4 ms·

> glorification of violence (...) not inconsistent with Twitter's policies Oh, please. Twitter's application of its policies is outrageously inconsistent, eve

> glorification of violence (...) not inconsistent with Twitter's policies Oh, please. Twitter's application of its policies is outrageously inconsistent, even for high-profile U.S. officials. Otherwise, how come the many people who openly defend the extra-judicial killings by the U.S. military (from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump) have yet a twitter account? And I'm not saying anything about tweets supporting the violent overthrow of several governments worldwide; those are tolerated because they align with U.S. interests. Twitter is the ministry of truth of the U.S.A. and its main mouthpiece.

gamblor956 6y ago
Hillary Clinton has never ordered killings by the U.S. Military. As Secretary of State, or as First Wife, she would never have had that authority.
- enriquto 6y ago
  I didn't say that. Just that she celebrated and defended publicly such killings (e.g., those of Gaddafi, the bin Laden family, etc). EDIT: https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/773545200807534592 https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/773545200807534592 (This tweet by Hillary Clinton glorifies an extrajudicial killing in foreign territory, with the opposition of the country where it happened, and at the same time manages to sneak in some falsehoods. The text is: "When our SEALs took out bin Laden, they brought the terrorists' families to safety first. That's American honor. " This is false, since several members of the bin Laden family died in the attack, including women and children. I'm not saying that killing bin Laden was wrong, just that Twitter policies are wildly inconsistent regarding violence and falsehood.)
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    Hillary tried to stand up to Panetta over drone killings and back up her ambassador in PK and Obama threw her under the bus.
    - KMag 6y ago
      > As a non-state actor, he was not protected by any laws He was not entitled to any protection afforded uniformed combatants, but I'm pretty sure it still would have been against the Geneva Conventions to kill him with sarin, for instance.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    We were in a state of military conflict with Libya, which was openly hosting and funding dozens of terrorist groups dedicated to attacking the U.S. and American citizens. The U.S. wasn't behind the killings of Ghadaffi. Ghadaffi was killed by his own bodyguards after Ghadaffi's own citizens overthrew their government in a civil war spurred by resistance movements in neighboring countries arising from despots incarcerating and assassinating political opponents. The U.S. was behind the killing of Bin Laden. He organized the single largest terrorist attack against the U.S. in history. As a non-state actor, he was not protected by any laws, therefore, killing him was not illegal nor was it extradjudicial. This has been the state of international law for over a century, as codified in the Geneva Conventions and the amendments and followup conventions. If you have issues with international law, take that up with the Hague. This is false, since several members of the bin Laden family died in the attack, including women and children. I'm not saying that killing bin Laden was wrong, just that Twitter policies are wildly inconsistent regarding violence and falsehood.) Bin Laden's sons were killed in the attack and one of his son's wives, but no children were killed. They were not just innocent collateral damage; they were killed in the attack while resisting U.S. forces. The non-resisting members of the family are alive today to talk about what happened because we didn't kill them.
    - 8note 6y ago
      So if the next Dalai llama was hiding in the US, would it be ok for the Chinese government to fly in special forces to assasinate him? I imagine bin laden was still protected by Pakistani laws, same as people inside the US are protected by US laws, even if they've pissed off some other country
      - Scheherazade 6y ago
        You’ve hit on the unspeakable. No public figure can give a credible answer to your question while remaining logically consistent and in power. “Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” - George Orwell Which is why so many factions in Washington are putting so much effort to undermine potential challengers as the American destiny is to be number 1. The moment another group becomes more powerful, they know that what you describe will occur.
- throwaway45349 6y ago
  I think the poster means that Hillary Clinton has a habit of glorifying violence, as do most US politicians.
- neartheplain 6y ago
  When she was Secretary of State, Hillary famously quipped "We came, we saw, he died" [0] in regards to former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. He was sodomized with a bayonet and executed in the street [1] by US-backed rebels after Hillary convinced President Obama to bomb Libya [2]. On a side note: the US bombing of Libya, and Hillary's remark in particular, is seen by some as a watershed moment in North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons [3]. In response to international pressure, Gaddafi suspended Libya's nuclear weapons program in 2003. The subsequent US/NATO bombing of Libya and Gaddafi's brutal death supposedly convinced the Kims that if they ever gave up their nukes, they'd be vulnerable to the same type of foreign intervention and overthrow. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi#Capture_and_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi#Captu... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clint... [3] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/libya-the-forgotten-reason-north-korea-desperately-wants-23129 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/libya-the-for...
mr_toad 6y ago
So because their policy doesn’t go far enough, then they shouldn’t be allowed to have a policy? I find this argument to be uncompelling.
- enriquto 6y ago
  A policeman who doesn't fine anybody is merely incompetent. A policeman who fines only black people is downright evil. You cannot say that his actions amount to "not going far enough" because he fails to fine people of other races. They are actively discriminatory. The same situation happens with twitter, that only enforces its rules when they go against the mainstream USA mentality.

