Putin directly involved with US Hack

[Sakkura]

7 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Wow. Have you ever heard of Iraq WMDs?

CIA had a motive to come up with evidence of WMDs. Even then, they passed on reports saying there was considerable doubt. That doubt was then erased in the final reports used to justify the war.

 

This time, CIA's motive would go in the opposite direction. They have every reason NOT to say anything about this.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

25 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

I was talking about Wikipedia going from the first quote to the second from the cited sources to the wiki page.

The quote from @Sakkura does indeed exist verbatim, you are looking at different locations. This is where his quote comes from: RT Wikipedia page section

[Misanthrope]

7 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

But it does have evidence.

He says he does, he can either provide it or STFU.

 

Quote

Also, sure the CIA can start rumors. But they have no motive to make this up, in fact they have a motive to shut up about it.

No motive? Obama's administration has a vested interest in smearing Trump and all his opposition as much as he can while he can as this is another of their multiple attempts to provide grounds to impeach the election because they couldn't appoint Hillary.

 

But as I keep repeating, all this is a pointless excercise without evidence. Not evidence some fucking jackass says some other fucking CIA jackass says he has, they need to produce the evidence to the public otherwise it is basically DNC propaganda.

[Delicieuxz]

36 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

She is not independent when she's writing for RT. Sure, RT probably had little to do with her stories from Gaza. But now she's working Syria, for RT.

No, she was in Syria long before anything she wrote was published on RT. And she was in Syria independently.

 

Quote

There's clear proof that RT is a propaganda tool for the Russian government.

That has got the be among the least convincing retorts made in the history of not-convincing retorts.

 

Quote

You're lying when you say that "Apparently, anyone whose work RT decides to feature on their website is propaganda, in your view" when I've specifically stated the opposite: They bring in high-profile contributors with less strings attached, to give the impression of not being a propaganda outlet.

You have done nothing to address the information written by Eva Bartlett to substantiate it as non-reliable. Nor have you presented any intelligent argument for why having an article published on RT makes the author of the article a propagandist. In fact, that's an absolutely idiotic inference, being obviously not based on substantiation through consideration. It sounds to me like you're just stuck in thinking that things are one way, because you've never entertained thinking that they might be anything different, and so you can't really back up what you say with any information or personal understanding. To you, it's just that way, and that's all.

 

Don't forget that the UK was so hyped up about Iraq WMDs which didn't exist, that they invaded a sovereign nation and started slaughtering its people on the premise of their leader having thought they heard God telling them to do so.

 

Quote

17 intelligence agencies support the story.

 

So stop lying.

But it does have evidence.

You linked to an article which includes a link which says "Mr Trump has called that conclusion "ridiculous", and insists that there is "no evidence" tying Russia to the hack despite assurances to the contrary from all 17 US intelligence agencies," with no added information to back that claim up. In the article which that linked-text leads to, it's only said "... a CIA investigation that found the Kremlin intervened in the US election in an attempt to help him win.

In a top secret report the agency concluded with "high confidence.""

 

First off, the CIA is only 1 of the USA's 17 spy agencies. Second off, the "high confidence" quote is from the original Washington Post article, which is not endorsed by even a single USA spy agency, and is disowned by the office of the director of National Intelligence, which said "(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment."

 

Also, that same article that is linked-to in the article which you linked to actually says, "The FBI did not concur with the findings of the CIA, opening up a split in the US intelligence community."

 

Also, none of these articles are based on evidence, but are all click-bait spinoffs of the one Huffington Post article. They're propaganda, and incompetent propaganda. You ought to pay more careful attention to what you're choosing as sources for information, and what's being said in the stuff you're reading. A lot of UK journalism is just junk.

 

Quote

Also, sure the CIA can start rumors. But they have no motive to make this up, in fact they have a motive to shut up about it.

