nahuse

@nahuse@sh.itjust.works

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

nahuse ,

Dead Kennedys

Conflict

Rancid

AJJ

Against All Authority

nahuse , (edited )

Hello! I'm a guy who decided to join lemmy a few months ago, specifically because I was absolutely enraged by how moderation on Reddit worked. I am also taking part rather vigorously in the conversation about how much I dislike .ml moderation practices! I think I might be a little bit of an agitator in all this, because In joined lemmy after about a medium bit of research, and then jumped into it full tilt with the idea of "why not, I spent so much time as a revolutionary, myself!" And then I hit whatever the internet/globalization has done to what I recognize as leftist political spaces.

AMA, I guess!

For some background about myself, I'm an older millennial, who grew up with disparate web forums which were generally hidden behind a random website. My favorite haunt was punkbands.com, and loved LAN parties and early MMORPGs. Anyways, I had to get off the internet for a while to make a living, but eventually got to a spot where I could again visit the world wide web during working hours. One of my coworkers introduced me, through my first "smart phone" (an android, like, whatever was around in 2011 and cheap as fuck but still let me get online) to reddit. I really loved that old(ish) school internet, where people could spam and insult eachother within limits, and the community policed itself through a somewhat democratic process. I was legit excited to join lemmy, given how far I think reddit had fallen and how much disinformation had infected it, and how similar it appeared to the older, more democratic internet of my youth.

However, I found that a large part of lemmy is dominated by people who profess to be leftists, but ambush you with ideological purity tests and subsequent abuse if you don't pass. I questioned a post on the .ml world news sub that came from a source that is literally a Syrian and Bolivian governmental news outlet, which alleged that the US military was stealing crude oil and raw wheat from Syrian oil derricks/Syrian farmers. I used mediabiasfactcheck.com to support my questioning of this source. I also appealed to logic, questioning why the US would steal things that it exports. A mod there (I believe the username is davos) engaged me in a conversation spanning hours, where we exchanged information about whether mediabiasfactcheck.com was a reasonable source to help assess the validity of media. While the conversation was uncomfortable, we each exchanged information and links supporting our arguments. Because I did not accept his outright rejection of medibiasfactcheck.com as a way to assist with the judement of media, I was banned and all of my comments were deleted.

Since then, I have met another .ml mod (username yogthos), and engaged in a long conversation about this same topic (.ml censorship). It was in a meta sub, hosted on the .ml instance. The conversation I am referring to has since been deleted, and I am not sure if it is possible to find it again, since my own history has disappeared; I will be happy to answer questions of anybody with the tech savvy to retrieve these exchanges. Anyway. In this meta thread, I engaged several users about the issue of unfair .ml moderation, alongside several other lemmy users. During the course of this exchange, a .ml user made an assertion that the OP (who was complaining about the "tankie problem") was banned from the .ml instance because they had, somewhere undefined, insisted that the Tienanmen Massacre had actually happened. As a note, please understand that this was about a week before the start of June, and nobody so far in this thread had mentioned Tienanmen Square. Anywhere. Anyways, I questioned this particular statement, and yogthos suddenly butted in with a ton of weird sources that supported his claim that Tiennenma Square never happened. They insisted that the whole thing was a Color Revolution that was sponsored by the CIA, and that actually the students of the Tienanmen Square had attacked the Chinese Soldiers. I insisted that this was inconsistent with prevailing evidence, but was told that I simply needed to watch the various videos and read the blogs to understand that it was all untrue. I also engaged with some uders about my own ideology, where I was insulted as a "lib" for stating my intense distaste for authoritarianism. yogthos, the .ml moderator who I spoke with, told me that "libs don't understand" that authoritarianism is ok if it is in defense of fascism... but did not expound as to how fascism was defined.

As for my evidence, I have shared it in some of the other posts. However, if you'll look at the moderation history of .ml, under my user name, you will see that I am banned from several subs, and I think from the whole .ml instance. It will be for "Rule 4," which from what I can tell is spam, or advertising. I have never taken part in anything that resembles spam or advertising. I have, though, had comments that insist that there was some kind of violence surrounding Tienanmen Square, or debate the validity of news from Syrian government media sources, removed from .ml instances. You may also notice that I was banned from subs like palestine and usa, which I have never actually participated in, aside from upvoting or downvoting.

You will also, looking back, hopefully find the initial conversations I reference in this post. If you have specific questions, I will try to figure out how to find them, using the mod log.

