Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:16 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 452749
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I'd agree that it is inconvenience. I may even stretch it to espionage. Wake me when pulling a VM from Amazon's cluster results in death and warfare or when DDoS'ing a business network justifies an armed response. Let me know when they put troops and metal on the ground to hold Assange's land holdings.
I mean, I don't think this is all nothing. I just think calling it a war provides a lot more hype and spin rather than reality.




Member since:
2007-09-06
"It's war. War is never fair."
No.. it's inconvenience. War is very different.
"war on drugs" (so, prolonged prohibition driving the profitability of criminal drug trafficing and wasting tax dollars imprissoning people for smoking a joint but not far more addictive substances like drinking or smoking)
"war on illegal imigration" (so, war against what the US was founded on; freedom and imigration rather than against employers who under pay and mistreat illegals)
"war on terrorism" (so, war against a technique of war; fear of fear so we can legislate away more freedoms)
"war on wikileaks" (more like "please don't focus on how this information was able to be leaked" war against responsible governance)
I don't see any of it as warfare followed up by land forces holding ground. It's political BS spin.