With Trump's pro-Russia views and plans to reverse the previous USA administration's behaviours towards Russia, with Russia (and Crimea and Syria) being victorious over the USA regarding Crimea and Syria, and with Russia making ever-increasing growth into traditionally USA-held mind-share in international media, that's the opposite of what most anyone would conclude.

 

The CIA has excessive motivation to push a false claim of Russian interference - though, the CIA isn't even pushing this claim: reporters hyping a shrouded non-conclusive, and non-unanimous CIA assessment, which apparently the FBI disagrees with, and which is disowned by the office of the director of National Intelligence, are. It's propaganda.

[Xsilent(X)]

Fake news again to brainwash people again against trump again.

 

 

[Prysin]

this isnt news. This is bullshit.

 

People claim russia is behind the fake news? The US media is producing 99.999% of ALL the fake news.

[Sakkura]

47 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

He says he does, he can either provide it or STFU.

 

No motive? Obama's administration has a vested interest in smearing Trump and all his opposition as much as he can while he can as this is another of their multiple attempts to provide grounds to impeach the election because they couldn't appoint Hillary.

 

But as I keep repeating, all this is a pointless excercise without evidence. Not evidence some fucking jackass says some other fucking CIA jackass says he has, they need to produce the evidence to the public otherwise it is basically DNC propaganda.

This is not the Obama administration. He is a lame duck, the intelligence agencies have no reason to follow his agenda. They have every reason to follow Trump's agenda.

[Sakkura]

36 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

No, she was in Syria long before anything she wrote was published on RT. And she was in Syria independently.

 

That has got the be among the least convincing retorts made in the history of not-convincing retorts.

 

You have done nothing to address the information written by Eva Bartlett to substantiate it as non-reliable. Nor have you presented any intelligent argument for why having an article published on RT makes the author of the article a propagandist. In fact, that's an absolutely idiotic inference, being obviously not based on substantiation through consideration. It sounds to me like you're just stuck in thinking that things are one way, because you've never entertained thinking that they might be anything different, and so you can't really back up what you say with any information or personal understanding. To you, it's just that way, and that's all.

 

Don't forget that the UK was so hyped up about Iraq WMDs which didn't exist, that they invaded a sovereign nation and started slaughtering its people on the premise of their leader having thought they heard God telling them to do so.

 

You linked to an article which includes a link which says "Mr Trump has called that conclusion "ridiculous", and insists that there is "no evidence" tying Russia to the hack despite assurances to the contrary from all 17 US intelligence agencies," with no added information to back that claim up. In the article which that linked-text leads to, it's only said "... a CIA investigation that found the Kremlin intervened in the US election in an attempt to help him win.

In a top secret report the agency concluded with "high confidence.""

 

First off, the CIA is only 1 of the USA's 17 spy agencies. Second off, the "high confidence" quote is from the original Washington Post article, which is not endorsed by even a single USA spy agency, and is disowned by the office of the director of National Intelligence, which said "(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment."

 

Also, that same article that is linked-to in the article which you linked to actually says, "The FBI did not concur with the findings of the CIA, opening up a split in the US intelligence community."

 

Also, none of these articles are based on evidence, but are all click-bait spinoffs of the one Huffington Post article. They're propaganda, and incompetent propaganda. You ought to pay more careful attention to what you're choosing as sources for information, and what's being said in the stuff you're reading. A lot of UK journalism is just junk.

 

With Trump's pro-Russia views and plans to reverse the previous USA administration's behaviours towards Russia, with Russia (and Crimea and Syria) being victorious over the USA regarding Crimea and Syria, and with Russia making ever-increasing growth into traditionally USA-held mind-share in international media, that's the opposite of what most anyone would conclude.

 

The CIA has excessive motivation to push a false claim of Russian interference - though, the CIA isn't even pushing this claim: reporters hyping a shrouded non-conclusive, and non-unanimous CIA assessment, which apparently the FBI disagrees with, and which is disowned by the office of the director of National Intelligence, are. It's propaganda.

I have exposed Bartlett as a Russian propagandist. Her propaganda pieces on the Syria conflict carry no weight whatsoever.

