Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by perl4ever on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @09:21PM (#21997936)

I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to talk about "assassinating" soldiers any more than "terrorist attacks" on them. Those are things done to civilians by definition. We certainly don't want to promote the idea that "collateral damage" is necessary for a military operation to be ethical.

I think terrorism has a perfectly good definition - political lobbying/influence "by other means" than conventional politics, i.e. attacking and terrorizing civilians. Doesn't matter who does it or how exactly.

Maybe the US government doesn't exactly use that definition, but that doesn't mean there is no such thing as terrorism.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by guelo on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @10:46PM (#21998390)

If we killed some European general that was visiting some European country you would say that we had assassinated him.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by perl4ever on Thursday January 09, 2020 @07:42AM (#22000678)

"Visiting...some European country"

So, that's who this general was, an Iranian visiting some Iranian country? Was he there to see the fjords?

Anyway, telling me what I would think or say is unacceptable in a civil conversation. If I write something, you can assume I mean it, or you can disengage if you think I'm trolling.

If you're going to take my comments as justifying US actions, perhaps they can be taken that way, but they may apply to retaliation as well, no? Is there much of a gray area with military personnel in Iraq right now, who aren't Iraqis?

[ Parent | on HN ]