Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Effort to Expose Russia’s ‘Troll Army’ Draws Vicious Retaliation

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 96 posts

Re: Effort to Expose Russia’s ‘Troll Army’ Draws Vicious Retaliation

#41

Post by Jerry2 »

TryAgainMaybe wrote: post #12
Jerry2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he likes him because they're both nationalists. Trump's view of the world is similar to his and Putin believes they can cooperate better. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, wants war with Russia. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/9/hillary-clint...

Hilary does not want war with Russia. I mean, really. Sigh. This website.

Try again. Hillary Clinton is the most pro-war, anti-Russia candidate on the Democrat side. She is more hawkish than even Ted Cruz was on the Republican side.

Here's an article by Jeffrey Sachs, director of Earth Institute at Columbia University, on The Huffington Post (a left leaning site) saying the same thing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-c...

Re: Effort to Expose Russia’s ‘Troll Army’ Draws Vicious Retaliation

#42

Post by kbenson »

woodandsteel wrote: post #21
mc32 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not as though for example, people in Hillary's team don't have connections to the nomenklatura. So I don't think those connections are especially illustrative of anything extraordinary.

Huh? You present that as something everyone knows, but I have never even heard anyone make the accusation. I may be wrong, but I am guessing you are following a standard Russian troll tactic. This is when someone makes an accusation, accuse the West or someone in it of the same thing. For instance, when someone says the Russian government is immensely corrupt, say there is corruption in the West, too. The goal is not…

> I may be wrong, but I am guessing you are following a standard Russian troll tactic...

There are ways to word this paragraph that both don't accuse the parent of trolling, and still get across the point that you don't think a specific bit of evidence is as damning as may have been implied, or if just unsupported. Do you really think accusations of trolling are really going to result in a more useful discussion?

Re: Effort to Expose Russia’s ‘Troll Army’ Draws Vicious Retaliation

#43

Post by DominikR »

wavefunction wrote: post #15
dijit wrote: post #4

In an effort to be entirely objective: disagreeing with a person is not trolling, and Russians do not agree with NATO- which makes sense given that NATO was orchestrated specifically against Russia. I can't help but pity them, it's like having a pit-bull in the corner that nobody loves because it defended them before in a savage way, so they keep putting up gates and fences and pushing it into solitude. I agree that…

So you exclude Crimea but what about Eastern Ukraine? I have no love lost for the scheming of Nuland and NATO and the rest of that cadre but Russia has some serious internal and foreign-facing issues. And that man you quoted wasn't really all that wise since you have no need to make peace with your friends.

Those people living in the Eastern Ukraine for generations identify themselves as Russians so of course they fight against a government that hates everything Russian and threatens them. On the other side of the border many Russians feel sympathy for them and send them all kinds of support, even weapons and volunteers.

It's very simple. The country is ethnically split and no side is going to allow the other to conduct an ethnic cleansing without a serious fight.

Re: Effort to Expose Russia’s ‘Troll Army’ Draws Vicious Retaliation

#44

Post by vetinari »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #33
aaronchall wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Russia occupied half of Europe, against the will of the countries occupied, for nearly 50 years. Good point. Seems like we forget this.

How would you define "against their will"? I mean, their representatives signed the Warsaw Pact without gun to their heads (however I'm aware about Hungary'56 and Chezhoslovakia'68) This isn't a fair argument. Imagine, tomorrow USA fails, a lot of its former allies get current marginal opposition in power. They'll line up telling how USA occupied them, did this and that against their will. And they'll be partially ri…

To expand on your point: It wasn't Russia who invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968. It was entire Warsaw pact. Or, almost entire. There was one country, that didn't take part: Romania. Out of the entire Warsaw pact only Ceaușescu's Romania had the backbone to not invade. Others, like GDR, Poland, Hungary, took their part voluntarily. (That's nothing new: Poland and Hungary attacked the rump Czechoslovakia in 1938 too. That's just expanding your second paragraph).

