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

Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

harpers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 355 posts

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#341

Post by taskforcegemini »

shp0ngle wrote: post #268
calibas wrote: post #57

There's authoritarianism, where government knows what's best for everyone and keeps secrets to "protect" its citizens. Then there's democracy, where the government is open and honest so the people can make informed decisions on how best to run their government. In my opinion, one of the best ways of identifying an authoritarian is to ask them their opinions on Snowden or Assange.

Isn't Putin nowadays for Assange and definitely for Snowden? This is a stupid test.

Putin has done much worse things to people who did less than what Snowden, Manning or Assange did. Regarding Snowden, Putin is just being opportunistic.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#342

Post by _kbh_ »

kornhole wrote: post #340
_kbh_ wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wars end through peace agreements. Deliberately preventing them is what war mongers do. How can you make a peace agreement with a country that doesn't follow its own agreements?. Russia already promised decades ago to never violate the territorial integrity of Ukraine way before 2014 and that ended up not being worth the paper it was written on.

If you are referring to the Minsk agreement, the Kiev government was supposed to stop attacking the Donbas and allow them to be independent within Ukraine. The western Ukrainians continued to shell them and killed over 14,000 citizens. So it was Ukraine who broke the agreement.

> If you are referring to the Minsk agreement, the Kiev government was supposed to stop attacking the Donbas and allow them to be independent within Ukraine. The western Ukrainians continued to shell them and killed over 14,000 citizens. So it was Ukraine who broke the agreement.

Im referring to the Budapest memorandum, where Ukraine gave up thousands of nuclear weapons and their long range strike capability in exchange for security guarantees from multiple states (including Russia). These guarantees were the following.

> Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[7]

> Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.

> Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

> Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.

>Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[8][9]

This all happened in 1994, Russia violated this agreement when they initially invaded Ukraine in 2014.

So I once again ask, why should Ukraine believe any agreement with Russia will last, when they already had one that had them giving up their nuclear deterrence and Russia just decided one day that it didn't matter?.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#343

Post by dontlaugh »

_kbh_ wrote: post #342
kornhole wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are referring to the Minsk agreement, the Kiev government was supposed to stop attacking the Donbas and allow them to be independent within Ukraine. The western Ukrainians continued to shell them and killed over 14,000 citizens. So it was Ukraine who broke the agreement.

> If you are referring to the Minsk agreement, the Kiev government was supposed to stop attacking the Donbas and allow them to be independent within Ukraine. The western Ukrainians continued to shell them and killed over 14,000 citizens. So it was Ukraine who broke the agreement. Im referring to the Budapest memorandum, where Ukraine gave up thousands of nuclear weapons and their long range strike capability in excha…

Something else happened first in 2014: a coup to replace the elected president with a NATO-friendly one that talked about NATO nukes.

It was also largely led by fascists which were later absorbed into the official state army, most famously the Azov Battalion. It also involved the murder of trade unionists in Odesa and the beginning of the cleansing of ethnic Russians in Ukraine.

There are no good states involved in any of this. None of them care about the majority of people in any of the involved territories, who would benefit only from peace.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#344

Post by _kbh_ »

dontlaugh wrote: post #343
_kbh_ wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you are referring to the Minsk agreement, the Kiev government was supposed to stop attacking the Donbas and allow them to be independent within Ukraine. The western Ukrainians continued to shell them and killed over 14,000 citizens. So it was Ukraine who broke the agreement. Im referring to the Budapest memorandum, where Ukraine gave up thousands of nuclear weapons and their long range strike capability in excha…

Something else happened first in 2014: a coup to replace the elected president with a NATO-friendly one that talked about NATO nukes. It was also largely led by fascists which were later absorbed into the official state army, most famously the Azov Battalion. It also involved the murder of trade unionists in Odesa and the beginning of the cleansing of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. There are no good states involved in a…

> There are no good states involved in any of this. None of them care about the majority of people in any of the involved territories, who would benefit only from peace.

I think the state that invaded is the bad one, after all, they are the ones who solely took action that has resulted in many thousands of Ukrainian civilians, including children dying.

But honestly? your response is just more evidence that peace cannot be had with an agreement, you just unilaterally ignored that Russia promised they would not invade.

So why again should Ukraine trust anything Russia puts in agreement they will throw out whenever its convenient again?.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#345

Post by dontlaugh »

_kbh_ wrote: post #344
dontlaugh wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something else happened first in 2014: a coup to replace the elected president with a NATO-friendly one that talked about NATO nukes. It was also largely led by fascists which were later absorbed into the official state army, most famously the Azov Battalion. It also involved the murder of trade unionists in Odesa and the beginning of the cleansing of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. There are no good states involved in a…

> There are no good states involved in any of this. None of them care about the majority of people in any of the involved territories, who would benefit only from peace. I think the state that invaded is the bad one, after all, they are the ones who solely took action that has resulted in many thousands of Ukrainian civilians, including children dying. But honestly? your response is just more evidence that peace cann…

Asking for NATO nukes and killing ethnic Russians is breaching the same agreement later breached by invasion. Why would anyone trust the Ukrainian state either?

