5 ms·
Disappointing, the article doesn't say anything new or untold beyond some minor personal details about the people involved and the fact that people repeatedly m
by revelio 3y ago
Disappointing, the article doesn't say anything new or untold beyond some minor personal details about the people involved and the fact that people repeatedly missed major clues because they weren't talking to each other.
Also, the article repeatedly insinuates that the attack was traced to the Russian government, in fact it says it so often a casual reader could be forgiven for thinking they had proof. But a careful reading shows that they have absolutely no idea who did the SolarWinds hack. The link to the SVR is simply that Kevin Mandia has a "hunch" based on "pattern recognition" from his work in the 1990s. Not only is no proof presented, they don't even have anything that could be called evidence.
Writeups of hacks are always like this nowadays. It's the Russians. How do we know it's not the Chinese, or the Americans, or the British? We don't but if we say it's the Russians everyone will be on our side, so let's roll with that.
I really wish journalists would not try to manipulate readers like that. It'd be more honest to say they don't know. Trying to slip a completely made up SVR connection past the readers like that implies the rest of the article might just be spin too.
- brabel 3y agoI was watching the news last night, and apparently, not only they're pretty sure it was Russia that bombed the half-Russian pipelines to Europe (NordStream2), but it was Russia (or Russian partisans, whatever they mean) that tried to kill Putin last night with a drone attack as well. You can accuse Russia of anything you want in the current climate, and everyone will take you seriously regardless of evidence.
- stickfigure 3y agoWhen you have a history of lying and running malevolent information operations, plus invading your neighbors on multiple occasions... yeah, you kinda lose the benefit of the doubt. Your comment looks like an information operation itself. As far as I can tell, the only claims that the drones "tried to kill Putin" come from Russian state media.
- brabel 3y agoWhen you start accusing someone or a country of everything, it's not them who are losing the benefit of the doubt. It's you who are losing any credibility. > As far as I can tell, the only claims that the drones "tried to kill Putin" come from Russian state media. Well, I was reporting what the news said, and it was definitely not the Russian media.
- mc32 3y agoNews: More than one country is involved in propaganda and disinformation and information and narrative shaping in the world.
- LetsGetTechnicl 3y agoYou do realize that the US government itself has a history of lying, running malevolent information operations and invading other countries in order to de-stabilize them and install friendly dictators? That is why I don't buy this China and Russia scare tactics. Everyone's doing it.
- lesuorac 3y ago> you kinda lose the benefit of the doubt. Losing benefit of the doubt doesn't mean you're guilty. It just means when Russia accused the UK [1] of blowing up the pipeline you can't trust them. Or when Russia accuses the US [2] of blowing up the pipeline you can't trust them. It doesn't mean the US or UK didn't do it; it just means Russian claims are not evidence and you'd probably be better off just completely ignoring them so that it doesn't taint any opinions. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-british-navy-personnel-blew-up-nord-stream-gas-pipelines-2022-10-29/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-british-nav... [2]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-09/russia-blames-us-for-nord-stream-blasts-threatens-consequences https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-09/russia-bl...
- ackbar03 3y agoSomething similar was reported years ago https://youtu.be/vm1U5E44W90 https://youtu.be/vm1U5E44W90
- hgsgm 3y ago[flagged]
- mc32 3y agoI think in a different time, we'd be able to say that it's become a farce, but ideology doesn't allow that thought to creep in. Even at the height of the cold war, we'd have contrarians and simple sympathizers who tried to nudge us --eventually both sides realized that the other wasn't the evil one thought the other was and that eventually allowed for Gorbachov and Reagan to have constructive dialog. But who in their right mind would be _convinced_ without a doubt that it was Russia who destroyed the pipeline cutting their nose to spite their face? It's so stupid. Even Saddam wasn't accused of being that stupid.
- w7 3y agoYou say destroyed as if it was completely destroyed. https://www.dw.com/en/putin-offers-europe-gas-through-nord-stream-2-germany-declines/a-63416138 https://www.dw.com/en/putin-offers-europe-gas-through-nord-s... The only pipeline that was destroy was the one Germany had shutdown, Russia immediately began trying to poke Germany to open the other pipeline.
- goodSteveramos 3y agoRussia has been the one wanting all the pipelines open this whole time and the US has been the one demanding they stop existing. Your argument is fooy.
- w7 3y agoSo the US who "has been the one demanding they stop existing" covertly places explosives on 3/4 pipes, and ignores the last pipe despite direct proximity to the others? "Russia has been the one wanting all the pipelines open this whole time" Key word is "wanting", they were not getting it, Germany made is clear they were not getting it.
- goodSteveramos 3y agoSo the fact that whoever blew up 3 of the 4 pipes decided not to or wasn't able to or failed to blow up the last one means they must want Russia supplying gas to Europe? These bad faith arguments are why no one trusts the US anymore and everyone is getting on board with BRICS. The US lies and stabs you in that back no matter what.
- w7 3y agoYou're excluding the part where: A) it was only partially destroyed B) Russia offered to run gas through the remaining pipeline at a higher price, almost immediately after running campaigns pointing fingers at everyone else Apparently with A whoever did it decided not disable it completely, and with B somehow Russia is extremely confident it won't be attacked again. It's not a hard conclusion to reach that Russia bombed its own shutdown pipeline, while leaving it functional, in order to cause confusion amongst enemies.
- tanseydavid 3y ago>> decided not disable it completely...while leaving it functional It isn't as if someone flipped a switch. This is underwater explosives at considerable depth. There is nothing self-evident in what you've laid out here but you sure seem to think that it is. Asserting that you do not find it difficult to reach this conclusion does not make the conclusion you have reached, any less convoluted.
- goodSteveramos 3y agoHis reasoning must be convoluted because his conclusion is false. His argument is like saying that the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't also kill Jackie Kennedy means Oswald must have liked the Kennedys and wanted them to stay in the White House.
- w7 3y agoIt's not. Instead of trying to come up with convoluted analogies for my conclusion to try and paint it as outlandish, maybe go back to talking about off topic stuff like BRICS.
- goodSteveramos 3y agoMy analogy’s convoluted and contrived logic perfectly captures yours.
- 3y ago
- notlukesky 3y agoSouth Park blamed Canada
- sproketboy 3y ago[dead]
- zh3 3y agoIt did read rather like something inspired by stories from 80's hacker culture. And the build systems sound like they were made by managers.