Comments on: Passivity & Support & Iran http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/passivity-support-iran/ Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:59:36 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: MikeD http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/passivity-support-iran/#comment-11015 MikeD Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:42:10 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/passivity-support-iran/#comment-11015 <p>I should point out that limiting these calls to universally applicable principles necessarily rules out taking any position on the status of the election results or their legitimacy, as well as making any unfounded accustions against Iran related to the election.</p> I should point out that limiting these calls to universally applicable principles necessarily rules out taking any position on the status of the election results or their legitimacy, as well as making any unfounded accustions against Iran related to the election.

]]> By: MikeD http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/passivity-support-iran/#comment-11013 MikeD Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:55:04 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/passivity-support-iran/#comment-11013 <p>There’s been a lot of recent reporting about the Pentagon’s “new cyber-warfare capabilities” in the NYT and elsewhere. In that context, if a guy puts words warfare, capabilities, and covert are together, it’s a safe bet the person is talking about gov’t action.</p> <p>It also looked like there was more he was calling for that I objected to, but mostly you’re right that most of it would be fine as long as it was stated as universal principles. Except maybe “state that supportive nations will continue to support Iran’s dissidents in this internal Iranian matter as long as they feel that justice has not been done,” unless “support” gets defined as “support their right to protest peacefully.”</p> There’s been a lot of recent reporting about the Pentagon’s “new cyber-warfare capabilities” in the NYT and elsewhere. In that context, if a guy puts words warfare, capabilities, and covert are together, it’s a safe bet the person is talking about gov’t action.

It also looked like there was more he was calling for that I objected to, but mostly you’re right that most of it would be fine as long as it was stated as universal principles. Except maybe “state that supportive nations will continue to support Iran’s dissidents in this internal Iranian matter as long as they feel that justice has not been done,” unless “support” gets defined as “support their right to protest peacefully.”

]]> By: Spencer Ackerman http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/passivity-support-iran/#comment-11012 Spencer Ackerman Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:19:47 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/passivity-support-iran/#comment-11012 <p>Did Chris really advocate that? I thought he was saying that the freelance dudes who were putting out proxy codes or jamming regime signals were fine with him.</p> Did Chris really advocate that? I thought he was saying that the freelance dudes who were putting out proxy codes or jamming regime signals were fine with him.

]]> By: MikeD http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/passivity-support-iran/#comment-11011 MikeD Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:23:36 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/06/16/passivity-support-iran/#comment-11011 <p>Are you serious? You’re on board with all that shit? Intervening covertly via cyberwarfare (granted we’re probably doing it covertly, but this is about waht we are willing to say we want to see done)? You’re on board with that? All this shit, this is the ballgame! You’re giving away the store in this post!</p> <p>Btw, do you have a reaction to Packer’s pathetic second try? He simultaneously tries to quibble with the timing, make friends with you, make more of Obama’s words than are there to pretend his view won out when it didn’t, and then advances a you’re-with-us (moral interventionists)-or-you’re-with-them (oppressive regimes) trap. When you don’t get it, you don’t get it.</p> Are you serious? You’re on board with all that shit? Intervening covertly via cyberwarfare (granted we’re probably doing it covertly, but this is about waht we are willing to say we want to see done)? You’re on board with that? All this shit, this is the ballgame! You’re giving away the store in this post!

Btw, do you have a reaction to Packer’s pathetic second try? He simultaneously tries to quibble with the timing, make friends with you, make more of Obama’s words than are there to pretend his view won out when it didn’t, and then advances a you’re-with-us (moral interventionists)-or-you’re-with-them (oppressive regimes) trap. When you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

]]>