6 ms·
Fatuous, weasel headline. Kakhova Dam 'disaster': as if it wasn't the consequence of Russia's invasion.
by squidbeak 3y ago
Fatuous, weasel headline. Kakhova Dam 'disaster': as if it wasn't the consequence of Russia's invasion.
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago[flagged]
- squidbeak 3y agoIs there any argument at all this dam would still be standing if Russia hadn't invaded it's neighbour?
- cf141q5325 3y ago[flagged]
- squidbeak 3y agoTo be clear, your opinion is that this dam could just as easily have failed in peacetime? And the contrary point of view isn't sensible?
- cf141q5325 3y ago[flagged]
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago[flagged]
- cf141q5325 3y ago[flagged]
- dang 3y agoPlease don't post in the flamewar style to HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
- mcpackieh 3y ago[flagged]
- stavros 3y ago[flagged]
- cf141q5325 3y ago>Fuck off, idiot. You seem to be a genuine account. It amazes me that you thought this to be a reasonable comment. I looked at my comment again and its pretty clear that i was talking about the kind of reasoning, not the specific argument. Please think before you post. Once you stop judging stuff on its own you can justify anything. Its why its not sensible to do that.
- dang 3y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37708014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37708014
- dang 3y agoYou can't post like this here, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Perhaps you don't owe people who you feel are making wrong points about genocide better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Edit: you've unfortunately broken the site guidelines elsewhere in the thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37707103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37707103), and we've already had to warn you about this kind of thing. We end up having to ban accounts that ignore such warnings and I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please stick to using the site as intended, we'd appreciate it.
- hh3k0 3y agoWorrying about some hypothetical genocide against Russians that might or might not manifest whenever someone points out a direct consequence of Russia's genocidal war of aggression against Ukraine has to be the height of cynicism.
- squidbeak 3y agoOK, let me refine my recap: you are arguing that to assess responsibility for atrocities is to invite genocide? Or that our best course is to ignore culpability? - passive acceptance of any outrage?
- cf141q5325 3y agoNo, not at all. I believe your error stems from looking at my comment regarding what implications it would have on your position. Those assumed implications are however erroneous. I am telling you initial cause blame attribution is open ended and thus dangerous. Thats why it cant be used. Because there is some stuff that cant be justified. If you go down the path of Russia is to blame not because they did it, but because they started it, you are writing a blank check for anything that happens afterwards. This statement says nothing about removing any blame from Russia, its just the statement that some stuff is unjustifiable. Which is why those lines of reasoning are not a good idea. As i pointed out in another post, it also shifts the narrative from Russia blew up a dam to Ukraine would have been allowed to do that. Thats cognitive warfare, straight out of GRUs active measures. Which is also why my other post wasnt concern trolling. They are actively doing that and attention needs to be paid unless you want GRU dictating how you think about Ukraine.
- lostlogin 3y ago> who started it gets you genocide. Are you aware that the UN court case against a Russia conducting genocide is being heard at the moment? https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1141417 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1141417
- m0llusk 3y agoThe argument is about what caused the dam to fail. For some reason Russia haters are insisting the only possibility is an explosion. Photographic evidence shows that Russia allowed the dam to overflow which caused the collapse. Only one thing can be true. Both possibilities are clearly the responsibility of Russia in any case. But unfortunately Russia haters have decided it must have been explosives and so the truth has become the enemy as is usually the case whenever Russia is involved.
- Ylpertnodi 3y ago...but what you replied to didn't mention explosives. I'm a .ru.gov hater, and I don't have an answer save that mentioned: if Russia hadn't have invaded, the dam would probably still be intact.
- andrewflnr 3y agoIs it absolutely certain that there were explosives at all? I remember hearing arguments that sufficiently large explosives would have created a seismic signature that was not detected. The claim there was that it was negligence that caused it to collapse. Still absolutely Russia's fault, but it doesn't look like malice. (FWIW this was Ryan McBeth on YouTube, who I don't think is the most credible, but his argument here made sense).
- maximinus_thrax 3y agoFrom wikipedia: > There were signs of an explosion at the time of the breach. Both Ukrainian and Russian sources reported hearing blasts from the dam's hydroelectric power station,[3][4] regional seismometers detected explosions in the area,[5][8] and a satellite detected the infrared heat signature of an explosion.
- Muromec 3y agorussia will throw in a hundred of bad faith arguments and outright ignore reality (no seismic signature, suuure) to mud the water, so be sceptical about everything anybody is saying about the whole thing. They even blew up the dam before and inflicted more casualties on themselves too, so “look who benefits“ isn’t reliable either
- maximinus_thrax 3y agoYes, this is their usual MO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
- thrway63245 3y agoAnd not just theirs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony Before you say "whataboutism": yes, I do know of this word you use to shut down your critical thinking.
- 3y ago
- m0llusk 3y agoSatellite photos show pretty clearly that the dam was allowed to overflow which caused the collapse. Russia didn't need explosives. Total irresponsibility, much like you are exhibiting now, was enough.
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago[flagged]
- dang 3y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37708129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37708129
- m0llusk 3y agoWhat is this garbage? Everyone knows that Russia was responsible because they were the only ones around. The consequences were obviously a disaster. Why are you lying?
- mcpackieh 3y agoCool your jets, there is no lying here. squidbeak knows Russia did it and is criticizing the headline for the passive voice "Dam disaster" which doesn't make the intentional nature of the disaster caused by Russia clear.
- meepmorp 3y ago> is criticizing the headline for the passive voice "Dam disaster" Because I love picking nits, that headline does not contain even a single instance of the passive voice.
- ivan_gammel 3y agoThe intentional nature of the disaster is not an established and proven fact. It suits Ukrainian narrative of painting everything that Russia does as yet another heinous genocidal act, but at least in some cases (including this one) negligence is also a plausible explanation (i.e. it could happen because of not paying enough attention to maintenance and stocking ammunition where it should not be) [1]. This of course does not remove responsibility from Russia: even if in a very unlikely scenario it was sabotaged by Ukraine as Russia claims, it would not happen if Russia has not invaded Ukraine. Still it is important to have an objective view on the events to make sure that real crimes get enough attention from the public and that proper investigation of the events is done. That said, given that we do not have yet a better understanding of what has happened, the headline is accurate enough and complaints about it look like pro-Ukrainian propaganda rather than an attempt to share the truth. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20230608002006/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/world/europe/ukraine-kakhovka-dam-russia.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230608002006/https://www.nytim...
- dang 3y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37708114 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37708114
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kergonath 3y agoAn intentional disaster is still a disaster. There is very little doubt that Russia blew it up, but it is still catastrophic.