5 ms·

It's not heavily suggested by the CIA to have been perpetrated by Cuba; I think that's an incorrect assumption on your part. Since the incidents, involving up

It's not heavily suggested by the CIA to have been perpetrated by Cuba; I think that's an incorrect assumption on your part. Since the incidents, involving up to 130 U.S. personnel, have happened in Cuba, China, Russia, and elsewhere (including at least one possible incident inside the U.S.) it would have to be someone with the resources to carry out such attacks across the world (and the CIA director said as much if you listen to the interview). The most likely culprit being eyed by Pentagon officials is Russia (as previously reported[1]), but the CIA director chose not to name names during this latest interview even when directly asked if it was Russia. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/12/us/politics/biden-cia-brain-injury.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/12/us/politics/biden-cia-bra...

whimsicalism 5y ago
I think it's become very politically incorrect/insensitive to suggest psychosomnia in the 21st century. See: many (but certainly not all) long covid reports.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
rtpg 5y ago
Of course it’s been heavily suggested! They have been openly hypothesizing this is some sort of directed microwave attack on people, from Cuba. Articles by the NYT initially put the microwave hypothesis hand in hand with strained US-Cuba relations! Of course now it’s being revealed that people in other countries are having it so it’s hard. But they’re actively implying this is some microwave super weapon (it feels so absurd that when talking about it even Obama alum Ben Rhodes basically talks about it as “allegedly some weapon thing” in a “don’t believe that” theory). I’m curious what is going on here too, but definitely don’t believe the weapon hypothesis compared to the much more banal explanations that we all know.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  Sure it was, when it was first discovered five years ago. Sure the initial reports suggested that, years ago when maybe it did strain relations. It's 2021.
- relativ575 5y ago
  It was "hypothesizing this is some sort of directed microwave attack on people, from Cuba", because it originated from Havana, Cuba, affecting Americans, Cuba's adversary. Once it started to appear in other locations, even in DC, that isn't main hypothesis anymore. > definitely don’t believe the weapon hypothesis compared to the much more banal explanations that we all know. Although nobody knows what is behind the phenomenon, you must admit that it's strange that it seems to only occur to American staff at those locations. It may not be a weapon, but it does seem to target American facilities. For all we know it could be a malfunctioning American system inside those locations.
- elefanten 5y ago
  You offer no counter-evidence to gp. I've never seen it seriously suggested that Cuba is doing it. There might've been speculation that Cuba allowed it or supported a foreign operation, but "from Cuba" doesn't mean "by Cuba".
justicezyx 5y ago
Logic tell me that "it would have to be someone with the resources to carry out such attacks across the world" 99% point to USA? Not trying to disclaim you, but this part of reasoning seems rather weird. Even China has more global influence than Russia? Or even UK, France, German. If you think this attack by "enemy", why not just kill someone? I mean, given the length of what's happening, it must be that there is no way to obtain concrete evidences. Russia would know for sure that US would accuse Russia anyway, even without any concrete evidences; which has been the behavior pattern of US for quite a long time. Turns out that, if we follow logic, then we can fairly sure that this is indeed a unsolved case. And more investigation is needed. And that's what CIA chief is doing, and I think CIA chief is doing something right.
- wokwokwok 5y ago
  Don’t be daft, you’re sitting there lapping up the propaganda without thinking about it. Should they investigate? Sure. Will they? Have they already? Yep. Will they continue to? Yep. Do we need a press conference to tell us? No. Do we usually get press conferences to tell us what the CIA has as their priorities? No. …so, in this case it might be fair to ask: why are we getting this one now? It’s pure propaganda.
  - salt-thrower 5y ago
    You hit the nail on the head. This is old news; they've been investigating this for years. They chose now of all times, with the protests going on in Cuba and U.S. officials openly calling for U.S. intervention, to release another presser about a years-old story which gins up negative sentiment against Cuba.
    - elefanten 5y ago
      "In a wide-ranging, exclusive interview with NPR's Mary Louise Kelly, Burns also discussed the CIA's future in Afghanistan and the theory that the coronavirus outbreak was caused by a leak from a Chinese state-run laboratory in Wuhan." This was not a random press conference organized just to loud speak the words "Havana syndrome". It's almost like you didn't even read the linked article.
lurgburg 5y ago
Do you think that the majority of people read the full article? Do you think the CIA thinks the majority of people read the full article? Do you think the CIA engages honestly with the press to simply provide information to the public? GP's analysis is correct: the CIA knows that people will read vaguely and shallowly and take away a confused anti-cuban sentiment, and this is their intended outcome. "Heavily suggested" doesn't mean "actually, if you read the full article, they didn't say that", it means they're heavily trying to suggest this.
- krapp 5y ago
  >the CIA knows that people will read vaguely and shallowly and take away a confused anti-cuban sentiment, and this is their intended outcome If the CIA's goal were to foment anti-Cuban sentiment in relation to Havana Syndrome, why would they have the press write articles which don't blame Cuba, and depend on the public not actually reading those articles but still making the connection by vague association... rather than simply blaming Cuba, so the articles would blame Cuba, and even people who read the articles would make that association directly? You're reaching. This isn't part of some subtle CIA propaganda double fake, it's just the result of Hacker News preferring to depend on commenters to provide context for articles they don't read.
  - lurgburg 5y ago
    Because directly blaming Cuba would be all downside, no upside. If they directly and straightforwardly blamed Cuba, Serious Readers might actually wonder about their basis for doing so (as there isn't one), and might actually think critically about what they're reading. But if they blare "HAVANA SYNDROME" at the top, the majority take the intended message, and the Serious Readers say "well it's all very complex, there's a lot we don't know, who can say?"

