U.S. report on Russian hacking released.

How did the CIA get evidence that Russia hacked the election?

Did the CIA hack Russia? Do as I say not as I do? Pot calling the kettle black (all kettle lives matter).

Things that make you go hrmmmmmm......
 
They got the info from the same source that told them Saddam had WMD.
aka the military industrial complex who needed a big war and Russia were the candidate. Just that the warmonger Clinton lost the election , so they are desperately scrambling to start one before Trump comes in.

they have no evidence , its just suits their agenda .
 
I can easily believe that Putin and Russia took advantage of a weak candidate on the left and did everything they could to keep her name in the news negatively. However, unless Trump had direct contact with Russia, which hasn't really been shown anywhere, I don't think this really matters as far as de-legitimizing Trump. It is the DNC's fault that Hillary is the best they could come up with, and not understanding the way that voters were looking to be connected to: bluntly.
I think it does show what many of us already knew, Putin has no interest in Trump as "someone he can work with." He sees him as a tool and a way to advance Russian interests at the expense of a President with almost no foreign policy knowledge. Until I see evidence Trump was involved, this really isn't anything new.
 
Slate had a story on this:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ssia_s_election_interference_puts_trump.html#

Top-rated comment:

My name is Dave. I am American. Like baseball and pie from apples.

This so-calling "journalist" is making bad "journalism." There is no evidence of Russia wrongdoing, and United States government are trying make American people stupid.

But American people, like me, are not stupid. We are very smart. You cannot trick them even when you try real very hard.
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone from the WR (maybe Rematch--sincerity is equally questionable).
 
MusterX said:
Not really a conspiracy, the C.I.A. produces the intel and the rest go along with it as they always have until they get caught. Especially the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff who actually want wars. How many times does the C.I.A. have to dupe you before you understand they can't be trusted. I gave you multiple examples of how they will even lie to Congress. You think the C.I.A. will lie to Congress but it won't make up shit about Russia? Really?
Click to expand...

And you really believe that this is something that is beneath Putin? Trump basically admitted it's truth this morning but blamed the victim for allowing to occur. The ol' if the girl didn't want it she shouldn't have been wearing it routine.
 
Blackened said:
You gotta understand, 16 intelligence agencies said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Gotta understand the CIA lied about Vietnam, lied about Iraq, probably lied about JFK... I'm just skeptical and I'll have to see proof before the CIA get my approval on this. Do we really want war with Russia based on faulty intelligence?

Trying to learn from our mistakes here.
Click to expand...

16? Got a source on that? I seem to remember that there was a lot of division over the WMD issues, with a lot of NATO members for example, not buying in.

I get that the CIA has fucked around in the past. No denying that. But there was a clear motive (several actually) in 2002/3 for falsifying information to justify the invasion of Iraq. There is no clear motive for wanting to go to war with the second largest nuclear power on the planet.

There is however motive for Putin to prefer Trump. We know that Putin supports populist politicians in Europe (Marie Le Pen is practically on his payroll). All major intel agencies in Europe have been telling us that Russia has been pulling this same shit on them for years. The German police force for example finds it necessary to hold regular press conferences just to debunk fake news planted by Russia.

Yes, maybe it's all some elaborate story that everyone is in on. But that makes a lot less sense than the narrative that's actually being pushed. Russia has a lot to gain from supporting populist politicians, but European and North American free countries have nothing but mutually assured destruction to gain from a war with Russia.
 
Diamond Jim said:
And you really believe that this is something that is beneath Putin? Trump basically admitted it's truth this morning but blamed the victim for allowing to occur. The ol' if the girl didn't want it she shouldn't have been wearing it routine.
Click to expand...

All major nations spy on each other and lie about each other, of course Putin could. I'm just telling you the source is the C.I.A. and they are the apex of liars who have been caught so many times its funny.
 
Cuauhtemoc said:
Yes, I support a preemptive nuclear attack.

Right now it would be possible to wipe out Russia completely while retaliation would only cause around 100 million dead americans and destroyed infrastructure(all hospitals, power plants and highways). Around 100 million would be hurt and 100 million exposed to fallout.

If enough bunkers are constructed it is possible to hide enough seeds, fuel, generators and rebuild. Wait there for 2 weeks and you can ride out most of the fallout too.

Probable US targets:
sw1LI3l.jpg
How would you fare? Liberals would be completely wiped out. Some republicans might survive.


According to FEMA:
http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/projected-us-casualties-and-destruction.pdf
Click to expand...





Good post.

Now, what would be the negatives of this scenario?
 
TheComebackKid said:
2 questions.

Are you saying the US government, and it's intelligence agencies, has not provided extensive reasons to distrust and/or be skeptical of claims they make without providing us evidence and proof?