There is yet another twist - even for USSR, it wasn't Russia itself. It was USSR, which was comprised of many more countries at the time. The units that were in Czechoslovakia were Ukrainians. And before there are arguments, that they were commanded from Moscow, the head honcho at the time was Brezhnev, from Ukraine.

Re: Effort to Expose Russia’s ‘Troll Army’ Draws Vicious Retaliation

#45

Post by qrendel »

TryAgainMaybe wrote: post #12
Jerry2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he likes him because they're both nationalists. Trump's view of the world is similar to his and Putin believes they can cooperate better. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, wants war with Russia. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/9/hillary-clint...

Hilary does not want war with Russia. I mean, really. Sigh. This website.

Clinton is easily one of the most pro-war (meaning an aggressive and militaristic foreign policy) candidates since the end of Vietnam. Many sources on that but I'll link just two.[1][2] Her focus is primarily on Russia, as she openly stated during one of the Democratic debates (given a choice between Iran, Russia, and North Korea, she picked them as "the greatest threat"). The entire Syria thing is largely a proxy war with Russia.[3] She was the main voice that argued against the Pentagon and convinced Obama to get involved in Libya. Whether you want to call it neoconservativism, neoliberalism, neocolonialism, or just liberal internationalism, she is the leading champion for U.S. invasions and war across the world these days.[4][5]

[1] http://www.cato.org/blog/2016-presidential-candidate-interve...

[2] http://johnpilger.com/articles/silencing-america-as-it-prepa...

[3] http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-mil...

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons...

[5] http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/clintons-haw...

Re: Effort to Expose Russia’s ‘Troll Army’ Draws Vicious Retaliation

#46

Post by vetinari »

gaius wrote: post #22
TryAgainMaybe wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hilary does not want war with Russia. I mean, really. Sigh. This website.

You're half right. She wants war and doesn't care who with.

Even worse. She thinks that she can win.

Re: Effort to Expose Russia’s ‘Troll Army’ Draws Vicious Retaliation

#47

Post by KKKKkkkk1 »

dijit wrote: post #4

In an effort to be entirely objective: disagreeing with a person is not trolling, and Russians do not agree with NATO- which makes sense given that NATO was orchestrated specifically against Russia. I can't help but pity them, it's like having a pit-bull in the corner that nobody loves because it defended them before in a savage way, so they keep putting up gates and fences and pushing it into solitude. I agree that…

This article is not about disagreeing with Russia or about NATO, it's about people working for Russian special services harassing a Finnish journalist.

Re: Effort to Expose Russia’s ‘Troll Army’ Draws Vicious Retaliation

#49

Post by woodandsteel »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #33
aaronchall wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Russia occupied half of Europe, against the will of the countries occupied, for nearly 50 years. Good point. Seems like we forget this.

How would you define "against their will"? I mean, their representatives signed the Warsaw Pact without gun to their heads (however I'm aware about Hungary'56 and Chezhoslovakia'68) This isn't a fair argument. Imagine, tomorrow USA fails, a lot of its former allies get current marginal opposition in power. They'll line up telling how USA occupied them, did this and that against their will. And they'll be partially ri…

Except those were all non-democratic puppet governments the Soviet Union had installed after WWII. Or maybe you believe communism is a form of democracy?

Re: Effort to Expose Russia’s ‘Troll Army’ Draws Vicious Retaliation

#50

Post by sickbeard »

dijit wrote: post #4

In an effort to be entirely objective: disagreeing with a person is not trolling, and Russians do not agree with NATO- which makes sense given that NATO was orchestrated specifically against Russia. I can't help but pity them, it's like having a pit-bull in the corner that nobody loves because it defended them before in a savage way, so they keep putting up gates and fences and pushing it into solitude. I agree that…

I think you missed the point of the article or maybe some context. There is a theory out there that Russia employs paid internet trolls to push Russian propaganda on message boards and discussion forums like Reddit.
Post reply on HN