5 ms·

But remember kids, "the russians" interfered with the elction.

akhilcacharya 7y ago
Except in the fact that they did as proved by multiple intelligence agencies (including the Dutch) and multiple infosec security companies?
- sparkling 7y ago
  The US intelligence agencies that - like here - fake evidence to further their own agenda as well as their friendly foreign colleagues? Must be true then i guess. And as for a infosec company: showing that you found some russian IP or some strings originating from a Windows OS with ru_ru locale is not "evidence". It's making a educated guess at best. In fact, if you read thru some leaked NSA manuals on Wikileaks, the US intelligence agencies specifially teach their tech people how to use such techniques to plant false tracks.
  - akhilcacharya 7y ago
    You’re effectively projecting your own version of reality right now. The Dutch had security camera footage. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch-intelligence-hacked-video-cameras-in-office-of-russians-who-hacked-dnc/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch... All of this was documented in the Mueller report, the GRU indictments and the Stone indictment.
    - hallihax 7y ago
      It's all nonsense. The intelligence agencies are lying to you. https://steemit.com/steemit/@suzi3d/10-reasons-the-dutch-russia-hacking-story-is-fake-news https://steemit.com/steemit/@suzi3d/10-reasons-the-dutch-rus...
      - hannasanarion 7y ago
        literally NONE of the arguments brought up in that post contradict the facts. Who gives a fuck about how the US government feels towards Edward Snowden? How does that prove that the Dutch are lying? It makes zero goddamn sense.
        hallihax 7y ago
        I'm not sure what post you're reading - but every single one of the arguments in the post contradict a pivotal 'fact' in the anti-Russian, xenophobic propaganda effort. Can you be more specific with your criticism?
        hannasanarion 7y ago
        1. the hackers were in a university building, and Snowden told us that university buildings are bugged So what? 2. The Dutch told the US about it as it was happening This is not news. We already know that the US covered up Russian hacking as it was happening at Mitch McConnell's insistence. 3. Mueller's prime objective isn't Trump collusion, it's Russian hacking What the hell does that have to do with Dutch intelligence? 4. Anonymous sources The fact that the newspaper doesn't print names doesn't mean that the newspaper doesn't know who their sources are. 5. The Mother Jones article uses the word "attack" instead of "exploit", and Dutch intelligence has connections with the NSA So fucking what? 6. The public won't get to see the evidence Yeah, that's how intelligence investigations work, and that's why we give security clearances to politicians. 7. The article mentions MH-17 So fucking what? 8. The article uses dramatic language in a few paragraphs So fucking what? 9. The russians used spear phishing attacks so it's all fakenews because it's not sophisticated lolwut? 10. The article says the intelligence agencies worked together but Snowden said they spied on each other So fucking what?
        hallihax 7y ago
        1) As the article suggests - in order to believe the US story, we have to simultaneously believe that the Russians are the most incompetent actors imaginable. Read the article - take it up with the author if you, for some reason, still believe the US narrative. 2) It is certainly relevant that the US is 'covering up' Russian hacking (read: US hacking, masked as Russian) 3) The article was focused on the conflation of the hacking / collusion narratives. Relax. 4) Obviously, but in the modern era 'anonymous sources' is largely synonymous with 'establishment propagandists' 5) Don't be disingenuous. The article discusses the specific differences between the two well-defined concepts, and raises the issue that one is not the other, and misrepresenting what actually happened is suspicious: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/computer_networ.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/computer_netw... 6) That's how they work. It's not how they ought to work. 7) The Dawson article is explicitly about how the narrative takes shape and is pushed. The MH-17 reference is discussed and the issue is discussed in the comments underneath the article. 8) See above. Dawson's article is about propaganda tactics, not hacking. 9) See above. You're ignoring the entire thrust of the article, which is about how various issues and concepts become conflated into one sprawling incoherent mess that has so many internal inconsistencies you have to ignore obvious red flags in order to believe it. 10) The whole investigation is around electoral interference. Dawson's point is that the US routinely interferes in elections - and we actually have concrete, verifiable evidence proving it. We don't need to rely on an idiotic 'special counsel' to spend a few years discovering nothing and producing a pointless report.
    - sparkling 7y ago
      This article is taking about general hacks targeting 1) the DNC 2) the state department 3) the white house sometime in the time of mid-late 2014. Just to be clear: i have no doubt that they tried to hack these organizations. Now, wheres the election interference? Apartently they were caught early on, the FBI and other agencies knew about it. So wheres the interference in the election? The DNC leaks on Wikileaks? There is 0 hard evidence that the origin of that leak was russian intelligence. Friendly reminder: John Podesta used "password" as the password for his account. It could have literaly been a 12 year old kid from Armenia, who knows.
