Live data from Hacker News

A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

publicbooks.org

241–250 of 260 posts

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes, because what "wrongdoings" were exactly exposed with the full leaking of diplomatic cables for example? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cab... It mostly just embarrassed the US foreign ministry. I mean as a german I can live with that, but I fail to see Assange as a hero in this instance.

I'm not sure if you read the link you posted but I would consider the following wrongdoings: >The leaked cables revealed that diplomats of the U.S. and Britain eavesdropped on Secretary General Kofi Annan in the weeks before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, in apparent violation of international treaties prohibiting spying at the UN.[27][28] The intelligence information the diplomats were ordered to gather incl…

That was a open secret before, and there were surely other small things like this, the question is, why was it necessary to expose everything?

I remember when it leaked and I was curious, but my question remained, where are the real dark scandals?

Confirmation that US personal think "fuck the EU"? Hardly surprising, but not the meat that was promised.

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#242
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Also, How come ukraine has not won yet?. A better question to ask, is why has the "2nd most powerful military" on earth failing to capture a city <=300km from their own borders? and with there current rate of advancement will take all of Ukraine in ~30/40 years.

Keep in mind that USA is struggling to build and ship enough ammunitions…

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#243
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Also, How come ukraine has not won yet?. A better question to ask, is why has the "2nd most powerful military" on earth failing to capture a city <=300km from their own borders? and with there current rate of advancement will take all of Ukraine in ~30/40 years.

i wouldnt call russias military anywhere near "2nd most powerful", very very far from it.

but the reason is simply, russia isnt out to destroy ukraine as a mortal enemy, as such, there are huge limitations to what can be done, and ukraine has some advantages here. if russia wanted to, they could simply bomb ukraine to pieces, all over ukraine, if they wanted to. They clearly done

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#244
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, How come ukraine has not won yet?. A better question to ask, is why has the "2nd most powerful military" on earth failing to capture a city <=300km from their own borders? and with there current rate of advancement will take all of Ukraine in ~30/40 years.

i wouldnt call russias military anywhere near "2nd most powerful", very very far from it. but the reason is simply, russia isnt out to destroy ukraine as a mortal enemy, as such, there are huge limitations to what can be done, and ukraine has some advantages here. if russia wanted to, they could simply bomb ukraine to pieces, all over ukraine, if they wanted to. They clearly done

> but the reason is simply, russia isnt out to destroy ukraine as a mortal enemy, as such, there are huge limitations to what can be done, and ukraine has some advantages here. if russia wanted to, they could simply bomb ukraine to pieces, all over ukraine, if they wanted to. They clearly done

Have you seen what Bakhmut looks like?. Russia is totally out to wipe Ukraine off the map that is their entire intention just like how Grozny looked after the Russians rolled through.

The difference is they are wholly incapable of implementing what they want to do.

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#245
post #234
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is very clear even with the full context that at this point in the article they are referring to the delay of the book being published. The very next sentence states that there were multiple such examples of suppression over his career, indicating that "this act" was a specific one in a sequence of many.

I think that "this act" is poor editing. You cannot ignore the rest of the article.

Okay, well the article as written and interpreted using conventional english is inaccurate. Maybe what they meant to say would have been accurate.

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#246
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is very clear even with the full context that at this point in the article they are referring to the delay of the book being published. The very next sentence states that there were multiple such examples of suppression over his career, indicating that "this act" was a specific one in a sequence of many.

The act is the act of suppression, which they were involved in. They did not participate in the delay portion of the suppression, nor does it say they did.

It's not "the act" it's "this act" which they were not involved in. The article says they were involved in the delay, which is innaccurate. They may not have meant to say that, but that's what it says.

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#247
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i wouldnt call russias military anywhere near "2nd most powerful", very very far from it. but the reason is simply, russia isnt out to destroy ukraine as a mortal enemy, as such, there are huge limitations to what can be done, and ukraine has some advantages here. if russia wanted to, they could simply bomb ukraine to pieces, all over ukraine, if they wanted to. They clearly done

> but the reason is simply, russia isnt out to destroy ukraine as a mortal enemy, as such, there are huge limitations to what can be done, and ukraine has some advantages here. if russia wanted to, they could simply bomb ukraine to pieces, all over ukraine, if they wanted to. They clearly done Have you seen what Bakhmut looks like?. Russia is totally out to wipe Ukraine off the map that is their entire intention just…

i am not denying what bakhmut looks like, but are you suggesting they couldnt simply megabomb all major ukranian cities without any regard for what happens?

