6 ms·
I don't know how much of the HN community is old enough to remember Colin Powell just prior to the first Iraq war, getting up in front of the UN and the whole w
by natch 10y ago
I don't know how much of the HN community is old enough to remember Colin Powell just prior to the first Iraq war, getting up in front of the UN and the whole world for that matter, and asserting that there was ironclad proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (which we came to know as WMD). Different parts of the government had the same talking points and it was all presented as irrefutable facts. But the evidence General Powell laid out was not convincing to me at all, or to many other people. Grainy photos, reports of known arms dealers appearing in coffee shops or hotel lobbies at the same time as other key people.. it was all circumstantial and ended up being utter and complete bullshit.
This wave of claims with "incontrovertible" (but secret!) evidence that "Russia hacked the US" seems like the same kind of thing. I doubt they have proof, even if they say they do... even if their claims are made in good faith, they could be dead wrong. And more importantly I doubt the underlying premise, that Russia would even be so stupid as to try such a thing. The American people are stupid enough to vote ourselves into this situation; we didn't need any help from the outside for it to happen. There may have been hacks, but I doubt they were orchestrated by the Russian government and I REALLY doubt the credibility of the US government making claims about this kind of thing after their past record with things like the Iraq WMD.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- grzm 10y agoColin Powell just prior to the first Iraq war, getting up in front of the UN I think you mean second, don't you? What's commonly referred to as the First Iraq War would be following the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
- 67726e 10y agoIn the US at least, it's usually referred to as the Gulf War. While I've never personally heard the "first" Gulf War referred to as the first Iraq War I've heard of the current conflict called the second Gulf War. Is that not the norm?
- grzm 10y agoSure, the Wikipedia entry lists a number of different names: The war is also known under other names, such as the Persian Gulf War, First Gulf War, Gulf War I, Kuwait War, First Iraq War, or Iraq War before the term "Iraq War" became identified instead with the 2003 Iraq War The point is the 2003 coalition invasion isn't referred to as the First Iraq War; if using that term, it's commonly understood to mean the events of 1991. I could have phrased it better as "What's commonly referred to by the first Iraq War would be following the invasion of Kuwait in 1990."
- natch 10y agoYes, you're right.
- ChuckMcM 10y agoI think it is reasonable to be skeptical of government claims but it is also important to clearly distinguish between these two cases. In the WMD situation the government was analyzing the actions of two third parties (the Hussein government and arms dealers) engaged in activities outside of the US. In this hacking situation these are actions being taken against US entities. I don't believe anyone disputes that the DNC and other agencies "were compromised" (I'm sure John Podesta did not release all of his email voluntarily for example). So unlike the WMD scenario it seems incontrovertibly clear that some actor did do this. A number of non-government people have identified the servers, malware, and techniques as originating either in Russia or the Ukraine. Krebs has written several times on gangs that have stolen credentials this way. Finally people have signatures in their actions, they learn things in one way and they do things in that way. That has been true since the beginning of time. I remember identifying other Amateur Radio operators by the way in which they keyed code. As a result, unlike the alleged WMD development efforts, I don't think anyone disagrees that various people were hacked, or that the groups that hacked them are associated with Russian and Ukrainian interests. The only question is whether or not they did so at the behest of their government or just for the lulz. If anonymous were still around I expect they could get away with what ever pranks they wanted to play on Russian interests at the moment. The interesting question is whether the government would shield them from any Russian retaliation.
- appleflaxen 10y ago> So unlike the WMD scenario it seems incontrovertibly clear that some actor did do this. what are you basing that on? based on the USG's own best evidence (in this article), this was a canned wordpress exploit that isn't even really that new. So why, exactly, is it necessary to invoke an adversary with state-level resources? edit: citation
- ChuckMcM 10y agoThe word 'actor' does not in my vernacular assume 'state level' only that it was was a willful act by some person or group of persons.
- ordu 10y agoI'm more intrigued by the goals behind all of this public discoveries. Public proof of Iraq having chemical weapons had clear goals, government needed to justify his upcoming war actions. But what precisely it trying to justify now? Or it has some more obscure plan?
- PerfectDlite 10y ago> I doubt the underlying premise, that Russia would even be so stupid as to try such a thing. They've invaded Crimea and downed MH-17. If that's not stupid, I dunno what else is.