And yet states that don’t trust each either enough to be at war still manage to negotiate peace, historically. The US preventing negotiation just prolongs this war that benefits the US.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#346

Post by apercu »

boffinAudio wrote: post #325
apercu wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I find both of these things true: People in government positions in the US and UK abused their power. Julian Assange is not a good, or honest person.

So you'll only accept evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and then take action about it within the context of your own democratic processes , if you get that evidence from a good and/or honest person ? Because honestly, this just keeps the door open for more crimes. Rarely is anyone ever good enough or honest enough - and neither of those conditions are required for addressing our heinous crimes again…

Where did I say any of that?

War crimes are a serious problem, of course. But it's also quite possible that Assange's distribution of Russian propaganda affected elections in multiple countries and allowed for Russian human rights violations in Africa and Syria.

So you'll only accept evidence of war crimes if they are committed by the US?

And yes, I know you didn't write that but it's just as fair of a characterization as the one you provided.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#347

Post by [deleted] »

phphphphp wrote: post #128
kerkeslager wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truth is a narrative. Not all narratives are true, but calling something a narrative doesn't in any way disprove it. Would you like to actually call out anything in Collateral Murder that you think wasn't exposing the truth? I'm old enough to remember Collateral Murder. I'm old enough to remember it's video footage. Of members of the US military murdering people, and laughing about it. You can't dismiss that as "…

I make no claim that collateral murder did not represent a war crime, I make no claim that the release of collateral murder was a bad thing, rather, I am claiming that Julian Assange was never a noble person releasing leaked footage to expose the truth, he was a political performer, creating the narrative that he wanted to create, using leaks as props. Julian Assange had no loyalty to the truth (as has been shown in…

[deleted]

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#348

Post by kerkeslager »

apercu wrote: post #320
phphphphp wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make no claim that collateral murder did not represent a war crime, I make no claim that the release of collateral murder was a bad thing, rather, I am claiming that Julian Assange was never a noble person releasing leaked footage to expose the truth, he was a political performer, creating the narrative that he wanted to create, using leaks as props. Julian Assange had no loyalty to the truth (as has been shown in…

Agreed. I find both of these things true: People in government positions in the US and UK abused their power. Julian Assange is not a good, or honest person.

> Julian Assange is not a good, or honest person.

Good is subjective.

Honest, on the other hand is not, and if you're going to say he's not honest I'd like to see your evidence for that.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#349

Post by kerkeslager »

phphphphp wrote: post #128
kerkeslager wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truth is a narrative. Not all narratives are true, but calling something a narrative doesn't in any way disprove it. Would you like to actually call out anything in Collateral Murder that you think wasn't exposing the truth? I'm old enough to remember Collateral Murder. I'm old enough to remember it's video footage. Of members of the US military murdering people, and laughing about it. You can't dismiss that as "…

I make no claim that collateral murder did not represent a war crime, I make no claim that the release of collateral murder was a bad thing, rather, I am claiming that Julian Assange was never a noble person releasing leaked footage to expose the truth, he was a political performer, creating the narrative that he wanted to create, using leaks as props. Julian Assange had no loyalty to the truth (as has been shown in…

> I make no claim that collateral murder did not represent a war crime

Well, that's quite a change from: "Those of us old enough to remember their original releases (like “Collateral Murder”) remember that wikileaks was always about building a narrative rather than exposing the truth."

So you admit leaking Collateral Murder was about exposing the truth? A truth which was a war crime? It seems like maybe you made a vague accusation you couldn't back up specifically there.

> Julian Assange had no loyalty to the truth (as has been shown in the years since) and cares only for the “truth” when it’s favourable to whatever agenda he has at the point in time.

Make a real accusation instead of being vague. If Assange's lack of loyalty to the truth has been shown, I haven't seen it, so please, tell us what evidence you have. Otherwise, this is just another vague accusation that you'll shift away from when confronted for specifics.

If you're going to claim Assange is dishonest, I'd like to see a) evidence he knowingly leaked false information, or b) evidence he knowingly withheld true information. Be specific, stop this vague handwaving.

Re: Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

#350

Post by _kbh_ »

dontlaugh wrote: post #345
_kbh_ wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are no good states involved in any of this. None of them care about the majority of people in any of the involved territories, who would benefit only from peace. I think the state that invaded is the bad one, after all, they are the ones who solely took action that has resulted in many thousands of Ukrainian civilians, including children dying. But honestly? your response is just more evidence that peace cann…

Asking for NATO nukes and killing ethnic Russians is breaching the same agreement later breached by invasion. Why would anyone trust the Ukrainian state either? And yet states that don’t trust each either enough to be at war still manage to negotiate peace, historically. The US preventing negotiation just prolongs this war that benefits the US.

> killing ethnic Russians is breaching the same agreement later breached by invasion.

This provision is not in the Budapest memorandum so that’s just plainly false.

> Asking for NATO nukes

I’ve not seen any evidence that Ukraine asked for NATO nukes could you provide some?.

> And yet states that don’t trust each either enough to be at war still manage to negotiate peace, historically.

Historically Russia creates conflicts freezes them and then starts them again once they rearm.

So what’s different this time?, the answer is nothing, if we allow Russia to continue they won’t stop doing this.

So in reality there’s only one solution, the forcible ejection of Russian forces from all of Ukraine.

Post reply on HN