Bitcoin Forum

http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=310318

This is a "what if" and "most likely" type article.  Didn't take long for the ones who actually peddle terrorism themselves to attempt to label Bitcoin with the terrible T (terrorist) word.  

When the email appeared it was the same argument against it.
Bad people can misuse anything.
If we go back to the stone age terrorists will use stones.

FUD and the four horsemen of infocalypse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse

Well Terrorism is used to describe half of the people on earth by some people.

So the Israeli terrorists (state-backed terrorists) are saying that Bitcoin can be used by non-state-backed terrorists, and are therefore bad?

Sweet.

I heard Judson-Christian ideologies could be used for terrorism too. Maybe we should gas the lot of em?

LIGNET just did the same thing:

Bitcoin Virtual Money Opens Door for Terror Finance
 - http://tinyurl.com/d2urh4z

I agree that the article is outrageous, anything can be used for crime, but explain how the Israelis are terrorists? They get murdered by Nazis and finally get (back) a homeland (that they used to own) and since then have been bombed, missiled, invaded, kidnapped, etc. Sure, like any nation they have made mistakes, I'm no Isrealophile, but I'm not sure that their largely (maybe overzealous) self-defense is terrorism.

Israel has a state.  You don't keep your people in line by telling them they can do whatever they want.  You strike fear in their little hearts by telling them if they do something you don't like, you'll throw them in jail.

You disguise this as being for their own good; you make killing illegal, even if it won't stop killing.  You make thievery illegal, even if it won't stop thieving.  You then introduce the idea of treason, to ensure nobody will question your rule.  Then, when you have these pieces in play, you have the sanction of God to kill whomever you need to by labeling them terrorists.  This is all, of course, extremely violent, and if it isn't violent, it's the promise of violence (otherwise known as intimidation.)


Yes, this does mean all governments incite terror in their people.  Thus, Israel, as a nation with a state, are terrorists.

Did you mean Judeo-Christian?  I, and Google, tried hard without much luck...

thats like saying fiat is bad because its used by someone to partake in a crime, totally irrelevant

We could go back before the stone age before the terrorists developed stones.

Killing and stealing are sins after all holly books.
But terrorism and money laundering are just manipulative expressions to make schizophrenia in your brain.
You have to accept as normal if powerful states who have the total control are killing innocent childrens with bombs and napalm then making heroes who have done or gave the order but you must condemn those who are not backed by state power and doing the same in a smaller extent.
You have to accept if the state is stealing(confiscating) your money or making it without value with inflation but you have to condemn those who want to hide their savings buying gold, diamonds and want to bring it over the border to a safe place(this is evil money laundering and smuggling).
That concept was not different over the history. The difference is just that during the last 100 years states increased more and more their control over the people.
Now they know all the time where you are and what you have and they can take it any time.
Bitcoin cannot definitively stop this process that we loose control over our life can just create a little bit balance.
Is that so bad if the state cannot confiscate any time from anybody all his savings ?
DO YOU WANT THE TOTAL CONTROL ?

lol, I just assumed he (Judson-Christian) was some guy I had never heard of, I didn't even see the link

How about their settlements outside the mandated borders?

There are no mandated borders because the Arabs have never agreed to any peace agreement....according to international law...the west bank is either disputed territory or israeli territory.  The only existing rulings by an international legal body have three times designated that territory for Israel....so despite the nutty religious beliefs of many of the settlers...the argument about the settlements is empty rhetoric repeated so much that people have just started to accept it as fact

Just because the UN says something is right doesn't make it right. Hell, I thought we were mostly Libertarians here, but anyone who disagrees with the UN is a terrorist?  ;)

I believe in the rule of law. Government is an evil, but it is a necessary evil. That being said, I do think most governments cross the line.

Terrorism is different though. There is a difference between the Boston Marathon, Lockerbie Bombing, and the World Trade Center vs Elvis Prestly's arrest for speeding.

Even in the case of wholly oppressive regimes like China and North Korea, terrorism is not the right word.