 

The UK participated in the US-led invasion of Iraq based on deeply flawed intelligence about WMDs, which the intelligence community had been pressured by the Bush administration to provide (and which was repeatedly edited to express less doubt about the presence of an active WMD program in Iraq). The intelligence agencies had motive to help with that, because Bush was in control. Now we're heading into the Trump presidency, so they have absolutely no motive to make up stories that link him to Russia.

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

This is not the Obama administration. He is a lame duck, the intelligence agencies have no reason to follow his agenda. They have every reason to follow Trump's agenda.

Not until he swears in and appoints a new Director of National Intelligence AND the new director has at least some time to revert or adjust to whatever he deems necessary.

[Sakkura]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Not until he swears in and appoints a new Director of National Intelligence AND the new director has at least some time to revert or adjust to whatever he deems necessary.

That's not true. Trump's going to be in control of negotations for their next round of budget appropriations. That's what matters.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

That's not true.

Obama it's still in office. Obama appointed the current DNI. IF this legitimately comes from the CIA at all (the CIA would have to come forward in an official capacity) they're leaving enough plausible deniability for them to put forward the directive Obama is calling for without being compromised or in conflict of interest at all (IF he is calling for one at all this is still just speculation based on fuckall) 

[Misanthrope]

In other words if the CIA truly had concrete and irrefutable evidence of wrong doing beyond the emails to have reason to believe Russia interfered in the election (which I need to remind you, would still mean they interfered on the election by revealing the fucking interference of the election from Saudi Arabia anyway) then they wouldn't be going to a stupid reporter with this and would probably be going to congress to start impeaching the election altogether.

 

Otherwise their failure to act would be considered Treason. 

[Delicieuxz]

20 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

I have exposed Bartlett as a Russian propagandist. Her propaganda pieces on the Syria conflict carry no weight whatsoever.

USA media is propaganda. *waves magic wand* There, I've done it! I've exposed USA media as propaganda. Whatever the USA media says about anything carries no weight, whatsoever.

 

Well, that was fun. But it did nothing to affect reality, or contribute towards sensible discussion.

[Misanthrope]

Case closed: Craig Murray admits he is the leak, @TidaLWaveZ you might want to update in the interest of providing all sides at the very least.

 

 

[r3d0c]

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Case closed: Craig Murray admits he is the leak, @TidaLWaveZ you might want to update in the interest of providing all sides at the very least.

 

 

Lmao Daily Mail

[Atmos]

You mean the election hack that even after a recount... had no evidence?

Sure. The mainstream media will do anything and say anything to try and get trump out of office.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

4 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Oh okay so it's just a conspiracy amongst all the Western media.

You don't need a conspiracy when there isn't multiplicity of sources. You can have a lot of outlets, etc, but when they are 99% made of interns copy-pasting the same Reuters' or whatever report, the same press release, or echoing the same government source, there isn't really much to coordinate. The trends in Western journalism are really worrisome, as the money to do quality journalism just isn't there, and despite the constant bombardment of messages we receive daily, we are exposed to even fewer voices than before. Maybe we added some distant voices, but we have lost so many nearby.

 

Now, that doesn't refute (nor support) the existence of Russian propaganda. But the idea that Russia is spreading propaganda in an otherwise propaganda-free world... How naïve would one need to be?

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, rhn94 said:

Lmao Daily Mail

You can read about it from him directly:

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

[Sakkura]

4 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Obama it's still in office. Obama appointed the current DNI. IF this legitimately comes from the CIA at all (the CIA would have to come forward in an official capacity) they're leaving enough plausible deniability for them to put forward the directive Obama is calling for without being compromised or in conflict of interest at all (IF he is calling for one at all this is still just speculation based on fuckall) 

John Brennan? Yeah, Obama appointed him. But so did Bush. He's not a party soldier, he's a CIA man through and through (even if he did have a couple years in the private sector). What matters is who has power over them. Obama can't do shit - there's no time (let alone support) for funding adjustments, and appointments at this point are irrelevant with Trump less than a month away. They have every reason to suck up to Trump now.

