7 ms·

Gee, I wonder what nation could possibly be behind this?

by seventytwo 6y ago

YarickR2 6y ago
Say it out loud ?
- cvhashim 6y ago
  Always figured those Andorrans were up to something
  - TomMarius 6y ago
    Well let's hope we find Shran soon enough Edit: Andorrans, not Andorians
opqpo 6y ago
The one this fake story was designed to make you think it is behind it
- hnarn 6y ago
  Wow, how clever. So are you saying Russia never do these types of operations, or do they, but only sometimes? If so, I'd love to know how you can tell the difference.
  - opqpo 6y ago
    The truth never matters since you got the downvotes. Of course Russia is behind all attacks. Even all the attacking IPs are coming from near the Kremlin according to many articles in the western MSM!
  - AndrewBissell 6y ago
    Russia would know that any fake stories it posts after hacking the BBC will be immediately taken down and corrected. Not only that, but it lets Western governments know Russia has that capability and take measures to counter it. There's a lot more damage they could do with hacked news sites than just "discrediting NATO." They get little or no benefit out of a hack like this. On the other hand, if this thread is any indication, domestic intelligence agencies which want to foment anti-Russian sentiment can get a lot of mileage out of the idea this is another dastardly cyberattack by the Russkies.
    - KingOfCoders 6y ago
      The killing of Russians in the UK and Germany (and elsewhere) was also by domestic intelligence agencies? And the BND and MI6 cooperated on these killings? Otherwise Western governments would know GRU capabilities?
      - AndrewBissell 6y ago
        Russia has a strong interest in and pattern of silencing regime critics, so no, I think those killings were almost certainly carried out by Russia. I'm not sure what their interest would be in using this once-and-done hack to post a bunch of articles about NATO that no one will even read.
- jpxw 6y ago
  Bingo
- posixplz 6y ago
  Do you have any evidence that FireEye’s report is inaccurate or misleading? You are making an outlandish claim, that the BBC is lying in conjunction with FireEye. Back it up with evidence, or abstain from gaslighting please.
  - opqpo 6y ago
    Do you have any evidence that FireEye’s report is accurate and not misleading? they are the ones that claimed it in the first place. Also what do you think is more plausible for a western cybersecurity company's bottomline? make Russia innocent or make it guilty? especially when you got the backing of all western governments and media.
    - posixplz 6y ago
      FireEye has provided their own evidence[1]. BBC has strong editorial guidelines for dealing with evidence from third-parties[2]. You, however, have provided nothing but conjecture and redirection. Can you substantiate your claim? If not, it’s fair to classify your comments as obvious attempts to gaslight HN’s readers. 1: https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/blog/pdfs/Ghostwriter-Influence-Campaign.pdf https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/blog/pdfs/Gh... 2: https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accuracy/guidelines https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accurac...
      - opqpo 6y ago
        Literally there is ZERO evidence in the report. It's all pathetic nonsense "ghostwriting" about a few accounts upvoting each other on some blogs. The company and others have every incentive to blame these pathetic "ghostwriting" nonsense on Russia to make profit and be relevant. They have no reason whatsover to not do that. Even mentioning that they have no clear evidence against Russia means bad for their business.
    - raverbashing 6y ago
      They need to update their response book, at this point it becomes too predictable
koheripbal 6y ago
Obviously you mean Russia, but China, North Korea, and Iran also have an interest in weakening NATO.
- hakka-nyu-su 6y ago
  The military alliances of the United States in Asia are not part of NATO.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    That doesn't mean China can't see a benefit from chaos within NATO. Australia may not be in NATO, but there's close coordination anyways.
    - blaser-waffle 6y ago
      Australia may not be in NATO but they're still British Commonwealth, and in communion with the UK and Canada (who are founding NATO members) as well as the US. Pick a fight with Australia and the ANZUS Treaty comes into force, and if the ANAZACs are in a fight, the US and UK will almost certainly be involved.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        Right, that's the point. The Asia theatre alliances may not be NATO, but there's enough NATO involvement in them to functionally work the same way. Nuke Japan? You've picked a fight with NATO. Invade Australia? Same deal.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
cookieswumchorr 6y ago
step behind the curb citizen, nothing to see here
runarberg 6y ago
Why are you sure it is a nation. NATO is by no means an uncontroversial entity. Millions of peace activists—including my self—would love to see it abolished. Although I do admit, the content of the fake news articles seem a little crude to be coming from peace activists. Personally I would post simple truthful anti-NATO, anti-military, and anti-nuclear weapons propaganda if I had the will to break into news web sites CMS. EDIT: People are rallying against my anti-militarism. I don’t think there is a point arguing that, and such an argument is blatantly out of topic. Here we are discussing that I have a reason to doubt that a nation state is behind these attacks.
- rudolph9 6y ago
  Maybe it’s not a nation but at the very least it’s a nation is likely turning a blind eye to those who are doing it as it aligns with their interests.
- jeswin 6y ago
  > Millions of peace activists—including my self—would love to see it abolished. I wonder how Europe will respond when the next Crimea happens? Or if Taiwan gets attacked. It's a real question, and I'd love to hear from a peace-activist. I'd bet Europe will do nothing. Merkel wouldn't even openly criticize China for stripping away democracy from Hong Kong. European models work well in a world without dictatorships. But as long as we have dictatorships, rigid pacifism is just throwing militarily weaker democracies under the bus. Irrespective of what one thinks about Trump, the US military a dependable ally for (many) democracies. And perhaps the only one with the willingness to act. (Not an American.)
  - runarberg 6y ago
    We are speaking very much out of topic. The fact that I’m personally against NATO adds nothing in the debate on whether a nation state was behind these attacks. But lets entertain this anyway[1]. Crimea was annexed by a militaristic nation from a smaller less—but still quite—militaristic nation. Ukraine is neighbored to the west with supporting European nation—some with a really big military, and even nuclear weapons. None of those were able—or even willing—to stop the annexation. In this instance these armies were useless. China annexed Tibet in the 50s and it wasn’t stopped. What makes you think Taiwan would be any different? China is a dictatorial power that is committing a genocide against a religious minority in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. It is not stopped. What makes you think Hong Kong would be any different? Please note that invasions, and wars are not the only ways to act against human rights violations. There is also sanctions and boycotts. This was particularly effective to stop the South African apartheid. But alas, the current world powers are unwilling to apply even that to try to stop China from their human rights violations. --- 1. Even though I’ve had this conversation dozens of times, and the idea of military is so engraved into people that the idea that we don’t need it—or worse is harmful—is too alien for people to even contemplate.
setnone 6y ago
do you think that whole nation is responsible?

