Octopus Overlords

hepcat wrote:

Moliere wrote:Teen Pleads Guilty to Teaching ISIS How to Use Bitcoin

Whether you're an average Joe, someone's mom, or a member of an extremist military group, bitcoin can be confusing. What is it exactly? How does it work? To help ISIS learn the answers to these questions, one Virginia teen used social media and blogging to explain the cryptocurrency's potential value as an anonymous payment option. Now he's pleading guilty to charges of conspiring to provide material support and resources to a designated terrorist group. Whoops.

Interesting to be guilty of a crime that essentially involves giving people information they could have found themselves via Google.

I think it should be noted that he wasn't just some teenager teaching anonymous folks on the internet how to use bitcoin. He was on his way to join ISIS in Syria. That article kind of downplays that fact.

Yes, so the teen in question isn't entirely innocent - he does indeed appear to be trying to actively help ISIS - but if the article is accurate his offense is still just explaining something to ISIS.

So while I don't feel too bad for the teen, it is kind of a scary precedent. The same logic could potentially be used to put someone in jail for writing a public blog post explaining how terrorist groups could use bitcoin (or any other technology).

Yes, so the teen in question isn't entirely innocent - he does indeed appear to be trying to actively help ISIS - but if the article is accurate his offense is still just explaining something to ISIS.

I think it went far beyond that. He was actively helping ISIS to fund their operations. This wasn't a case of a teen excitedly explaining how to use the internet to an elderly person down at the community center. He knew who he was talking with, and what they were trying to do. And his help was definitely intended to provide them with financial support. Eventually he was planning on providing them even more support via his mad Call of Duty skills, I imagine.

hepcat wrote:

Yes, so the teen in question isn't entirely innocent - he does indeed appear to be trying to actively help ISIS - but if the article is accurate his offense is still just explaining something to ISIS.

And attempting to join them as a fighter in Syria.

Right, both of those things. It still appears to be the case that explaining stuff to terrorists can support a "material support to terrorists" charge. It's not entirely clear whether or not that part (which is a significant part of the alleged conspiracy) would stand on its own if he had not also facilitated people traveling to Syria (FWIW it appears that he himself was not going to travel to Syria, but rather that he helped someone else do so).

Nonetheless, insofar as explaining stuff to terrorists is a big part of this indictment, this would provide precedent for a prosecutor who wants to charge someone with doing that, even if they did not also facilitate travel.

Sorry, I actually edited my reply after thinking on it for a few minutes. Unfortunately I did so just as you were typing up yours.

hepcat wrote:

Yes, so the teen in question isn't entirely innocent - he does indeed appear to be trying to actively help ISIS - but if the article is accurate his offense is still just explaining something to ISIS.

I think it went far beyond that. He was actively helping ISIS to fund their operations. This wasn't a case of a teen excitedly explaining how to use the internet to an elderly person down at the community center. He knew who he was talking with, and what they were trying to do. And his help was definitely intended to provide them with financial support. Eventually he was planning on providing them even more support via his mad Call of Duty skills, I imagine.

I don't think he actually did help ISIS with funding. Here is the plea bargain. What it says on funding is that he, via Twitter, expressed his "desire to help garner financial support for those wanting to commit jihad" and tweeted about possible methods of raising funds. It appears to be similarly in the vein of explaining stuff rather than doing stuff.

It seems reasonably likely that he might have tried to raise funds in the future, but from what I can tell it doesn't look like he did that yet.

Again, my concern is not so much with him being punished, but with how this could be abused in the future.

El Guapo wrote: Nonetheless, insofar as explaining stuff to terrorists is a big part of this indictment, this would provide precedent for a prosecutor who wants to charge someone with doing that, even if they did not also facilitate travel.

We've arrested radio propagandists in the past for doing nothing more than simply talking, using that line of reasoning.

hepcat wrote:

El Guapo wrote: Nonetheless, insofar as explaining stuff to terrorists is a big part of this indictment, this would provide precedent for a prosecutor who wants to charge someone with doing that, even if they did not also facilitate travel.