    - pessimizer 7y ago
      Security camera footage of people walking in a hallway.
- rjf72 7y ago
  During Iraq we offered evidence, including from international sources, proving beyond any doubt that Iraq was developing WMD. We even had published video of "mobile biological weapon laboratories" and information from informants who were literally working on these exact things but secretly feeding us intelligence. As you [hopefully] know now - it was all fake. There was no WMD, there were no mobile biological weapon labs, there was nothing. The evidence was all fake. The footage we claimed was bio weapons labs was of trailers that produced hydrogen for usage in conventional artillery (as Iraq said all along). Even after we invaded and knew the labs were benign we constantly lied. Rather than repeat our neverending stream of lies, Wiki has them nicely cataloged here [1]. Our ultra secret inside source who revealed his remarkable tale after achieving refugee status in Germany, was actually a Taxi driver in Iraq who knew nothing and had no connection to the government whatsoever, but was apparently a great con man - or, more likely, was an idiot we knew was lying but gave us more "evidence" we could use to achieve the goal of starting a war we wanted. And this was not just American intelligence. This was American, British, German, and more. Intelligence agencies pursue their own goals and will happily lie, fake, and manipulate people and society to achieve them. We're now aiming for war with Iran. At the same time that Japan's prime minister decides to visit Iran, Iran in an unprecedented act decides to attack a Japanese tanker? Look, our five-eyes intelligence agencies are here to give you all the hot evidence for something that makes no logical sense whatsoever, yet conveniently gives the US absolutely every thing it could possibly want. Amazing isn't it? [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory#Discovery_of_Iraqi_mobile_labs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory#Disc...?
  - MockObject 7y ago
    I'm watching this viciously accurate post get silently downvoted into oblivion.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    Iraq did once have WMDs, namely poison gas that it used against tens of thousands of Iranian civilians... with the help of the CIA. Today, many Americans have never even heard of the Iran-Iraq War. Those that have often never heard anything other than unsubstantiated American propaganda, particularly the American accusation that Iran was using poison gas against Iraq. An accusation for which there has never been any evidence. When it comes to the American government and international affairs, any position less than reserved skepticism is totally irresponsible.

Except in the fact that they did as proved by multiple intelligence agencies (including the Dutch) and multiple infosec security companies?

sparkling 7y ago
The US intelligence agencies that - like here - fake evidence to further their own agenda as well as their friendly foreign colleagues? Must be true then i guess. And as for a infosec company: showing that you found some russian IP or some strings originating from a Windows OS with ru_ru locale is not "evidence". It's making a educated guess at best. In fact, if you read thru some leaked NSA manuals on Wikileaks, the US intelligence agencies specifially teach their tech people how to use such techniques to plant false tracks.
- akhilcacharya 7y ago
  You’re effectively projecting your own version of reality right now. The Dutch had security camera footage. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch-intelligence-hacked-video-cameras-in-office-of-russians-who-hacked-dnc/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch... All of this was documented in the Mueller report, the GRU indictments and the Stone indictment.
  - hallihax 7y ago
    It's all nonsense. The intelligence agencies are lying to you. https://steemit.com/steemit/@suzi3d/10-reasons-the-dutch-russia-hacking-story-is-fake-news https://steemit.com/steemit/@suzi3d/10-reasons-the-dutch-rus...
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      literally NONE of the arguments brought up in that post contradict the facts. Who gives a fuck about how the US government feels towards Edward Snowden? How does that prove that the Dutch are lying? It makes zero goddamn sense.
      - hallihax 7y ago
        I'm not sure what post you're reading - but every single one of the arguments in the post contradict a pivotal 'fact' in the anti-Russian, xenophobic propaganda effort. Can you be more specific with your criticism?
        hannasanarion 7y ago
        1. the hackers were in a university building, and Snowden told us that university buildings are bugged So what? 2. The Dutch told the US about it as it was happening This is not news. We already know that the US covered up Russian hacking as it was happening at Mitch McConnell's insistence. 3. Mueller's prime objective isn't Trump collusion, it's Russian hacking What the hell does that have to do with Dutch intelligence? 4. Anonymous sources The fact that the newspaper doesn't print names doesn't mean that the newspaper doesn't know who their sources are. 5. The Mother Jones article uses the word "attack" instead of "exploit", and Dutch intelligence has connections with the NSA So fucking what? 6. The public won't get to see the evidence Yeah, that's how intelligence investigations work, and that's why we give security clearances to politicians. 7. The article mentions MH-17 So fucking what? 8. The article uses dramatic language in a few paragraphs So fucking what? 9. The russians used spear phishing attacks so it's all fakenews because it's not sophisticated lolwut? 10. The article says the intelligence agencies worked together but Snowden said they spied on each other So fucking what?
