the CIA [...] Rahman was a co-plotter of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing." "Afghan Arabs 'benefited indirectly from the CIA's funding, through the ISI and resistance organizations [...] at an estimated cost of $800 million in the years up to and including 1988'" "The Guardian alleges that the CIA helped Osama bin Laden build an underground camp at Khost, which bin Laden used to train Mujahideen soldiers." In a 2004 article entitled "Al-Qaeda's origins and links", the BBC wrote: "During the anti-Soviet war Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA." "Two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto said Osama bin Laden was initially pro-American [and] Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary in the UK from 1997–2001, wrote, 'Throughout the '80s [Bin Laden] was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis'. And what do the Saudis have to say about it? Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia stated (in the wake of 9/11): "He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn't it ironic?"
- ikiris 6y ago
  stuxnet...
  - et2o 6y ago
    Designed to destroy nuclear production facilities. Not terrorism.
    - tossmeout 6y ago
      What makes it not terrorism? Because the target was government-run facilities instead of civilians, or something else?
      - petre 6y ago
        Yes. It's cyber warfare. No civilians harmed, UF4 centrifuges disabled. I guess you can call it a surgical strike only without air to ground missiles?
        Phlarp 6y ago
        It also acted as a starting gun for every other country on earth to create and/or massively expand their cyber warfare capabilities. Sparking a new arms race for the 21st century, normalizing acts of (cyber) aggression against foreign infrastructure during peacetime. Pandora's box
        sailfast 6y ago
        Maybe, but in this thread we're discussing whether Pandora was a terrorist. I think the answer is still no.
      - bawolff 6y ago
        I think the argument would be because its a military target (equipment used to manufacture weapons). Also probably a bit of, because we did it instead of it being done to us.
      - 6y ago
kortilla 6y ago
Takes a goofy definition of terrorism to get Bay of Pigs to fit. A military attempt to overthrow a violent leader of another country doesn’t really land in the same category of shutting down hospitals and killing sick people with no political power.
- jazzyjackson 6y ago
  Bringing a country to its knees by weakening morale and trust in government is textbook regime change. Ransoming hospitals is fairly depraved, but if you could overthrow an enemy superpower without launching any missiles, would you do it?
- bawolff 6y ago
  Using violence to attempt to cause a regime change without formally declaring war, sounds much more like the traditional definition of terrorism to me [although maybe not the perfect fit], then randsomware which sounds like organized crime to me.
  - bostik 6y ago
    > Using violence to attempt to cause a regime change without formally declaring war, sounds much more like the traditional definition of terrorism Or insurrection. Unless we're talking about some fourth-world wish-we-had-even-bananas republic, there will be geopolitics in play. The rebelling groups are almost certainly being funded, either directly or indirectly, by foreign governments. Those rebels, are they terrorists or freedom fighters? Are the foreign governments funding terrorism or supporting unnecessarily violent grass-roots opposition? Where does political meddling end and waging a covert war begin? Can you ever be cynical enough?
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Sorry, to be clear. The definition of terrorism that most people are used to is the one that involves attacking people not anywhere in the government leadership hierarchy. For example, blowing up a commuter bus serves no purpose to take over a regime (unless the president was on that bus). The end goal is purely to cause fear. Trying to quickly or quietly overthrow a government is pretty much the opposite of that effect. You want a quick change and the end goal is power, not fear for the sake of fear.
Teever 6y ago
Do you actually think that this comment adds to the conversation at hand or are you just using this as an opportunity to wedge in the 'but America does it too!' trope?
- tossmeout 6y ago
  I think it's an interesting comment and see no reason America deserves some special shield from criticism, trope or not. It should be responded to on its own merit, just like anyone sharing any other opinion on HN.
  - sillysaurusx 6y ago
    I thought it was interesting too. It didn’t seem inflammatory or political flamewar. Sometimes I miss the days when such conversation was permitted. I’d vouch it, but I like my vouch privileges too much to risk it.
    - adventured 6y ago
      It's not interesting. Every major thread on HN has at least one comment trying to force the America Bad angle into the conservation regardless of whether the discussion is about the US. If the primary conversation - derived from the linked article - is about the US and about a topic having to do with something negative about the US, then it's both interesting (as the root source) and makes reasonable sense that it should be in the thread. Otherwise it's nothing more than a political agenda - someone being triggered and unable to control theirself - being force-wedged into a conversation where it doesn't belong and it degrades the quality of HN dramatically. As it would if the same treatment were applied to any other nation. Imagine if every large thread had someone trying to force comments about all the bad things France or Britain have done. Every single major thread. Now apply it to dozens of nations. Of course that wouldn't be allowed because it would be insane. It's insane to allow it for the US just the same.
      - tossmeout 6y ago