I have never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews.
And yet, in his taped comments he said exactly that:
“There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. Covid-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,” Mr. Kennedy said at a private gathering in New York that was captured on videotape by The New York Post. “Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”
Of course then he got "caught" and tried to pretend not to have said what he just got caught saying.
But there's no wiggling out of it. Try as he may to do so.
Chinese military officials have stated outright that ethnically targeted bioweapons are important for the future of China's military development. Kennedy is saying that countries around the world are working on this technology and that "there is an argument" for what you said. These all seem like factual claims to me that can be verified by citing papers and speeches. If any of this is wrong why not just fact check him?
Here's a video talking about China's genetic bioweapon program:
There are more speeches available online of Chinese officials talking about these kinds of weapons, I'm happy to dig more up.
A: he also said Chinese people were more resistant, but the only part you care about is the jewish part, why?
B: It is obvious that his intent is not hateful, there is nothing in that sentence that denotes hatefulness.
The vehemency with which he is being attacked makes it kind of obvious that he poses a real threat to the political establishment and that attaching the classic pejorative labels "antisemite", "bigot", "racist", etc are a tactic to stop him. The more you try to obviously censor people like this, the more obvious it becomes how authoritarian the left has become.
"Colonel Guo Ji-wei, The People’s Liberation Army, China"
"If we acquire a target’s genome and proteome information, including those of ethnic groups or individuals, we could design a vulnerating agent that attacks only key enemies without doing any harm to ordinary people."
He was referencing this study [0] by the Cleveland Clinic (the second most prestigious medical research institution in the US) which states exactly that.
He didn't get "caught", nor did he try to pretend not to have said it. That is pure dis-information.
Why do most if not all criticisms of RFK Jr, resort to such easily debunked ad-hominem attacks instead of genuine attempts to refute his arguments? Is it simply that ad-hominem attacks are the last bastion of one with no valid arguments to make?
The thing is he doesn't just "reference" the paper - he takes it out of context to suggest that it "serves as a kind of proof of concept for ethnically targeted bioweapons" (something the paper doesn't say at all, and which no researcher in the field would support). Alongside unsupported claims that the US and other governments are developing such weapons.
Of course he's also hedging, and talking out of both side of his mouth. It's a classic innuendo technique, and you fell for it.
"Alongside unsupported claims that the US and other governments are developing such weapons."
Although not widely reported in the media, I would stop short at arguing these claims of ethnically targeted bio-weapons are unsupported. See my comment further down where I provide multiple sources to back the claims of US funded bioweapons labs that Russia brought to the UN in 2022 - and which the US denied at the time - only to sheepishly admit to earlier this year, that the US was funding 46 Bio (weapons) labs in the Ukraine, many along Russia's border.
Again, the first casualty of war is the truth - applies to both sides.
Tell me you understand that the US government - the one that lied to America and the world to justify their invasion of Iraq not once but twice (Iraq1: killing babies in incubators, Iraq2: Weapons of Mass Destruction), might not be telling the whole truth to justify this war either.
The technology for DNA targeted bio-weapons is widely known to be in the wild. Our own intelligence community has already highlighted the risks to Americans [0] I would say it is rather naive to think that neither we nor our adversaries would be developing them just in case the other side does.
Also, we now know that despite the Obama-era ban on bio-weapons research, Anthony Fauci was secretly funding gain-of-function research on COVID viruses with the covert knowledge of the US military up until, checks notes, YESTERDAY. [1]
Just because you didn't hear about it on CNN, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
"Zhang Shibo (张仕波), a retired general and former president of the National Defense University, who concludes: “Modern biotechnology development is gradually showing strong signs characteristic of an offensive capability,” including the possibility that “specific ethnic genetic attacks” (特定种族基因攻击) could be employed."
"Colonel Guo Ji-wei, The People’s Liberation Army, China"
"If we acquire a target’s genome and proteome information, including those of ethnic groups or individuals, we could design a vulnerating agent that attacks only key enemies without doing any harm to ordinary people."
> Although not widely reported in the media, I would stop short at arguing these claims of ethnically targeted bio-weapons are unsupported. See my comment further down where I provide multiple sources to back the claims of US funded bioweapons labs that Russia brought to the UN in 2022 - and which the US denied at the time - only to sheepishly admit to earlier this year, that the US was funding 46 Bio (weapons) labs in the Ukraine, many along Russia's border.