This is a long post... and I'm sorry. I guess I just really don't want some bullshitters to be able to influence roughly 50k web users without at least a little bit of push back.

I'm sure I have missed a ton here, and paradoxically written far too much. I am happy to answer any questions or critique, as long as it is relatively polite and relevant.

Edit: I'm also just kind of a nerd about propaganda and discourse in international relations, especially in online spaces. I've studied it. Ive written papers on it. I find these things incredibly meaningful and important, so I've gotten involved here.

nahuse ,

I know next to nothing about air combat, and less about the Mirage. But isn’t having more airframes in the air to shoot down more things still a net positive? It doesn’t look like anything it can carry has a long range. However even if they’re not used for anything close to Russian AA, can’t they still be quite valuable for, missile/drone defense in western Ukraine?

nahuse , (edited )

It’s all over because it’s a pervasive problem, and it’s obviously off putting to a lot of people.

And it’s especially a problem when there are random communities peppered in your feed that you simply can’t participate in randomly, even though they may be the largest of their kind.

Ive been banned from communities I have yet to participate in, for no reason, and without any responses from mods when I ask what happened.

It’s making it so the entire platform becomes toxic unless you actively persevere through their unfair practices.

It’s important to me because I really liked Reddit back in the day, and before that the disperate forums that existed all over. I’m sure there are plenty of people who are interested in those same things, but are put off when they inevitably say something “liberal” in a meme space and are attacked for it. It’s toxic and it is counter to growth.

Not to mention how blatant an echo chamber it creates, and how naive users can be indoctrinated to misinformation without even a hint of counter discussion being allowed.

Edit: desperate to disperate

nahuse ,

I’ve been banned from several .ml subs, some of which are so popular they appear on All, and I didn’t know I was banned until I tried to upvote, but I’ve never participated otherwise in them, it was punitive for other comments and discussions I’ve had where I have debated politics and, propaganda, and media with mods.

I may actually be banned from the instance, but i don’t know how to investigate such things. But .ml came up an awful lot when I was looking into how to join Lemmy, obviously, and I had no idea how bad the mod practices and ideological bend would be on what amounts to one of the “main” instances.

I’m on shitjustworks, which I really like. But before I knew how different instances worked, I just assumed Lemmy was Reddit power tripping mods 2.0 across all of Lemmy. I’m glad I persevered a little bit to get to more communities.

nahuse ,

I would like to see similar proof of this allegation as exists elsewhere in this thread for .ml communities. Can you substantiate your allegations?

It’s not that I don’t believe you necessarily, it’s that it is completely counter to my own experience, where it seems to be commonly accepted that Israel is committing ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and likely genocide.

Can you illustrate any comments that have been deleted/users who have been banned for critique of Israel?

nahuse ,

Not a coincidence, since it’s the same group of users and they all link to one-another?

The only problem with blocking is that it doesn’t actually solve anything, just removes you from participating in conversations that are happening around you.

It’s also bad for new users who become afraid to participate.

nahuse , (edited )

This would also be deeply problematic. I’ve seen it posted elsewhere, and asked the same thing:

Can you back this assertion up with any proof?

Edit: they can’t, they’re just insulting people with disabilities and don’t like they got called for it.

nahuse ,

So you don’t have any proof?

nahuse ,

I looked at your history: you were banned for calling people autistic as an insult, among other things.

There’s literally zero obligation for me to verify anything to you, and my identity doesn’t have anything to do with the conversation at hand.

nahuse ,

See, this is an example of bad faith interactions and bad trolling.

It’s also a good example of hate.

I hope you have the life you deserve.

nahuse , (edited )

Can you tell me the time of your interaction happened so I can look it up in the mod logs, and the thread itself? Your comment seems fairly innocuous to me, and I would certainly be surprised to see that it is viewed as a hate crime.

EDIT: I can’t see that return2ozma was actually banned in the mod log.

Returnoozma posts the same stories over and over again, to as many subs as possible, and with a clear agenda that doesn’t seem to extend much past “Biden is bad.” They have also been called out for it repeatedly by the users there, and I have personally asked them to tone down the reposts. But it’s not as if they have their content constantly removed. It was overwhelming.

