3 ms·

Yes, please read the article I linked: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?pag

by temphn 14y ago

Yes, please read the article I linked: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?pagewante... Title: US Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings Here is another. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-... The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats. But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.

magicalist 14y ago
and do you have anything at all that makes this relevant to the hacking incident at the nytimes?
- PakG1 14y ago
  Read the top comment that started this whole conversation. It's foundational to the whole thread. There is no thread without that claim.
  - magicalist 14y ago
    If you read my comments above, you can see that I did indeed read the top comment. All that is provided is the assertion that all (american?) organizations questioning the Chinese government are apparently seen as arms of the United States's campaign against China, which explains why the Chinese government would make this move. What I was asking for any specific evidence that would preclude the much more obvious explanation that the New York Times wrote a story exposing corruption surrounding the Chinese Premier, and the people infiltrating the system were looking for the sources of that information (which is what the New York Times themselves are claiming). Without specific information, all we're left with is that "the Chinese government does not like dissent", and the Arab spring narrative is merely sophistry.
    - j_s 14y ago
      False dichotomy perhaps? Consider this specific instance as a subset: > the New York Times wrote a story exposing corruption surrounding the > Chinese Premier, and the people infiltrating the system were looking > for the sources of that information of: > all (american?) organizations questioning the Chinese government are > apparently seen as arms of the United States's campaign against China
    - mturmon 14y ago
      @magicalist: I agree with you (i.e., that in this case the obvious explanation is operative, and furthermore that the Chinese government is capable of discriminating between the actions of the US government and those of the NYT) but there's no sense arguing the point. To me, this back-and-forth is reminiscent of "lefter-than-thou" debates I have witnessed before, and they all end up right where they started. One caveat: it's quite possible that there are US government sponsored probes of Chinese sites, that we are not aware of, and that may be quite extensive and outrageous (to the Chinese government). So this skirmish with the NYT may be part of that larger cold war. This is not the same as saying (as the original comment did) that the Chinese government sees the NYT as a proxy of the US government.

by temphn 14y ago

magicalist 14y ago

and do you have anything at all that makes this relevant to the hacking incident at the nytimes?

PakG1 14y ago
Read the top comment that started this whole conversation. It's foundational to the whole thread. There is no thread without that claim.
- magicalist 14y ago
  If you read my comments above, you can see that I did indeed read the top comment. All that is provided is the assertion that all (american?) organizations questioning the Chinese government are apparently seen as arms of the United States's campaign against China, which explains why the Chinese government would make this move. What I was asking for any specific evidence that would preclude the much more obvious explanation that the New York Times wrote a story exposing corruption surrounding the Chinese Premier, and the people infiltrating the system were looking for the sources of that information (which is what the New York Times themselves are claiming). Without specific information, all we're left with is that "the Chinese government does not like dissent", and the Arab spring narrative is merely sophistry.
  - j_s 14y ago
    False dichotomy perhaps? Consider this specific instance as a subset: > the New York Times wrote a story exposing corruption surrounding the > Chinese Premier, and the people infiltrating the system were looking > for the sources of that information of: > all (american?) organizations questioning the Chinese government are > apparently seen as arms of the United States's campaign against China
  - mturmon 14y ago
    @magicalist: I agree with you (i.e., that in this case the obvious explanation is operative, and furthermore that the Chinese government is capable of discriminating between the actions of the US government and those of the NYT) but there's no sense arguing the point. To me, this back-and-forth is reminiscent of "lefter-than-thou" debates I have witnessed before, and they all end up right where they started. One caveat: it's quite possible that there are US government sponsored probes of Chinese sites, that we are not aware of, and that may be quite extensive and outrageous (to the Chinese government). So this skirmish with the NYT may be part of that larger cold war. This is not the same as saying (as the original comment did) that the Chinese government sees the NYT as a proxy of the US government.