This thread has so much potential for....
FML, I can't wait...  :D

One way you can test whether your syllogism is valid or complete nonsense is to replace the object addressed by it with other similar ones and see if the reasoning still holds.

What happens when you replace "government", which you identify as an evil, with other evils? Does the concept of "necessary evil" make any sense at all?

Rape is an evil, but it is a necessary evil. That being said, I do think most rapists cross the line.
Child abuse is an evil, but it is a necessary evil. That being said, I do think most abusers cross the line.
Murder is an evil, but it is a necessary evil. That being said, I do think most murders cross the line.

You could be a political speech writer, your examples with substituted words sounds just like something I heard on TV the other day.

How about dentist/doctor? It may hurt a little there and then, but you'll be better off in the long run if you visit them from time to time.

Insert it into the same pattern and see if it makes sense. I imagine it will fall apart in the very first sentence.

Evil is the genesis block of government. Healing is the genesis block of medicine.

If they do it its terrorism, if the states do it, it's noble defense. If you're North Korean and US stealth bombers are flying over your head, your perspective might be different. If you're Iranian you know about the 1953 coup d'état by BP. and so on. If HSBC or Starbucks is doing money laundering that's just second nature. But if people use the same tools, that's the end of the world.

Cutting in people is an evil, but it is a necessary evil. That being said, I do think most doctors cross the line

+1 Exactly my point.

Rape is an evil, but it is NOT a necessary evil. That being said, rapists cross the line.

Government is a necessary evil, rape, murder and child abuse are not.

In a perfect world, there would be no evil, however, the government is (in theory) a substitute for the evils they are supposed to prevent. It doesn't quite work that way, but as much as I try to think of how anarchy could work: It just can't (unless other evils cease to exist) .

I can't believe it took that long.
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a400/fenrislorsrai/GODWIN.gif (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/fenrislorsrai/media/GODWIN.gif.html)

I dont think wheteher you feel for or against Israel is the point. I bet Israel and Iran would unite in an article critical of Bitcoin. The point is most every article and evey mention on tv about bitcoin seems to present only the most negative of its possibilities. Should we all establish second identities and start at least e-mailing those orginaztions back with the positive side of the story.

Everybody should use bitcoin instead of fiat, Jewish and Arabic, Americans, Russians, Chinese, black and white.
If the governments cannot take any more the money of the people they cannot finance wars and it will be peace.

What if I told you those "evils" exist because the government enables them to exist?  For example: is killing evil?  Perhaps.  If someone goes on a killing spree and the police have to gun him down, is killing still wrong?  I don't know.  However, the government declares that killing is evil by labeling it "murder".  Thus, citizens cannot "murder", but the government can kill.  That's not a necessary evil; it's simply enabling evil.

The only necessary evil in this world is we, the people.  The government is nothing more than a proxy for us to pretend the evil we commit (for example, outlawing marijuana, thus making drug dealers evil) is acceptable.

And then we have to define evil:


Because that which is "moral" and that which is "malevolent" are completely up to the individual (specifically, up to cultures,) it is absurd to believe the government has any role in deciding what is evil and what isn't on a global scale.  After all, if the government is a necessary evil (which nobody can really define as evilness is not a universal concept, but a local one), would the government not commit evil acts and enable others to commit evil acts?  Thus, to rid the world of evil (again, a personal interpretation,) you rid the monopoly on security.  Even if you don't believe that anarchism couldn't work, could you imagine a world where people have the right to decide from the comfort of their homes which governments they follow?  As opposed to being forced into one government, a national government, in which you have no choice but to participate in or uproot yourself and find another government to live in (which is undoubtedly similar to the American government, or considerably worse e.g. state communism.)

But on the point of "necessary evil": if we cannot define what is evil and what isn't, and if that definition cannot always be consistent, it is better to adopt another term.  I don't believe the government is necessary, or evil.  I do, however, disagree with much that the government does, and many things governments love to do, such as wage war, are downright "evil".  These "evils" occur because 1% of the world controls 99% of people.  We should strive for a 1:1 ratio, where, on average, a single person will have as much power for a single person's life, their own.  To say anarchism cannot work because you don't see how it could work is a good start; at least you're not outright saying it's impossible.

