• Trump Dismisses Russia Sanctions: ‘Time for Our Country to Move On’
    75 replies, posted
pretty rich considering reoublicans are pushing to retry clinton for emails and coming from a guy whos pretty wishywashy about whether or not he would do it, though he seems to be still leaning towards doing it
I think it's just the DNC trying to save face. They're trying to make Russia seem like the bad guys(which they still are) to distract from all the bad shit the email hacks uncovered. This is similar to when a woman goes through her boyfriend's cellphone and finds he is cheating on her and he makes it all about how his privacy was violated and she's the wrong one in the relationship.
Just something to keep in mind. [img]https://i.sli.mg/kAthzC.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Dr.C;51600260]I think it's just the DNC trying to save face. They're trying to make Russia seem like the bad guys(which they still are) to distract from all the bad shit the email hacks uncovered. This is similar to when a woman goes through her boyfriend's cellphone and finds he is cheating on her and he makes it all about how his privacy was violated and she's the wrong one in the relationship.[/QUOTE] It's not just the DNC saying this stuff, though. Quite a few private security companies have done their own investigations and reached the same conclusion - that Russia was actively involved in influencing the election. As for the contents of the emails themselves, what exactly has been revealed that wasn't already known? The worst I ever saw was the deck stacking against Bernie, and the close ties to Wall Street. But both of these were already more or less known, Hillary's team made no real effort at hiding it. The reason why this is a big deal is because it's literally threatening the integrity of the democratic process, and sown a shitload of doubt into the legitimacy of the election. Whether or not Trump won because of Putin will always be a question throughout his presidency, and the electorate have the right to know of that possibility.
[QUOTE=Bertie;51600159]I have no idea how this relates to my post and Popularvote's post.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]As a side note, I wish Facepunchers would stop with the snarky rhetorical question shit. It's childish[/QUOTE] Are you sure about that?
Remember, [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1545478]hicks without typewriters[/url] are more credible than intelligence agencies. Trump has already formed his own version of the birther movement but this time it's based on substantive evidence, backed by people who aren't salty racists and every wave of articles that comes of it will be great.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51600079]Didn't the [B]DHS[/B] also find WMD's in Iraq?[/QUOTE] What an embarrassing post.
[QUOTE=pentium;51599873]So he basically rejected the findings of his intelligence agency. woah.[/QUOTE] If only more presidents did this we would not be in these pointless wars based on false information like the second gulf war and others.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51600588]If only more presidents did this we would not be in these pointless wars based on false information like the second gulf war and others.[/QUOTE] What an absurdly simplistic and shortsighted conclusion.
Quickly scrolled through the document, doesn’t seem to state anything that Russia is supposedly doing that the US isnt doing every single day to practically any country in the world. On top of that it never directly proves or even attempts to prove (by my quick scroll) that russia actually did it, just that it 'looks' like they did... Not even once acknowledging that if you were for example china or any other country and you would want to hack the US, you would want it to appear as if it was Russia for various reasons. #warMongering Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, it might be i missed something in that case i am happy to recant this but as it appears to me now this document is basically saying 'they did it, believe us guys'
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;51600224]Can't get enough Whataboutism, eh space1?[/QUOTE] It's a constantly recurring thing in our history? Like none of us are informed on the situation and none of us can say anything for certain. Its hilariously ironic to mention whataboutism here
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;51600224]Can't get enough Whataboutism, eh space1?[/QUOTE] But what about whataboutism???
[QUOTE=Mingebox;51600614]What an absurdly simplistic and shortsighted conclusion.[/QUOTE] And blindly trusting the claims of our 3 letters without any substantial evidence -isnt- short-sighted? Self awareness is important guys
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;51600644]And blindly trusting the claims of our 3 letters without any substantial evidence -isnt- short-sighted? Self awareness is important guys[/QUOTE] Do you think the only proof the CIA are presenting to Obama is what they're showing to the general public? Do you think that the FBI, CIA, tens of private security agencies, Obama, [I]and[/I] many house Republicans being in agreement that Russia was involved is based on insubstantial evidence?
[QUOTE=The Vman;51600675]Do you think the only proof the CIA are presenting to Obama is what they're showing to the general public? Do you think that the FBI, CIA, tens of private security agencies, Obama, [I]and[/I] many house Republicans being in agreement that Russia was involved is based on insubstantial evidence?[/QUOTE] If soo many people saw it, why not just release it already?