If a community asks a user to ease up on posting the same content over and over, with a clear agenda, which seemed to be the case with oozma, then a ban seems appropriate.

nahuse ,

Also, here’s a UN report that may interest you:

“Reasonable Grounds to Believe Conflict-Related Sexual Violence Occurred in Israel During 7 October Attacks, Senior UN Official Tells Security Council”

https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15621.doc.htm

Many of the first stories by Israeli first responders have been illustrated to be false, however that doesn’t mean no sexual assaults happened: https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-sexual-violence-zaka-ca7905bf9520b1e646f86d72cdf03244

nahuse ,

I think that comment removal was out of line, but I don’t think many comments should be removed at all. However it doesn’t look as if you have been banned from any other subs across .world, have you? That’s a large part of the discussion happening here.

I just read the announcement about his ban. It’s strange I couldn’t find it in the mod logs when I looked. However, their explanations are pretty well articulated, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make a user who overwhelms a forum with a clear agenda take a break.

nahuse ,

Yeah, I figured that out after a little bit of interaction, but I prefer to give the other the benefit of the doubt when i start any conversation.

nahuse ,

I’m not sure what you debunked, but based on our short interaction here you seem to deny that there is any evidence of sexual assault. Which is not true: there’s plenty of evidence, which I have you in another of my responses.

What is true is that some of the reports of rape were untrue. Read the AP news article I linked, where they interview some of the people who actually made those initial reports and reconsidered them.

I think it’s ok to acknowledge that both Hamas and the Israeli government have committed atrocities, and keep doing it. I can condemn both.

Getting back to the point of the OP here, though: there are plenty of examples of Israel being criticized, that have survived moderation.

I don’t know that I agree with the decision to ban ozma, but it does seem like it was at least openly discussed, and it doesn’t appear as if he was also banned from completely unrelated subs for his actions.

Which, again, is a huge crux of the OP that you seem to be avoiding.

nahuse , (edited )

https://sh.itjust.works/comment/12016983

That’s my comment, where I replied to you, with a source from the United Nations. I’ll highlight the relevant… title of the page… for you:

“Reasonable Grounds to Believe Conflict-Related Sexual Violence Occurred in Israel During 7 October Attacks, Senior UN Official Tells Security Council”

I also included an APNews article about this very topic, and addresses the ways that disinformation regarding sexual violence in this conflict about. Here’s the headline of that article:

“How 2 debunked accounts of sexual violence on Oct. 7 fueled a global dispute over Israel-Hamas war”

Edit: here is the actual UN report: https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/report/mission-report-official-visit-of-the-office-of-the-srsg-svc-to-israel-and-the-occupied-west-bank-29-january-14-february-2024/20240304-Israel-oWB-CRSV-report.pdf

nahuse ,

So you did not read anything I’ve sent you?

I’ve edited my previous comment, and included the actual UN report.

nahuse ,

The AP has been targeted by Israel for its coverage of the conflict.

In that article they interview the people who initially reported some of these cases of rape, and illustrate how and why they were wrong. It doesn’t say anywhere that there are no other erroneous reports of rape.

The UN report, which I’ve linked elsewhere, illustrates the evidence and methodology, and makes the convincing argument that sexual assault likely occurred in the context of Oct 7. It’s in plain English.

nahuse ,

That Israel has not provided evidence? Maybe, but irrelevant to our conversation.

The UN report itself outlines how sexual violence has occurred in this conflict, right from the start.

nahuse ,

I've read the report, and it states over and over again that there is credible evidence of assaults, and stipulates how it went about its business.

I'm working through Dr. Finkelstein's arguments. All I can see he does is cast doubt on the evidence that was collected and the mission's mandate. None of this amounts to "there is no evidence that there was any rape." It just means that there is evidence for more investigation.

nahuse ,

What? How does that say anything about what did or did not happen? This is about the mandate of the team, and, as I have been saying, means that there is more investigation needed. Please, highlight for me where the UN says that there is no evidence of rape. I think in this case it might be you who struggles with some of the nuances of legalese.

Over and over again, it says that there "are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred at several locations across the Gaza periphery, including in the form of
rape and gang rape, during the 7 October 2023 attacks. Credible circumstantial information, which may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence, including genital mutilation, sexualized torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, was also gathered."

None of this amounts to "there is no evidence of rape." What this means is that there needs to be more, sustained and explicitly mandated investigation before legal action should take place. This concept, I think, is called due process.

nahuse ,

Because a wider, better resourced, and long term investigation would be better equipped to collect and analyze evidence? Because a better structured and mandated team would likely have more access, credibility, and ability to undertake that assignment? Because, as the report discusses, it often takes years or decades for crimes committed during armed conflict to come to their conclusion, for myriad of reasons?