The US has never admitted to funding bio weapons labs in Ukraine because it never happened.
They fund bio research labs that keep track of viruses and other pathogens to try and get a head start on when another pandemic/issue starts.
"The US has never admitted to funding bio weapons labs in Ukraine because it never happened."
That is true, however when Russia first raised concerns about US-funded bioweapons labs in 2022, the US denied the existence of any US-funded labs in the Ukraine. Only later, and begrudgingly they did admit to funding 46 biolabs in the Ukraine, without clarifying what was being developed there or ever denying that they were bioweapons labs at all.
For the US intelligence community to finally admit the existence of 46 US-funded biolabs in the Ukraine and specifically not deny they were bioweapons labs, is unfortunately as close to an admission as we are ever going to get.
You may remember that the US has never once admitted that they (Colin Powell et al) knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when they made that claim in front of the United Nations. I think we all know by now that they were lying then, and - call me crazy - but I believe if they have a history of lying to the public to agitate for war in the past, it is quite possible they are lying now.
"They fund bio research labs that keep track of viruses and other pathogens to try and get a head start on when another pandemic/issue starts."
Remember the US, under Fauci, secretly funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan China, for years. And we continued to fund that research until it was announced, yesterday, July 18th 2023 that we would stop. [0]
Please help me understand what are the legitimate non-military use-cases for funding gain-of-function research to up-level bat viruses so they will infect (and sometimes kill) humans?
And also, Saddam Hussein most certainly had weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq so well that we simply couldn't find them after taking over his entire country. It is simply not true the the US made up their claim of WMD to justify an unjust war of aggression in violation of the Geneva Conventions and UN declarations. /s
And also, there is simply no way to know who brought cocaine into the Whitehouse a few weeks ago, but it super-duper for sure wasn't Hunter Biden - no way Hosé. We know that for sure. Trust us (wink) /s
> For the US intelligence community to finally admit the existence of 46 US-funded biolabs in the Ukraine and specifically not deny they were bioweapons labs, is unfortunately as close to an admission as we are ever going to get.
This is drawing a conclusion with literally no evidence.
You are taking an absence of evidence and trying to draw conclusions from that.
> Please help me understand what are the legitimate non-military use-cases for funding gain-of-function research to up-level bat viruses so they will infect (and sometimes kill) humans?
Like the rest of gain of function research, which is designed to try and predict how viruses will evolve and help us create ways and vaccines that will combat those evolutions before they happen in the wild.
> And also, there is simply no way to know who brought cocaine into the Whitehouse a few weeks ago, but it super-duper for sure wasn't Hunter Biden - no way Hosé. We know that for sure. Trust us (wink)
Random conjecture completely irrelevant to the conversation but when you have no solid argument I guess the best you can do is through shit at the wall to see what sticks.
The way you write threads by not quoting the actual response is super annoying and seems to actually require more effort then not doing it.
So it'd be better for everyone if you could just comment normally instead of randomly messing up the comment tree for no reason.
> The way you write threads by not quoting the actual response is super annoying and seems to actually require more effort then not doing it.
Thanks, that feedback is actually really helpful. I don't engage in long discussions on HN regularly so wasn't aware that quoting with a \> was an option. Corrected now and going forward.
>> For the US intelligence community to finally admit the existence of 46 US-funded biolabs in the Ukraine and specifically not deny they were bioweapons labs, is unfortunately as close to an admission as we are ever going to get.
> This is drawing a conclusion with literally no evidence.
Speaking frankly, this is the intelligence community (CIA, NSA, FBI etc) we are talking about here. They have not been a great example of government transparancy so based on their historical track record, I don't believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
For example, we now know that they were lying about the mere presence of the 46 biolabs in the first place. Why shouldn't we draw conclusions from their very loud non-denial that those labs were used, at least in part, for covert or military purposes, given that we know from US intelligence warnings [0] that other countries may be developing bio-weapons targeting Americans based on their DNA. Do we really think with all the US military funding that we wouldn't have a program, considering that our adversaries do? I think that would be extremely naive.
>> Please help me understand what are the legitimate non-military use-cases for funding gain-of-function research to up-level bat viruses so they will infect (and sometimes kill) humans?
