Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Lots of failures are just human and political. Sure technology can obscure the obvious or highlight the unlikely, but it's just not that commonly influential (at least not yet, the day will come).

The US even warned Russia of the attack in Moscow, but it was treated as political interference. That was almost certainly signals intelligence ignored.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-intelligence-duty-to-warn-...




The warning was quite broad, claiming that some group was planning some attack on some large gathering, including concerts, in Moscow, of which there are many. And it warned Americans to avoid large gatherings for the next 48 hours. That was on March 7th. The actual attack would only take place on March 24th.

Incidentally, there is speculation that the attack may have been planned for March 9th. One of the terrorists was photographed at Crocus on the 7th, and on the 9th there was a large concert by Shaman - a patriotic Russian singer who's regularly made songs glorifying the war in Ukraine, performed for soldiers in Russia's claimed territories, and so on. This would also have coincided with just before the Russian elections, which happened on the 15th. But security was extremely high during that concert - very possibly in response to the US warning.

By contrast when Russia warned the US about the Boston Bomber, the warning was precise to the point of even naming him.


> The warning was quite broad, claiming that some group was planning some attack on some large gathering, including concerts, in Moscow, of which there are many. And it warned Americans to avoid large gatherings for the next 48 hours.

That was the public "travel advisory" by the US department of state. We don't know what the CIA told their Russian counterparts according to their "duty to warn".

Insightful thread: https://twitter.com/laurae_thomas/status/1773094283320668526


The media has swapped into repulsive but predictable propaganda mode over the attack. However, as a result, more facts are coming out. And those facts suggest that nothing significant was shared beyond the travel advisory. From a recent NYTimes article [1]:

---

"Aleksandr V. Bortnikov, the director of the F.S.B., emphasized Tuesday in public comments that the information the United States provided was “of a general nature.” “We reacted to this information, of course, and took appropriate measures,” he said, noting that the actions the F.S.B. took to follow up on the tip didn’t confirm it.

The adversarial relationship between Washington and Moscow prevented U.S. officials from sharing any information about the plot beyond what was necessary, out of fear Russian authorities might learn their intelligence sources or methods.

In its March 7 public warning, the U.S. embassy said the risk of a concert venue attack in Moscow was acute for the next 48 hours. U.S. officials say it’s possible Russian authorities pushed hard around the 48-hour warning period but later grew more relaxed and distrustful when an attack didn’t occur."

It is unclear whether U.S. intelligence mistook the timing of the attack or the extremists delayed their plan upon seeing heightened security.

---

It's amusing contrasting the very few facts the article provides, buried deep within it, with the framing, implications, and non sequiturs scattered through the first 60% of the article. Irrefutable and undeniable [2], all over again.

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/28/world/europe/russia-conce...

[1] - https://archive.is/l6BYv

[2] - https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-u...


Is there evidence of the last claim?




The little remarked fact is that all these paramilitary groups are "proxies". No one ever mentions "whose proxy" is ISIS in the hn pages.


Maybe it’s little remarked because it’s not a fact?


Any non-state entity exists at the blessing of one or more state entities with power, money, and help.

The "fact" that this question is never asked by "news" organs is very telling. It is a very hot topic on the other side of the geopolitical fence, this patron of ISIS ..


Well then, mention it. Whose proxy are they?


The CIAs.


Why, we can all count fingers on one hand, can't we? We know whose proxy they ain't and after that it is process of what is not eliminated. Some say they are the original counter-counter-proxy (cause the others also liked the idea of this genre and made counter-proxies) and with the first proxies (in that genre) being the Mujahidin in Afghanistan hitting USSR troops, unless you want to go all the way back to Lawrence of Arabia and Ottomans ..

p.s. part of the deal Nixon made with Mao was that CPC would no longer support various cells in the 'Global Energy Zone' since they were now "partners" in the Global Economy. Overnight thousands of Maoist flowers all over campuses and in middle east went away. All these groups existentially require a powerful patron or two. So ISIS has a mommy and a daddy and it aint Russia and it aint Iran and China has been out of that game since 70s as a matter of historic fact. That leave US, UK ("the Empire"), the Europeans (French? Doubtful), and Israel, KSA, Qatar and UAE. Qatar is Muslim Brotherhood [& so is Turkey] so that seems to eliminate it [them]. That basically leaves Western and Abrahamic patriarch wanna-bes at the table of candidates.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: