5 ms·

why Israel need to answer to EU and why everything EU does is automatically right?

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
I think this is a loaded and defensive question that tries to broaden the scope of the allegation to something obviously wrong. Obviously everything the EU does isn’t automatically right because it’s the EU. But maybe if multiple reputable human rights organizations are condemning allegations of a country as baseless and part of ongoing human rights violations then maybe that specific thing is a correct statement of fact.
- pythonlion 5y ago
  or maybe its conflict of interests. I'm not talking of the general situation but about this action by Israel government and the response. And this all human right groups are funded by the EU if its private or public it doesn't matter from the Israeli government perspective. Or maybe this groups doesn't know everything? why their members opinion is more accepted than the Israeli politicians who did that? some of them are even have pro-Palestinian independence stance
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    The fact based claim is that the Israel government haven’t provided evidence to their claims and therefore the claims are unsubstantiated. Any discussion of conspiracy can be put to rest with some proof.
    - pythonlion 5y ago
      but since when governments need to provide evidence and to whom? the world government? Can I go to random governments around the world and ask them to show evidence about their security issues to my organization?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        Yes, and you should. And for those governments who can’t or won’t provide evidence, you should disregard their assertions as baseless and suspect. I mean, why wouldn’t you demand proof? Governments have a long and nasty history of conflating their political interests with security interests, just trusting their assertions seems extremely foolhardy.
        LegitShady 5y ago
        because it would compromise means and methods
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        Tough. The logical consequence of “we can’t show you the proof” is “okay, I don’t believe that you have any”. After all, you would not believe my assertions about fantastical achievements without evidence, and the consequences of that hypothetical are much lower than the state saying it should be able to kill people in the name of “counter terrorism”. More succinctly; “it would compromise means and methods” is a phenomenal way to cover up shaky or non-existent evidence.
        LegitShady 5y ago
        flipside of tough - you're demanding a foreign nation compromise its security so that you can feel better. You and your demands are nobody and nothing to a foreign state. So no. tough.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        No, I’m demanding they support their allegations before killing people. Giving the state unfettered access to kill and jail god knows who based on unsupported allegations of terrorism is very dangerous territory, and any right thinking person should be wary of handing out that kind of power. Saying this is about making me “feel better” is pushing the limits of good faith discussion, don’t do that.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > why their members opinion is more accepted than the Israeli politicians who did that? Why does the opinion of multiple third parties carry more merit about the adversarial facts of a conflict than one of the participants to said conflict? Really?
White_Wolf 5y ago
Exploting bugs to gain unauthorized access is a crime regardless of who does it. If the crime happened on EU grounds they have to asnwer to EU. That particular company should have trading sactions imposed on it just like the country it belongs to. We do the same for Russian hackers so it's only fair to apply that to everyone else. EU is the modern equivalent of Soviet Union and it behaves like that. They do a ton of stuff wrong and they take decisions without any regard for the local culture and people. This has nothing to do with illegal access to other peoples devices.

I think this is a loaded and defensive question that tries to broaden the scope of the allegation to something obviously wrong. Obviously everything the EU does isn’t automatically right because it’s the EU. But maybe if multiple reputable human rights organizations are condemning allegations of a country as baseless and part of ongoing human rights violations then maybe that specific thing is a correct statement of fact.

pythonlion 5y ago
or maybe its conflict of interests. I'm not talking of the general situation but about this action by Israel government and the response. And this all human right groups are funded by the EU if its private or public it doesn't matter from the Israeli government perspective. Or maybe this groups doesn't know everything? why their members opinion is more accepted than the Israeli politicians who did that? some of them are even have pro-Palestinian independence stance
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  The fact based claim is that the Israel government haven’t provided evidence to their claims and therefore the claims are unsubstantiated. Any discussion of conspiracy can be put to rest with some proof.
  - pythonlion 5y ago
    but since when governments need to provide evidence and to whom? the world government? Can I go to random governments around the world and ask them to show evidence about their security issues to my organization?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Yes, and you should. And for those governments who can’t or won’t provide evidence, you should disregard their assertions as baseless and suspect. I mean, why wouldn’t you demand proof? Governments have a long and nasty history of conflating their political interests with security interests, just trusting their assertions seems extremely foolhardy.
      - LegitShady 5y ago
        because it would compromise means and methods
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        Tough. The logical consequence of “we can’t show you the proof” is “okay, I don’t believe that you have any”. After all, you would not believe my assertions about fantastical achievements without evidence, and the consequences of that hypothetical are much lower than the state saying it should be able to kill people in the name of “counter terrorism”. More succinctly; “it would compromise means and methods” is a phenomenal way to cover up shaky or non-existent evidence.
        LegitShady 5y ago
        flipside of tough - you're demanding a foreign nation compromise its security so that you can feel better. You and your demands are nobody and nothing to a foreign state. So no. tough.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        No, I’m demanding they support their allegations before killing people. Giving the state unfettered access to kill and jail god knows who based on unsupported allegations of terrorism is very dangerous territory, and any right thinking person should be wary of handing out that kind of power. Saying this is about making me “feel better” is pushing the limits of good faith discussion, don’t do that.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > why their members opinion is more accepted than the Israeli politicians who did that? Why does the opinion of multiple third parties carry more merit about the adversarial facts of a conflict than one of the participants to said conflict? Really?

White_Wolf 5y ago

Exploting bugs to gain unauthorized access is a crime regardless of who does it. If the crime happened on EU grounds they have to asnwer to EU. That particular company should have trading sactions imposed on it just like the country it belongs to. We do the same for Russian hackers so it's only fair to apply that to everyone else. EU is the modern equivalent of Soviet Union and it behaves like that. They do a ton of stuff wrong and they take decisions without any regard for the local culture and people. This has nothing to do with illegal access to other peoples devices.