Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Doug Morris

How much danger are we in? What can we do?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Nicky said:

It's not simple. It's fairly complex. You made it simple by ignoring everything that disproves your simplistic, ignorant theory.

Freitas dismantled the whole thing in a sentence. You should read that sentence, instead of going on about "dividing sum of file sizes by time elapsed".

 

Really?  Which sentence was that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nicky said:

It's not simple. It's fairly complex. You made it simple by ignoring everything that disproves your simplistic, ignorant theory.

Freitas dismantled the whole thing in a sentence. You should read that sentence, instead of going on about "dividing sum of file sizes by time elapsed".

 

It is not my theory, credit to Forensicator.   Freitas hesitates to go where Forensicator does but can't rule it out either.

Meanwhile, it appears what little malware was reportedly found the DNC server may have been planted by CrowdStrike, the computer security firm that was hired by the DNC.  Full story here by Adam Carter. 

At any rate, whether or not that story pans out we get dates laid out for when CrowdStrike was involved relative to when the Wikileaks data was liberated.  The latest dates of Wikileaks emails were 25 May 2016 but CrowdStrike were on the case and getting paid for it before then.  Rebooting a backup server with a Linux distro on a USB stick and copying the data to that same USB stick would then be safest way for an insider to get the data out.  A remote hacker wouldn't care about leaving evidence in logs pointing to a compromised user account but an insider would.   Rebooting a backup server from a USB stick bypasses user account controls.

That scenario of an insider rebooting a server from a USB stick is Forensicator's, I am just claiming that it makes sense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2017 at 3:14 PM, Grames said:

Of all the reporting done on this angle to the story there is really only one original source which is The Forensicator website, a wordpress blog.  Read up on what is there and you will know all that I know. 

Why should I trust this site as a good source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Why should I trust this site as a good source?

You don't need to trust it.  As Freitas wrote, "The Forensicator has worked carefully with the limited set of data available, providing the means necessary for anyone to reproduce the work and analysis." You either have the background knowledge to understand his calculations to the point of being able to check them or you don't. 

At some point the data was transferred to a USB memory stick.   It cannot be proven where or when in the chain of custody from the DNC to Wikileaks that happened but the inference that looks most plausible was when it was removed from the DNC's possession or its backup server location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grames said:

At some point the data was transferred to a USB memory stick.

That's it? A USB stick? Why not say the color too? If you're going to make stuff up, you might as well give it a color. Was it red? I bet it was red. I can tell by the way the file smelled when I opened it.

There's no evidence of a USB stick. You can't divine what a file was stored on by looking at it, it's silly talk.

Quote

You either have the background knowledge to understand his calculations to the point of being able to check them or you don't. 

There's no need for special expertise to dismantle most of what he's saying. Let's take the way he divined the mythical USB stick, for instance, since you brought it up: " This transfer rate (23 MB/s) is typically seen when copying local data to a fairly slow (USB-2) thumb drive. "

That's it. That's the only attempt at backing up the whole USB stick story. You really don't need to be any kind of computer expert to know that an old USB stick is not the only thing you'll see 23 MB/s speed on. Or that most old USB sticks don't even have that speed, there's a huge variance in transfer speeds.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freitas made assumptions that he didn't test... so I tested them for him.

http://g-2.space/thenation/

Foreniscator didn't just get USB stick usage from the speed (reliable peak was 38MB/s fwiw, outlier peak of 49MB/s) - there were also indicators of FAT filesystem use.

There was also the Eastern Time observation too (ie. the main archive was created in September by some whose computer had eastern time set as their timezone)

So he's not "making stuff up", the USB stick is very likely rather than "mythical" and there are certainly multiple indicators of USB stick usage compared to your "There's no evidence of a USB stick ".

Edited by Adam Carter
typo correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Nicky,

"His intelligence services hacked the DNC"

APT29 malware was there since the Summer 2015, IC suspects it's related to RU intelligence but nothing solid demonstrating that.  APT28 malware was apparently compiled just before and during CrowdStrike's visit in early May, IC suspects APT28 is related to RU intelligence too due to array of targets exposed by Fidelis (which is considerably more compelling than APT29 attribution) but the compile dates and significantly outdated C2 server IP addresses in the APT28 malware raise doubts about the authenticity of it).