whimsicalism 5y ago

I think it's become very politically incorrect/insensitive to suggest psychosomnia in the 21st century. See: many (but certainly not all) long covid reports.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

rtpg 5y ago

Of course it’s been heavily suggested! They have been openly hypothesizing this is some sort of directed microwave attack on people, from Cuba. Articles by the NYT initially put the microwave hypothesis hand in hand with strained US-Cuba relations! Of course now it’s being revealed that people in other countries are having it so it’s hard. But they’re actively implying this is some microwave super weapon (it feels so absurd that when talking about it even Obama alum Ben Rhodes basically talks about it as “allegedly some weapon thing” in a “don’t believe that” theory). I’m curious what is going on here too, but definitely don’t believe the weapon hypothesis compared to the much more banal explanations that we all know.

unethical_ban 5y ago
Sure it was, when it was first discovered five years ago. Sure the initial reports suggested that, years ago when maybe it did strain relations. It's 2021.
relativ575 5y ago
It was "hypothesizing this is some sort of directed microwave attack on people, from Cuba", because it originated from Havana, Cuba, affecting Americans, Cuba's adversary. Once it started to appear in other locations, even in DC, that isn't main hypothesis anymore. > definitely don’t believe the weapon hypothesis compared to the much more banal explanations that we all know. Although nobody knows what is behind the phenomenon, you must admit that it's strange that it seems to only occur to American staff at those locations. It may not be a weapon, but it does seem to target American facilities. For all we know it could be a malfunctioning American system inside those locations.
elefanten 5y ago
You offer no counter-evidence to gp. I've never seen it seriously suggested that Cuba is doing it. There might've been speculation that Cuba allowed it or supported a foreign operation, but "from Cuba" doesn't mean "by Cuba".

justicezyx 5y ago

Logic tell me that "it would have to be someone with the resources to carry out such attacks across the world" 99% point to USA? Not trying to disclaim you, but this part of reasoning seems rather weird. Even China has more global influence than Russia? Or even UK, France, German. If you think this attack by "enemy", why not just kill someone? I mean, given the length of what's happening, it must be that there is no way to obtain concrete evidences. Russia would know for sure that US would accuse Russia anyway, even without any concrete evidences; which has been the behavior pattern of US for quite a long time. Turns out that, if we follow logic, then we can fairly sure that this is indeed a unsolved case. And more investigation is needed. And that's what CIA chief is doing, and I think CIA chief is doing something right.

wokwokwok 5y ago
Don’t be daft, you’re sitting there lapping up the propaganda without thinking about it. Should they investigate? Sure. Will they? Have they already? Yep. Will they continue to? Yep. Do we need a press conference to tell us? No. Do we usually get press conferences to tell us what the CIA has as their priorities? No. …so, in this case it might be fair to ask: why are we getting this one now? It’s pure propaganda.
- salt-thrower 5y ago
  You hit the nail on the head. This is old news; they've been investigating this for years. They chose now of all times, with the protests going on in Cuba and U.S. officials openly calling for U.S. intervention, to release another presser about a years-old story which gins up negative sentiment against Cuba.
  - elefanten 5y ago
    "In a wide-ranging, exclusive interview with NPR's Mary Louise Kelly, Burns also discussed the CIA's future in Afghanistan and the theory that the coronavirus outbreak was caused by a leak from a Chinese state-run laboratory in Wuhan." This was not a random press conference organized just to loud speak the words "Havana syndrome". It's almost like you didn't even read the linked article.

lurgburg 5y ago

Do you think that the majority of people read the full article? Do you think the CIA thinks the majority of people read the full article? Do you think the CIA engages honestly with the press to simply provide information to the public? GP's analysis is correct: the CIA knows that people will read vaguely and shallowly and take away a confused anti-cuban sentiment, and this is their intended outcome. "Heavily suggested" doesn't mean "actually, if you read the full article, they didn't say that", it means they're heavily trying to suggest this.

krapp 5y ago
>the CIA knows that people will read vaguely and shallowly and take away a confused anti-cuban sentiment, and this is their intended outcome If the CIA's goal were to foment anti-Cuban sentiment in relation to Havana Syndrome, why would they have the press write articles which don't blame Cuba, and depend on the public not actually reading those articles but still making the connection by vague association... rather than simply blaming Cuba, so the articles would blame Cuba, and even people who read the articles would make that association directly? You're reaching. This isn't part of some subtle CIA propaganda double fake, it's just the result of Hacker News preferring to depend on commenters to provide context for articles they don't read.
- lurgburg 5y ago
  Because directly blaming Cuba would be all downside, no upside. If they directly and straightforwardly blamed Cuba, Serious Readers might actually wonder about their basis for doing so (as there isn't one), and might actually think critically about what they're reading. But if they blare "HAVANA SYNDROME" at the top, the majority take the intended message, and the Serious Readers say "well it's all very complex, there's a lot we don't know, who can say?"