Jump to content

POTUS Vows Action Against Russia's Hacking

Keukasmallies
 Share

Recommended Posts

meazza All Pro

meazza

Posted
Posted

 

It's a false flag by Putin to give Erdogan an opportunity to crack down harder and develop even closer ties with Russia.

 

Duh.

I thought it would have been a neocon plot to start WWIII to enrich the military industrial complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Deranged Rhino Hall of Famer

Deranged Rhino

Posted
Posted

 

I'm still highly, highly suspect about where Assange was/is during his blackout. That video technology that's been posted a few times in other threads should be at the top of people's minds.

 

He's supposed to do an AMA on reddit on Thursday and promises to offer "proof of life" -- all that said, it should be interesting to hear what he has to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deranged Rhino Hall of Famer

Deranged Rhino

Posted
Posted

 

WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived

 

 

IN THE PAST six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom.

 

(snip)

 

But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists — including those at the Post — aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become).

 

(snip)

 

WHETHER THE POST’S false stories here can be distinguished from what is commonly called “Fake News” is, at this point, a semantic dispute, particularly since “Fake News” has no cogent definition. Defenders of Fake News as a distinct category typically emphasize intent in order to differentiate it from bad journalism. That’s really just a way of defining Fake News so as to make it definitionally impossible for mainstream media outlets like the Post ever to be guilty of it (much the way terrorism is defined to ensure that the U.S. government and its allies cannot, by definition, ever commit it).

 

(snip)

 

Whatever the motives, the effects of these false stories are exactly the same as those of whatever one regards as Fake News. The false claims travel all over the internet, deceiving huge numbers into believing them. The propagators of the falsehoods receive ample profit from their false, viral “news.” And there is no accountability of the kind that would disincentivize a repeat of the behavior. (That the Post ultimately corrects its false story does not distinguish it from classic Fake News sites, which also sometimes do the same.)

 

(snip)

 

As this excellent timeline by Kalev Leetaru documents, the Post did not even bother to contact the utility companies in question — the most elementary step of journalistic responsibility — until after the story was published. Intelligence officials insisting on anonymity — so as to ensure no accountability — whispered to them that this happened, and despite how significant the consequences would be, they rushed to print it with no verification at all. This is not a case of good journalism producing inaccurate reporting; it is the case of a media outlet publishing a story that it knew would produce massive benefits and consequences without the slightest due diligence or care.

 

(snip)

 

A VERY COMMON dynamic is driving all of this: media groupthink, greatly exacerbated (as I described on Saturday) by the incentive scheme of Twitter. As the grand media failure of 2002 demonstrated, American journalists are highly susceptible to fueling and leading the parade in demonizing a new Foreign Enemy rather than exerting restraint and skepticism in evaluating the true nature of that threat.

 

It is no coincidence that many of the most embarrassing journalistic debacles of this year involve the Russia Threat, and they all involve this same dynamic. Perhaps the worst one was the facially ridiculous, pre-election Slate story — which multiple outlets (including The Intercept) had been offered but passed on — alleging that Trump had created a secret server to communicate with a Russian bank; that story was so widely shared that even the Clinton campaign ended up hyping it — a tweet that, by itself, was re-tweeted almost 12,000 times.

(snip)

Beyond the journalistic tendency to echo anonymous officials on whatever Scary Foreign Threat they are hyping at the moment, there is an independent incentive scheme sustaining all of this. That Russia is a Grave Menace attacking the U.S. has — for obvious reasons — become a critical narrative for Democrats and other Trump opponents who dominate elite media circles on social media and elsewhere. They reward and herald anyone who bolsters that narrative, while viciously attacking anyone who questions it.

 

Hmmm... who owns the Washington Post again? Certainly not a contracted CIA asset, right?

I wonder what his motive might be. It's a puzzler.

Veep.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

DAVID HARSANYI: Democrats are more likely to believe the Russians installed Donald Trump into the presidency than Republicans are to have ever believed Barack Obama was a Muslim.

 

 

 

Why are Democratic constituencies such cesspits of paranoia and outdated beliefs?

 

Because the narrative is more important than facts [/CRT]

 

You know what Obama's legacy is really going to be? Used to be, special interests and "protected classes" were protected by the government from persecution by the public at large. Obama's convinced special interest and "protected classes" that they have to be protected by the party from persecution by the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

The (*^*&%^$^#is now moving US troops toward the Russian border.