We've arrested radio propagandists in the past for doing nothing more than simply talking, using that line of reasoning.

Yes, in ways that were sometimes troubling as well.

Incidentally, I loved this:

Beginning in 1939, millions of Britons regularly tuned in to a German propaganda broadcast hosted by a smug Nazi sympathizer nicknamed “Lord Haw Haw.”

I wonder how many variations he considered before settling on Lord Haw Haw.

Lord Haw Haw...Hee Haw....hmmm

p.s. I want Hollywood (or better yet, an independent studio) to produce a movie based on the British Black Propaganda radio shows of WWII.

"Lord Haw Haw" was a bunch of different broadcasters, not on person. The nickname was given to them for their over exaggerated accent and saying "Haw haw" a lot.

hepcat wrote:Lord Haw Haw...Hee Haw....hmmm

The American equivalent was indeed nicknamed "Lord Hee Haw", as a play on the Lord Haw Haw name.

I googled the reference. Pray I don't google it any further.

Kraken wrote:

Drazzil wrote:When do we leave?

When we decide to stop being the 900-pound gorilla with Hulk Smash military superiority. When your only tool is a hammer....

That said, we would love to have a reliable proxy like we tried to create in Iraq. Turns out that nation-states and standing armies don't rule that region. No non-state actor is deeply attuned to US interests and the US isn't backing their objectives, either. Probably a good thing since their objectives usually boil down to exterminating ancient rivals.

We can check out any time we like, but we can't ever leave.

So then lets get our troops home and watch it all unfold on CNN. This is a complex problem where the only solution is to let the cards fall where they will.

Drazzil wrote:
This is a complex problem where the only solution is to let the cards fall where they will.

Complex problems aren't the kind of thing you usually leave to chance.

Drazzil wrote:

Kraken wrote:

Drazzil wrote:When do we leave?

When we decide to stop being the 900-pound gorilla with Hulk Smash military superiority. When your only tool is a hammer....

That said, we would love to have a reliable proxy like we tried to create in Iraq. Turns out that nation-states and standing armies don't rule that region. No non-state actor is deeply attuned to US interests and the US isn't backing their objectives, either. Probably a good thing since their objectives usually boil down to exterminating ancient rivals.

We can check out any time we like, but we can't ever leave.

So then lets get our troops home and watch it all unfold on CNN. This is a complex problem where the only solution is to let the cards fall where they will.

That sounds fine until you realize that doing so means one day there will be a mountain of cards falling on you.

That kind of thinking is what allowed Germany to become such a formidable opponent before we realized that taking action wasn't really a choice, it was a necessity. As is this. Eventually it will seek you out.

Rip wrote: That kind of thinking is what allowed Germany to become such a formidable opponent before we realized that taking action wasn't really a choice, it was a necessity. As is this. Eventually it will seek you out.

We won't have to make all these nuanced, complex policy decisions that may turn out to be wrong or fly halfway around the world to meet it.

We can just sit back and wait. In our brand new Ford Fusions. With aftermarket-mounted M240s for frontline capabilities.

Rip wrote:

Drazzil wrote:

Kraken wrote:

Drazzil wrote:When do we leave?

When we decide to stop being the 900-pound gorilla with Hulk Smash military superiority. When your only tool is a hammer....

That said, we would love to have a reliable proxy like we tried to create in Iraq. Turns out that nation-states and standing armies don't rule that region. No non-state actor is deeply attuned to US interests and the US isn't backing their objectives, either. Probably a good thing since their objectives usually boil down to exterminating ancient rivals.

We can check out any time we like, but we can't ever leave.

So then lets get our troops home and watch it all unfold on CNN. This is a complex problem where the only solution is to let the cards fall where they will.

That sounds fine until you realize that doing so means one day there will be a mountain of cards falling on you.

That kind of thinking is what allowed Germany to become such a formidable opponent before we realized that taking action wasn't really a choice, it was a necessity. As is this. Eventually it will seek you out.

