On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Tim Beelen <tim@diffalt.com> wrote:
Well, first off it is commonly known that aiding and abetting a known terrorist group is a crime anywhere.
Really? Do these criminals have internet access? Yes. Then Google Search is aiding and abetting. So is GNUPG, and TAILS and FORD Motor Company, any other dual use technology you can imagine. The crime is not in spreading and seeking knowledge, even if it is applied to thought crime. The only real crime is when a perpetrator chooses to act in the real world, such as blowing shit up or murdering people. Your argument would be like GE, Boeing and Raytheon being found guilty of teaching the US Government how to murder by drone built from parts, when in fact it is the US President that is guilty of the real crime of pulling the trigger.
Secondly, I'd like to present the following hypothesis: the actuator or the currency used to procure whatever an ISIS-fighter might want or need will take the form of US$ in exchange for some commodity.
True... for cases where Bitcoin itself isn't readily usable or exchangeable, such as areas where digital tools and internet or other transport are minimal. Exchange, trade, BTC, Hawala are all intertwined and circular... to receive value in you need to offer balancing value out, whether it's BTC, USD, (IQD/SYP/AFN/LYD/NGN/PKR/YER), opium, hash, oil, food, products, murder...
But I won't digress on that point.
As you said, the region is awash in USD and various "helping hands" from different places. That's always prone to runaway reactions. And sometimes they're by design.
What is important is if governments are so easy to point out that things beyond their control are so nefarious because they themselves are unable to control it
Claiming nefariousness is often a nefarious control mechanism itself. Lack of control enables balancing effects against such control and as such is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. Be careful when demanding control mechanisms, lest they be turned against you in the future.