Among other statements, here's what the actual UN report actually said about just this: "As in other conflict-affected contexts, there
remains a significant likelihood that the findings of the mission team, in terms of verified violations, only partially reflect the crimes actually committed. A more comprehensive assessment of the occurrence of conflict-related sexual violence in the context of the 7 October attacks would require a fully-fledged investigation by competent bodies with adequate time and capacity." (Page 15, section C, subsection 56).

Over and over again this report says that "there are reasonable grounds to believe that sexual violence occurred" on that day, in various settings. I'm not sure why you think that this amounts to "rape definitely did not happen."

And, since your counterargument rests on the idea that Pramilla Patten is just "a woman," I think you should think about who and what she is: a legal expert, practicing lawyer, and judge who has been investigating gender-based violence for more than 20 years, and specifically sexual violence in conflict settings since 2017.

nahuse ,

Yes you are right it repeats the “reasonable grounds” thing over and over and then undoes it by saying “lol we don’t actually have an investigative mandate and this report cannot draw conclusions. Our witnesses and evidence and not mentioned trust me bro but also you can’t trust me.

Doesn't say they can't draw conclusions, only that the conclusions they draw do not have the same legal weight as other possible legal instruments. You're also conflating their mandate and the evidence they collected; they don't have a mandate sufficient to complete the investigation, but that has nothing to do with the evidence they did collect. Which says, in no uncertain terms, that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that sexual violence occurred. Let me be clear, again: NONE OF THAT MEANS THE UN HAS FOUND ZERO EVIDENCE OF RAPE ON OCTOBER 7TH.

Very contradictory. You’d almost think that she is writing propaganda for israel here. And was specifically invited by israel to write propaganda.

I'm sure Israel does want these crimes to be exposed. I'm also sure that the present government of Israel is a bad actor and is doing everything it can to subvert any critique against itself, while maximizing messaging critical of Hamas (and also minimizing any reports of its crimes).

Tell me again, why is israel blocking the actual UN investigation team that wants to investigate?

Because the government of Israel sucks, and any intensive investigation would certainly recover even more evidence of the various war crimes it has committed, which obviously amount to a lot more death and destruction than anything that happened on October 7th.

Consider reading the Finkelstein post again if you’re having trouble with the deceiving legalise from Pattens report.

Thanks, I have an advanced degree in international affairs, so I was trained by actual subject matter experts on how this stuff works. Dr. Finkelstein is not an expert in international law, which is why some of his critiques fall short, in my view, and explains why you don't seem to understand that just because a team does not enjoy a robust enough mandate that doesn't mean they don't collect evidence. It just means they don't have the proper mandate to collect all the evidence, and certainly not sufficient authority to make conclusions beyond certain evidentiary standards.

I'd also remind you that the UN is an intergovernmental organization, and with a few very notable exceptions, no UN entity can operate outside the restrictions that a host country places on it.

nahuse ,

To clarify, since this topic is something that I have experienced quite a lot over my two months here, now: I do not have any problem whatsoever with tankie/communist/leftist politics. I also don't have a problem with people discussing them.

What I do have a problem with is:

  • ad hom attacks calling me a "lib" when I question whether authoritarianism on the left is really much better than authoritarianism on the right
  • unequal moderation, ie. being banned/having comments deleted for giving the same bitchy energy I receive over the course of a debate, without the same enforcement of the other user
  • having a long conversation, in good faith, about politics, media, and disinformation, including providing sources and reading sources in return, with mods and then finding the entire thread deleted because I said something critical of China, or insisted on alternative, nongovernmental sources for news
  • having these activities result in bans from subs that I have never commented in, and being unable to appeal or understand them

And I think it's ok to think that these practices are inherently bad for a social media platform, and working with others to advocate against those practices.

nahuse ,

But what if I don't want to live in my own echo chamber, nor do I want to be subjected to another echo chamber within which I can't participate? Having fair moderation practices and not banning people from participating in completely unrelated subs doesn't seem like too much to ask.

In my view this being completely about .world not liking .ml politics is a straw man. This is about decorum and applying moderation practices equally, without bias, and avoiding punitive bans in unrelated communities.

nahuse ,

I understand your point, but when a group of ideologues has de facto control over one of/some of the largest entities on a social media platform, and bans people for ideology without warning, explanation, or recourse, this amounts to centralized control, or at the very least undue influence.

