8 ms·

Greenwald (and Tulsi Gabbard) quoted Nuland directly, who admitted that there were biological research labs. Greenwald had previously worked on the Anthrax sto

by gkaly 4y ago

Greenwald (and Tulsi Gabbard) quoted Nuland directly, who admitted that there were biological research labs. Greenwald had previously worked on the Anthrax story of 2001, where a couple of high profile people got sent a sophisticated Anthrax variant in the mail. It was supposed to be foreign terrorism at first, later it was found that the strain came from a U.S. research facility. Biological weapons aren't allowed by treaty. Research how to combat biological weapons however is allowed. So many countries produce strains in biological research facilities under the guise of defense. That is precisely Greenwald's point, he has never claimed that bioweapons are manufactured in Ukraine. He has claimed that dangerous biological agents might be present, like they were in the U.S. in 2001. It takes a lot of history and reading to understand Greenwald. The man is a walking encyclopedia, very careful in his statements and touches issues of great complexity. One can rarely refute him in a one liner.

watwut 4y ago
> admitted that there were biological research labs Which is fairly normal thing to have in a developed country. And is much different thing the bioweapons lab. This muddying things does not make Greenwald's sound better. It makes him exactly what he is - someone building conspiracy theory.
- gkaly 4y ago
  [dead]
  - watwut 4y ago
    The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then you try to confuse it with bioweapons, anthrax attacks in America and completely irrelevant treaties about bioweapons. If he wanted to make historical point about Antrax, he did not had to make it in context of Ukraine. If he wanted to make point about bioresearch labs in general, he could have made that one. He did not wanted to do either. He wanted to muddy waters precisedly at the time when is sounded like Ukraine has bioweapons precisedly when they were invaded.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then you try to confuse it with bioweapons, anthrax attacks in America and completely irrelevant treaties about bioweapons. Who is it that's actually doing the confusing here? It's certainly possible that Greenwald is dog-whistling "bioresearch lab" into "bioweapons", but is he actually doing that, and to a large degree (mostly, etc)? Consider this: within your mind, might there be a bias toward perceiving that this is what he is doing, and might it be also possible that you may not be able to perceive that this is happening (due to the evolved nature of the human mind)? Let's try to simultaneously operate in a dual state of mind: both abstract (keeping in mind the phenomena discussed in the article, and taking it seriously) and object level (discussion of "these bio labs"[1]): is it possible that some of the things discussed in the article could happen to us folks here on HN, sometimes? To be clear, I am not asserting as a fact that this is happening here, in a big way - rather, I am merely and explicitly offering it as a suggestion of what might be happening, at least to some degree. [1] I put "these bio labs" in brackets because technically, at the cognitive/neuroscientific level, that is not what either person is actually discussing - rather, each person is necessarily discussing their model of "these bio labs". However, while this is architecturally unavoidable, this is not to say that there is no way to optimize the manner in which we perceive and discuss our respective virtual realities.
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        As a third party, I can weigh in to eliminate some of the ambiguity you're worried about: It seems like the views you're replying to, match reality (Greenwald is indeed spreading FUD about something which is totally normal), and, I'm sorry, you are coming across as incomprehensible
        mistermann 4y ago
