4 ms·

I knew I shouldn't have linked to Greenwald. Just like, address the direct quote from Nuland. > Now there a may or may not be concerns about biolabs. There a

I knew I shouldn't have linked to Greenwald. Just like, address the direct quote from Nuland. > Now there a may or may not be concerns about biolabs. There are concerns about biolabs. Nuland said exactly that. She even used the word "concern". They are - I'm guessing from the context - unique enough that the Russians don't have labs like this, otherwise who cares if the Russians capture them? Am I just ignorant about non-weapons biolabs here? > Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald were so wrong about Putin's intentions regarding Ukraine OK. And? They've acknowledged this. If being wrong about a thing disqualifies all your future reporting, then I shouldn't believe anyone. And if we're talking about people being wrong about Putin's intentions, go back and watch the media and Democratic politicians mock Romney when he suggested back in the 2012 Presidential Debates that Putin was a threat - but now I have to believe everything those people say but Greenwald and Taibbi are off limits?

gebruikersnaam 5y ago
> Am I just ignorant about non-weapons biolabs here? Maybe they are working on antidotes to Russian bio weapons. That's research you don't want the Russians to have, and can't be classified as weapons. Maybe they're researching bird flu on live animals. Prohibiting the Russians to release them could be a goal. Honestly, there are plenty of non-weapon explanations. You seem to be looking for a justification.
ModernMech 5y ago
> I knew I shouldn't have linked to Greenwald. I'm glad you did because he's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. > There are concerns about biolabs. Nuland said exactly that. She even used the word "concern". Greenwald did a great job directing you to the conclusion he wanted you to draw. Because even after, I assume, you've read his piece you still have the big question mark over your head, which is "what exactly is in the labs?" And that is the question that Putin wants on everyone's mind. That is the question he needs all over the internet. Because that question will also be on Russian minds, and Putin has filled in that blank with [WMDs designed to target Russians]. The bigger that question, the better Putin's lie works. Putin can't make that lie big on his own. The counterintelligence term of art for Greenwald is that he's a "useful idiot" for Russia. Glenn Greenwald, as prolific a blogger he is, has no idea whatsoever about what's in those labs. But he's very sure that the utterance of the word "concern" has blown open the whole scheme. It's incredible to me that the whole piece you linked, over 2000 words, hinges on that one word. And now your opinion also hinges on that word. Actually for all the talk about what's in the labs, it really does not matter. What matters is that everyone has a question about the labs, because when Russia attempts a false flag chemical weapon or biological attack, they will use the question on everyone's mind as a justification. It's called "muddying the waters" or as Steve Bannon put it "flooding the zone with shit". You and me sitting here on HN talking about biolabs is all part of manufacturing that justification. > Am I just ignorant about non-weapons biolabs here? Yes and so am I. So are 90% of us talking about the issue here. We have no business talking about biolabs. And yet it seems like all of the experts of biolabs are here on HN to tell us all of the nuance they've learned over the.... last few weeks since Putin wanted us all to be talking about Ukrainian biolabs. > If being wrong about a thing disqualifies all your future reporting It's about why they were wrong (100k troops on the border, tanks, equipment, and the US government saying that Russia is about to invade, yet they trusted Putin's word until the moment bombs started falling, when everyone else saw the obvious far in advance). They have blinders when it comes to Russia. They call Russian collusion a "hoax" (which again is also Putin's position) to this day even though Republican Senate investigators confirmed everything. Greenwald and Taibbi are consistently wrong regarding Russia and have been over a number of years. What we witnessed last month during the build-up of the invasion was the resolution of two-competing worldviews constructed over a number of years. One worldview held that Putin is a master tactician, and a savvy genius who out-maneuvers the West consistently. The other worldview held that Putin is a psychopathic dictator, who is not a master tactician or even a good politician, but a thug and a tyrant. Predictions were made last month from these two competing camps and then they met reality; the reality that won was that Putin is a psychopath. So now you really have to call into question everything that was said from the people with the perspective that Putin is a genius tactician. How much of what they've argued had the wrong priors leading to faulty conclusions? > go back and watch the media and Democratic politicians mock Romney when he suggested back in the 2012 Presidential Debates Yes, maybe you shouldn't listen to those people either. This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats, it's about wrong vs. right and who has a track record of being right about this topic. Perhaps we should all actually be listening to Mitt Romney a lot more!
- brandonmenc 5y ago
  > So now you really have to call into question everything that was said from the people with the perspective that Putin is a genius tactician. Actually, the people who spent the last half-decade telling me that Putin was "playing chess" are the exact same people who are now telling me he's unhinged and mentally ill and that we need to send F-16s to Poland. But really, the specifics don't matter to me. Biolabs or not, doesn't matter. Putin is a genius with a legitimate beef or he's a nutjob with a brain tumor and short-man syndrome, doesn't matter. imo we should just be avoiding WW3. Everything else is secondary. Maybe that means Ukraine is not defendable. It's probably good I'm in an armchair. But from where I'm sitting, the people who seem to be getting us closer to nuclear war are also the ones yelling "you're carrying water for Putin!" whenever anyone asks a question. I was an adult during the Iraq War. I'm cynical, and that clouds my judgement.
  - danaris 5y ago
    > imo we should just be avoiding WW3. Everything else is secondary. Maybe that means Ukraine is not defendable. This is called "appeasement", and when you practice it with aggressively expansionist dictators, all it gets you is lots of land conquered by them and people killed before you actually admit that they need to be stopped.
    - brandonmenc 5y ago
      The difference here is that Putin has thousands of nukes. That means we can't "just stop" him. It sucks. If Hitler had nukes, Nazi Germany would probably still exist in some form. I just don't see a viable endgame short of an internal Russian revolution that takes out Putin. Until then, the only truly defendable border stops at NATO. Ukraine is not in NATO. Yes, the situation is tragic.
  - epakai 5y ago
    What if there's no avoiding WW3? Short of a collapse in Russia there doesn't seem to be a path back from this effort. Nothing in the past decade has put a damper on Putin's empire rebuilding.