> Like the rest of gain of function research, which is designed to try and predict how viruses will evolve and help us create ways and vaccines that will combat those evolutions before they happen in the wild.
No doubt we also do gain of function for those use cases, but per my point above, I think it is extremely naïve to think we don't have bio-weapons at least equal to our most advanced adversaries.
>> And also, there is simply no way to know who brought cocaine into the Whitehouse a few weeks ago, but it super-duper for sure wasn't Hunter Biden - no way Hosé. We know that for sure. Trust us (wink)
> Random conjecture completely irrelevant to the conversation but when you have no solid argument I guess the best you can do is through shit at the wall to see what sticks.
Again, this is, IMO, an extremely naïve take. With Whitehouse security being what it is, with Hunter Biden's past being what it is, with the very loud-silence coming from the WH press correspondent when asked to confirm or deny that it belonged to a member of the WH inner circle - I find it very suspicious that the investigation so quickly led to multiple conflicting stories, followed by a very rapid decision to end the investigation with no suspects. We can agree to disagree, but I think the majority of the American public finds this whole escapade extremely suspicious knowing the contents of Hunter's notorious laptop.
Look, I don't have time to go down these rabbit holes with you. I'd just like you to consider one the following:
Yes, the Iraq invasion thoroughly evil and insane and stupid, and probably illegal. And yes, it was driven by preposterous, bald-faced lies from the start. Including lies about WMD and bioweapons and such.
Fast-forward 20 years: the Russians are telling the exact same kind of lies with regard to its (no less evil, insane, stupid and illegal) invasion of Ukraine; including lies about bioweapons and WMD -- yet even more cheaply and transparently so (using photoshopped slides no less) -- and you're just eating it up, like it's a box o' chocolates.
You're really very naive.
Just because you didn't hear about it on CNN
I never watch CNN. And if you think that anyone who doesn't buy into your narratives, therefore, does -- then you're definitely living in a bubble.
Since "Western" Europe now includes Poland, the Baltics, Moldova and Finland - perhaps you can answer that question for us.
For extra credit: which "Western" country did Russia sign an active military alliance with -- and not only join it invading one of the above countries; but march together with its troops in victory parades, afterwards?
Edit: I took a closer look, and it turns out that you've been posting abusively to HN for quite some time and using the site primarily for battle and flamewar. I've therefore banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
--- original comment below ---
I understand that these are passion-activating topics and that a war is being fought over them right now. Still, it's not ok to take HN threads into hellish flamewars, so please don't do this here.
HN is for curious conversation on topics of intellectual interest. That requires thoughtfulness, respect for others, and even a certain playfulness. If you're not in that state about a topic, please don't post on that topic for the time being.
All I can say, dan (and knowing this won't change your action): this wasn't my intent.
You've got some straight-up trolls running around, posting blatantly pernicious nonsense in regard to these topics -- obviously without sincere intent, simply to push buttons.
Mixed with some merely woefully naive and/or highly obstinate folks, posting basically noise (wildly inaccurate narratives about extremely basic historical matters or recent events).
If there is a better strategy or tone to use for countering this kind of negative behavior -- I wish I knew what it was.
In my experience, internet commenters are far too quick to assume that others are pernicious trolls without sincere intent. This is basically a Russell conjugation.
Once you've framed the other that way, it's easy to feel that you no longer need to follow the rules—since if the other person is pernicious and insincere, they should obviously just be annihilated.
This is how we end up in the flamewar situation where we end up having to ban accounts. Since everyone is following this logic, everyone is trying to annihilate the other. From an outside point of view, the interesting thing is how similarly all the parties are behaving, even as they perceive each other as enemies and opposites.
By far the better strategy is to resist this temptation altogether—to look for interpretations of the other as not pernicious or insincere, but rather sincere and legitimate—and then to try to meet them respectfully. This is a massively more effective way to go about it, and also won't get you banned here.
"And how did Russia come to "own" the peninsula again?"
By fighting the Ottoman Empire and their protectorate -- the remains of the Golden Horde known as Crimean Khanate [0]. The last was busy raiding Russia and selling captured slaves to Ottomans [1]. The Golden Horde, in case you don't know, is itself one the remains of the Mongol Empire.
"What happened to its original inhabitants?"
