|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 30 2016 03:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2016 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2016 14:55 kwizach wrote:On December 29 2016 13:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2016 11:31 Tachion wrote:I was thinking it would be nice if the GOP could put up a respectable contender to Trump in the next primary election, and then I read that the last time a sitting president has lost his parties nomination for a second term was back in the 1800's. I'm really not looking forward to another general election with Trump in it. This whole last election cycle has been so vulgar and divisive. I'm constantly reminded of what USA today's editorial board wrote about Trump when they took sides in an election for the first time. He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics. I just really, really hope that Trump is an outlier, and not some new norm for political discourse. While I may not have agreed with policies from past presidents, they always seemed to at the very least try to put on airs of being dignified, sophisticated, and most of all, respectable. I don't get that from Trump, I'm just left with disdain and vicarious embarrassment when i hear him talk or tweet. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be proud to have a man who acts in such a way lead and represent your country unless you're equally uncouth. On the bright side, Democrats (other than the ~30% of total Hillbots) know not to run Hillary again. Bernie's the most preferred specific option with "someone new" being the other leader. Notably it's not Clinton, Warren, Deval Patrick, or Joe Biden that Democrats would prefer in 2020 over Bernie. According to the same poll Obama and Trump have something in common, they are both more favorable than Hillary. No idea where Republicans are heading, but it seems most of the Democratic voters have learned their lesson. What poll are you referring to? In this Suffolk University/USA TODAY poll from the 21st of December, Sanders is definitely not the "most preferred specific option" for 2020 among Democrats and Independents (p. 6). Other than "someone entirely new" (66.29% excited, 20.45% indifferent, 8.79% shouldn't run (+57,5% net)), the candidate with the biggest difference between those excited and those who think (s)he shouldn't run is Biden, with 43.45% - 22.36% - 31.15% (+12,3% net). Warren comes after him with 34.19% - 23.16% - 27.00% (+7,19% net -- she also has the highest proportion of respondents who've "never heard" of her after Deval Patrick). Sanders comes after them both with 43.61% - 16.77% - 38.18% (+5,43% net). Only if you solely take into account the "excited column" and completely ignore the "shouldn't run" column does Sanders edge out Biden, and it's by one respondent out of 626. Yet he actually received the second biggest proportion of "shouldn't run" responses after HRC (who's obviously not running again). I guess I should have said the person with the most Democrats excited for them to run. "someone entirely new" is a funny category though, one wonders if it's merely an "entirely new" vessel (seems almost mythical) or direction in general. Are you sure about the bold part though? Bernie will be 145 years old in 2020. Running at age 80 or so is not a great idea. I think the democrats will win 2018 and have new talents to chose from for the presidential elections two years later. Remember that nobody really knew of Obama in 2004...
You going to tell me that Bernie wasn't clearly healthier than both Trump and Clinton?
On December 30 2016 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:
I wonder if the Russian hack skeptics will be convinced now?
Not sure about the skeptics, or whether the hacks are as described, but...
Gotta love intentionally misleading headlines resulting in people believing false information, if only someone was standing up against this kind of stuff 
|
On December 30 2016 05:17 On_Slaught wrote:
F35 and B2s are not "R&D." The b2 is decades old and the 35 is basically in production. Iirc, the new stealth bomber Northrup is working on is unmanned.
Lockheed and Boeing have plans for sixth-gen fighters which does suggest at the very least that it won't be just drones.
On December 30 2016 05:17 On_Slaught wrote:
As for drones, it's simple numbers. We can mass produce aircraft which are just as good at killing enemy aircraft as any modern fighter (a byproduct of the missile loadout) for a fraction of the cost and without risking airmen lives. The calculus is obvious.
Numbers advantage does matter, yes. So do tactics and strategy though. More on that later.
On December 30 2016 05:17 On_Slaught wrote:
I also think you are overstating the risk of hacking to them. I'd contend that any program powerful enough to fuck with our drones is also powerful enough to fuck with manned fighters, which are basically flying computers.