Furthermore, CrowdStrike, despite having Falcon installed across the DNC network by the May 11, 2016 and the emails being acquired at least 8 days later - only managed to release out-of-context IOCs and malware code samples - there was no incident specific evidence, something they should have had thanks to their monitoring capabilities at that time.

CrowdStrike have never been able to explain how or when any of the malware discovered interacted with emails or transferred any significant data to remote hosts.

"released compromising information to Wikileaks in order to prevent a Clinton victory."

We don't know who gave WikiLeaks the emails.

"This was an unprecedentedly hostile act. While espionage, including hacking, is par for the course between competing world powers, none of them have dumped the information they obtained through espionage onto the web, to influence elections, before. As such, this is a new level of hostility, which warrants an equally hostile response."

The DNC is a private organization, attacking them is not an attack on the state (the law may change on that in future but for now, they aren't technically part of the government).  We also don't have any hard evidence that they were complicit, so you're essentially demanding a hostile response on the basis of what is assumed but not demonstrated.

"No, what would've helped voters make better decisions was if both parties private mail was released at the same time."

There's no indication WikiLeaks had RNC emails or the tax returns but I do agree that it would have been nice if those were leaked to WikiLeaks and then published at the same time.

"Having the Russian government decide which dirty secrets to release and which not to doesn't help American voters make good decisions. It's an absurd suggestion"

There's nothing to show WikiLeaks obtained the emails that they published from Russia or any other state.

"Freitas dismantled the whole thing in a sentence."

Freitas was using the average rate rather than peak rate and his alternate hypotheses (pivot server theory, etc) would inherently have made the hack needlessly easier to detect, something most hackers would typically avoid (it's more of a convenient way to explain the bitrate than be something hackers would typically do or choose to do).

To try to explain away the FAT32 anomalies Freitas has suggested that a server may have an NTFS primary drive and FAT32 secondary (possible but very rare these days).  It would be a completely unnecessary risk of detection moving gigabytes of files to a secondary drive at those rates.

While Freitas is pointing out possibilities, they are already significantly less probable scenarios than those stated by Forensicator.

Freitas also suggests that, using the RAT, hackers may have archived the files.  Again, triggering a CPU and disk intensive process... something that is inadvisable for anyone wanting to remain stealthy.

Most of the other things he mentioned after that point are addressed in the article that I linked to in my previous post..

Edited by Adam Carter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well hello to Adam Carter and welcome to this forum.  I don't know you nor had I ever heard of you before reading about this story and had not issued you any invitation to come here, so how did you find out about this forum and thread mentioning you?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If it was an inside job, what are the prospects of identifying the perpetrator?

Ask Julian Assange what the prospects are of him identifying his source.   I don't think there is a chance of any other method working after this much time has passed.   The FBI was never permitted to examine the servers, so there is no evidence now beyond the files themselves.

Assange has been coy about using the unfortunate Seth Rich as his source.  But Assange could as well be using Seth Rich as a cover for the real source which he continues to protect.   We can't know until Assange comes clean in some way that is reliable testimony and not trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2018 at 10:30 PM, Adam Carter said:

The DNC is a private organization, attacking them is not an attack on the state (the law may change on that in future but for now, they aren't technically part of the government).

Good one. I guess 9/11 wasn't an attack on the US either, since the towers were owned by the NY Port Authority. I don't see why the federal government decided to get involved, they should've just let the owner fight it out with Al Qaeda.

Quote

There's nothing to show WikiLeaks obtained the emails that they published from Russia or any other state.

Except for all the overwhelming evidence. We have that. But, other than that, nothing.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2018 at 5:02 AM, Doug Morris said:

If it was an inside job, what are the prospects of identifying the perpetrator?

Circumstantial evidence points to an orchestrated effort to remove Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her friends in the DNC. People try to link the DNC email theft to an attack on Hillary, but it was aimed at the DNC leadership, and resulted in the resignations of several top DNC officials. The stolen emails were dated up to May 25, 2016, which happened to be during the very vocal campaign to undermine DWS's position as DNC chair. Consider this CNN article, DNC Chair On Thin Ice, which was published (coincidentally?) on May 25, and near the end cites three anonymous "Democrats with ties to the party's power centers."