For me personally, it wouldn't be a big issue if .ml made its bend and moderation practices clear, because I could have avoided the headache when I was first using lemmy. I wouldn't choose to engage with a forum that has "no critique of any country that calls itself Communist is allowed, anywhere, ever, for any reason, or we will bar you from participating in all communities on this platform" and I'm sure a lot of others feel the same way. What's more, I bet the admin of .ml know that, too, and keep these practices opaque because they are interested in new users.

Why don't .ml users retreat to hexbear or lemmygrad, if making the moderation practices on one of the largest instances fair is so odious?

nahuse ,

Yes the visit it has nothing to do with all of the NYT, AP, Guardian Reuters and other propaganda repurts being fully debunked and israel needing new ammunition to keep the rape lies alive

What? this doesn't seem like a statement that is relevant to our conversation, which is about whether sexual violence occurred on October 7th.

It is a sad state of affairs that someone with a degree in legalise is fully unable to read and comprehend anything said in reports. You should consider asking your university for a refund.

lol, I'll send a letter and see. I'd love for you to illustrate where my reading comprehension is bad, though. I just keep on waiting for you to prove your points, I guess.

Yikes, man. It's absolutely unreal to me that you are just blanket denying that there is any possibility that sexual violence occurred on a day where 1,200 people were murdered and thousands more injured by a decentralized group of combatants, many of whom don't believe that Israelis are real people. It does not do any credit to your argument that you are so vehemently opposed to accepting the possibility members of an armed group that perpetrated horrific acts against unarmed civilians across a wide period of time and space may have also raped people.

I watched the video. Seriously, where the fuck does it say anything about rapes not happening? Honestly, you keep saying this thing, and presenting evidence, but literally nothing you are showing me says what you're saying it says. Every single source you have posted says that that there is evidence of sex crimes. Every single one, including that video. Just saying a source proves your point doesn't mean that the source, yanno, proves your point.

nahuse ,

So are you just generally an asshole, or just right now?

nahuse ,

I had a conversation with the mod who deleted my comments for being uncivil. A troll reported me being an asshole to him, as he trolled. If you look at the deleted thread, you can see their deleted comments.

it’s not my proudest moment, but I firmly believe that assholes should he confronted by assholes, and I took it upon myself in that moment.

Aside from that single interaction, I have abided by the rules of the forum and been polite, within reason. But I have, without remorse, questioned bullshit and disinformation.

nahuse ,

I think you and me would get along great if we met in person.

But I hate your web personality, friend. At least so far.

I’m choosing to just reply to this comment to you in this particular thread, because I’m a bit exhausted after talking to this linkerbaan fella in another thread. But I think you and I could really see eye to eye on a bunch of things, assuming I’m not mixing you up with somebody else.

I like your moxie, if you’ll excuse any condescension you may detect (it’s not there, I promise).

But this shit is precisely why I wanna have a good internet space for legit debate. I sincerely hope I can find a spot that offers an open forum for some good faith political debate that isn’t moderated based on butt-hurt-ed-ness.

nahuse ,

Oh.

Lemmy.ml tankie censorship problem

I feel like we need to talk about Lemmy's massive tankie censorship problem. A lot of popular lemmy communities are hosted on lemmy.ml. It's been well known for a while that the admins/mods of that instance have, let's say, rather extremist and onesided political views. In short, they're what's colloquially referred to as...

nahuse ,

Thanks for illustrating that I was banned from not just one community I don’t participate in aside from upvoting, but several that I have never even visited. All for “Rule 4,” which as far as I can tell is spamming ads, which I have never done. I’ve tried to message the mods of those communities, but haven’t gotten any kind of response.

It’s really disappointing that this is how Lemmy seems to work. As a new user, I had to actively persevere through the .ml bullshit to understand that lemmy as a whole is not like that. But it’s almost impossible to be a progressive (but not full blown anti-western communist) on an awful lot of this platform.

It really does the other large instances a disservice that those mod/admin practices are so commonplace.

I know the answer is to defederate/block them, but I genuinely find the news and posts interesting, and .ml was one of the instances that I was first looking into, because I literally didn’t understand how the fediverse worked but kept hearing “just pick an instance, there no wrong choice since you have access to all the other instances.”