Second-rate militaries like Iran (a regional power with substantial deficiencies in its military capabilities) managed to jam a secret, high-tech drone, force it to land, and powered it down to prevent any self-destruct sequence from activating. In fact, basic electronic warfare capabilities that could actually damage or at least hack a real, operating consist of $20 equipment plus labor. Forcing it to land is some pretty impressive work, but a much simpler yet still highly effective thing you can do is hack it to have access to its camera (making it much easier to track). You can fuck with them in many ways that you cannot fuck with meatbags, who would never be stupid enough to allow their aircraft to land in enemy territory just because they got haxed.
Even access to a drone pilot isn't a given in a EW-heavy scenario. You can jam their comms and now the drone has to play it autonomously, which it's pretty bad at. For one, robots have pretty much zero sense of strategy; you can watch any of the Starcraft bots to see that pretty fast. Their tactics will generally suck too - can you teach a drone to perform the right kind of evasive maneuvers for the right situation? Not really. One you jam their comms you better hope their mission plans are good because in any really troubled situation they will have a harder time adapting than a trained meatbag who, while vulnerable to dying, is still a better learning machine than a toy airplane.
And if you want to focus only on fighting enemies who really can't fight back with advanced capabilities, start by crossing Russia and China off your list - they both have advanced capabilities and substantial military cooperation. Also start crossing off anyone who would ally themselves with those countries, because under proper security guarantees they would also get access to such weapons. Fighting 50-year-old poorly maintained Soviet technology manned by inexperienced pilots isn't a good test for advanced technology because that would have been a stomp anyways.
On December 30 2016 05:17 On_Slaught wrote:
And I don't think it's hyperbolic to note the change in combat to bvr. This trend started back in the gulf where we were literally shooting down Saddams aircraft as soon as they took off from out of nowhere.
Why wounldnt this trend continue? Again it's simple math. Why risk our expensive planes by getting close when we can design missles which can kill the enemy without them even knowing we were in the air?
Same with ground. We are seeing new gun systems which can fire without line of sight. New artillery which are so effective you wonder if it will ever be possible again to send out masses of troops in groups, less they all die.
The simple logic to these trends are exactly the sort of things military leaders love and will jump all over.
Going to just link this on BVR.
The short version is that BVR has its uses but practically they are less effective than one would hope, that they have substantially underdelivered relative to the extravagant promises of their use, and that in WVR, numbers and tactical superiority really matter, and WVR craft are not retardedly expensive like some of the BVR capabilities which cause the price of the craft to go way, way up. Yes, it's nice to be able to be the invincible airplane in the sky that 50 year old Soviet tech in the hands of desert peasants can't shoot down, but basic but versatile shit like the A-10 (which you would be a traitor for supporting, btw) do just fine in those situations.
My thoughts are that the US military has a few general issues:
1. Too many commitments abroad. You get stretched thin when you have troops everywhere, surprise, surprise. Part of the problem is that the US's large adversaries simply aren't as helpless to fight back as they used to be, a matter which was demonstrated quite clearly in both conventional capabilities (A2/AD among them), and in asymmetric ones (gorilla warfare in the Middle East).
2. Too much of a bitch about deploying ground troops and potentially "risking American lives." In some cases ground presence is how you actually make progress. The US is bad at doing that even when it needs to. Artillery that shoots >15km isn't new, btw - heavy MLRS weapons are a thing.
3. Underestimating the strength of the enemy and overestimating American advantage. Lots of examples - Iraq and Afghanistan, which looked like easy wins, turning into deep quagmires.
4. Trying to science out of having to deal with inexpensive countermeasures. Oh, the enemy is deploying a $300 million A2/AD cockblock to protect their assets? Let's spend $1 trillion developing a way to be only partially vulnerable to it.
Well, that's a simplification (each of the issues mentioned here has far, far more depth to it than I'm interested in debating right now) but that's a short version that passes along the sentiment.
|
On December 30 2016 05:53 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:
I wonder if the Russian hack skeptics will be convinced now? Based on what? There hasn't been any given proof or evidence of any sort. And we all know that anything Obama does to russia now will be lifted in less then a month so whats the point?