gebruikersnaam 5y ago

> Am I just ignorant about non-weapons biolabs here? Maybe they are working on antidotes to Russian bio weapons. That's research you don't want the Russians to have, and can't be classified as weapons. Maybe they're researching bird flu on live animals. Prohibiting the Russians to release them could be a goal. Honestly, there are plenty of non-weapon explanations. You seem to be looking for a justification.

ModernMech 5y ago

> I knew I shouldn't have linked to Greenwald. I'm glad you did because he's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. > There are concerns about biolabs. Nuland said exactly that. She even used the word "concern". Greenwald did a great job directing you to the conclusion he wanted you to draw. Because even after, I assume, you've read his piece you still have the big question mark over your head, which is "what exactly is in the labs?" And that is the question that Putin wants on everyone's mind. That is the question he needs all over the internet. Because that question will also be on Russian minds, and Putin has filled in that blank with [WMDs designed to target Russians]. The bigger that question, the better Putin's lie works. Putin can't make that lie big on his own. The counterintelligence term of art for Greenwald is that he's a "useful idiot" for Russia. Glenn Greenwald, as prolific a blogger he is, has no idea whatsoever about what's in those labs. But he's very sure that the utterance of the word "concern" has blown open the whole scheme. It's incredible to me that the whole piece you linked, over 2000 words, hinges on that one word. And now your opinion also hinges on that word. Actually for all the talk about what's in the labs, it really does not matter. What matters is that everyone has a question about the labs, because when Russia attempts a false flag chemical weapon or biological attack, they will use the question on everyone's mind as a justification. It's called "muddying the waters" or as Steve Bannon put it "flooding the zone with shit". You and me sitting here on HN talking about biolabs is all part of manufacturing that justification. > Am I just ignorant about non-weapons biolabs here? Yes and so am I. So are 90% of us talking about the issue here. We have no business talking about biolabs. And yet it seems like all of the experts of biolabs are here on HN to tell us all of the nuance they've learned over the.... last few weeks since Putin wanted us all to be talking about Ukrainian biolabs. > If being wrong about a thing disqualifies all your future reporting It's about why they were wrong (100k troops on the border, tanks, equipment, and the US government saying that Russia is about to invade, yet they trusted Putin's word until the moment bombs started falling, when everyone else saw the obvious far in advance). They have blinders when it comes to Russia. They call Russian collusion a "hoax" (which again is also Putin's position) to this day even though Republican Senate investigators confirmed everything. Greenwald and Taibbi are consistently wrong regarding Russia and have been over a number of years. What we witnessed last month during the build-up of the invasion was the resolution of two-competing worldviews constructed over a number of years. One worldview held that Putin is a master tactician, and a savvy genius who out-maneuvers the West consistently. The other worldview held that Putin is a psychopathic dictator, who is not a master tactician or even a good politician, but a thug and a tyrant. Predictions were made last month from these two competing camps and then they met reality; the reality that won was that Putin is a psychopath. So now you really have to call into question everything that was said from the people with the perspective that Putin is a genius tactician. How much of what they've argued had the wrong priors leading to faulty conclusions? > go back and watch the media and Democratic politicians mock Romney when he suggested back in the 2012 Presidential Debates Yes, maybe you shouldn't listen to those people either. This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats, it's about wrong vs. right and who has a track record of being right about this topic. Perhaps we should all actually be listening to Mitt Romney a lot more!

brandonmenc 5y ago
> So now you really have to call into question everything that was said from the people with the perspective that Putin is a genius tactician. Actually, the people who spent the last half-decade telling me that Putin was "playing chess" are the exact same people who are now telling me he's unhinged and mentally ill and that we need to send F-16s to Poland. But really, the specifics don't matter to me. Biolabs or not, doesn't matter. Putin is a genius with a legitimate beef or he's a nutjob with a brain tumor and short-man syndrome, doesn't matter. imo we should just be avoiding WW3. Everything else is secondary. Maybe that means Ukraine is not defendable. It's probably good I'm in an armchair. But from where I'm sitting, the people who seem to be getting us closer to nuclear war are also the ones yelling "you're carrying water for Putin!" whenever anyone asks a question. I was an adult during the Iraq War. I'm cynical, and that clouds my judgement.
- danaris 5y ago
  > imo we should just be avoiding WW3. Everything else is secondary. Maybe that means Ukraine is not defendable. This is called "appeasement", and when you practice it with aggressively expansionist dictators, all it gets you is lots of land conquered by them and people killed before you actually admit that they need to be stopped.
  - brandonmenc 5y ago
    The difference here is that Putin has thousands of nukes. That means we can't "just stop" him. It sucks. If Hitler had nukes, Nazi Germany would probably still exist in some form. I just don't see a viable endgame short of an internal Russian revolution that takes out Putin. Until then, the only truly defendable border stops at NATO. Ukraine is not in NATO. Yes, the situation is tragic.
- epakai 5y ago
  What if there's no avoiding WW3? Short of a collapse in Russia there doesn't seem to be a path back from this effort. Nothing in the past decade has put a damper on Putin's empire rebuilding.