Quote

 

Three Democrats with ties to the party's power centers -- President Barack Obama, Clinton and Sanders -- made clear that few are rooting for Wasserman Schultz's survival at the DNC.

"If this is the one thing that provides unity, they would take that trade," said one senior Democratic strategist, who has spoken to the White House. "Nobody is rushing to keep her."

Another Democratic adviser close to Clinton said "there is an exhaustion that comes with dealing with her."

The Democrats close to Obama and Clinton both acknowledged that removing Wasserman Schultz would be "messy" and "wouldn't happen easily," but it could certainly be done.

A DNC member told CNN Wasserman Schultz expects to leave by the end of the year but "doesn't want to be looked at as sacrificed at Bernie's altar."

There had been quite conversations over the last couple of months, the source said, about finding a place for Wasserman Schultz to "segue to" in order to make leaving the DNC palatable. But that didn't happen.

 

Two months later DWS was gone, indeed, after a very "messy" ordeal during the national convention. And her departure was very much seen as a sacrifice to Bernie's altar. Hillary was then immediately allowed to hire DWS for her campaign, and Bernie supported Hillary. On the surface the Party was one big, happy family again.

So, I guess the Democrats should be thanking the Russian hackers for intervening and helping get rid of unwanted Party leaders who might have cost Hillary even more Berniebot votes in November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2018 at 5:11 PM, Nicky said:

Good one. I guess 9/11 wasn't an attack on the US either, since the towers were owned by the NY Port Authority. I

The hack still not an attack on the state. It still seems like the intent was to harm the DNC, not the government or its institutions. It's bad and malicious, but not an attack on the state. The intent of 9/11 was to harm the state as an act of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2018 at 2:11 PM, Nicky said:

I guess 9/11 wasn't an attack on the US either, since the towers were owned by the NY Port Authority. I don't see why the federal government decided to get involved, they should've just let the owner fight it out with Al Qaeda.

Let's not forget the other targets of 9/11: the Pentagon and the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The hack still not an attack on the state. It still seems like the intent was to harm the DNC, not the government or its institutions. It's bad and malicious, but not an attack on the state. The intent of 9/11 was to harm the state as an act of war.

So, what's the key to your definition of "act of war": intent to harm the state? 

If Nordic invaders conduct pillaging raids on the villages of England, are those not acts of war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, no. Marauders are still bad, though. It's only war in the sense of a violent campaign, but not intended as an attack on a nation/Empire/kingdom. "Death to America" and blowing up a national symbol wouldn't be the same as a Mexican cartel attacking some US border town, or pirates kidnapping Roman aristocracy.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia, like any sovereign nation, has the right to defend itself from aggressor nations. Hillary Clinton represented an aggressor candidate who would start WWIII by declaring a "no fly zone" over Syria.. Russia's ally, which actually invited the Russians in, unlike the meddling imperialist nation of the United States. We just barge in with our jets and drones and claim some divine right to be there, or usually we don't even explain our actions since they are inexplicable and inexcusable. Sometimes we'll throw in a petty, childish insult like "Assad is a dictator, international law no longer applies to Syria's sovereignty LOL."

Donald Trump was the first candidate in a generation who actually promised some form of reconciliation with Russia. Did Russia "hack our elections" or any other such nonsense? No proof exists for this. But let's say that Russia did interfere in our elections. They would be completely justified in doing so, because we brought it upon ourselves through our imperialist actions. Said interfering would arguably be legal under international law, via the principle of self-defense of nations. That is, if International Law actually meant anything to anybody,  which it doesn't. The world's nations are in essentially a state of anarchy with each other. Russia would've been interfering in our elections to protect itself from a "regime change" operation, just like the one that the US pulled in Kiev, Ukraine which toppled a democratically-elected president just to put literal neo-Nazis in power... where is Antifa on that one? Russia was also protecting its interests and allies in Syria, Belarus, Serbia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and other client states... also to prevent the disaster of another Iraq led by America. Hillary voted for Gulf War II; Trump and Russia opposed it. BTW we killed more people just in Iraq than Russia has killed in all of the conflicts which it has been involved in since 1991. Who is the "rogue state" again...? It's us.