The government is asserting a claim so the onus is on them to prove it. Why would I have to disprove something they have never proven or else 'bias'?
Click to expand...
The problem is there is proof of hacking. There are reports from June that Russian hackers had access to DNC networks for a year. So yes, the onus is to disprove that.
 
lecter said:
No but Trump should be tougher with Russia than soft and helpless Barry, not become friends with Putin
Click to expand...




Why not ally himself with Russia?


The war room seems strange to me. Russia is filled with white people, they should be our allies so, together, we can bomb the brown people. No?

What's going on?
 
We shouldn't go to war with Russia if all they did was hack the democratic party's email accounts.

Who knows if Russia even did it?
 
bufetadanacara said:
Why not ally himself with Russia?
Click to expand...
Because Russia isn't an ally. Putin only cares about power and our interests often will be contrary to each other.
It just doesn't work. This thing with 'get along with Russia and knock the hell out of ISIS' is pure delusion.
Russia doesn't give a fuck about ISIS, they just bomb everything that's opposed to Assad in order to preserve geopolitical interests.

The war room seems strange to me. Russia is filled with white people
Click to expand...
Actually, it's not. Have you ever been to Moscow? It's full of Asians and Muslims.


they should be our allies so, together, we can bomb the brown people. No?
What's going on?
Click to expand...
Putin doesn't care about any of this. If you see him as a protector of some white master race or Christian values etc, you're totally wrong.
 
Put it to a plebiscite. All who vote yes have to directly support the war via either serving overseas or a yuuge increase in taxes.

The rest of us can point and laugh.

Edit: this post was in response to "Should we go to war with Russia", a thread that was merged in with this one.
 
Last edited:
lecter said:
Because Russia isn't an ally. Putin only cares about power and our interests often will be contrary to each other.
It just doesn't work. This thing with 'get along with Russia and knock the hell out of ISIS' is pure delusion.
Russia doesn't give a fuck about ISIS, they just bomb everything that's opposed to Assad in order to preserve geopolitical interests.


Actually, it's not. Have you ever been to Moscow? It's full of Asians and Muslims.



Putin doesn't care about any of this. If you see him as a protector of some white master race or Christian values etc, you're totally wrong.
Click to expand...



The racism part was a joke.

The part about Russia only being concerned about Russia and looking out for their own geopolitical interests.

Seems like a match made in heaven to me.



USA has been the most dirty, corrupt country for almost a century. With every passing day, it is getting harder and harder to consider them "the good guys".


I don't care if it was Russia who hacked into emails. The citizens of USA deserve to know the truth, they deserve more transparency from their leaders.
 
we should be thanking them if they were in fact the "hackers" that merely exposed true and real emails by a bunch of snakes.
 
Grenz said:
16?
Click to expand...

There were 16 agencies in that report, but it was drastically different from this one. There were also disagreements between some agencies on certain aspects of the report, and there wasn't an overall high confidence level.

Also, the Bush administration were twisting the report to their narrative while hardly anyone in Congress read the entire thing. For example, one of they key conclusions of the report said they "could" have nuclear weapons within a decade. But that was if they actually started up their program, which the report claimed it had no evidence of them doing so. The report also said Iraq lacked the materials to manufacture any nuclear weapons. And that they were unable to determine if their biological weapons agent research had returned.

Now considering what the report said, this was the narrative Bush was pushing from the report (straight from his mouth):
"Iraq possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "the evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."
 
Grenz said:
16? Got a source on that? I seem to remember that there was a lot of division over the WMD issues, with a lot of NATO members for example, not buying in.

I get that the CIA has fucked around in the past. No denying that. But there was a clear motive (several actually) in 2002/3 for falsifying information to justify the invasion of Iraq. There is no clear motive for wanting to go to war with the second largest nuclear power on the planet.

There is however motive for Putin to prefer Trump. We know that Putin supports populist politicians in Europe (Marie Le Pen is practically on his payroll). All major intel agencies in Europe have been telling us that Russia has been pulling this same shit on them for years. The German police force for example finds it necessary to hold regular press conferences just to debunk fake news planted by Russia.

Yes, maybe it's all some elaborate story that everyone is in on. But that makes a lot less sense than the narrative that's actually being pushed. Russia has a lot to gain from supporting populist politicians, but European and North American free countries have nothing but mutually assured destruction to gain from a war with Russia.
Click to expand...
Yeah here's a source.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/colin-powell-u-n-speech-was-a-great-intelligence-failure/

So excuse me if I withhold my judgement and am skeptical of the CIA. And don't believe that "no motive" for war with Russia. International banking is always a strong motive, especially when alliances jeopardize the U.S.'s position as leading superpower.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahsu...conomic-alliance-on-the-horizon/#171f19693df9
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,675
Messages
58,311,051
Members
175,997
Latest member
joshvegas

Share this page

Back
Top