Pretty sure he’s saying they’re ignoring the vulnerabilities entirely, and instead trying to push the blame onto pen-testing tools. Like saying that a disease is spreading because of all the testing, rather than because they stopped treating the drinking water.
This is made to exploit them in the same way a knife is made to cut. It can be used for harm (although is a very weak, outdated tool for it that intentionally knee-caps this use) or it can be used for good, where it is a basic, unspecialized option that anyone can make or aquire. Like if the government tried to stop violence by banning knives, a ban would have little impact except on the least committed individuals (IE not organized crime) while being an annoyance to normal people by focing them to sharpen their own metal plates rather than buying them pre-made.
If they actually want to stop these crimes, more reasonable courses of action might be tracking what is shipped, acting on reports of stolen property, trying to impede large-scale organized crime when it is found, or requiring that vehicles maintain security protocols that take into account the existance of computers outside the vehicle.
Thats just what I said, but with more words
So basically, the government doesn’t care about the issues and doesn’t plan to do anything about it.
The fact that it is a giant metal killing machine is there to highlight the service of those lost, and the conditions those lost served in. We’re remembering the sacrifice that comes with war, fighting with weapons like that, or even the fact that many practically lived in these vehicles. In the same way, we often depict soldiers in combat, or with other combat gear - it provides far more context to what these men went through and how they served than just a name on a plaque.
While this was obviously badly organized, putting a cenotaph from the local legion with a military relic, in a park literally called “Memorial Park” isn’t particularly offensive. The problem is just the fact that they decided to replace an existing (recently installed) garden without even informing the volunteers who maintain it.
Ill believe it when it actually passes.
deleted by creator
Dig a big enough hole, build a proper structure for containing it, and implement the proper containment procedures and sure, my backyard is fine.
I mean, if they have that much knowledge of WW2, then they should understand the potential of Hunka being involved with the Nazis, and/or with the war crimes on the Eastern Front. My point is that you don’t even need to get to that level of depth or firmiliarity to see potential issues that could arise. Clearly they didn’t consider even the basic red flags that could come with an understanding of the depth, “Soviets vs Nazis on the Eastern Front.” No one involved in preparing the speech and inviting Hunka even thought to check which division he served in, nonetheless ensure he wasn’t a war criminal.
Its stuff like that, that are why I specified, “In Ukraine.” I know theres more actual compelxity on the Eastern Front, but I don’t really expect people to know that much. I’m only really expecting people to know “Nazis vs Soviets on the Eastern Front” since thats about the depth of coverage in school. Even that should be enough raise some red flags somewhere in the vetting process and/or the speech writting.
Yeah, I can understand those listening to the speech not immediately picking up the connection, considering there was only one chance (rather than the vetting process) and people probably weren’t paying much attention in the first place. I’d have hoped more would have, but its not that suprising. Its just the complete incompetence involved in those who vetted Hunka and who researched, wrote, and editted the speech that shockes me.
You’re still ignoring my actual point. Either Im way more qualified to be a politician than I think or this should be a obvious answer. Do you think its a good idea for a politician to praise a former Waffen-SS member as a hero - do you think it will go over will with his colleges and voters? Surely its pretty obvious that no one will approve of it. Surely even a elementary school can understand that being even remotely accociated with the Nazi label won’t make people like you.
Also, what fantasy land do you live in where representitives regularly actually make decisions based on what their voters want rather than what they, their party, or their donors want. Just look at everything from electoral reform, to censorship, to climate change.
The “in Ukraine” part was mostly for history nerds and those who’d want to play semantics. My point was that no one had the thought, “Hmmm. He fought against Russia, one of the Allies. That seems suspect.” I wouldn’t be shocked if a couple people missed it, but surely you’d have more than a couple people invlovled in planning this, and these are people for whom history is more relevant than most. Besides that, even if no one knew that Ukraine involved in the fight between Nazi Germany and the USSR, you’d hope there’d be someone to vet him who would at least find that out.
These are not connected thoughts. Someone who saved a cat stuck in a tree, who is also a murderer, is still a cat-saving hero. The murderous act does not invalidate the cat heroism.