Nobel f'n Peace Prize winner.

F'n loser is more like it.

 

And Germany, and France, and Britain, Denmark, and Canada. About a BCT's worth of combat power, infantry-heavy. About as much of a threat to Russia as I am.

 

And this has been in the works for more than two months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dante All Pro

Dante

Posted
Posted

The (*^*&%^$^#is now moving US troops toward the Russian border.

Nobel f'n Peace Prize winner.

F'n loser is more like it.

Putin is to smart to take the bait. He knows Barry is a complete fraud, He is just going to wait a couple weeks and let the child beat his rattle on his high chair until a man steps to the table where they will both proceed to laugh at the little boys antics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boyst Hall of Famer

boyst

Posted
Posted

 

And Germany, and France, and Britain, Denmark, and Canada. About a BCT's worth of combat power, infantry-heavy. About as much of a threat to Russia as I am.

 

And this has been in the works for more than two months.

because how does donald trump just de-escalate any of this? its going to be a mess of damned if he does damned if he doesn't.

 

russia is literally making us dance and we continue to make every step they expect us to; hillary would have just brought us in to war but donald trump will avoid it and likely give the farm to make nice with russia. he will have to in order to not be raked over every possible coal possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

because how does donald trump just de-escalate any of this? its going to be a mess of damned if he does damned if he doesn't.

 

russia is literally making us dance and we continue to make every step they expect us to; hillary would have just brought us in to war but donald trump will avoid it and likely give the farm to make nice with russia. he will have to in order to not be raked over every possible coal possible.

 

You do know it's not a unilateral decision, these deployments? They're a result of a request by NATO members to have NATO forces based in their countries. Furthermore, the history of those countries is that for the past 350 years, they've been an integral part of the Russian Empire (in its various forms) for more than three hundred of them, so they're understandably a little concerned (which is why they made the request.)

 

And the US forces being deployed are miniscule - between 400 and 800 Special Forces to be used in a training role. Only the Danes are contributing less - Germany and France are both committing combat forces (including German tanks).

 

Fretting over "Obama's" irresponsibility in this case is ridiculous. Even if the "great man" principle were accurate (it's not), there's a multitude of forces at work here that would mitigate it anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nanker Hall of Famer

Nanker

Posted
Posted

It makes for a great headline though. You have to admit. Maybe Trump could de-escalate the situation in a face-to-face meeting with Putin by giving him a new Anova and vacuum machine and a whole book of recipes on how to sous vide prepare his favorite Russian dishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tiberius Hall of Famer

Tiberius

Posted
Posted

Russian officials intercepted celebrating Trumps victory

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-intercepts-capture-senior-russian-officials-celebrating-trump-win/2017/01/05/d7099406-d355-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?postshare=2211483657557606&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.c79195e350ec

 

"Senior officials in the Russian government celebrated Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton as a geopolitical win for Moscow, according to U.S. officials who said that American intelligence agencies intercepted communications in the aftermath of the election in which Russian officials congratulated themselves on the outcome."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
B-Man Hall of Famer

B-Man

Posted
Posted

 

 

Here's the difference:

 

 

Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or other cyber-protection systems and then extracts data. Our own considerable experience, plus the rich detail revealed by Edward Snowden, persuades us that, with NSA's formidable trace capability, it can identify both sender and recipient of any and all data crossing the network.

 

 

Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization — on a thumb drive, for example — and gives it to someone else, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did. Leaking is the only way such data can be copied and removed with no electronic trace.

 

 

Because NSA can trace exactly where and how any "hacked" emails from the Democratic National Committee or other servers were routed through the network, it is puzzling why NSA cannot produce hard evidence implicating the Russian government and WikiLeaks.

 

Unless we are dealing with a leak from an insider, not a hack, as other reporting suggests. From a technical perspective alone, we are convinced that this is what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dante All Pro

Dante

Posted
Posted

The (*^*&%^$^#is now moving US troops toward the Russian border.

Nobel f'n Peace Prize winner.

F'n loser is more like it.

Nobel Peace Prize? A joke right? Even the NY Slime can't get with him any more.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/obama-as-wartime-president-has-wrestled-with-protecting-nation-and-troops.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...