Scythians [2] and Tauri [3] were assimilated by Sarmatians and later were partly destroyed and party assimilated by Goths. Why did you ask?
"Which treaty"
It looks like you are asking in bad faith and already know the answer. When circumstances change treaties become obsolete. Ever heard of Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, for example? [4]
> It looks like you are asking in bad faith and already know the answer. When circumstances change treaties become obsolete. Ever heard of Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, for example? [4]
Sweet so since the Budapest memorandum is out we can start rearming Ukraine with nukes after the war.
I'll bet be the US will never do it. They pushed the Ukraine to disarm for a reason and that reason still stands -- no one wants them selling warheads to the highest bidder.
> I'll bet be the US will never do it. They pushed the Ukraine to disarm for a reason and that reason still stands -- no one wants them selling warheads to the highest bidder.
The reason was to try and stop nuclear proliferation, not whatever made up reason your coming with today.
But Ukraine doesn't need Americas approval to make nuclear weapons they are more than capable of making them themselves.
They should also never sign another treaty with Russia ever, as clearly Russia just makes treaties "obsolete" when it benefits them.
Russia has always been unreliable partner I guess thats why they will only understand force in Ukraine.
Probably because you keep neglecting to mention, for some strange reason, the ethnic group that made up some 90 percent of the population the peninsula at the time of the (not so peaceful) 1783 annexation. Let alone what, specifically, happened to them in the summer of '44.
And how obscenely ridiculous it is, as a result -- to say that the peninsula was "Russian for 200 years" prior to the 1955 transfer.
ABM
Except the US didn't just thumb their noses at, and start violating willy-nilly (like Russia did with the 1994 treaty you are so hesitant to name). Rather - it had an opt-out clause which Bush chose to enact, giving the required 6 months notice.
No more obscenely ridiculous than saying that the US exists for 200 years. Ever heard of Native Americans who inhabited the North America?
Crimea was conquered by Russia, not by the Ukraine which didn't even exists as a state at that time, and Russia was busy building cities there and in all of Novorossiya.
"not so peaceful"
Why would it be peaceful? Crimean Khanate was raiding Russia and capturing slaves for centuries. Didn't end well for them.
"Except"
I didn't say it's equivalent, just an example of a treaty outliving its utility for one of the parties.
Crimean Tatars were deported by Stalin, many died in the process, and in the late 80s they and their descendants returned back to Crimea. It was a case of collective punishment for collaboration with Nazis of some of Crimean Tatars and has been many times officially condemned both in the USSR and Russia just like other acts of collective punishment by Stalin. All of it is well known.
And if you think Russia had or has the goal of eliminating the Ukrainian people, reason and debate cannot reach you anymore.
О боже, нет. Not all of them. Just those few thousand or soon the "kill or capture" lists that were carefully prepared before the invasion. Along with anyone who refused to dig trenches, or to answer in Russian when spoken to, or otherwise showed anything less than the highest respect for the liberating forces during the special operation.
Or who were stupid and treacherous enough to have hid in that theater basement in Mariupol. When they should have been out in the streets, protesting against their Nazi occupiers. And welcoming their liberators with bread and salt.
The rest were meant for eternal subjugation: annexed to the Motherland and forcibly Russified, if they lived in predominantly Russian-speaking regions (and most likely a few buffer regions for good measure, and Kyiv itself). Those living in the Western regions would have to contend with living either in an outright vassal state, and/or one with limited sovereignty -- i.e. Finlandization but with much stronger "security guarantees" to Moscow.
What was scheduled for elimination was the very idea of Ukraine, and within the liberated regions, any expression of the vulgar, degenerate "Little Russian" language (is it even a langauge?) and culture (if we can even call it that), beyond a highly marginalized "kitchen" status.
Per all the things the current Tsar and his helpers have been saying, in the years leading up to the invasion. And of course what is currently happening in the liberated regions, as we speak.
Suffering would have ended a long time ago.
Suffering for the so-called victim would have ended long ago - if she would just lay back and yield to her suitor's perfectly natural and understandable wishes.
For the vast majority of Ukrainians life would have resumed its normal course.
Indeed - she might as well just relax, sit back - and enjoy the ride.
Absurdly strained metaphor that betrays a profound ignorance of matters of state and war in general and of the current geopolitical situation in particular.
