5 ms·

I have a hard time believing this is anything new. "Another complicating factor is that taking action against an adversary often requires surreptitiously opera

I have a hard time believing this is anything new. "Another complicating factor is that taking action against an adversary often requires surreptitiously operating in the networks of an ally, like Germany — a problem that often gave the Obama administration pause." In the light of the previous administration specifically targeting our ally Germany[0], including Merkel herself, what is that sentence even supposed to mean? [0] https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/germany-media-spying-obama-administration/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/germany-media-spying...

unclebucknasty 8y ago
Well, giving pause literally means to think carefully or hesitate before doing something. It doesn't mean it's not ultimately done. On another note, it's interesting going back in time to read your linked article. It's completely riddled with references to Snowden and Wikileaks. At the time, there'd been controversy around Snowden/Wikileaks as to whether they served the interests of a foreign state (generally levelled by U.S. intelligence and its supporters). It appeared to be debatable, with others making seemingly reasonable claims that Snowden was a patriot, interested in opening the eyes of the American people with regard to "domestic spying". Knowing what we know now, it is mind-blowing how clear it is that this was all aimed at hurting the U.S. in the interest of a foreign state, going far beyond exposure of domestic intelligence operations to actively underming U.S. relations with its allies and beyond. Pretty amazing the degree to which average U.S. citizens were all being directly mind-hacked into hating and mistrusting our own government by an active, hostile state years before it came to light in more definitively undeniable ways around the 2016 election. More amazing still that so many people still claim not to see it.
- loeber 8y ago
  I think you mean "Wikileaks", not "Wikipedia".
  - unclebucknasty 8y ago
    Wikipedia can be a little suspect too at times, but you are correct! Edited. Thanks.
- eksemplar 8y ago
  Are you sure Snowden wasn’t a patriot? I mean, even at the time it was sort of odd that Wikileaks didn’t contain a single leak from places like Russia, but Snowden, seemed to have simple exposure in mind. The result of Snowden hurt America in domestic spying, and by giving up secrets, but as a Dane the NSA can still watch me take a dump through my own smartphone, no questions asked. So it’s not like it changed a whole lot.
  - avmich 8y ago
    Interesting that Russia used to have their own Wikileaks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaltai_Boltai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaltai_Boltai
    - varjag 8y ago
      No, Shaltai were doing their own work, publishing the teasers and auctioning the info to highest bidder.
  - ZephyrP 8y ago
    Are there any credible cases of an individual coming forward with damaging state secrets or leaks that Wikileaks had refused to publish?
    - Krasnol 8y ago
      Is there anything credible around WikiLeaks? Quick google: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-le...
      - travmatt 8y ago
        They’ve also refused to release documents linking Russian banking with Assad’s regime. This is of course in addition to the literal tv deal Assange has signed with Putin, if anyone here is of the belief getting paid by someone could be a conflict of interest.
- StanislavPetrov 8y ago
  >Pretty amazing the degree to which average U.S. citizens were all being directly mind-hacked into hating and mistrusting our own government What's amazing to me is that anyone ever trusted our government given its endless littany of deception since (at least) the Woodrow Wilson administration. Every US citizen faces far, far more of a threat to their freedom, their privacy, and their safety from domestic agents of the police state than any force outside of our border. What's truly amazing is how otherwise intelligent people are so easily brainwashed by the DC/CIA media establishment into thinking that our many problems originate from some foreign boogeyman instead of right here at home.
  - unclebucknasty 8y ago
    I want my country to be better in living up to its ideals, but as an adult I also realize that it's difficult to achieve perfection in the real world. So, until such time as we do, it's a relative question and on that score the U.S. is far and away better than the lying, murderous, kleptocratic regimes of dictators like Putin. Your comment encouraging utter mistrust and outright fear/hatred of our own government is, conveniently, exactly what state actors wishing to see our downfall work to promote. It is the perfect weapon to use against democratic nations as it attacks the very foundation of our freedoms. In a democratic society, the government is an expression of the will of the people, thus to turn its people against their own government is to weaken the very concept of self-rule and open the door to Putin-esque authoritarian autocracy. One would have to be brainwashed or complicit not to acknowledge this. So, what is your solution? That because we have some internal imperfections, we should let adversarial nations who wish us harm attack us with impunity? We should abandon our ideals and join our adversaries in crippling our own government instead of strenghtening our democratic machinery to continue perfecting our free society and the government that supports it? Rightist conspiracy theories notwithstanding, there is no "police state" or "deep state" here and our government is the guarantor of our freedoms. To the extent that it is broken, we should be working to address its problems, not working with adversaries to destroy it and, hence, destroy ourselves.
    - StanislavPetrov 8y ago