Gee, I wonder what nation could possibly be behind this?

YarickR2 6y ago

Say it out loud ?

cvhashim 6y ago
Always figured those Andorrans were up to something
- TomMarius 6y ago
  Well let's hope we find Shran soon enough Edit: Andorrans, not Andorians

opqpo 6y ago

The one this fake story was designed to make you think it is behind it

hnarn 6y ago
Wow, how clever. So are you saying Russia never do these types of operations, or do they, but only sometimes? If so, I'd love to know how you can tell the difference.
- opqpo 6y ago
  The truth never matters since you got the downvotes. Of course Russia is behind all attacks. Even all the attacking IPs are coming from near the Kremlin according to many articles in the western MSM!
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  Russia would know that any fake stories it posts after hacking the BBC will be immediately taken down and corrected. Not only that, but it lets Western governments know Russia has that capability and take measures to counter it. There's a lot more damage they could do with hacked news sites than just "discrediting NATO." They get little or no benefit out of a hack like this. On the other hand, if this thread is any indication, domestic intelligence agencies which want to foment anti-Russian sentiment can get a lot of mileage out of the idea this is another dastardly cyberattack by the Russkies.
  - KingOfCoders 6y ago
    The killing of Russians in the UK and Germany (and elsewhere) was also by domestic intelligence agencies? And the BND and MI6 cooperated on these killings? Otherwise Western governments would know GRU capabilities?
    - AndrewBissell 6y ago
      Russia has a strong interest in and pattern of silencing regime critics, so no, I think those killings were almost certainly carried out by Russia. I'm not sure what their interest would be in using this once-and-done hack to post a bunch of articles about NATO that no one will even read.
jpxw 6y ago
Bingo
posixplz 6y ago
Do you have any evidence that FireEye’s report is inaccurate or misleading? You are making an outlandish claim, that the BBC is lying in conjunction with FireEye. Back it up with evidence, or abstain from gaslighting please.
- opqpo 6y ago
  Do you have any evidence that FireEye’s report is accurate and not misleading? they are the ones that claimed it in the first place. Also what do you think is more plausible for a western cybersecurity company's bottomline? make Russia innocent or make it guilty? especially when you got the backing of all western governments and media.
  - posixplz 6y ago
    FireEye has provided their own evidence[1]. BBC has strong editorial guidelines for dealing with evidence from third-parties[2]. You, however, have provided nothing but conjecture and redirection. Can you substantiate your claim? If not, it’s fair to classify your comments as obvious attempts to gaslight HN’s readers. 1: https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/blog/pdfs/Ghostwriter-Influence-Campaign.pdf https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/blog/pdfs/Gh... 2: https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accuracy/guidelines https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accurac...
    - opqpo 6y ago
      Literally there is ZERO evidence in the report. It's all pathetic nonsense "ghostwriting" about a few accounts upvoting each other on some blogs. The company and others have every incentive to blame these pathetic "ghostwriting" nonsense on Russia to make profit and be relevant. They have no reason whatsover to not do that. Even mentioning that they have no clear evidence against Russia means bad for their business.
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    They need to update their response book, at this point it becomes too predictable