I've added a new thread for anyone interested in the original subject rather than middle-east politics in general.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181739.0

In psychology a victim of say, bullying often becomes the bully. Here do we see parts of Israel treating surviving traders with the same suspicion the Nazis treated Jewish bankers in particular prior to WW1?

Bitcoin has a very poor representation in terrorist areas at the moment (why?). The speculation is very possible but has no basis. Shame on them - yet more terrible PR for Jews and Israel.

Terrorists don't need Bitcoin they can threaten or bribe bank employees in the 3rd world to accept wire transfers for them and launder money. If you're a criminal group of thugs armed to the teeth and don't at all care about prison or even death why would some silly finance regulations prevent you from getting money. If you have cells in N. America that need "activation" through funding they can just buy a card magstripe writer from Ebay, receive the ATM card dump via encrypted email, make the card themselves and withdraw all the terrorist money they want.

Thanks Mike, an excellent explanation.

I was referring more to Israeli terrorism in specific - i.e. claiming to want a two-state solution when every action says otherwise, "de-arabizing" Israel by destroying mosques and monuments, cordoning off Palestinians into safe zones, bulldozing Palestinian settlements (often leaving their prior inhabitants homeless) to build new Israeli settlements, Israeli soldiers beating Palestinian children in the streets, and, of course, waiting until the exact minute that classes change in Palestine (so thousands of children are out on the streets) to start a bombing raid. Much of this funded by the U.S.
Miko Peled ("The General's Son") talks about growing up in Israel and having no idea of the atrocities being committed on the Palestinian people until much later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOaxAckFCuQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOaxAckFCuQ)

However, you did a great job explaining the broader view of terrorism/state violence, and of course our friend Stef does an extraordinary job outlining these principles in some of his writings: http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx (http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx)
(And it is worth noting that he accepts bitcoins on his website ;D) 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/images2.avaaz.org/original/israel_palestine-map-edit-1353601538.24.jpg
Does anyone remember that children's book, "Give a Mouse a Cookie..." ? It's the same way with nation-states. The first page of the book goes something like ... "If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk."

+1 Better yet, keep doing what we're doing: build legitimate business, keep our real identities and prove we are real, normal, non-shady people.

This is going to sound politically incorrect, but the entire middle east is made of big-government, Islamic, theocratic states. Jews are not given any sort of freedom in that area, not to mention they are a hated (and were before this whole thing with Isreal) minority there. Given the huge amounts of land owned by Islamic theocracies, I sympathize with the Jews claiming a small parcel of land for themselves.

Also, much of that territory was gained after they were attacked at some point or other.

Groan..not this stupid map again.  I don't know how we're getting into this on a Bitcoin forum but that map is such nonsense I feel compelled to address it.

The first map in the series of four is most egregious. It suggests that, in 1946, nearly all of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean was "Palestinian." Land designated as "Jewish" in this map constitutes maybe five percent of the total. This map is ridiculous, not only because the term "Palestinian" in 1946 referred, generally speaking, to the Jews who lived in Palestine, not the Arabs, but because there was no Palestine in 1946 (nor was there an Israel.) There was only the British Mandate. Jews lived throughout the territory then occupied by the British, including, by the way, on land that today constitutes the West Bank (though in 1946 Jews did not live in Hebron; they were expelled in 1929, after an Arab massacre of Jewish religious scholars). The intent of this propaganda map is to suggest that an Arab country called "Palestine" existed in 1946 and was driven from existence by Jewish imperialists. Not only was there no such country as "Palestine" in 1946, there has never been a country called Palestine. Before the British conquered Jerusalem, Palestine was a sub-province of the Ottoman Empire. (And after the British left, of course, Jordan and Egypt moved in to occupy Gaza and the West Bank.) It could also be pointed out that even if the map was relabeled "Jewish" and "Arab" land, it would still be a lie. The white parts show only the privately owned Jewish land, but the green part does not represent privately owned Arab land - it simply shows everything else. In fact, over 75% of the land in 1946 was publicly owned, and all of that land within the Green Line became Israeli after the War of Independence.