No, but if the mayor planned to honour him in a speech on national television, it would be common sense to include something to the point of, “Despite coming from a rocky beginnings, he has made great strides and today, is a hero.” in order to specifically recognize the act of valor and not anything else. Or, even more basic, pick someone who you know isn’t a murder who achived something similar to honour. These aren’t exactly complex ideas. But again we didn’t even get that far, its common sense to do the research to even check if the person has a criminal background or something similar that would reflect badly on you to ignore (nonetheless praise). They couldn’t even do that much. Even if you think it shouldn’t reflect badly on them, it very obviously will, and it doesn’t take a expect to know that praising a Waffen-SS member as a hero does not look good. Again, if they thought that was okay to praise him, why all the apologies and the resignation.
The representatives’ job is to represent the people, not to make decisions for the people.
Yes, this is why they just sit there after we vote for them. They have no impact or imput on national policy or law whatsoever and should not be expected to have any knowledge on such matters. Its not like they’re representing us in a goverment or anything.
You’re twisting my words. I’m not saying they described him as a Waffen-SS hero. I’m saying they praised him as a hero, despite him being a Waffen-SS soldier (which, notably, is exactly the combat service they’re praising him for, although again, not my point) without understanding the situation.
If they actually knew that the service they were thanking him for was as a Waffen-SS soldier, why the resignation and the panicked apologies. They clearly had no idea of who they were promoting as a hero or the context of his service. If they had, they would have mentioned it to get ahead of media attention, prepared statements to defend themselves, or even just picked someone who would have attracted less bad press. If our government officials don’t know fairly basic history (esspecially at a time when it ties in to current politics) and can’t even be bothered to understand what they’re promoting as heroism, it doesn’t bode well foe their ability to decide on policy that will affect millions of people.
Not ideology, but they did largely fight with the Nazi military. I’m aware of the partisan groups as well, but the average person won’t be, and many of them are also pretty controversial as well. That said, my point wasn’t whether or not Hunka is or isn’t a Nazi ideologicaly. Its that telling the world a Waffen-SS soldier was a hero with no understanding of the situation at all is a terrible, stupid idea. If a government is honouring someone, they should, at the very least, know the details of what they’re honouring them for, which they clearly didn’t. If they did know they’d be honouring a Waffen-SS member, they would have avoided it for the bad press alone. Even assuming he joined purely to fight off the Soviets rather than any alligence to Nazism, and assuming he committed no war crimes, and they were okay risking the bad press, they should have known to check his background to confirm his innocence before presenting him as a hero in front of the world.
You just need to know who fought against the Russians in Ukrane during World War 2. Its not exactly a history degree. Even just assuming no one on the team had even a high-school level of history knowledge (already a bad sign), the fact that no one thought to actually look into the deeds they were praising him for is pathetic.
As opposed to siding with the other side that had just also killed roughly 4 million Ukranians before the war started, and also committed many atrocities against the Ukranian people (which contiued to happen as the Soviets retook Ukraine). I’m not saying that joining the Waffen-SS to fight the Soviets is just (and I’m also making the assumption that no other war crimes were committed, as so far, there is no evidence Hunka was involved in any war crimes) but living in a time where he can’t exactly Google the death counts the Nazis and Soviets, and having experienced the Soviet rigime’s brutality, its not clear cut. Given the information currently available, its entirely possible a lot of his town or family were killed in the Holodomor and he joined believing fewer would be killed under Nazi rule. Given the death counts under Stalin’s rigime, its not a strange thought, esspecially after living through it, and not yet spending much time under Nazi rule. It doesn’t even have to be that he thought the Nazis were less dangerous to be a reasonable choice. For example, this was already late in the war, so if he felt confident that the Allies would win, he could have justified fighting hoping that neither the Soviets nor the Nazis would end the war in control of Ukraine. I’m not saying any of these is the case, but until we have some evidence that it isn’t one of these, its far more grey.
To be clear, I don’t think working with the Nazi army is a good thing, the Nazi rigime was obviously worse, but given the information he would have had access to at the time and the still-unclear background, theres no evidence he agreed with any of the Nazi beleifs or actions (other than fighting the Soviets). Until we find something more substantial, its not clear if he was/is the Nazi (ideologically) he is currently being portrayed as, or just someone who feared continued Soviet genocide of his people. We should not assume he is guilty while there is still room for uncertainty. On the other hand, if more substantial information about his motive comes out, or evidence that he was involved in any of the Division’s war crime’s against the Polish people, than I have no issue with leaving him to rot in prison for the rest of his life, but we should be sure that he was involved in the Nazi attrocities rather than just trying to protect his country from Soviet atrocities.
By that standard, whats to stop people from just getting more phone numbers? Its just an additional cost.