Comment: Re:The UN has been fixated on controling the inter (Score 1) 321
"At a UN disarmament conference in 2008, Sergei Korotkov of the Russian Defense Ministry argued that anytime a government promotes ideas on the Internet with the goal of subverting another country's government — even in the name of democratic reform — it should qualify as 'aggression.' "
Read the above, and please describe how this (in any way) is a good idea. Please help us all to understand how we could have taken the above quote out of context, and that considering the promotion of ideas should qualify as "aggression".
Here, let me play a scenario for you... I submit that Sergei Korotkov just initiated an aggressive act against all countries who recognize the individual right's of free speech. Thus, this is an act of war by his own definition. He has chosen allies, and began the first battle in a war.
See what I did there?
To claim that the expression of information or ideas can be classified as acts of aggression is in itself aggression looking for a trigger. It boils down to a simplistic excuse to attack others if you don't like what they are saying to you and your citizens.
It's not even a slippery slope. It's a cliff. Example: Wikipedia claims that democracy is good. That's a clearly aggressive act against totalitarian states. Justification to retaliate in this war granted unless you censor us from your political beliefs!
Justifying one thing as aggression carries with it the implication that you're just in defending against such "aggression" with more aggression. The more that the definition of aggression expands, the more aggression we'll all experience.
Read the above, and please describe how this (in any way) is a good idea. Please help us all to understand how we could have taken the above quote out of context, and that considering the promotion of ideas should qualify as "aggression".
Here, let me play a scenario for you... I submit that Sergei Korotkov just initiated an aggressive act against all countries who recognize the individual right's of free speech. Thus, this is an act of war by his own definition. He has chosen allies, and began the first battle in a war.
See what I did there?
To claim that the expression of information or ideas can be classified as acts of aggression is in itself aggression looking for a trigger. It boils down to a simplistic excuse to attack others if you don't like what they are saying to you and your citizens.
It's not even a slippery slope. It's a cliff. Example: Wikipedia claims that democracy is good. That's a clearly aggressive act against totalitarian states. Justification to retaliate in this war granted unless you censor us from your political beliefs!
Justifying one thing as aggression carries with it the implication that you're just in defending against such "aggression" with more aggression. The more that the definition of aggression expands, the more aggression we'll all experience.
