2 ms·

I think I misunderstood you then. I am also opposed to any sort of active interference in the situation, including this ridiculous idea of airdrops. Passive sup

by sho 17y ago

I think I misunderstood you then. I am also opposed to any sort of active interference in the situation, including this ridiculous idea of airdrops. Passive support, such as ensuring communication tools like Twitter are running at crucial moments, is OK. What I objected to was (what sounded like) your position that helping pro-democracy agitators we like is OK, but those we do not like (your mention of Allah Akbar was telling), we should not support. I disagree rather strongly with that sort of side-picking. Your mention of nukes was also a red herring - what does that have to do with anything? We're either pro-democracy or not. In this case, however, I think we should just wait it out. I also objected to your claim that OBL was once aided as a pro-democracy agitator; this is very far from the truth. He was aided to strategically undermine the USSR, nothing to do with democracy. However I agree that the USA should learn a lesson from its experience with him - hands off unless you're willing to go all the way, and the USA is not.

bilbo0s 17y ago
OK. Then we agree on non interference. Which is the material point. Just some points in the way of precision . . . I am as vehemently opposed to helping Tibetan pro democracy agitators as I am to helping Iranian pro democracy agitators. Or, more accurately, I believe that the pro democracy agitators that we "like" should be left to sink or swim as well. Also, I disagree on your assertion that passive support should be offered to pro democracy movements. It is "side picking" of the sort you said you disagree with. Then again, it might be illustrative to ask you whether you would want Twitter to forego their maintenance if Ahmadinejad's followers were using it to organize their rallies? I strongly suspect that the State Department would have made a call of a different nature to Twitter under the circumstances that question postulates. In any case, in the end, we screw up passive interference as well. Anyone care to hazard a guess at what Facebook and SMS have in common? Their communication channels are, by default, private. Either the Facebook friends list or the mobile phone address book has to be accessed to send a message. And then only the receiver will get it. Interesting, is it not, that the communication channel that is by default public has been left unfettered through all of these disruptions.

by sho 17y ago

bilbo0s 17y ago

OK. Then we agree on non interference. Which is the material point. Just some points in the way of precision . . . I am as vehemently opposed to helping Tibetan pro democracy agitators as I am to helping Iranian pro democracy agitators. Or, more accurately, I believe that the pro democracy agitators that we "like" should be left to sink or swim as well. Also, I disagree on your assertion that passive support should be offered to pro democracy movements. It is "side picking" of the sort you said you disagree with. Then again, it might be illustrative to ask you whether you would want Twitter to forego their maintenance if Ahmadinejad's followers were using it to organize their rallies? I strongly suspect that the State Department would have made a call of a different nature to Twitter under the circumstances that question postulates. In any case, in the end, we screw up passive interference as well. Anyone care to hazard a guess at what Facebook and SMS have in common? Their communication channels are, by default, private. Either the Facebook friends list or the mobile phone address book has to be accessed to send a message. And then only the receiver will get it. Interesting, is it not, that the communication channel that is by default public has been left unfettered through all of these disruptions.