5 ms·

You think resistance movements should never have telecommunications access?

sbarre 1y ago
You think the issue is that black and white?
swarnie 1y ago
That's not what OP is saying. An entity truly in control should be able to deny access to insurrectionists because of you know, being in control.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Clearly, they are not in control of SpaceX.
  - miroljub 1y ago
    Yes they are, if they are able to force SpaceX to do as they want.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  They are in control of the military, and presumably the capital city area and a majority of the country's resources. That says nothing about their power to control the satellites overhead.
  - bilbo0s 1y ago
    I think the commenter only meant that there is such a thing as RF engineering. But that to be effective, RF engineering would require the local authorities to have some level of control over the region they want to shut down. Thus, the authorities must not have that control. I agree with the commenter from a technical perspective. It's extremely easy to cut off SpaceX terminals in some area if you control that area. I just don't think that's relevant. It's not the local authorities the rest of the world is lining up behind, it's the regional players around Myanmar. The regional players can countenance the local authorities only slightly more than the warlords and gang leaders. What the local authorities want is almost completely irrelevant to the regional players.
heisgone 1y ago
One's freedom fighter is someone else terrorist.
- ferbivore 1y ago
  One's nominal group in power is someone else's genocidal occupier.
  - bilbo0s 1y ago
    Again, this is often the case in civil conflicts (factional fighting). But the subjects of this action are undeniably bad actors. Are the authorities bad actors as well, yes, very likely. But the regional players want the targeted subject's abilities degraded and their options strangled regardless of what the local authority wants. I think the rest of the world is simply lining up behind the regional players. Which was inevitable really.
- watwut 1y ago
  And frequently the so called terrorist is not a terrorist by any reasonable meaning of that world. Like, frequently they are non violent.
  - antonymoose 1y ago
    However, in this specific situation, they are definitely terrorists.
  - gruez 1y ago
    "armed resistance movement" sounds pretty close to terrorists to me
    - jeromegv 1y ago
      Was the US revolution against the British empire terrorism?
      - 1y ago

You think the issue is that black and white?

That's not what OP is saying. An entity truly in control should be able to deny access to insurrectionists because of you know, being in control.

jacquesm 1y ago
Clearly, they are not in control of SpaceX.
- miroljub 1y ago
  Yes they are, if they are able to force SpaceX to do as they want.
IAmBroom 1y ago
They are in control of the military, and presumably the capital city area and a majority of the country's resources. That says nothing about their power to control the satellites overhead.
- bilbo0s 1y ago
  I think the commenter only meant that there is such a thing as RF engineering. But that to be effective, RF engineering would require the local authorities to have some level of control over the region they want to shut down. Thus, the authorities must not have that control. I agree with the commenter from a technical perspective. It's extremely easy to cut off SpaceX terminals in some area if you control that area. I just don't think that's relevant. It's not the local authorities the rest of the world is lining up behind, it's the regional players around Myanmar. The regional players can countenance the local authorities only slightly more than the warlords and gang leaders. What the local authorities want is almost completely irrelevant to the regional players.

heisgone 1y ago

One's freedom fighter is someone else terrorist.

ferbivore 1y ago
One's nominal group in power is someone else's genocidal occupier.
- bilbo0s 1y ago
  Again, this is often the case in civil conflicts (factional fighting). But the subjects of this action are undeniably bad actors. Are the authorities bad actors as well, yes, very likely. But the regional players want the targeted subject's abilities degraded and their options strangled regardless of what the local authority wants. I think the rest of the world is simply lining up behind the regional players. Which was inevitable really.
watwut 1y ago
And frequently the so called terrorist is not a terrorist by any reasonable meaning of that world. Like, frequently they are non violent.
- antonymoose 1y ago
  However, in this specific situation, they are definitely terrorists.
- gruez 1y ago
  "armed resistance movement" sounds pretty close to terrorists to me
  - jeromegv 1y ago
    Was the US revolution against the British empire terrorism?
    - 1y ago