Report posted today by FBI and DHS on Russian cyber operations:
https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf
|
On December 30 2016 07:52 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 05:53 Sermokala wrote:On December 30 2016 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:
I wonder if the Russian hack skeptics will be convinced now? Based on what? There hasn't been any given proof or evidence of any sort. And we all know that anything Obama does to russia now will be lifted in less then a month so whats the point? Report posted today by FBI and DHS on Russian cyber operations: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf
Basically looks like they copy pasted together an infograph of the Crowdstrike analysis and one of those "basic IT security" classes that you get when you start employment somewhere (that no one listens to or cares about) as if it were proof of something.
In short: it adds nothing to the current "body of proof" on the matter. Just like Obama's recent executive order. It's more lame duck policymaking.
|
My 500$ drone can effectively move around without connection to my controller, so I don't doubt you can easily preprogram offensive drones as well.
Fundamentally I think there are some undeniable truths about drones relative to standard fighters and bombers.
1. They are cheaper to make.
2. Subsequently, you can make a lot more of them.
3. They have the potential to be better in WVR combat because of the lack of restrictions on them relative to aircraft which must account for the pilot and their ability to withstand gs.
4. They can be as good at BVR fighting since they can hold the same missles. Effectively they can be better since their small size makes them more difficult to detect.
5. Their mass numbers gives you a quantitative advantage in both BVR and WVR combat.
6. They save the lives of our pilots who might otherwise be put in harms way.
The only real argument against them that I can see is the reliability factor. This is a fair argument, as seen in the Iran example (though I'm sure we don't have all the facts). Having said that, there are certainly ways to severely mitigate this problem to the point where the benefits vastly outweigh the potential harms. Defensive measures will improve. With this being their only real weakness in combat, we can be sure it is also the primary avenue of research for military arms R&D departments working on them.
Regrading artillery, I'm not talking about range. I'm talking about accuracy combined with the newer cartridges. A single Paladin is a terrifying piece of hardware.
In general though I agree with your analysis of our military's problems.
|
On December 30 2016 08:05 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 07:52 ZapRoffo wrote:On December 30 2016 05:53 Sermokala wrote:On December 30 2016 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:
I wonder if the Russian hack skeptics will be convinced now? Based on what? There hasn't been any given proof or evidence of any sort. And we all know that anything Obama does to russia now will be lifted in less then a month so whats the point? Report posted today by FBI and DHS on Russian cyber operations: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf Basically looks like they copy pasted together an infograph of the Crowdstrike analysis and one of those "basic IT security" classes that you get when you start employment somewhere (that no one listens to or cares about) as if it were proof of something. In short: it adds nothing to the current "body of proof" on the matter. Just like Obama's recent executive order. It's more lame duck policymaking.
Before everyone was saying oh, the FBI disagrees with the CIA. Obviously they are fully convinced now too, along with all the organizations that have investigated. What informed source is saying anything alternative?
|
On December 30 2016 05:23 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2016 11:44 Introvert wrote:On December 29 2016 11:31 Tachion wrote:I was thinking it would be nice if the GOP could put up a respectable contender to Trump in the next primary election, and then I read that the last time a sitting president has lost his parties nomination for a second term was back in the 1800's. I'm really not looking forward to another general election with Trump in it. This whole last election cycle has been so vulgar and divisive. I'm constantly reminded of what USA today's editorial board wrote about Trump when they took sides in an election for the first time. He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics. I just really, really hope that Trump is an outlier, and not some new norm for political discourse. While I may not have agreed with policies from past presidents, they always seemed to at the very least try to put on airs of being dignified, sophisticated, and most of all, respectable. I don't get that from Trump, I'm just left with disdain and vicarious embarrassment when i hear him talk or tweet. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be proud to have a man who acts in such a way lead and represent your country unless you're equally uncouth. Trump will only have a primary challenge if he's deeply unpopular, and still he'd most likely win. I think it's more likely that he decides not to run again, which is totally something I could see him doing. it seems plausible that he would decide not to run again and endorse ivanka as the nominee. ivanka could then be first female president and piggyback on trump's incumbent position.