We are the imperialists on the world stage. We are a savage child state. We are the ones who the entire world is sick of.. other than our lackey and yes-men "allies" (read: parasites) in NATO who would suck our collective genitals for more cash and weapons if given the opportunity. All the while we add more members to the gravy train, countries like tiny Montenegro in 2017, a tiny deer tick of a country with an economy smaller than Vermont's, with nothing of value to offer on its own or as part of a group. All this, of course, paid courtesy of you and me, the taxpayer, and our unborn grandchildren who will be spitting on our graves for the national debt that our generation put them in without their consent, predating their birth. Israel, as well, is another fair weather "friend" of America's which stabs our back at every opportunity.

We have no real friends or allies as a country. We're the pariah state, and all of our allies and friends are imaginary. We're like some rich kid who pays the other kids to hang out with him, when otherwise they'd all be off doing their own things. Every "ally" of ours condemns us for having a just and fair penalty for ultimate criminals (capital punishment) and refuses to extradite criminals to us who may face it. Every ally of ours shakes their heads at us for having "too many guns," for not having "universal" healthcare--AKA a socialist train-wreck like the rest of the industrialized world has. They laugh at us because we don't have hate speech laws, the sort of anti-reason laws they all have which protects Islam from any legitimate criticism. Europe is not our friends, neither are Canada or Australia or the UK or Japan or anyone else. If they were our true friends? They would copy our capitalist economy, which while mixed is still more pure than anywhere in the west. They would copy our freedoms. They would pay their fair share in NATO, they'd allow their citizens to own assault rifles should they ever face a ground invasion. We are truly the international slave state.

Russia, while far from the good guys, is hardly an evil empire anymore. Perhaps we could learn national-self-interest from them. Russia enters no military alliances without some sort of benefit to Russia. They do not sacrifice themselves to other countries, nor expect other countries to sacrifice themselves to Russia. Additionally, every action they take upon the world stage serves their interests first, is well-thought out, based on real intelligence, and is as benevolent as possible. Five people died when Russia reclaimed Crimea. Not five thousand. Not five hundred. Five. And fake news told me in 2014 that I'm supposed to care more about this "illegal anexation" of Crimea than my own country's sins in Iraq for which we are still paying? Paying through ISIS-inspired and directed attacks against the West. We could've avoided much of this by simply not meddling in the M.E. to start with. We created the Taliban and ISIS through our actions or reckless irresponsibility. 

As Obama's pastor said, America's chickens are coming home to roost.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

No proof exists for this.

There does, the main dispute is if it was state sponsored.

2 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

We're the pariah state, and all of our allies and friends are imaginary.

 

2 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

the meddling imperialist nation of the United States. We just barge in with our jets and drones and claim some divine right to be there, or usually we don't even explain our actions since they are inexplicable and inexcusable.

You speak of how the US harms its reputation through imperialism, praise Russia (Putin) for its imperialism, then spin the US in terms of capitalism as "more pure than anywhere in the west" despite how you are stating that the US is an imperialist state. This is not making sense.

Criticism of the US is fine, but you're so gentle about Russia doing the same.

Sure, Russia/Putin does well for itself. Political savvy is good. But my praise ends there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

There does, the main dispute is if it was state sponsored.

I don't care if it was. Russia (or Russians) did us a phenomenal service in exposing that wretched hag Hillary for the heartless, warmongering, lying pig that she really is. Honestly we should award Russia the Nobel Peace Prize and give Putin honorary citizenship for what he (allegedly) did.

Quote

You speak of how the US harms its reputation through imperialism, praise Russia (Putin) for its imperialism,

I don't praise Russia for its imperialism. I praise Russia because it is not imperialistic to the degree that the US is. Russia doesn't just go starting wars for no reason just to get some 'erl. Or "oil" as non-retarded people say it. Russia only exerts influence over other countries in an imperial way if they're in Russia's backyard and it serves Russian interests to do so. Vs. the United States which is like a patron at a strip club, shoveling out singles to whatever floozy nation wants some. NATO and foreign aid to Israel is more evil than anything that Russia is presently doing; they are not forcing their citizens into international altrusim. Russia's national debt per capita is a fraction of America's. They don't just spend their grandkids' future on war the way that we do. $3,700 per person as opposed to $57,300 for the US. Most of our debt is in either socialism (medicare, social security), or in inflating our massive, throbbing military erection to the point that it is as large as the next ten nations' combined.

At what point will you acknowledge that the true aggressor nation in the world is not Russia, but the United States?

Why did we bomb Serbia? To save a few Muslims from getting "genocided," and get no credit for it come 9/11 time? We should've just sat back and watched as Muslims got shot and thrown into shallow graves; maybe Europe would be a peaceful place today if Kosovo had been exterminated in the 90's. Muslims would be terrified to attack Europe, knowing that Serbia would go all crusades and medieval on their asses.

Why the HELL did we invade Iraq, which was a secular country which had nothing to do with Islamic extremists? We literally created our own worst nightmare. ISIS would've never succeeded if Saddam had been left in power. Every time some barbarian drives a truck through a crowded city street and mows down dozens of people, you can thank George W. Bush.

Why did we interfere in Ukraine and topple a democratically-elected president and replace them with a gang of thugs? Imagine if Russia toppled Mexico's government and installed a neo-Nazi regime. You'd be livid, but that's what the CIA did in Ukraine.

To top it all off, why do we conduct air-strikes inside of a sovereign country, Syria, which has asked us many times to leave? Why are we raping them with our bombs that kill civilians indiscriminately? Because our military is led by apes, brutes, and savages. We rape the world continuously for decades and decades. Russia does not.

Quote

then spin the US in terms of capitalism as "more pure than anywhere in the west"

Not just capitalism, but personal freedom. No where else in the world can you own weapons for your self-defense and speak your mind without being extrajudicially-executed by some pissed off Muslim in prison.

Quote

despite how you are stating that the US is an imperialist state. This is not making sense.

Both can be true. We can be an excellent example of capitalism, while having a government which is led by heartless warlords. Try to stretch your mind just a little. There is no contradiction here. America's sense of life which Rand praised still lives on, even as warlords on the right and socialists on the left try to drive us towards a second Civil War.

Quote

Criticism of the US is fine, but you're so gentle about Russia doing the same.

Because Russia has been gentle in doing the same. Five people died in Crimea. Millions died in Iraq. Crimea has no terrorist problem as a result of the invasion. Iraq is an international terrorist hotbed today, when it wasn't under Saddam. Do you honestly think that Crimea deserves equal weight to Iraq in our minds? Absolutely not. Russia could repeat Crimea a thousand times and still not even come close to what we broke in Iraq.

Quote

Sure, Russia/Putin does well for itself. Political savvy is good. But my praise ends there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge Putin fan. He uses sleazy, corrupt methods to stay in power. That said, no one can accuse him of not taking actions to bolster Russia's standing in the world, in the Eurasion region at least. Unlike the US, Russia does not purport itself to be a global power... it lacks the lackeys and fellating masses of Pokemon Cards that we have. Gotta catch 'em all! Gotta get everyone into NATO to let 'em eat our gravy!

Russia does not torment its citizens with international aid slavery. Hell, Russia is so soft that they don't even have the death penalty.

How do you think that Russia produced Ayn Rand? Was it a fluke? Or are Russians just as intelligent, well-educated, and thinking as we are in the west? How did a communist country give us a run for our money in the space race? Could it perhaps be that even the Ruskies are thinking people with their own dreams, which do not at all conflict with America's in the post-Cold War world?

The new cold war is bull****. At least the old cold war had cool little non-military competition, like the Olympics, or Hockey, or the Space Race. Now, though? There's no friendly competition. There is no friendliness, period. The fake news and the Dems paint Russia as demons of hell with whom we may have no brotherly companionship with. Trump is criticized every time that he even speaks to Putin.

