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

AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

thedailybeast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 125 posts

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#91

Post by kodyo »

kube-system wrote: post #45
kodyo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shitty reporting that supports your intelligence agency's agenda is pretty straight-forward fake news.

Have you read anything that the DoD says about this conflict? They very clearly do not want to get involved in this war first-hand. Nor would it make any sense for them to do so, the most selfish action here is to simply send weapons and let Ukraine do all the dirty work.

I agree. It is absolutely in the interest of the American government to have Ukrainians and Russians die, preferably through the use of American weapons. The fact that America and NATO have been supporting the war rather than pursuing peace seals the argument.

Any news story that keeps the good versus evil narrative going is desirable.

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#92

Post by ajross »

somenameforme wrote: post #81
ajross wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The same intelligence agencies that convinced the world Iraq had WMD could have simply agreed with the story/Zelensky/et al, declare anybody debating it to be a "conspiracy theorist promoting Russian misinformation/propaganda", invoke article 5, and away we go. But... they didn't. The people with the power put on their big boy pants and said "No, I don't think this is right", refused to engage with the outrage mach…

In wartime the cost for reporting false information can be catastrophic. And wartime is also when everybody has a very strong motivation to lie, and even some moral rationalizations for such. This news article put the US in a situation where the US had to say "our media is lying, our military ally is lying, our anonymous senior intelligence source is lying, and our enemy is telling the truth" or start WW3. The one an…

I'm always confused by arguments like that. The only way it works is if you assume bad faith (c.f. your six uses of the word "lie") on the part of everyone involved.

Isn't the much (!) simpler answer that the journalist had what he thought was a juicy scoop, the editors wanted to run it for clicks and eyeballs, and the system of checking and verification broke down. But that's just a mistake, and it happens everywhere in journalism. And it was corrected rapidly, by everyone involved.

You want this to be somehow morally different because of the "ZOMG WW3" situation, I guess? But I don't see how that works logically. People are going to make mistakes even in wartime, the question is if we trust folks in power to handle those mistakes correctly.

And, to repeat: people in power absolutely handled this responsibly. That's a good thing, not a bad thing, and I think we're much better off by rewarding that responsible use of power vs. screaming hyperbole.

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#93

Post by brookst »

foundajob wrote: post #68
moistly wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The root problem is that there is a troubled subset of our population who delight in smearing shit on the walls. We’ve all seen it in real life public toilets, in that literal fashion, but it also comes in the form of ratfucking, like Stone, and in QAnon-style promotion of crazy conspiracy theories, and in many variations in-between. They engage in acts of destruction against the public good; they are destroyers of p…

It sounds like you're saying that anybody who diverges from your status quo opinions is some sort of mental terrorist. Excuse me, "stochastic terrorist."

Thanks for illustrating both the problem and the reductionist rhetoric so popular by those invested in making things worse.

I imagine there are people out there who are fooled by the lazy syllogism "you're condemning those who make up lies for personal gain and nihilism / people who make up these lies are contradicting status quo opinions / therefore you are condemning anyone who says anything contrary to the status quo".

But to most of us that's so obviously fallacious that it feels dirty to even engage with.

Bring me evidence of democrats drinking infant blood in the basement of a pizza parlor and we'll talk. But don't tell me that I must accept such things because they are contrary to what every reasonable person believes. And don't tell me that I have to either accept or reject every contrarian opinion as a single proposition rather than considering each one individually.

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#94

Post by kube-system »

kodyo wrote: post #91
kube-system wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read anything that the DoD says about this conflict? They very clearly do not want to get involved in this war first-hand. Nor would it make any sense for them to do so, the most selfish action here is to simply send weapons and let Ukraine do all the dirty work.

I agree. It is absolutely in the interest of the American government to have Ukrainians and Russians die, preferably through the use of American weapons. The fact that America and NATO have been supporting the war rather than pursuing peace seals the argument. Any news story that keeps the good versus evil narrative going is desirable.

> It is absolutely in the interest of the American government to have Ukrainians and Russians die

It is in the US's interest for Russia to deplete their military capability, and for Ukraine to not become part of Russia.

> The fact that America and NATO have been supporting the war rather than pursuing peace seals the argument.