I've heard a theory that Trump treats Ivanka like the stereotypical rich man treats his princess daughter. He listens to her, sometimes takes her advice, maybe gives her some nice gifts, but in the end does whatever he wanted to do in the first place. Example: Meeting with Al Gore, then choosing Pruitt as EPA head. How much does he really care? It seems to me that he's more interested in what her husband Jared Kushner has to say.
On December 30 2016 05:33 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 05:23 IgnE wrote:On December 29 2016 11:44 Introvert wrote:On December 29 2016 11:31 Tachion wrote:I was thinking it would be nice if the GOP could put up a respectable contender to Trump in the next primary election, and then I read that the last time a sitting president has lost his parties nomination for a second term was back in the 1800's. I'm really not looking forward to another general election with Trump in it. This whole last election cycle has been so vulgar and divisive. I'm constantly reminded of what USA today's editorial board wrote about Trump when they took sides in an election for the first time. He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics. I just really, really hope that Trump is an outlier, and not some new norm for political discourse. While I may not have agreed with policies from past presidents, they always seemed to at the very least try to put on airs of being dignified, sophisticated, and most of all, respectable. I don't get that from Trump, I'm just left with disdain and vicarious embarrassment when i hear him talk or tweet. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be proud to have a man who acts in such a way lead and represent your country unless you're equally uncouth. Trump will only have a primary challenge if he's deeply unpopular, and still he'd most likely win. I think it's more likely that he decides not to run again, which is totally something I could see him doing. it seems plausible that he would decide not to run again and endorse ivanka as the nominee. ivanka could then be first female president and piggyback on trump's incumbent position. The child of a pop culture star...that's even worse than pop culture stars themselves being elected.
Obama is a pop star to many, and acts that way. He is a perhaps the first in a new line of celebrity presidents.
|
On December 30 2016 08:05 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 07:52 ZapRoffo wrote:On December 30 2016 05:53 Sermokala wrote:On December 30 2016 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:
I wonder if the Russian hack skeptics will be convinced now? Based on what? There hasn't been any given proof or evidence of any sort. And we all know that anything Obama does to russia now will be lifted in less then a month so whats the point? Report posted today by FBI and DHS on Russian cyber operations: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf Basically looks like they copy pasted together an infograph of the Crowdstrike analysis and one of those "basic IT security" classes that you get when you start employment somewhere (that no one listens to or cares about) as if it were proof of something.
No, the content of the report isn't copy/pasted from the Crowdstrike analysis at all. The Yara signature they include isn't mentioned in the Crowdstrike analysis. The same is true of the infographs.
|
The contents of the report are pretty much what one would expect in terms of how evidence for the claims would be provided without breaking national security rules. The way the APT28 and APT29 groups are identified seems justified to me, and although they fall just short of providing actual evidence of the origins of the hacking groups, I have no doubt that the attacks came from Russian soil. As far as I can tell, the document doesn't answer (unequivocally or at all?) whether it was it the evil Emperor Putin or one of the many independent hacking groups in Russia. It just says "politically motivated groups" based on the targets that they hit, which is not very convincing evidence to link them directly to Putin. Still, personally, I'm willing to assume that the APT28 and APT29 groups are Russian government groups even without direct evidence.
The infographs are not proof of anything other than the fact that these security people have a basic understanding of how these sort of "hacks" work, and the second half of the document appears to talk about mitigation and prevention. I didn't read that part thoroughly because it seemed very basic security stuff as I scanned through it.
I just think it's bullshit that they add very specific motivations to the hacks without providing evidence for said motivations. The clincher for me is that it is entirely possible that the Russians hacked and took the data, but Assange is still being truthful when he's saying he got it from a disgruntled DNC employee. Hell, it's possible (and pre-Snowden, I'd wager quite likely) that the NSA hacked them as well. Everybody hacks. Doesn't mean everybody releases what they find. Also: more sanctions? Really? Along with the censorship coming from both the US and European governments, that's just gonna make populism in Europe worse over the next year filled with elections. Thanks a lot, establishment.
This is the double standards thing all over again: America invades Iraq, nothing happens. Crimea has a dodgy referendum about joining Russia, and there's sanctions. America breaks into Belgacom, Merkels phone and god knows what else, nothing happens. Russia breaks into DNC server, there must be more sanctions.
|
On December 30 2016 08:05 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 07:52 ZapRoffo wrote:On December 30 2016 05:53 Sermokala wrote:On December 30 2016 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:
I wonder if the Russian hack skeptics will be convinced now? Based on what? There hasn't been any given proof or evidence of any sort. And we all know that anything Obama does to russia now will be lifted in less then a month so whats the point? Report posted today by FBI and DHS on Russian cyber operations: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf Basically looks like they copy pasted together an infograph of the Crowdstrike analysis and one of those "basic IT security" classes that you get when you start employment somewhere (that no one listens to or cares about) as if it were proof of something. In short: it adds nothing to the current "body of proof" on the matter. Just like Obama's recent executive order. It's more lame duck policymaking.
So wait, are you saying you don't think Russia hacked the DNC in hopes of influencing the election?
|
On December 30 2016 11:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 08:05 LegalLord wrote:On December 30 2016 07:52 ZapRoffo wrote:On December 30 2016 05:53 Sermokala wrote:On December 30 2016 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:
I wonder if the Russian hack skeptics will be convinced now? Based on what? There hasn't been any given proof or evidence of any sort. And we all know that anything Obama does to russia now will be lifted in less then a month so whats the point? Report posted today by FBI and DHS on Russian cyber operations: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf Basically looks like they copy pasted together an infograph of the Crowdstrike analysis and one of those "basic IT security" classes that you get when you start employment somewhere (that no one listens to or cares about) as if it were proof of something. In short: it adds nothing to the current "body of proof" on the matter. Just like Obama's recent executive order. It's more lame duck policymaking. So wait, are you saying you don't think Russia hacked the DNC in hopes of influencing the election?
Give me one piece of even slightly remote evidence that gives an indication that the Russians leaked whatever they found when they undoubtedly hacked into that shit. Once you have that, then you can start discussing motivations. Assange said it was a disgruntled DNC employee. Now you go: what evidence do we have the Russians leaked what they found?
|
Thankfully it's the next round of finding the humor in politics. First, and maybe best, was the fever pitch of delegitimization Trump's win in a free and fair election. Now, we got the cute responses and the ever cuter counterresponses to the (presumed) Russian hacks. 2016 ended up being a pretty good year, definitely better than I thought coming into last January, and 2017 shows such great promise.
|
On December 30 2016 11:54 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 11:51 Mohdoo wrote:On December 30 2016 08:05 LegalLord wrote:On December 30 2016 07:52 ZapRoffo wrote:On December 30 2016 05:53 Sermokala wrote:On December 30 2016 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:
I wonder if the Russian hack skeptics will be convinced now? Based on what? There hasn't been any given proof or evidence of any sort. And we all know that anything Obama does to russia now will be lifted in less then a month so whats the point? Report posted today by FBI and DHS on Russian cyber operations: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf Basically looks like they copy pasted together an infograph of the Crowdstrike analysis and one of those "basic IT security" classes that you get when you start employment somewhere (that no one listens to or cares about) as if it were proof of something. In short: it adds nothing to the current "body of proof" on the matter. Just like Obama's recent executive order. It's more lame duck policymaking. So wait, are you saying you don't think Russia hacked the DNC in hopes of influencing the election? Give me one piece of even slightly remote evidence that gives an indication that the Russians leaked whatever they found when they undoubtedly hacked into that shit. Once you have that, then you can start discussing motivations. Assange said it was a disgruntled DNC employee. Now you go: what evidence do we have the Russians leaked what they found?