Yeah but as soon as they organize into a real government that has to rule they will either become more moderate by necessity or be overthrown. Its easy to knock over some third world tinpot government, but holding it is a whole other problem.

hepcat wrote:

Drazzil wrote:
This is a complex problem where the only solution is to let the cards fall where they will.

Complex problems aren't the kind of thing you usually leave to chance.

Because our meddling has made things so much better.

Rip wrote:

Drazzil wrote:

Kraken wrote:

Drazzil wrote:When do we leave?

When we decide to stop being the 900-pound gorilla with Hulk Smash military superiority. When your only tool is a hammer....

That said, we would love to have a reliable proxy like we tried to create in Iraq. Turns out that nation-states and standing armies don't rule that region. No non-state actor is deeply attuned to US interests and the US isn't backing their objectives, either. Probably a good thing since their objectives usually boil down to exterminating ancient rivals.

We can check out any time we like, but we can't ever leave.

So then lets get our troops home and watch it all unfold on CNN. This is a complex problem where the only solution is to let the cards fall where they will.

That sounds fine until you realize that doing so means one day there will be a mountain of cards falling on you.

That kind of thinking is what allowed Germany to become such a formidable opponent before we realized that taking action wasn't really a choice, it was a necessity. As is this. Eventually it will seek you out.

So why precisely would you have us stay in the middle east?

For oil?

With the trillions of dollars we spent in the middle east we could have become energy independent years ago.

For stability?

No that one doesn't work either. Our misguided blundering in an area that does not want us has only made the area MORE unstable.

For human rights issues?

Again, if the middle east does not stand and fight for itself why should WE spend our lives and money to make their lives better.

The middle east needs to fight itself a big old fuckin civil war to determine its future. It's like when you run across a guy beating a woman, you try and save the woman and they both turn on you.

We should be working to contain this war right where it belongs, in the Middle East. Let the whole region unite and put paid to this whole islamofacism thing once and for all, or let them all be ruled. Either way, not our problem.

Drazzil wrote:Because our meddling has made things so much better.

Better than what? What are you comparing it to?

GreenGoo wrote:

Drazzil wrote:Because our meddling has made things so much better.

Better than what? What are you comparing it to?

Pre 9/11. Pre Iran Contra. If you really want to put a fine point on it, pre Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire to name a few. Pretty much every time white people go into the region with the intent of making things better, they make things worse.

We should've also let Germany do its thing during WWII. Why did we need to get involved?

hepcat wrote:We should've also let Germany do its thing during WWII. Why did we need to get involved?

Ask Eddie Izzard.

hepcat wrote:We should've also let Germany do its thing during WWII. Why did we need to get involved?

We're talking about the middle east here, not post Wiemar Germany. Besides we had balls back then. Balls enough to take hostages and shoot them in great numbers to put down Werewolf activity after the war. Oh wait, you meant before the war? The Middle East does not compare to Pre World War 2 Germany in any way shape or form. Besides. Remember Vietnam?

Drazzil wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Drazzil wrote:Because our meddling has made things so much better.

Better than what? What are you comparing it to?

Pre 9/11. Pre Iran Contra. If you really want to put a fine point on it, pre Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire to name a few. Pretty much every time white people go into the region with the intent of making things better, they make things worse.

Things like Operation Ajax weren't meant to make things better, they were meant to make profit. Yeah, they were ill-conceived meddling. But I'm pretty sure we're beyond that now. The intent now is just to keep conflict in the region from further spilling over into the rest of the world. That's not to say we can't make things worse.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Drazzil wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Drazzil wrote:Because our meddling has made things so much better.

Better than what? What are you comparing it to?

Pre 9/11. Pre Iran Contra. If you really want to put a fine point on it, pre Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire to name a few. Pretty much every time white people go into the region with the intent of making things better, they make things worse.

Things like Operation Ajax weren't meant to make things better, they were meant to make profit. Yeah, they were ill-conceived meddling. But I'm pretty sure we're beyond that now. The intent now is just to keep conflict in the region from further spilling over into the rest of the world. That's not to say we can't make things worse.

I hope that was snark.