        > It seems like the views you're replying to, match reality (Greenwald is indeed spreading FUD about something which is totally normal) Consider this: are things always as they seem? If you consider the entirety of your history on this planet, has there ever been a time where you were at least partially mistaken? Or even easier: have you ever observed another human being mistaking belief for knowledge? I mean technically: is it not true that you are representing/asserting your perception of "reality" (virtual/perceptual/cognitive reality) to be 100% perfectly and comprehensively aligned with reality itself? > and, I'm sorry, you are coming across as incomprehensible. This is extremely common in conversations within certain domains. Consider this: - if someone has a bias against certain things, might this have some negative effect on the style and effort they devote to trying to truly understand it (also taking into consideration what is happening in the subconscious mind, which is sub-perceptual, and arguably has the ability to place a ~"hard cap" on what any given individual is capable of, especially if they are not intimately(!) familiar with the phenomenon and actively taking measures to counteract its effects)? - if one was to give a quantum mechanics textbook to someone who has no background in math/physics/etc, might it seem incomprehensible to them? And based on prior conversations, it is perhaps a good idea to preemptively counter some common rebuttals to this sort of thinking: often the response I will get to this sort of reasoning is that it is "pedantic", or various memes/slurs such as /r/iamverysmart, Gish Gallop, JAQing off, etc. I promise that this is not what I am doing - I am genuinely trying to have a truly good faith conversation (which, unsurprisingly, may appear "very weird"), and I encourage you to disagree with any points I've made that you believe (after some self-critical contemplation, ideally) contain a genuine flaw(s), however small.
ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
It's totally normal and expected for biological research labs to have biological samples with which to do research. What is being described is beyond that, with thinly veiled suggestions of covert maliciousness sprinkled in.
- gatgy 4y ago
  As we see in Wuhan, a virus can be devastating no matter if it escapes from a research facility, a wet market or a deliberate bioweapon. That was the primary concern of Tulsi Gabbard. In Ukraine, matters are exacerbated by the fact that these research facilities, according to the left wing newspaper The Guardian, were U.S. funded: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/russia-biological-weapon-claim-us-un-ukraine-bio-labs-explainer https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/russia-biologi... Ukraine does operate biological laboratories that receive US funding. The US undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland affirmed those facts in a Senate foreign relations committee hearing this week, in which the Republican senator Marco Rubio asked directly if Ukraine had biological weapons. Given the politically unstable situation in February 2022 and earlier, people like Greenwald and Gabbard simply point out that Putin will view this as a provocation, same as the Nuland/Graham involvement in the revolution in 2014. Most people who are called Putin apologists are simply doing one thing: They know that Putin is a bully with 6,000 nuclear weapons, so they try to understand his thinking and possible reactions. As we see now, they were right in many ways.
  - watwut 4y ago
    > They know that Putin is a bully with 6,000 nuclear weapons, so they try to understand his thinking and possible reactions. This would require reading what Putin wrote and commenting on it. This would require listening to his speeches in Russia. This would require close listening to Russian ideology and mythology disseminated in Russia itself and commenting on it. This would required reading Russian and Easter European politics and history - at least recent one. It would require watching which of his statements are shifting, which are ignored the moment they are not useful, which are staying and which are supported by his actions. I dont see them ever mentioning Putins historical theories, his theories about Ukraine statehood, about Stalin. And somehow, that concern exists only when Russia is trying to excuse invasion by bioweapons labs. Somehow, magically, this concern did not existed before, nor in other countries and stopped existing as it turned out not many people are buying it as excuse for invasion. There was no "maybe the war did not started due to that" consideration either. This was not concern about "provocation" or concern about Putin being good-faith afraid of new covid from Ukraine. This was muddying waters, trying to build up new WMD-like narrative, because libs are at Ukrainien side.