This is actually worse than the Cold War. This is International Suicide. The west is imploding everywhere, and looking for a boogeyman. Instead of blame the Muslims, socialists, anarchists, and Kantians responsible, who does the fake news and fake-politician democrats blame? Russia. They're truly our skin of evil.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

did us a phenomenal service in exposing that wretched hag Hillary for the heartless, warmongering, lying pig that she really is

It's odd to me that you would spin it as some sort of kind act or at least beneficial. Indeed, the consequences help your view (FYI, I only thought Hillary was marginally better, and I think Trump is a heartless, warmongering, lying pig too). But we don't want to measure benefit with a short-term evaluation of consequence. Russia is a quite a shady entity, not to mention that there is no clear-cut way for us to know what the long-term strategy is. In this case, I bet it was independent of the Russian Federation, but Putin probably knew what was happening and did nothing about it. The politics here are likely aimed at allowing Russia to gain some control of their interests from easily manipulating Trump on the world stage. It's wiggle room for questionable actions elsewhere in the world. You already identified that the US is weak on the world stage - and ideally here, Russia is keeping it that way. The intention I think is to acquire an ally to control.

3 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

I praise Russia because it is not imperialistic to the degree that the US is

This is a low bar. The US has been at it for a century. Putin's Russia has been at it for 18 years. I don't disagree with your points a lot. Put it into perspective. Remember the time scale.

3 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Absolutely not. Russia could repeat Crimea a thousand times and still not even come close to what we broke in Iraq.

I'm not saying Russia is worse or as bad, but it isn't good at all.

3 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Could it perhaps be that even the Ruskies are thinking people with their own dreams, which do not at all conflict with America's in the post-Cold War world?

It annoys me when you talk to me as if I'm a liberal. I do not condemn -Russians- at all. I don't treat Russia as USSR 2.0. I think a lot of American politicians underestimate how the Russian government can be held in check with proper political savvy. We'd be in danger if no one took some fancy moves to get what we want out of Russia. Unfortunately... that's what's happening today - no action.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2017 at 7:51 PM, Nicky said:

Yes, of course. Western countries are democracies. Ordinary citizens decide who runs our governments. We should vote for leaders who recognize basic facts about Vladimir Putin

Wait a minute. So Russia influencing our elections is bad... so the way to counter this is by having "muh Russia" be the narrative and topic du jour during debates? You're making me worry about the law of non-contradiction, Nicky.

On 12/20/2017 at 7:51 PM, Nicky said:

, such as:

1. He is a murderer, behind a series of assassinations and assassination attempts both at home and in countries around the world (including Britain, which shows how brazen he is).

I mean, they're his politicians to murder. We conduct drone strikes on American citizens living abroad who are alleged to have joined ISIS. I don't see why Putin deserves any sort of blue ribbon when we run circles around his barbarism every day. I think we're on pace to match last year's Destroyed Wedding and Hospital Bomb-a-thon.

Also, Hillary has had people murdered, too. Look at Arkancide back in the 90's. Seth Rich in 2016. You were seriously going to vote for America's Putin and put her in the White House?

On 12/20/2017 at 7:51 PM, Nicky said:

2. He is fueling the Ukrainian civil war.

If by "he," you mean George Soros and the CIA, then sure. The whole Maidan "protests," aka riots, were organized with millions of CIA funding. The rioters toppled a democratically-elected president to put in a pro-western puppet, and murdered about 20 cops and 100 civilians in Kiev to get it done. Black lives matter, except with white trash. Putin took back Crimea and sent troops into Eastern Ukraine to protect them from rampaging neo-Nazis who burn communists and leftists to death, hate the Jews and Russians as racially inferior, and shoot rockets at old grannies' apartment blocks.

The Ukrainian army is a bunch of savages... they are NOT our friends just because they happen to oppose Putin. Also, why the hell should we even give a **** about Ukraine? Does anything that goes on there even remotely affect our day-to-day lives? Why is Ukraine even a political talking point in the USA? Is it, "Russia wants it, we can't get it, so nobody can have it" childish attitude? Kinda like your kids fight over a toy and then one of them just rips it to shreds because if he can't have it, nobody can? That's the trouble with raising kids to be deliberately non polite.