Drazzil wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Drazzil wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Drazzil wrote:Because our meddling has made things so much better.

Better than what? What are you comparing it to?

Pre 9/11. Pre Iran Contra. If you really want to put a fine point on it, pre Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire to name a few. Pretty much every time white people go into the region with the intent of making things better, they make things worse.

Things like Operation Ajax weren't meant to make things better, they were meant to make profit. Yeah, they were ill-conceived meddling. But I'm pretty sure we're beyond that now. The intent now is just to keep conflict in the region from further spilling over into the rest of the world. That's not to say we can't make things worse.

I hope that was snark.

I meant we're beyond mere profit as a motive. We've moved on to self preservation now. We're scrambling to put out a fuse on a powderkeg, a fuse we helped light.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Drazzil wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Drazzil wrote:Because our meddling has made things so much better.

Better than what? What are you comparing it to?

Pre 9/11. Pre Iran Contra. If you really want to put a fine point on it, pre Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire to name a few. Pretty much every time white people go into the region with the intent of making things better, they make things worse.

Things like Operation Ajax weren't meant to make things better, they were meant to make profit. Yeah, they were ill-conceived meddling. But I'm pretty sure we're beyond that now. The intent now is just to keep conflict in the region from further spilling over into the rest of the world. That's not to say we can't make things worse.

Lawbeef I know you're smarter then I am so I am shocked that you haven't figured this out by now. This battle with ISIS we are involved in, It's one big war for the literal soul of a region, AND a religion. It will only be won when the middle east agrees that what ISIS is doing is wrong.

I think the best thing we can do, given our extremely limited resources and stomach for war at this point is to withdraw, let the middle east unite against ISIS, then ASK for our help (I'm looking at you Arab League). Then we should provide LIMITED support, IF our expenses are paid in full, like ahead of time.

Since the middle east is still divided about this whole ISIS thing, lets go ahead and get our asses out of there.

Drazzil wrote:
Lawbeef I know you're smarter then I am so I am shocked that you haven't figured this out by now. This battle with ISIS we are involved in, It's one big war for the literal soul of a region, AND a religion. It will only be won when the middle east agrees that what ISIS is doing is wrong.

In many cases, ISIS is the short-term lesser of multiple evils. If someone is throwing canister bombs on me and my family out of helicopters and ISIS offers me an out, I'd probably take it too. I can worry about how wrong ISIS is later. That's how they get a foothold.

It's not as simple as Evil ISIS vs. Good Everyone Else. In some cases ISIS are fighting against opponents who use horrific chemical weapons, massacre civilians, and have all the trappings of wealth and excess. That doesn't make ISIS any better but it certainly makes it more difficult to distill the conflict down to a binary choice.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of factions, split to varying degrees on countless religious and secular points.

Drazzil wrote: I think the best thing we can do, given our extremely limited resources and stomach for war at this point is to withdraw, let the middle east unite against ISIS, then ASK for our help (I'm looking at you Arab League). Then we should provide LIMITED support, IF our expenses are paid in full, like ahead of time.

I don't think that's the best we can do.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Drazzil wrote:
Lawbeef I know you're smarter then I am so I am shocked that you haven't figured this out by now. This battle with ISIS we are involved in, It's one big war for the literal soul of a region, AND a religion. It will only be won when the middle east agrees that what ISIS is doing is wrong.

In many cases, ISIS is the short-term lesser of multiple evils. If someone is throwing canister bombs on me and my family out of helicopters and ISIS offers me an out, I'd probably take it too. I can worry about how wrong ISIS is later. That's how they get a foothold.

It's not as simple as Evil ISIS vs. Good Everyone Else. In some cases ISIS are fighting against opponents who use horrific chemical weapons, massacre civilians, and have all the trappings of wealth and excess. That doesn't make ISIS any better but it certainly makes it more difficult to distill the conflict down to a binary choice.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of factions, split to varying degrees on countless religious and secular points.