But even those posts about topics I am educated in and care about, it all just literally seems to be a vessel for a specific type of (dis/mis)information in the comments, which actively preys on the gullible and shuts out even moderately different views.

Edit: mobile formatting fix

nahuse ,

It’s a good trend, but I still think it would behoove the admin of more reasonable instances to make it more obvious that there is a sizable and aggressive group of people with nearly unlimited (internet) power, and making it clear that they do not associate at all with those instances/individual practices.

There is a huge dearth of naming and shaming bad actors, and it’s going to reach a size where people won’t do their research as I did, but will assume that all of the fediverse is run by authoritarian Communists and (not) engage based on that.

And that wouldn’t be an unfair understanding, given who the creators of Lemmy are, who their disciples/mods are, and their influence across the platform.

Lemmy really runs the risk of being “left wing Truth Social” otherwise.

nahuse ,

I hear you.

I’d just offer a slight counter, which is that if the devs want their software to succeed, they should probably work a little harder to police how their politics overflow, or work harder to contain them. And bringing these issues into the full light of day may help with that, or at least convince them to crack down on bad actors they a currently allow to function with impunity.

nahuse ,

But nobody died?

nahuse ,

That’s not true, the language is pretty clear:

“Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

It’s not an option to respond to an attack on one, it’s mandatory according to the text of the treaty.

nahuse ,

This is true, but it still makes some kind of action necessary, even if it’s not necessarily direct military action.

It’s not iron clad, but nor is it voluntary as the person I responded to made it seem to be.

nahuse ,

“will assist such Party or Parties” comes right before that, though. Supporting an attacked treaty member is not optional.

And the clause which follows your quotes takes as granted that action has occurred, since it specifically states an intended result is a return to stability in North America or Europe. The action it deems necessary is predicated on the fact that it’s responding.

The way you are interpreting this quote is taken out of its context, which is not how the law works.

In any case, both of these arguments are technically valid, and it comes down to a whole lot of other factors, including political will, to enforce a response among members.

However it’s not ambiguous that an attack on a member of NATO will have a joint response, and a member neglecting to undertake such action would not have a valid legal argument for its inaction.

Edit: made a sentence real English instead of gibberish.

nahuse ,

When has there been an attack on a member state that has not resulted in support of some kind from the alliance?

nahuse ,

No? The burden is on you here to assert your point, after your first point was incorrect and you moved the goalpost.

You’re the one that says we should turn to precedent, and said there have been multiple occasions NATO could have triggered Article 5 but wasn’t. When were these other times? You made the statement, now provide evidence.

My point is that when it’s triggered, it’s not optional. And so far, that’s been the case, since it’s been triggered exactly once, and there was a universal response to it.

It’s not an option to respond, according to the words of the treaty. Any other interpretation of it would be based on politics, not the interpretation of the treaty itself. Any idea that the treaty doesn’t mandate collective action is incorrect.

nahuse ,

… and was Article 5 triggered any of those times? Did any of those states ask for help from the alliance? And most of those examples have drawn support (or offers of support) from NATO allies.

You’re also missing the geographical scope of the treaty, which over and over again refers to the security situation in North America and Europe.

Or are you understanding what I’m saying as making it mandatory if anything happens to these countries, and the country being attacked doesn’t get a say in the matter? Because a country try still needs to actually ask for help.

In (as far as I’m aware) every single security treaty in effect across the world the first responsibility lies with the states in question, and all assistance has to be requested by those states.

Listen. You’re just incorrect, and that’s ok. But in the scope of the treaty (which, yes, must actually be triggered), a response from all member states is mandatory.

nahuse ,

This suggests a complete misunderstanding of international law and state sovereignty, then. I was being overly charitable, apparently.

Sovereignty is a concept that is baked into the UN Charter explicitly, which the NATO treaty names over and over again.

In order for a treaty article to take effect, it has to be triggered by a member state. It’s strange that you would interpret mandatory response as being, potentially, against the actual request of the state(s) in question.

It seems either painfully lacking knowledge or as being in bad faith. In either case I would suggest you refrain from talking about international treaties in the future.

nahuse ,

Here, you can go read the Wikipedia about NATO. If you look at the section about the various articles, you will find your questions answered, and see the myriad other ways NATO works and enables mutual assistance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty

nahuse ,

All NATO members did get involved after Article 5 was invoked, so I’m not sure what your point is.