On 12/20/2017 at 7:51 PM, Nicky said:

3. His intelligence services hacked the DNC, and released compromising information to Wikileaks in order to prevent a Clinton victory.

And like the imperialist that you truly are, that upsets you. Why aren't you more upset about what the leaks revealed about a major presidential candidate than who leaked them? I don't care if Lucifer himself leaked that information, doesn't make it any less true.

On 12/20/2017 at 7:51 PM, Nicky said:

This was an unprecedentedly hostile act. While espionage, including hacking, is par for the course between competing world powers, none of them have dumped the information they obtained through espionage onto the web, to influence elections, before.

Because no politician has been as lawless and repugnant as Shillery Rotten C**tface. The Russians were simply protecting their country from a woman who declared openly that she would start WWIII by enforcing a no-fly-zone above a sovereign country allied with Russia. What would you have done if you were Russia? Allow that creature within a thousand miles of the White House? Certainly not.

On 12/20/2017 at 7:51 PM, Nicky said:

As such, this is a new level of hostility, which warrants an equally hostile response.

Putin is immune to the regime change action that I'm sure that you're planning in your head. Unlike Western politicians who sell out their own countries, Putin's approval rating is well above 80% even in western-backed polls.

On 12/20/2017 at 7:51 PM, Nicky said:

4. The DNC hack is part of a media and intelligence campaign aimed at destabilizing western countries.

If by "destabilizing," you mean, "elect the most pro-constitutionalist president since Reagan," then sure. Tell me again how appointing Justice Gorsuch, a strict constructionalist, was "destabilizing?" Tell me how having a man who builds things is better than a woman who destroys countries like Libya and Syria? Clinton can only destroy. Trump builds things. I'm sure there's an Atlas Shrugged reference in there someplace.

On 12/20/2017 at 7:51 PM, Nicky said:

It is Russian propagandists (behind outlets like Russia Today) and intelligence services working together to sow confusion and poison western politics.

You're right, I'm due to pick up my check from Mother Russia this Friday. Gonna buy me some vodka, cheap cigarettes, and mail-order brides with it. Might even get my old babushka some of those nesting dolls when I hit up the Broken Glass and Dashcams Emporium.

On 12/20/2017 at 7:51 PM, Nicky said:

In other words, we need  to elect leaders who recognize Vladimir Putin as the enemy, treat him and his government as such, and retaliate proportionally for every single act of aggression or attempt to interfere.

Are they allowed to react proportionately, too? Is it cool if Russia launches drone strikes into Canada, our ally, because we drone strike Syria, Russia's ally? Oh, wait, no of course not. We're 'Murica. And none of what 'Murica does has to make any sense, because A is non-A when it comes to us and our blatant hypocrisy. And imperialism. You're part of this garbage attitude which is destroying the world.

On 12/20/2017 at 7:51 PM, Nicky said:

And, of course, we need to speak up about these basic facts, whenever someone is willing to gloss over them and write them off as "the leftist media trying to justify losing the election".

That is exactly what is happening. It's been over a year since the left's tremendous, spectacular defeat. They are committing an act of evasion by failing to accept that America simply didn't want a cretinous swamp villain on Pennsylvania Avenue.

On 12/20/2017 at 7:51 PM, Nicky said:

Not saying they're not doing that, by the way. But what the leftist media is doing doesn't change what the facts are.

The facts are that a horrible, horrible woman was prevented from taking the throne. I don't care who it was or how she was stopped, I just thank my lucky stars that she was stopped after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

It's odd to me that you would spin it as some sort of kind act or at least beneficial.

I am not sure what the true motives of Moscow or Putin, whoever ordered it, are. However if they were behind the leak, it meant that they did not want to see a Clinton presidency. Frankly, any political action which prevents that is a commendable act.

I could see your point if, for instance, Russia had assassinated Hillary Clinton. Put some polonium in her tea in late October to ensure a Trump victory. But that didn't happen. Instead, some information was leaked to the American public regarding the DNC and Hillary's shenanigans... a choice was still given to us, and the US chose not to go with Clinton.