4 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

In other words if the CIA truly had concrete and irrefutable evidence of wrong doing beyond the emails to have reason to believe Russia interfered in the election (which I need to remind you, would still mean they interfered on the election by revealing the fucking interference of the election from Saudi Arabia anyway) then they wouldn't be going to a stupid reporter with this and would probably be going to congress to start impeaching the election altogether.

 

Otherwise their failure to act would be considered Treason. 

You're moving the goalposts here. Concrete and irrefutable? No, that's not what we're dealing with. It's evidence that is pretty clear by intelligence standards, but likely wouldn't stand up to a legal standard like beyond reasonable doubt. This is why the FBI is more equivocal in its support of these claims (especially that Putin himself is directly involved, since that's harder to prove).

 

You can't impeach an election.

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

You don't need a conspiracy when there isn't multiplicity of sources. You can have a lot of outlets, etc, but when they are 99% made of interns copy-pasting the same Reuters' or whatever report, the same press release, or echoing the same government source, there isn't really much to coordinate. The trends in Western journalism are really worrisome, as the money to do quality journalism just isn't there, and despite the constant bombardment of messages we receive daily, we are exposed to even fewer voices than before. Maybe we added some distant voices, but we have lost so many nearby.

 

Now, that doesn't refute (nor support) the existence of Russian propaganda. But the idea that Russia is spreading propaganda in an otherwise propaganda-free world... How naïve would one need to be?

I never claimed Russian propaganda was the only propaganda out there, so that's a strawman.

 

4 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

USA media is propaganda. *waves magic wand* There, I've done it! I've exposed USA media as propaganda. Whatever the USA media says about anything carries no weight, whatsoever.

 

Well, that was fun. But it did nothing to affect reality, or contribute towards sensible discussion.

I demonstrated that RT was founded by the Russian government as a propaganda outlet even according to public statements made by RT employees. And you equate that with waving a magic wand? Yeah, you're the one beyond the reach of reality or sensible discussion.

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, Atmos said:

You mean the election hack that even after a recount... had no evidence?

Sure. The mainstream media will do anything and say anything to try and get trump out of office.

There is solid evidence, and every US intelligence agency supports this conclusion.

 

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

 

Quote

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

 

[Misanthrope]

9 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

You're moving the goalposts here. Concrete and irrefutable? No, that's not what we're dealing with. It's evidence that is pretty clear by intelligence standards, but likely wouldn't stand up to a legal standard like beyond reasonable doubt. This is why the FBI is more equivocal in its support of these claims (especially that Putin himself is directly involved, since that's harder to prove).

 

You can't impeach an election.

I meant before the electoral college votes or whatever.

 

Also:

 

1) What are "intelligence standards"

2) How is the evidence pretty clear by 1)?

3) What is the fucking evidence of 2)? can you present it? Can anybody can?

 

 

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

I meant before the electoral college votes or whatever.

 

Also:

 

1) What are "intelligence standards"

2) How is the evidence pretty clear by 1)?

3) What is the fucking evidence of 2)? can you present it? Can anybody can?

 

 

1. Judgement call based on the preponderance of the evidence.

2. There's a preponderance of evidence in favor.

3. "Fucking" Russian digital fingerprints all over the place.

[SurvivorNVL]

How did techies on a tech-forum go from trusting Wikileaks, and their record, to trusting U.S. agencies designed specifically to subvert not only individuals, but entire SOCIETIES?  I'll tell you how.  Russia did it!  :^)

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

1. Judgement call based on the preponderance of the evidence.

2. There's a preponderance of evidence in favor.

3. "Fucking" Russian digital fingerprints all over the place.

So:

1. Pulled out of my ass unless supported by 2

2. Ok

3. Anything we can see?......*dead silence continues*

 

Thought so. In so many words: bullshit.