Sure, no problem, you and I are both at the highest level in US intelligence, so that's no problem. lmfao what are you even saying. What evidence do we have that what Assange said is true?
|
On December 30 2016 12:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 11:54 a_flayer wrote:On December 30 2016 11:51 Mohdoo wrote:On December 30 2016 08:05 LegalLord wrote:On December 30 2016 07:52 ZapRoffo wrote:On December 30 2016 05:53 Sermokala wrote:On December 30 2016 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:
I wonder if the Russian hack skeptics will be convinced now? Based on what? There hasn't been any given proof or evidence of any sort. And we all know that anything Obama does to russia now will be lifted in less then a month so whats the point? Report posted today by FBI and DHS on Russian cyber operations: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf Basically looks like they copy pasted together an infograph of the Crowdstrike analysis and one of those "basic IT security" classes that you get when you start employment somewhere (that no one listens to or cares about) as if it were proof of something. In short: it adds nothing to the current "body of proof" on the matter. Just like Obama's recent executive order. It's more lame duck policymaking. So wait, are you saying you don't think Russia hacked the DNC in hopes of influencing the election? Give me one piece of even slightly remote evidence that gives an indication that the Russians leaked whatever they found when they undoubtedly hacked into that shit. Once you have that, then you can start discussing motivations. Assange said it was a disgruntled DNC employee. Now you go: what evidence do we have the Russians leaked what they found? Sure, no problem, you and I are both at the highest level in US intelligence, so that's no problem. lmfao what are you even saying. What evidence do we have that what Assange said is true?
I think one of the problems here is that no sane person blindly trusts US intelligence to say the truth after their certainty of WMDs in Iraq, and so on.
|
On December 30 2016 12:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 12:08 Mohdoo wrote:On December 30 2016 11:54 a_flayer wrote:On December 30 2016 11:51 Mohdoo wrote:On December 30 2016 08:05 LegalLord wrote:On December 30 2016 07:52 ZapRoffo wrote:On December 30 2016 05:53 Sermokala wrote:On December 30 2016 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:
I wonder if the Russian hack skeptics will be convinced now? Based on what? There hasn't been any given proof or evidence of any sort. And we all know that anything Obama does to russia now will be lifted in less then a month so whats the point? Report posted today by FBI and DHS on Russian cyber operations: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf Basically looks like they copy pasted together an infograph of the Crowdstrike analysis and one of those "basic IT security" classes that you get when you start employment somewhere (that no one listens to or cares about) as if it were proof of something. In short: it adds nothing to the current "body of proof" on the matter. Just like Obama's recent executive order. It's more lame duck policymaking. So wait, are you saying you don't think Russia hacked the DNC in hopes of influencing the election? Give me one piece of even slightly remote evidence that gives an indication that the Russians leaked whatever they found when they undoubtedly hacked into that shit. Once you have that, then you can start discussing motivations. Assange said it was a disgruntled DNC employee. Now you go: what evidence do we have the Russians leaked what they found? Sure, no problem, you and I are both at the highest level in US intelligence, so that's no problem. lmfao what are you even saying. What evidence do we have that what Assange said is true? I think one of the problems here is that no sane person blindly trusts US intelligence to say the truth after their certainty of WMDs in Iraq, and so on.
Tell me why I should blindly trust Wikileaks.
|
On December 30 2016 12:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 11:54 a_flayer wrote:On December 30 2016 11:51 Mohdoo wrote:On December 30 2016 08:05 LegalLord wrote:On December 30 2016 07:52 ZapRoffo wrote:On December 30 2016 05:53 Sermokala wrote:On December 30 2016 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:
I wonder if the Russian hack skeptics will be convinced now? Based on what? There hasn't been any given proof or evidence of any sort. And we all know that anything Obama does to russia now will be lifted in less then a month so whats the point? Report posted today by FBI and DHS on Russian cyber operations: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf Basically looks like they copy pasted together an infograph of the Crowdstrike analysis and one of those "basic IT security" classes that you get when you start employment somewhere (that no one listens to or cares about) as if it were proof of something. In short: it adds nothing to the current "body of proof" on the matter. Just like Obama's recent executive order. It's more lame duck policymaking. So wait, are you saying you don't think Russia hacked the DNC in hopes of influencing the election? Give me one piece of even slightly remote evidence that gives an indication that the Russians leaked whatever they found when they undoubtedly hacked into that shit. Once you have that, then you can start discussing motivations. Assange said it was a disgruntled DNC employee. Now you go: what evidence do we have the Russians leaked what they found? Sure, no problem, you and I are both at the highest level in US intelligence, so that's no problem. lmfao what are you even saying
I'm saying that Assange, our source for the leaked information, said that they got the data from a disgruntled DNC employee (looking it up again, the data was handed over to Craig Murray, former US ambassador to Uzbekistan). How can you just throw that aside and then claim that the Russians did it based purely on what someone else (a CIA employee who leaked info) with less direct information said about the matter.