koheripbal 6y ago

Obviously you mean Russia, but China, North Korea, and Iran also have an interest in weakening NATO.

hakka-nyu-su 6y ago
The military alliances of the United States in Asia are not part of NATO.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  That doesn't mean China can't see a benefit from chaos within NATO. Australia may not be in NATO, but there's close coordination anyways.
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    Australia may not be in NATO but they're still British Commonwealth, and in communion with the UK and Canada (who are founding NATO members) as well as the US. Pick a fight with Australia and the ANZUS Treaty comes into force, and if the ANAZACs are in a fight, the US and UK will almost certainly be involved.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Right, that's the point. The Asia theatre alliances may not be NATO, but there's enough NATO involvement in them to functionally work the same way. Nuke Japan? You've picked a fight with NATO. Invade Australia? Same deal.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

cookieswumchorr 6y ago

step behind the curb citizen, nothing to see here

runarberg 6y ago

Why are you sure it is a nation. NATO is by no means an uncontroversial entity. Millions of peace activists—including my self—would love to see it abolished. Although I do admit, the content of the fake news articles seem a little crude to be coming from peace activists. Personally I would post simple truthful anti-NATO, anti-military, and anti-nuclear weapons propaganda if I had the will to break into news web sites CMS. EDIT: People are rallying against my anti-militarism. I don’t think there is a point arguing that, and such an argument is blatantly out of topic. Here we are discussing that I have a reason to doubt that a nation state is behind these attacks.

rudolph9 6y ago
Maybe it’s not a nation but at the very least it’s a nation is likely turning a blind eye to those who are doing it as it aligns with their interests.
jeswin 6y ago
> Millions of peace activists—including my self—would love to see it abolished. I wonder how Europe will respond when the next Crimea happens? Or if Taiwan gets attacked. It's a real question, and I'd love to hear from a peace-activist. I'd bet Europe will do nothing. Merkel wouldn't even openly criticize China for stripping away democracy from Hong Kong. European models work well in a world without dictatorships. But as long as we have dictatorships, rigid pacifism is just throwing militarily weaker democracies under the bus. Irrespective of what one thinks about Trump, the US military a dependable ally for (many) democracies. And perhaps the only one with the willingness to act. (Not an American.)
- runarberg 6y ago
  We are speaking very much out of topic. The fact that I’m personally against NATO adds nothing in the debate on whether a nation state was behind these attacks. But lets entertain this anyway[1]. Crimea was annexed by a militaristic nation from a smaller less—but still quite—militaristic nation. Ukraine is neighbored to the west with supporting European nation—some with a really big military, and even nuclear weapons. None of those were able—or even willing—to stop the annexation. In this instance these armies were useless. China annexed Tibet in the 50s and it wasn’t stopped. What makes you think Taiwan would be any different? China is a dictatorial power that is committing a genocide against a religious minority in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. It is not stopped. What makes you think Hong Kong would be any different? Please note that invasions, and wars are not the only ways to act against human rights violations. There is also sanctions and boycotts. This was particularly effective to stop the South African apartheid. But alas, the current world powers are unwilling to apply even that to try to stop China from their human rights violations. --- 1. Even though I’ve had this conversation dozens of times, and the idea of military is so engraved into people that the idea that we don’t need it—or worse is harmful—is too alien for people to even contemplate.

setnone 6y ago

do you think that whole nation is responsible?