The next map in the series is a rendering of the U.N. Partition Plan, which would have divided the British mandate into two equal parts, one part for Arabs and one part for Jews. But this neglects to mention that the Jews accepted this partition of Palestine, and that the Arabs rejected it. When Israel declared independence, the Arabs sought to physically eliminate the U.N.-supported Jewish state, but, to their chagrin, they failed. All that happens today flows from the original Arab decision to reject totally the idea that Jews are deserving of a state in part of their historic homeland.

The green sections of the third map do not show "Palestinian" land at all either, as there was no Palestine and the West Bank was annexed by Jordan - with full approval of the leaders of Palestinian Arabs - and Gaza was controlled by Egypt.

The fourth map is equally misleading in that it misrepresents which areas are under Palestinian control.
It also fails to mention that a very large percentage of the Arabs in pre-Israel Palestine had moved there due to the development of the local economy and land by Zionists around the turn of the century. Obviously not all...but substantial enough to mention which of course it never is.

Also, about 95% or more of the "refugees" actually fled their land willingly out of the urging of the Arab Legion, fear of being caught in the crossfire of the invading Arab armies, or fears of being massacred by Jews due to rumors being spread. This insinuation that unarmed Palestinians were driven off their land is just incredibly misleading and historically inaccurate. It does a disservice to the legitimate points made by gun owners regarding their rights.

This is really misleading mis-framing of the conversation that drives this false narrative......Jews (mostly secular) came in and bought up land legally in a place where no country existed, they developed it and the local economy...and built the foundations of a state before any Partition plan...the entitlement has been on the side of the local Arab population which insists that even land not lived on, used, or part of any country is by definition Arab land the moment the Jews build something on it. It should be noted as well that in the initial PLO charter the Palestinians said "we make no claim upon the West Bank or Gaza...it is not our land".....only when the Jews took control of those regions in a defensive war did they decide they wanted those lands...and that their previous identities as Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi Arabs would now be exchanged for Palestinian identities and they began inventing their own history and spreading it throughout the world

Bottom line, this lying manipulative nonsense needs to be called out for what it is. Complete and utter propaganda with no reflection on actual history. If you want to have an intelligent conversation about present Israeli policy then there is plenty of room for disagreement. But make sure to investigate the truth in something before reposting it. Because in this day and age...people seem to believe any emotionally manipulative graphic someone puts up on the internet. Facts, people, facts.

The founder of the IDF and one of the patron saints of the State of Israel might have disagreed with this not-uncommon misperception of history. Early settlers were quite aware that they were taking a land away from a people:

Fiat money without gold backing created a very strong instrument to steal people any time and use their money to finance wars.
If you don't recognize that fiat money was used to kill millions of innocent people and to finance genocide then you never studied history or you are doing history falsification.
Therefore fiat money is the most evil form of money. Did you found a solution to fix it ?

Bitcoin. It was never used to finance war and it is also not suited for it.
With bitcoin you can save your own money and the life of innocent people because your money cannot be used to kill them.

+1

It's pretty hard to tell the positive story in a way that can be told in a establishment friendly newspaper or TV show.

If you can actually craft a story that works mail it. If you just want to mail them your positive personal view of bitcoin it probably won't do much.

bitcoins is not for terrorist, the banks do worse things

The banks aren't always responsible, but why the bank bashing? Unlike the government, you get to choose your bank, and if you don't like any, don't use any at all.

As of the moment US dollars is the most widely used currency to purchase illegal goods, why not ban it instead? It is also relatively anonymous, possessing no definitive fingerprint like diamonds, can be easily laundered through a fake business.

My personal opinion is that some countries appear to be behind the elaborate attacks on their own people since they seem to benefit off them way way too much, they just take advantage of the opportunity to pass laws to monopolize the market further and so on.