unclebucknasty 8y ago

Well, giving pause literally means to think carefully or hesitate before doing something. It doesn't mean it's not ultimately done. On another note, it's interesting going back in time to read your linked article. It's completely riddled with references to Snowden and Wikileaks. At the time, there'd been controversy around Snowden/Wikileaks as to whether they served the interests of a foreign state (generally levelled by U.S. intelligence and its supporters). It appeared to be debatable, with others making seemingly reasonable claims that Snowden was a patriot, interested in opening the eyes of the American people with regard to "domestic spying". Knowing what we know now, it is mind-blowing how clear it is that this was all aimed at hurting the U.S. in the interest of a foreign state, going far beyond exposure of domestic intelligence operations to actively underming U.S. relations with its allies and beyond. Pretty amazing the degree to which average U.S. citizens were all being directly mind-hacked into hating and mistrusting our own government by an active, hostile state years before it came to light in more definitively undeniable ways around the 2016 election. More amazing still that so many people still claim not to see it.

loeber 8y ago
I think you mean "Wikileaks", not "Wikipedia".
- unclebucknasty 8y ago
  Wikipedia can be a little suspect too at times, but you are correct! Edited. Thanks.
eksemplar 8y ago
Are you sure Snowden wasn’t a patriot? I mean, even at the time it was sort of odd that Wikileaks didn’t contain a single leak from places like Russia, but Snowden, seemed to have simple exposure in mind. The result of Snowden hurt America in domestic spying, and by giving up secrets, but as a Dane the NSA can still watch me take a dump through my own smartphone, no questions asked. So it’s not like it changed a whole lot.
- avmich 8y ago
  Interesting that Russia used to have their own Wikileaks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaltai_Boltai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaltai_Boltai
  - varjag 8y ago
    No, Shaltai were doing their own work, publishing the teasers and auctioning the info to highest bidder.
- ZephyrP 8y ago
  Are there any credible cases of an individual coming forward with damaging state secrets or leaks that Wikileaks had refused to publish?
  - Krasnol 8y ago
    Is there anything credible around WikiLeaks? Quick google: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-le...
    - travmatt 8y ago
      They’ve also refused to release documents linking Russian banking with Assad’s regime. This is of course in addition to the literal tv deal Assange has signed with Putin, if anyone here is of the belief getting paid by someone could be a conflict of interest.
StanislavPetrov 8y ago
>Pretty amazing the degree to which average U.S. citizens were all being directly mind-hacked into hating and mistrusting our own government What's amazing to me is that anyone ever trusted our government given its endless littany of deception since (at least) the Woodrow Wilson administration. Every US citizen faces far, far more of a threat to their freedom, their privacy, and their safety from domestic agents of the police state than any force outside of our border. What's truly amazing is how otherwise intelligent people are so easily brainwashed by the DC/CIA media establishment into thinking that our many problems originate from some foreign boogeyman instead of right here at home.
- unclebucknasty 8y ago
  I want my country to be better in living up to its ideals, but as an adult I also realize that it's difficult to achieve perfection in the real world. So, until such time as we do, it's a relative question and on that score the U.S. is far and away better than the lying, murderous, kleptocratic regimes of dictators like Putin. Your comment encouraging utter mistrust and outright fear/hatred of our own government is, conveniently, exactly what state actors wishing to see our downfall work to promote. It is the perfect weapon to use against democratic nations as it attacks the very foundation of our freedoms. In a democratic society, the government is an expression of the will of the people, thus to turn its people against their own government is to weaken the very concept of self-rule and open the door to Putin-esque authoritarian autocracy. One would have to be brainwashed or complicit not to acknowledge this. So, what is your solution? That because we have some internal imperfections, we should let adversarial nations who wish us harm attack us with impunity? We should abandon our ideals and join our adversaries in crippling our own government instead of strenghtening our democratic machinery to continue perfecting our free society and the government that supports it? Rightist conspiracy theories notwithstanding, there is no "police state" or "deep state" here and our government is the guarantor of our freedoms. To the extent that it is broken, we should be working to address its problems, not working with adversaries to destroy it and, hence, destroy ourselves.
  - StanislavPetrov 8y ago