gamblor956 6y ago

Hillary Clinton has never ordered killings by the U.S. Military. As Secretary of State, or as First Wife, she would never have had that authority.

enriquto 6y ago
I didn't say that. Just that she celebrated and defended publicly such killings (e.g., those of Gaddafi, the bin Laden family, etc). EDIT: https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/773545200807534592 https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/773545200807534592 (This tweet by Hillary Clinton glorifies an extrajudicial killing in foreign territory, with the opposition of the country where it happened, and at the same time manages to sneak in some falsehoods. The text is: "When our SEALs took out bin Laden, they brought the terrorists' families to safety first. That's American honor. " This is false, since several members of the bin Laden family died in the attack, including women and children. I'm not saying that killing bin Laden was wrong, just that Twitter policies are wildly inconsistent regarding violence and falsehood.)
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  Hillary tried to stand up to Panetta over drone killings and back up her ambassador in PK and Obama threw her under the bus.
  - KMag 6y ago
    > As a non-state actor, he was not protected by any laws He was not entitled to any protection afforded uniformed combatants, but I'm pretty sure it still would have been against the Geneva Conventions to kill him with sarin, for instance.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  We were in a state of military conflict with Libya, which was openly hosting and funding dozens of terrorist groups dedicated to attacking the U.S. and American citizens. The U.S. wasn't behind the killings of Ghadaffi. Ghadaffi was killed by his own bodyguards after Ghadaffi's own citizens overthrew their government in a civil war spurred by resistance movements in neighboring countries arising from despots incarcerating and assassinating political opponents. The U.S. was behind the killing of Bin Laden. He organized the single largest terrorist attack against the U.S. in history. As a non-state actor, he was not protected by any laws, therefore, killing him was not illegal nor was it extradjudicial. This has been the state of international law for over a century, as codified in the Geneva Conventions and the amendments and followup conventions. If you have issues with international law, take that up with the Hague. This is false, since several members of the bin Laden family died in the attack, including women and children. I'm not saying that killing bin Laden was wrong, just that Twitter policies are wildly inconsistent regarding violence and falsehood.) Bin Laden's sons were killed in the attack and one of his son's wives, but no children were killed. They were not just innocent collateral damage; they were killed in the attack while resisting U.S. forces. The non-resisting members of the family are alive today to talk about what happened because we didn't kill them.
  - 8note 6y ago
    So if the next Dalai llama was hiding in the US, would it be ok for the Chinese government to fly in special forces to assasinate him? I imagine bin laden was still protected by Pakistani laws, same as people inside the US are protected by US laws, even if they've pissed off some other country
    - Scheherazade 6y ago
      You’ve hit on the unspeakable. No public figure can give a credible answer to your question while remaining logically consistent and in power. “Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” - George Orwell Which is why so many factions in Washington are putting so much effort to undermine potential challengers as the American destiny is to be number 1. The moment another group becomes more powerful, they know that what you describe will occur.
throwaway45349 6y ago
I think the poster means that Hillary Clinton has a habit of glorifying violence, as do most US politicians.
neartheplain 6y ago
When she was Secretary of State, Hillary famously quipped "We came, we saw, he died" [0] in regards to former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. He was sodomized with a bayonet and executed in the street [1] by US-backed rebels after Hillary convinced President Obama to bomb Libya [2]. On a side note: the US bombing of Libya, and Hillary's remark in particular, is seen by some as a watershed moment in North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons [3]. In response to international pressure, Gaddafi suspended Libya's nuclear weapons program in 2003. The subsequent US/NATO bombing of Libya and Gaddafi's brutal death supposedly convinced the Kims that if they ever gave up their nukes, they'd be vulnerable to the same type of foreign intervention and overthrow. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi#Capture_and_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi#Captu... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clint... [3] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/libya-the-forgotten-reason-north-korea-desperately-wants-23129 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/libya-the-for...

mr_toad 6y ago

So because their policy doesn’t go far enough, then they shouldn’t be allowed to have a policy? I find this argument to be uncompelling.

enriquto 6y ago
A policeman who doesn't fine anybody is merely incompetent. A policeman who fines only black people is downright evil. You cannot say that his actions amount to "not going far enough" because he fails to fine people of other races. They are actively discriminatory. The same situation happens with twitter, that only enforces its rules when they go against the mainstream USA mentality.