Because yes, that’s exactly what Article 5 says. It’s mandatory to respond, it’s not ambiguous. All members respond if one is attacked, and they did after 9/11.

If you can illustrate a country that sat out of the global response to 9/11/01, I would love to hear it.

nahuse , (edited )

None of that says what you are saying.

Maybe you could highlight where it says that any NATO members did not participate in NATO operations in Afghanistan? Or that any participation is voluntary?

Seriously, man, you don’t know what you are talking about. It’s not voluntary, otherwise the alliance wouldn’t exist. States have the discretion to decide the kinds of aid they would send, but any decision not to respond at all would be counter to both the letter and the spirit of the treaty. It’s mandatory, if a country wants to abide by its treaty terms. Full stop.

The only flexibility involved is exactly how it responds. Here’s a source that explains it, but I’ll quote the relevant bit for you. The excerpt follows the text of Art. 5 in the source.

“This language is relatively flexible. It permits each NATO member to decide for itself what action should be taken to address an armed attack on a NATO ally. It does not require any member to respond with military force, although it permits such responses as a matter of international law. A member may decide that instead of responding with force, it will send military equipment to NATO allies or impose sanctions on the aggressor.”

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/natos-article-5-collective-defense-obligations-explained

Here’s the information about what the NATO exercises that occurred as a direct result of 9/11. It’s a lot, but here’s the relevant bit, where it outlines what the actions of the alliance were:

“After 9/11, there were consultations among the Allies and collective action was decided by the Council. The United States could also carry out independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the United Nations Charter.

On 4 October, once it had been determined that the attacks came from abroad, NATO agreed on a package of eight measures to support the United States. On the request of the United States, it launched its first ever anti-terror operation – Eagle Assist – from mid-October 2001 to mid-May 2002. It consisted in seven NATO AWACS radar aircraft that helped patrol the skies over the United States; in total 830 crew members from 13 NATO countries flew over 360 sorties. This was the first time that NATO military assets were deployed in support of an Article 5 operation.

On 26 October, the Alliance launched its second counter-terrorism operation in response to the attacks on the United States, Active Endeavour. Elements of NATO's Standing Naval Forces were sent to patrol the Eastern Mediterranean and monitor shipping to detect and deter terrorist activity, including illegal trafficking. In March 2004, the operation was expanded to include the entire Mediterranean.

The eight measures to support the United States, as agreed by NATO were:

to enhance intelligence-sharing and cooperation, both bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed by terrorism and the actions to be taken against it;
to provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and according to their capabilities, assistance to Allies and other countries which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a result of their support for the campaign against terrorism;
to take necessary measures to provide increased security for facilities of the United States and other Allies on their territory;
to backfill selected Allied assets in NATO’s area of responsibility that are required to directly support operations against terrorism;
to provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against terrorism;
to provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO member countries for operations against terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance with national procedures;
that the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve;
that the Alliance is similarly ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support operations against terrorism.”

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/110496.htm

I have to assume you don’t have any interest in good faith argumentation at this point, and it’s time for me to call it quits on trying to convince you. But please stop spreading Russian disinformation and in the future remain silent when it comes to Article 5.

Edit: I’ll put the Wikipedia link for the ISAF, the NATO-led force in Afghanistan, too, but if you go to the tab “participants,” you’ll read this:

“All NATO member states have contributed troops to the ISAF, as well as some other partner states of the NATO alliance.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

nahuse , (edited )

Where does it say it’s voluntary?! And, again, you need to take it in line with literally every other treaty in effect, which emphasizes the ways that defense works.

It can’t be automatic because US domestic laws prohibit the president from declaring war without congressional approval, not because taking part in a defensive pact is somehow optional. And, again, sovereignty is baked into all international laws, especially those having to do with the United States (it’s always been really serious about maintaining this more or less absolutely).

You’re stating a “fact” that’s incorrect, and works in the interest of countries that would benefit a great deal from a lack of adherence to Article 5. Stop it. If any country decided to not participate when Article 5 is invoked, the alliance would end. It’s quite literally the cornerstone of the whole deal.

Edit: I went ahead and found another source that explains what I have been saying: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep10238

What the action is, is indeed ambiguous, not the requirement to take action, which is not.

nahuse ,

You should trust the words of experts, then, and make sure that you put pressure on your government to adhere to the text of the treaty rather than trying to inject doubt about it.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep10238

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •