Comments on: Strategic communication http://cominganarchy.com/2007/12/26/strategic-communication/ Speak Victorian, Think Pagan Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:59:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: purpleslog http://cominganarchy.com/2007/12/26/strategic-communication/#comment-381740 purpleslog Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:07:08 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2007/12/26/strategic-communication/#comment-381740 I missed the reply. If the USG said to china "too bad - we didn't do it" and if the USG made no legitimate effort to get the hacker terrorist, then from China's PoV, the US is either really behind the attacks, or is no longer in control of its territory (not legitimate as a gov). I missed the reply.

If the USG said to china “too bad – we didn’t do it” and if the USG made no legitimate effort to get the hacker terrorist, then from China’s PoV, the US is either really behind the attacks, or is no longer in control of its territory (not legitimate as a gov).

]]> By: Younghusband http://cominganarchy.com/2007/12/26/strategic-communication/#comment-381396 Younghusband Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:53:13 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2007/12/26/strategic-communication/#comment-381396 "@purpleslog":http://cominganarchy.com/2007/12/26/strategic-communication/#comment-381392 If a bunch of hackers based out of the US dos-attacked China, causing a couple of planes to crash and some hospital deaths totaling 3000 people, would you consider the US government as illegitimate? @purpleslog If a bunch of hackers based out of the US dos-attacked China, causing a couple of planes to crash and some hospital deaths totaling 3000 people, would you consider the US government as illegitimate?

]]> By: purpleslog http://cominganarchy.com/2007/12/26/strategic-communication/#comment-381392 purpleslog Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:15:51 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2007/12/26/strategic-communication/#comment-381392 "On the legality of the US invasion of Afghanistan. More and more people are asking if a country can claim the right of self defence if attacked by a group within another sovereign country." Who is asking? Why could a country not claim self-defense? The host government of the country were the attack originates from is to either presumed to have a monopoly on force and therefore implicitly allowed the attack to occur (unless they explicitly tired to counter it) or to not really be in charge (aka not a legitimate government). In either case, why would the country attacked not have a moral right of self-defense? “On the legality of the US invasion of Afghanistan. More and more people are asking if a country can claim the right of self defence if attacked by a group within another sovereign country.”

Who is asking?

Why could a country not claim self-defense?

The host government of the country were the attack originates from is to either presumed to have a monopoly on force and therefore implicitly allowed the attack to occur (unless they explicitly tired to counter it) or to not really be in charge (aka not a legitimate government).

In either case, why would the country attacked not have a moral right of self-defense?

]]> By: Daily Links 12/27/2007 « Umbrella http://cominganarchy.com/2007/12/26/strategic-communication/#comment-381390 Daily Links 12/27/2007 « Umbrella Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:04:26 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2007/12/26/strategic-communication/#comment-381390 [...] Strategic communication [...] [...] Strategic communication [...]

]]> By: IJ http://cominganarchy.com/2007/12/26/strategic-communication/#comment-381375 IJ Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:11:52 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2007/12/26/strategic-communication/#comment-381375 On the legality of the US invasion of Afghanistan. More and more people are asking if a country can claim the right of self defence if attacked by a group within another sovereign country. However this takes us into the realms of international law which all permanent five members of the UN's Security Council seem happy to ignore. For example, Time magazine published an interview this month with Russian president Vladimir Putin. He suggests that Russia has a lukewarm attitude towards the United Nations. Might still makes right. The P5 won't agree to anything else. On the legality of the US invasion of Afghanistan. More and more people are asking if a country can claim the right of self defence if attacked by a group within another sovereign country. However this takes us into the realms of international law which all permanent five members of the UN’s Security Council seem happy to ignore.

For example, Time magazine published an interview this month with Russian president Vladimir Putin. He suggests that Russia has a lukewarm attitude towards the United Nations.

Might still makes right. The P5 won’t agree to anything else.

]]>