Drazzil wrote: I think the best thing we can do, given our extremely limited resources and stomach for war at this point is to withdraw, let the middle east unite against ISIS, then ASK for our help (I'm looking at you Arab League). Then we should provide LIMITED support, IF our expenses are paid in full, like ahead of time.

I don't think that's the best we can do.

So. We send in "advisers" now, and in a year or two down the road we have a wider conflict with more and more troops being committed, and then we have a full scale permanent war on our hands with a constantly shifting "Islamic" enemy encouraged by the out of control sprawling military industrial complex, until we implode Soviet style a decade or so down the road.

Pass.

So to fix the mess we created with our meddling, the solution is MORE meddling?

A-buah?!

You break it, you bought it.

Kraken wrote:You break it, you bought it.

Yeah. That seems to be the case.

Kraken wrote:You break it, you bought it.

And the standing policy of every middle eastern store I have ever been in.

...and White, Hispanic, Asian, Black, Martian and every other group in existence.

hepcat wrote:...and White, Hispanic, Asian, Black, Martian and every other group in existence.

Not in mine. Mostly middle eastern and asian.

Drazzil wrote:

hepcat wrote:...and White, Hispanic, Asian, Black, Martian and every other group in existence.

Not in mine. Mostly middle eastern and asian.

Any store that is not a chain.

Islamic State conflict: Kurds 'capture Syrian town north of Raqqa'

Kurdish fighters in northern Syria say they have captured a key town from Islamic State, just 50km (30 miles) from the group's headquarters at Raqqa. A spokesman for the the Popular Protection Units (YPG) said Ain Issa and its surrounding villages were now under the militia's "total control". It follows the capture on Monday night of a military base outside the town. The YPG captured the town of Tal Abyad on the Turkish border last week, cutting a major supply line for IS. The jihadist group has suffered a string of defeats to Kurdish forces since being forced to withdraw from the town of Kobane in January after a four-month battle.

The Kurds continue to be the only good news that comes out of the middle east. I hope they get their own state.

Syria crisis: IS makes deadly return to Kobane

BBC.com wrote:Islamic State fighters have attacked the Syrian city of Kobane, months after being driven out in a symbolic battle that made international headlines. Two car bombs and clashes with Kurdish defenders left up to 30 people dead and scores injured. IS shot dead 20 others in a village nearby, activists say. IS has recently suffered a string of defeats to Kurdish forces. But in another attack on Thursday, it seized parts of the key north-eastern city of Hassakeh. The apparent two-pronged IS offensive came as Kurdish fighters from the Popular Protection Units (YPG) cut a major supply line for IS near Raqqa. Raqqa is the de facto capital of the caliphate whose creation IS announced a year ago after it captured large swathes of northern and western Iraq.

Iraq's Sunni tribes face lonely battle against Islamic State

BBC.com wrote:Sheikh Sabah al-Issawi is worried about death. He's not concerned for himself, but for all those he would leave behind - three wives, and 19 children. The sheikh's fear is not abstract. As a Sunni tribal leader in Iraq fighting Islamic State (IS) - fellow Sunnis - he's on a hit list. He survived an attack by two IS suicide bombers earlier this month. "They are the only enemy that targets everything," said the sheikh, a lean man with a neatly trimmed white beard, and a red and white checked tribal headdress. "They are targeting life in all its forms - women, children, funerals, mosques, clerics and tribal chiefs. They don't leave anything behind."

Max Peck wrote:Iraq's Sunni tribes face lonely battle against Islamic State

BBC.com wrote:Sheikh Sabah al-Issawi is worried about death. He's not concerned for himself, but for all those he would leave behind - three wives, and 19 children. The sheikh's fear is not abstract. As a Sunni tribal leader in Iraq fighting Islamic State (IS) - fellow Sunnis - he's on a hit list. He survived an attack by two IS suicide bombers earlier this month. "They are the only enemy that targets everything," said the sheikh, a lean man with a neatly trimmed white beard, and a red and white checked tribal headdress. "They are targeting life in all its forms - women, children, funerals, mosques, clerics and tribal chiefs. They don't leave anything behind."

Fucking awful people, ISIS.