Let me repeat once more: I have not called on Ukrainians to lay down their arms, however counterproductive their fight may be. I also understand the hard feelings.
But that’s not what’s at issue here. The situation we find ourselves in is the West fighting a proxy war against Russia. It was very much not the intention of Russia to get into such a fight, they made that clear. But the West smelled blood in the water and here we are. And I don’t expect perfect justice but we will pay for that.
In terms of materiel, the original Ukrainian armed forces are all but gone. The second, post-Soviet army they got is also mostly gone. The third and final army of Western gear is getting ground up good right now[0]. 20% in a month and that’s just what they are admitting.
There will be no fourth iteration. Either the West does the formerly unthinkable and drops the “proxy”, or, more likely, Ukrainians will find out what all those who once considered themselves friends of the US eventually found out: “He didn’t love me. I got used.”
As a consequence, after 17 months of bitter fighting, there is indeed a good chance that Ukraine (at least as we know it) will cease to exist.
I have not called on Ukrainians to lay down their arms.
Right - it would be impolitic to say this directly.
What you are doing instead is (effectively) calling for the cessation of all military aid. Which would inevitably force the Ukrainians to do just that, shortly enough thereafter.
And saying stuff elsewhere like "it certainly would have been the prudent thing to do for them", referring to the prospect of their capitulating in the early stages of the war.
So at the end of the day - this is precisely the outcome you're lobbying for.
It was very much not the intention of Russia to get into such a fight, they made that clear.
One would have to be absolutely deluded to believe this.
Which would inevitably force the Ukrainians to do that, at some point.
Of course. Welcome to the real world.
Without Western help this would have happened within weeks or months and would have spared so many. The terms would have certainly disappointed Russian (but also Ukrainian) nationalists. No “Regathering of the Russian lands”, not even close. In typical Putin fashion, the terms would have been fairly generous and conservative and satisfied few.
There probably was another chance for a relatively advantageous settlement in autumn 2022. “Position of strength”, at least politically. But then you got greedy.
Well, here we are. Wunderkätze got put down unceremoniously. Have a plan B?
One would have to be absolutely deluded to believe this.
Come on, you’re not even trying. Your side spent the better part of 2022 making fun of Putin’s “impotent bluff”. It’s either-or.
Because it was populated by a very solid majority of Crimean Tatars (and very few Russians) up until 1860 or so, you mean to say. That is, until shortly after the end of that war that didn't work out so well for Russia.
And then by a solid majority of non-Russians -- mostly Crimean Tatars, along with a whole host of other folks, (including Germans, Jews, Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians, Poles - and of course, Ukrainians) until the summer of 1944, you meant to say.
At which time a magical event happened which would finally give the peninsula a majority Russian population.
Perhaps you would like to tell us what that event was?
The Ukraine lost any moral right to govern Crimea after cutting water and electricity supply to the citizens of the peninsula.
The moment the mafia-like entities which run the Peninsula decided to throw their lot with a foreign power that was, at that time, conducting a war of aggression against Ukraine in its eastern regions -- they naturally lost any right to the benefits of the North Crimean Canal.
Since the Kiev regime (whose SBU is tightly interconnected with the Azov nationalists) directly funds and provides with weaponry such as 152/155mm artillery and shells (including cluster munitions) to their organized right wing nationalist groups who persistently conduct warcrime after warcrime for the regime, they lost any legitimate claim to the Donbass. The Azovs have shelled civilans in Dontesk for now nearly a decade and on a daily to weekly basis.
Imagine if China funded and armed right wing nationalist groups, who build forts on artificial islands near Taiwan and shelled Taipei weekly for nine years straight to "punish" seperatist citizens of the Repubic of China.
If that happened, you can be pretty sure China would loose any legitimate claim to Taiwan that it once had.
By the same logic, Crimea could never be Ukrainian more than 'by the name only'. [0]
"a magical event happened which would finally give the peninsula a majority Russian population"
There's nothing magical in Stalin's crimes which were condemned in the USSR and later in Russia many times.
"The moment the mafia-like entities ... they naturally lost any right to the benefits of the North Crimean Canal"
So you are justifying cutting water and electricity to the whole civilian population of Crimea by Russian support for pro-Russia separatists elsewhere?
That's exactly what I was talking about when I said that the Ukraine lost any moral right to govern Crimea.
You have this information from where, exactly?