Again, I have no doubt that the Russians hacked. But there is no evidence supporting they leaked the information. The only evidence we have is "hearsay" from the CIA. The shortest line to the source says that it was a disgruntled DNC employee (probably a Bernie supporter who was pissed off at what had happened, if you wanna throw around motivations). An unrelated source says Russians hacked into the DNC server, which I'm perfectly willing to accept, but to claim that the Russians leaked the information based purely on motivations (aka they wanted Trump, disliked Hillary) is just bullshit. Especially considering that the more direct line to the source of the DNC leak says it wasn't the Russians, but someone on the inside.
How is it not clear that claiming 1)the Russians hacked and then 2)leaked what they found 3)in order to influence the elections could be considered a bit of a stretch?
|
On December 30 2016 12:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 12:13 LegalLord wrote:On December 30 2016 12:08 Mohdoo wrote:On December 30 2016 11:54 a_flayer wrote:On December 30 2016 11:51 Mohdoo wrote:On December 30 2016 08:05 LegalLord wrote:On December 30 2016 07:52 ZapRoffo wrote:On December 30 2016 05:53 Sermokala wrote:On December 30 2016 05:44 Mohdoo wrote:
I wonder if the Russian hack skeptics will be convinced now? Based on what? There hasn't been any given proof or evidence of any sort. And we all know that anything Obama does to russia now will be lifted in less then a month so whats the point? Report posted today by FBI and DHS on Russian cyber operations: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf Basically looks like they copy pasted together an infograph of the Crowdstrike analysis and one of those "basic IT security" classes that you get when you start employment somewhere (that no one listens to or cares about) as if it were proof of something. In short: it adds nothing to the current "body of proof" on the matter. Just like Obama's recent executive order. It's more lame duck policymaking. So wait, are you saying you don't think Russia hacked the DNC in hopes of influencing the election? Give me one piece of even slightly remote evidence that gives an indication that the Russians leaked whatever they found when they undoubtedly hacked into that shit. Once you have that, then you can start discussing motivations. Assange said it was a disgruntled DNC employee. Now you go: what evidence do we have the Russians leaked what they found? Sure, no problem, you and I are both at the highest level in US intelligence, so that's no problem. lmfao what are you even saying. What evidence do we have that what Assange said is true? I think one of the problems here is that no sane person blindly trusts US intelligence to say the truth after their certainty of WMDs in Iraq, and so on. Tell me why I should blindly trust Wikileaks.
You shouldn't. How often have they lied, though? How often has their information proven to be false?
Just because you hear the leaked CIA story all over the American news without interruption, doesn't make it more likely to be true out of the two claims that are being made. It just makes it the better story get ratings with. Clickbait.
|
Wikileaks technically can't lie, they just dump information. But they can chose the narrative by selecting what to dump when, which is what they continuously did.
For an apparently global whistle-blower organisation they seem to be a little short on non-US whistle-blowing.
|
I don't see the problem with that. The US takes a holier-than-thou "we fight for what's right" approach to its foreign policy ambitions than most. Pointing out hypocrisy there is like shooting fish in a barrel and unlike in most countries, Americans are generally gullible enough not to know what their government is up to abroad.
|
On December 30 2016 13:36 LegalLord wrote:
I don't see the problem with that. The US takes a holier-than-thou "we fight for what's right" approach to its foreign policy ambitions than most.
You don't see a problem with blatant partisanship in an organisation dedicated to transparency and freedom of information? Especially because the content of leaks is basically irrelevant at this point as everybody only looks at the size of the scandal.
This completely turns whistle-blowing into a political tactic. The US attitude doesn't justify anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