I dont buy your motives for what russia is doing. Also, supposing you are in a war, REGARLDESS of reasons, good or bad, what would you suggest happen when there is an active conflict? Now sure, you can say(and im not arguing that this would be wrong): "russia can just not invade ukraine", and then there would be no destruction at all. Thats true, but suppose the decision has been made, as it has, even if you dont intend to destroy for the sake of destruction, things are gonna be destroyed in a conflict, would you not agree?

now I for one would prefer the money the state steals from me does not go to fund that destruction. I do not like to be partly funding a proxy war with russia.

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#248
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the reason is simply, russia isnt out to destroy ukraine as a mortal enemy, as such, there are huge limitations to what can be done, and ukraine has some advantages here. if russia wanted to, they could simply bomb ukraine to pieces, all over ukraine, if they wanted to. They clearly done Have you seen what Bakhmut looks like?. Russia is totally out to wipe Ukraine off the map that is their entire intention just…

i am not denying what bakhmut looks like, but are you suggesting they couldnt simply megabomb all major ukranian cities without any regard for what happens? I dont buy your motives for what russia is doing. Also, supposing you are in a war, REGARLDESS of reasons, good or bad, what would you suggest happen when there is an active conflict? Now sure, you can say(and im not arguing that this would be wrong): "russia can…

> i am not denying what bakhmut looks like, but are you suggesting they couldnt simply megabomb all major ukranian cities without any regard for what happens?

Pretty much, Bakhmut is mostly due to artillery then anything else, I dont think they have enough missiles to reduce all cities in Ukraine to anything like that with missiles outside of using nukes, which instantly ends the Russian federation as a country itself.

> I dont buy your motives for what russia is doing. Also, supposing you are in a war, REGARLDESS of reasons, good or bad, what would you suggest happen when there is an active conflict? Now sure, you can say(and im not arguing that this would be wrong): "russia can just not invade ukraine", and then there would be no destruction at all. Thats true, but suppose the decision has been made, as it has, even if you dont intend to destroy for the sake of destruction, things are gonna be destroyed in a conflict, would you not agree?

You could not target civilian infrastructure on purpose, something that Russia continually does.

Why else would Russia lob missiles designed by the Soviet Union to take out aircraft carriers at malls in Kyiv?.

You could try your best not imitate the Nazis during WW2 when they where blitzing the British, but Russia seems incapable of rising above anything.

> now I for one would prefer the money the state steals from me does not go to fund that destruction. I do not like to be partly funding a proxy war with russia.

It's not funding its destruction, its funding its protection, this war would have happened regardless.

This war is not a proxy war but an imperialist war of conquest by Russia, the only thing stopping Russia from raping and torturing more Ukrainian men, women and children is the aid from the west.

This is before we get to the fact that aid to Ukraine currently makes up less then 10% of the American yearly military budget and most stuff they are getting is either getting phased out our old enough that it may be expiring.

Can you think of something better your tax dollars could go towards, you know instead of protecting foreign men, women and children from being raped, tortured and murdered by a imperialist country trying to conquer them?.

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#249
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much better thank you. > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/01/11/alina-lipp... but I don't understand how your claims hold up when this is one of the lines of the article. >> It is understood that there had been no warrant for her arrest.

I feel like you're trying to poke holes in other people's arguments, and not really engaging with an open mind. The straightforward answer is: you don't need a warrant to risk ending up in jail. I'm not a German jurist, but I believe that warrants are used if there's a risk that a suspect would commit violent crimes or alternatively if prosecution found someone guilty in absentia. For Alina Lipp, the prosecution just…

> Another more recent case, is Omali Yeshitela's

> https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/breaking-four-citizens...

> Four US citizens charged with working for Russia spy agency to interfere with elections

Wow talking about stretching for a story, ill accept that Steven's Dozinger is not a good look but to have to lower yourself to saying being jailed for espionage is being silenced is such a stretch im surprised you even brought it up, it weakens your argument more then including it strengthens it.

Re: A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

#250
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would think if it was inaccurate, the inaccuracy could be quoted from and pointed to. You do not do so. I see claims there is an inaccuracy there. I see people doing paraphrases and inventing conditionals and saying they are inaccurate. Which they are. But they're not the original text. It's pretty simple, quote some text and say why it is inaccurate. As there are no inaccuracies of the type mentioned, this does…

> But its 1946 debut reflected a delay of more than a decade by the country’s real dictators, who disrupted the novel’s genesis and sent its author into exile. And in this act of suppression, Asturias’s censors and exilers were aided by the US, specifically the CIA . It's in the first paragraph. Emphasis mine. How could the CIA have aided foreign dictators prior to its existence?

OSS, maybe?
Post reply on HN