by gkaly 4y ago

watwut 4y ago

> admitted that there were biological research labs Which is fairly normal thing to have in a developed country. And is much different thing the bioweapons lab. This muddying things does not make Greenwald's sound better. It makes him exactly what he is - someone building conspiracy theory.

gkaly 4y ago
[dead]
- watwut 4y ago
  The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then you try to confuse it with bioweapons, anthrax attacks in America and completely irrelevant treaties about bioweapons. If he wanted to make historical point about Antrax, he did not had to make it in context of Ukraine. If he wanted to make point about bioresearch labs in general, he could have made that one. He did not wanted to do either. He wanted to muddy waters precisedly at the time when is sounded like Ukraine has bioweapons precisedly when they were invaded.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then you try to confuse it with bioweapons, anthrax attacks in America and completely irrelevant treaties about bioweapons. Who is it that's actually doing the confusing here? It's certainly possible that Greenwald is dog-whistling "bioresearch lab" into "bioweapons", but is he actually doing that, and to a large degree (mostly, etc)? Consider this: within your mind, might there be a bias toward perceiving that this is what he is doing, and might it be also possible that you may not be able to perceive that this is happening (due to the evolved nature of the human mind)? Let's try to simultaneously operate in a dual state of mind: both abstract (keeping in mind the phenomena discussed in the article, and taking it seriously) and object level (discussion of "these bio labs"[1]): is it possible that some of the things discussed in the article could happen to us folks here on HN, sometimes? To be clear, I am not asserting as a fact that this is happening here, in a big way - rather, I am merely and explicitly offering it as a suggestion of what might be happening, at least to some degree. [1] I put "these bio labs" in brackets because technically, at the cognitive/neuroscientific level, that is not what either person is actually discussing - rather, each person is necessarily discussing their model of "these bio labs". However, while this is architecturally unavoidable, this is not to say that there is no way to optimize the manner in which we perceive and discuss our respective virtual realities.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      As a third party, I can weigh in to eliminate some of the ambiguity you're worried about: It seems like the views you're replying to, match reality (Greenwald is indeed spreading FUD about something which is totally normal), and, I'm sorry, you are coming across as incomprehensible
      - mistermann 4y ago
        > It seems like the views you're replying to, match reality (Greenwald is indeed spreading FUD about something which is totally normal) Consider this: are things always as they seem? If you consider the entirety of your history on this planet, has there ever been a time where you were at least partially mistaken? Or even easier: have you ever observed another human being mistaking belief for knowledge? I mean technically: is it not true that you are representing/asserting your perception of "reality" (virtual/perceptual/cognitive reality) to be 100% perfectly and comprehensively aligned with reality itself? > and, I'm sorry, you are coming across as incomprehensible. This is extremely common in conversations within certain domains. Consider this: - if someone has a bias against certain things, might this have some negative effect on the style and effort they devote to trying to truly understand it (also taking into consideration what is happening in the subconscious mind, which is sub-perceptual, and arguably has the ability to place a ~"hard cap" on what any given individual is capable of, especially if they are not intimately(!) familiar with the phenomenon and actively taking measures to counteract its effects)? - if one was to give a quantum mechanics textbook to someone who has no background in math/physics/etc, might it seem incomprehensible to them? And based on prior conversations, it is perhaps a good idea to preemptively counter some common rebuttals to this sort of thinking: often the response I will get to this sort of reasoning is that it is "pedantic", or various memes/slurs such as /r/iamverysmart, Gish Gallop, JAQing off, etc. I promise that this is not what I am doing - I am genuinely trying to have a truly good faith conversation (which, unsurprisingly, may appear "very weird"), and I encourage you to disagree with any points I've made that you believe (after some self-critical contemplation, ideally) contain a genuine flaw(s), however small.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago

It's totally normal and expected for biological research labs to have biological samples with which to do research. What is being described is beyond that, with thinly veiled suggestions of covert maliciousness sprinkled in.

gatgy 4y ago
As we see in Wuhan, a virus can be devastating no matter if it escapes from a research facility, a wet market or a deliberate bioweapon. That was the primary concern of Tulsi Gabbard. In Ukraine, matters are exacerbated by the fact that these research facilities, according to the left wing newspaper The Guardian, were U.S. funded: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/russia-biological-weapon-claim-us-un-ukraine-bio-labs-explainer https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/russia-biologi... Ukraine does operate biological laboratories that receive US funding. The US undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland affirmed those facts in a Senate foreign relations committee hearing this week, in which the Republican senator Marco Rubio asked directly if Ukraine had biological weapons. Given the politically unstable situation in February 2022 and earlier, people like Greenwald and Gabbard simply point out that Putin will view this as a provocation, same as the Nuland/Graham involvement in the revolution in 2014. Most people who are called Putin apologists are simply doing one thing: They know that Putin is a bully with 6,000 nuclear weapons, so they try to understand his thinking and possible reactions. As we see now, they were right in many ways.
- watwut 4y ago
  > They know that Putin is a bully with 6,000 nuclear weapons, so they try to understand his thinking and possible reactions. This would require reading what Putin wrote and commenting on it. This would require listening to his speeches in Russia. This would require close listening to Russian ideology and mythology disseminated in Russia itself and commenting on it. This would required reading Russian and Easter European politics and history - at least recent one. It would require watching which of his statements are shifting, which are ignored the moment they are not useful, which are staying and which are supported by his actions. I dont see them ever mentioning Putins historical theories, his theories about Ukraine statehood, about Stalin. And somehow, that concern exists only when Russia is trying to excuse invasion by bioweapons labs. Somehow, magically, this concern did not existed before, nor in other countries and stopped existing as it turned out not many people are buying it as excuse for invasion. There was no "maybe the war did not started due to that" consideration either. This was not concern about "provocation" or concern about Putin being good-faith afraid of new covid from Ukraine. This was muddying waters, trying to build up new WMD-like narrative, because libs are at Ukrainien side.