        hallihax 7y ago
        1) As the article suggests - in order to believe the US story, we have to simultaneously believe that the Russians are the most incompetent actors imaginable. Read the article - take it up with the author if you, for some reason, still believe the US narrative. 2) It is certainly relevant that the US is 'covering up' Russian hacking (read: US hacking, masked as Russian) 3) The article was focused on the conflation of the hacking / collusion narratives. Relax. 4) Obviously, but in the modern era 'anonymous sources' is largely synonymous with 'establishment propagandists' 5) Don't be disingenuous. The article discusses the specific differences between the two well-defined concepts, and raises the issue that one is not the other, and misrepresenting what actually happened is suspicious: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/computer_networ.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/computer_netw... 6) That's how they work. It's not how they ought to work. 7) The Dawson article is explicitly about how the narrative takes shape and is pushed. The MH-17 reference is discussed and the issue is discussed in the comments underneath the article. 8) See above. Dawson's article is about propaganda tactics, not hacking. 9) See above. You're ignoring the entire thrust of the article, which is about how various issues and concepts become conflated into one sprawling incoherent mess that has so many internal inconsistencies you have to ignore obvious red flags in order to believe it. 10) The whole investigation is around electoral interference. Dawson's point is that the US routinely interferes in elections - and we actually have concrete, verifiable evidence proving it. We don't need to rely on an idiotic 'special counsel' to spend a few years discovering nothing and producing a pointless report.
  - sparkling 7y ago
    This article is taking about general hacks targeting 1) the DNC 2) the state department 3) the white house sometime in the time of mid-late 2014. Just to be clear: i have no doubt that they tried to hack these organizations. Now, wheres the election interference? Apartently they were caught early on, the FBI and other agencies knew about it. So wheres the interference in the election? The DNC leaks on Wikileaks? There is 0 hard evidence that the origin of that leak was russian intelligence. Friendly reminder: John Podesta used "password" as the password for his account. It could have literaly been a 12 year old kid from Armenia, who knows.
  - pessimizer 7y ago
    Security camera footage of people walking in a hallway.
rjf72 7y ago
During Iraq we offered evidence, including from international sources, proving beyond any doubt that Iraq was developing WMD. We even had published video of "mobile biological weapon laboratories" and information from informants who were literally working on these exact things but secretly feeding us intelligence. As you [hopefully] know now - it was all fake. There was no WMD, there were no mobile biological weapon labs, there was nothing. The evidence was all fake. The footage we claimed was bio weapons labs was of trailers that produced hydrogen for usage in conventional artillery (as Iraq said all along). Even after we invaded and knew the labs were benign we constantly lied. Rather than repeat our neverending stream of lies, Wiki has them nicely cataloged here [1]. Our ultra secret inside source who revealed his remarkable tale after achieving refugee status in Germany, was actually a Taxi driver in Iraq who knew nothing and had no connection to the government whatsoever, but was apparently a great con man - or, more likely, was an idiot we knew was lying but gave us more "evidence" we could use to achieve the goal of starting a war we wanted. And this was not just American intelligence. This was American, British, German, and more. Intelligence agencies pursue their own goals and will happily lie, fake, and manipulate people and society to achieve them. We're now aiming for war with Iran. At the same time that Japan's prime minister decides to visit Iran, Iran in an unprecedented act decides to attack a Japanese tanker? Look, our five-eyes intelligence agencies are here to give you all the hot evidence for something that makes no logical sense whatsoever, yet conveniently gives the US absolutely every thing it could possibly want. Amazing isn't it? [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory#Discovery_of_Iraqi_mobile_labs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory#Disc...?
- MockObject 7y ago
  I'm watching this viciously accurate post get silently downvoted into oblivion.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  Iraq did once have WMDs, namely poison gas that it used against tens of thousands of Iranian civilians... with the help of the CIA. Today, many Americans have never even heard of the Iran-Iraq War. Those that have often never heard anything other than unsubstantiated American propaganda, particularly the American accusation that Iran was using poison gas against Iraq. An accusation for which there has never been any evidence. When it comes to the American government and international affairs, any position less than reserved skepticism is totally irresponsible.