How does NATO "pursue peace" in a conflict they aren't a party to? What exactly do you think they should do? One side of this war has the unilateral power to end it, and it ain't NATO, the US, or Ukraine.

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#95

Post by maximinus_thrax »

throwawaymedia wrote: post #3
exabrial wrote: post #2

I’m glad cooler heads prevailed. A lesson for the rest of us to wait for facts and stop being outraged by everything the press throws at us. That being said, Russia still is shit; and we wouldn’t be in this situation if they weren’t attacking civilian infrastructure in an attempt to freeze Ukrainians to death.

What Russia is doing is the result of something else. That something else is the root cause of the war in Ukraine.

I agree with you. The root cause is the complete erosion of civil society in Russia, the failure of the state to create and maintain a democracy and the failure of the West to turn Russia into a North Korea early on, when everyone figured out that the gangsters are actually running the country.

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#96

Post by somenameforme »

kube-system wrote: post #94
kodyo wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. It is absolutely in the interest of the American government to have Ukrainians and Russians die, preferably through the use of American weapons. The fact that America and NATO have been supporting the war rather than pursuing peace seals the argument. Any news story that keeps the good versus evil narrative going is desirable.

> It is absolutely in the interest of the American government to have Ukrainians and Russians die It is in the US's interest for Russia to deplete their military capability, and for Ukraine to not become part of Russia. > The fact that America and NATO have been supporting the war rather than pursuing peace seals the argument. How does NATO "pursue peace" in a conflict they aren't a party to? What exactly do you thin…

If the US stops sending endless weapons and money to Ukraine, the war ends. If Ukraine agrees to concede the predominately ethnic Russian areas that Russia has occupied, the war ends. If Russia surrenders said territories to Ukraine, the war ends.

But nobody wants to concede anything. So the war will continue, undoubtedly with plentiful more opportunities to find ourselves in WW3.

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#97

Post by piva00 »

throwawaymedia wrote: post #89
piva00 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are Ukrainian, working and living in the US and supporting Russia? Very weird background story, basically unbelievable to be very honest...

I do not support Russia. But I do understand why Russia is doing what they are doing. There is a logical chain of events that led to the conflict. I do strongly support the idea that the US is the core issue here. Unfortunately, the US is not a free speech country. I'm not allowed to share "incorrect" opinion, which is why I use a throwaway account. I have more than 15 YoE and work at Google–pay a shit ton of taxes d…

> There is a logical chain of events that led to the conflict.

No, there's theorising by John Mearsheimer which you subscribe to. It's an ideology of realpolitik/offensive realism, I've read it, I've watched it, I know what you mean and that's just a take, a view on the situation, please be mindful of that.

Or even worse, you are subscribing to Putinism, you are validating Putin. And saying you are Ukrainian, what the actual fuck? Stop hiding behind that throw away and deceiving us, like I told you before: it's boring and tiresome.

And still, you don't fucking expand anywhere on your "logical sequence of events". I asked before for you to expand on it and you didn't do it. Worse, you tried using that bizarre sequence of pseudo-rhetorical questions to drive no argument in the end. You are not participating in any discussion...

> Unfortunately, the US is not a free speech country. I'm not allowed to share "incorrect" opinion, which is why I use a throwaway account.

What the actual fuck? You're absolutely free to say whatever you want, you aren't free of the consequences of said speech.

You are not being persecuted, your views are, accept that just like I accept mine to be challenged and do not hide behind a throw away like a coward.

Like, you don't even comprehend what free speech actually means and think you are equipped enough to have not only a political opinion that's being regurgitated from somewhere else, but also that this opinion is the holier than thou one, where it's better because you thought of it. When you didn't even came up with your reasoning, you are copycatting it and not even completely because you can't even start to expose your argumentation.

Get off your high horse, you are being incredibly shallow in your argumentation. I don't care how much taxes you pay, or that you work at some Google-like place with Google-like pay, none of that is even close to relevant to any of the arguments you are trying to shove into this discussion...

Are you angry that your taxes go to war? Boo-fucking-hoo, you live in the US, you chose to continue living there due to higher paying salaries and so on, for that you need to also accept the other facet of your country: it's a hyper-militaristic power and due to that you have the privilege of being well paid, your taxes are funding exactly what enables the US to be the superpower it is.