16 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

This is a low bar. The US has been at it for a century. Putin's Russia has been at it for 18 years. I don't disagree with your points a lot. Put it into perspective. Remember the time scale.

That's why all of America's little adventures that I mentioned (Serbia, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, oooh forgot Libya so add that one too) have happened in the time since the Soviet Union broke up. I deliberately chose a comparable time frame. Again, what has Russia chalked up in that similar timescale that even remotely compares?

(Ukraine, I wouldn't count in the Russia column because we started it. Crimea was a Russian response to the pro-western and pro-EU riots in Kiev, and nowadays is only mentioned conveniently out of context. You can't just light a match in the forest and walk away, and then blame the firefighters who come to try to put it out.)

21 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

The intention I think is to acquire an ally to control.

Only in Russia's wildest dreams... they know full well that the Democrats would never, ever, ever allow Russia to be an ally of the United States. Heck, neither would most republicans, AKA John McCain. I don't think that Russia was under any illusion that we could become an ally, especially not with the spectre of President Zuckerberg or President Oprah coming into power in four-to-eight years and cleaning house.

22 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I'm not saying Russia is worse or as bad, but it isn't good at all.

I'll grant that Crimea was a violation of international law. That being said, if you're a judge at the International Criminal Court, which would be the nation that you would focus your limited prosecutorial resources on? Probably the conflict with the most human rights violations.

33 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

We'd be in danger if no one took some fancy moves to get what we want out of Russia. Unfortunately... that's what's happening today - no action.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. What sort of action would you want to see Russia perform, and what are the ways that we could convince them to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has happened with the government of the Ukraine is indeed more of the same regime change bullshit that has been American foreign policy for some time now.  American foreign policy had been captured by an ideology of globalism.   

Crimea had been conquered and subsequently settled by Russians in the 1700's and has been directly administered by Moscow from that time until a bit after World War 2. Stalin decided to reassign it to a larger Ukraine regional political district in a purely administrative move that did not reflect any change in the language, culture or governing political ideology of the Crimea.   Crimea has been part of Russia for longer than Texas has been part of the United States.  It was completely valid for Russia to re-annex that part of the newly neo-fascist puppet government of the Ukrainian region.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Instead, some information was leaked to the American public regarding the DNC and Hillary's shenanigans... a choice was still given to us, and the US chose not to go with Clinton.

Only if you stick to narrow political analysis. It isn't good for a country's interests that another country is able to exert its influence. I'm not saying that the hackers in question are responsible for the election - but influence doesn't need to be heavy for it to be bad. It isn't -good- that another country has, to some degree, attempted influence. In other words, using foreign power to rid the US of bad leaders runs the risk of allowing that foreign power's influence to grow. You do not appear to offer any idea how this is not a huge worry, the long-term consequences are worse than the short term benefits. You seem to overlook that the US doing this has harmed many other countries, but that somehow, Russia/Putin would not do the same.

14 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

I deliberately chose a comparable time frame

No, you forgot to take into account how much more military power the US had, the time to build up that power, and all the other global reach the US built in a century. Russia is not as big, and prior to Putin, it was rather pathetic. Russia didn't have the power to do anything, let alone do damage like the US has done with interventionism.

It appears to me you don't want to quell the threat of Russian imperialism. I would rather we recognize the trend now, and not ignore that Russia has imperialist intentions overall. Right or wrong, Crimea does compare, as does Georgia. No, it's not as huge as Iraq, but the manner in which these occurred are worrisome.

15 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

they know full well that the Democrats would never, ever, ever allow Russia to be an ally of the United States. Heck, neither would most republicans, AKA John McCain. I don't think that Russia was under any illusion that we could become an ally, especially not with the spectre of President Zuckerberg or President Oprah coming into power in four-to-eight years and cleaning house.

Right, so Trump was the best option. He's malleable and takes whatever position suits him upon any whim he wishes. Thus, exerting -some- influence for Trump was wise.

and...

Musk 2020!

15 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

What sort of action would you want to see Russia perform, and what are the ways that we could convince them to do so?

My initial thought is some sort of economic agreement, but I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×