You can't have the cake and eat it too. If you live in the US your taxes will very likely always be funding some war.

And you are angry about funding a war against an oppressor? Against a regime explicitly calling for the genocide against the people of Ukraine? A state explicitly saying that another state doesn't exist and trying to annex it. Against a real adversary of your country, which has been bled dry by peanuts of spending. That's fucking rich... It's one of the best investments your country has done for its own foreign policy. That's probably one of the wars where the US is actually on the good side of it, fighting for what's morally right.

Seriously look inside yourself and what you are spewing, it makes absolutely no logical sense that you hold all these views at the same time, it's a hodge-podge of idiotic reasoning. And it's disgusting.

I thought FAANG was supposed to hire mostly smart people, guess I was wrong.

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#98

Post by duxup »

somenameforme wrote: post #96
kube-system wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is absolutely in the interest of the American government to have Ukrainians and Russians die It is in the US's interest for Russia to deplete their military capability, and for Ukraine to not become part of Russia. > The fact that America and NATO have been supporting the war rather than pursuing peace seals the argument. How does NATO "pursue peace" in a conflict they aren't a party to? What exactly do you thin…

If the US stops sending endless weapons and money to Ukraine, the war ends. If Ukraine agrees to concede the predominately ethnic Russian areas that Russia has occupied, the war ends. If Russia surrenders said territories to Ukraine, the war ends. But nobody wants to concede anything. So the war will continue, undoubtedly with plentiful more opportunities to find ourselves in WW3.

Why should the Ukrainians want to concede?

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#99

Post by _kbh_ »

somenameforme wrote: post #96
kube-system wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is absolutely in the interest of the American government to have Ukrainians and Russians die It is in the US's interest for Russia to deplete their military capability, and for Ukraine to not become part of Russia. > The fact that America and NATO have been supporting the war rather than pursuing peace seals the argument. How does NATO "pursue peace" in a conflict they aren't a party to? What exactly do you thin…

If the US stops sending endless weapons and money to Ukraine, the war ends. If Ukraine agrees to concede the predominately ethnic Russian areas that Russia has occupied, the war ends. If Russia surrenders said territories to Ukraine, the war ends. But nobody wants to concede anything. So the war will continue, undoubtedly with plentiful more opportunities to find ourselves in WW3.

> But nobody wants to concede anything. So the war will continue, undoubtedly with plentiful more opportunities to find ourselves in WW3.

Giving in to the nuclear and other blackmail that Russia uses will never get lasting peace.

All it will do is get Russia to invade again in the future. You only need to see, Moldova, Georgia, Crimea, and Donbas to see this.

The only real peace for this war is a peace where Russia retreats entirely from Ukraine, militarily defeated and it becomes clear to Russia that any future invasion will be met with an even stronger force.

Otherwise the little green men will keep appearing and the Russians will keep invading countries.

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#100

Post by _kbh_ »

throwawaymedia wrote: post #88
piva00 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to expand on your points, please be clear and expand on them. Asking me to answer rhetorical questions as some kind of bizarre argumentation mechanism is tiresome and clearly against the kind of discussions I expect to be fostered on Hacker News. Either do your own work and expand your argumentation so myself and others can properly reply or stop with this bullshit, it's boring to have to interact with th…

I intentionally asked you these questions so that you could answer the main question by yourself. Russia has always been reluctant to NATO–the expansion was one of the main topics post-USSR crash. Munich, 2007-Putin gives a massive speech on NATO. In the speech Putin blames the US on the expansion and clearly states that NATO is not welcomed next to the borders of Russia. He asks the west an important question: "sinc…

> I can keep going and going, but at the end of the day the core problem is NATO

Ah yes the core problem is the defensive alliance, not the country that continually attempts to annex and invade post soviet states.

> This is a proxy war started by the US.

Ah yes I keep forgetting the US forced Russia to invade and then after that they even forced Russia to rape and torture Ukrainian children.

My only question for you is how can you support this war given the countless documented and even caught on video atrocities that the Russians commit?.

Post reply on HN