[QUOTE=The Vman;51600675]Do you think the only proof the CIA are presenting to Obama is what they're showing to the general public? Do you think that the FBI, CIA, tens of private security agencies, Obama, [I]and[/I] many house Republicans being in agreement that Russia was involved is based on insubstantial evidence?[/QUOTE] Government collusion against an aggressive Russian state? No way! [editline]30th December 2016[/editline] How's about instead of assuming one way or the other, everyone stops making baseless claims
[QUOTE=Dr.C;51600260]I think it's just the DNC trying to save face. They're trying to make Russia seem like the bad guys(which they still are) to distract from all the bad shit the email hacks uncovered. This is similar to when a woman goes through her boyfriend's cellphone and finds he is cheating on her and he makes it all about how his privacy was violated and she's the wrong one in the relationship.[/QUOTE] It similar to how bush has it for sadaam They want Russia for some reason
Well all things considered better Russia-US relations are probably a good thing
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;51600793]Government collusion against an aggressive Russian state? No way! [editline]30th December 2016[/editline] How's about instead of assuming one way or the other, everyone stops making baseless claims[/QUOTE] [I]Bipartisan[/I] government collusion, as well as collusion from several reputable cyber-security agencies?
[QUOTE=The Vman;51600851][I]Bipartisan[/I] government collusion, as well as collusion from several reputable cyber-security agencies?[/QUOTE] ... Yes?
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;51600871]... Yes?[/QUOTE] What do republicans like Paul Ryan or John McCain, and the private security agencies have to gain out of blaming Russia for the hacks?
[QUOTE=The Vman;51600675]Do you think the only proof the CIA are presenting to Obama is what they're showing to the general public? Do you think that the FBI, CIA, tens of private security agencies, Obama, [I]and[/I] many house Republicans being in agreement that Russia was involved is based on insubstantial evidence?[/QUOTE] Show it or shut up, people were in agreement about the second golf war too ...
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51600959]Show it or shut up, [B]people were in agreement about the second golf war too ...[/B][/QUOTE] Not quite. [quote]The document determines that Saddam Hussein had an active chemical weapons program — although crucially, the CIA couldn't prove that his regime had actually resumed producing chemical and biological agents and cast doubt on the actual extent of Saddam's program. [/quote] [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-full-version-of-the-cias-2002-intelligence-assessment-on-wmd-in-iraq-2015-3[/url] Which was half true, as they did have an aging chemical weapon stockpile, though they hadn't been resuming their development. It was Bush's administration that took this evidence as justification to invade. UN weapon inspectors visiting Iraq found no actionable evidence for a WMD program, though Bush dismissed their findings. [quote]Based on more than a hundred visits to suspect sites and private interviews with a number of individual scientists known to have been involved with WMD programs in the past, ElBaradei stated that the IAEA had “to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq” and predicted that the agency should be able to provide that Security Council with an objective and thorough assessment of Iraq’s nuclear related capabilities “in the near future.”[/quote] [url]https://armscontrolnow.org/2013/03/05/the-cost-of-ignoring-un-inspectors-an-unnecessary-war-with-iraq/[/url] [editline]30th December 2016[/editline] Reading some more, nuclear and energy agencies the world over, even the US Department of Energy, pretty much debunked the idea that Iraq had a WMD program. Very different from what we're seeing with cyber-security agencies regarding the hack.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51600959]Show it or shut up, people were in agreement about the second golf war too ...[/QUOTE] Let me repeat what I said in another thread: [QUOTE=catbarf;51598961]I like when people bring up the whole WMDS-in-Iraq thing without really knowing the context- the CIA was directed by Washington to interpret their intelligence in a way that supported the narrative of Saddam having imminent access to WMDs. The report, despite this direction, was inconclusive, but still suggestive enough that the HPSCI and SSCI were able to hold it up as incontrovertible proof of Saddam having WMDs. It was such a huge failure in retrospect that the agency was taken to task and their analysis-producing process overhauled to involve greater detachment from Washington and more oversight from other agencies. It is literally why the DNI now exists, to provide an additional layer of isolation between the intelligence agencies and policymakers, so they can do their jobs objectively without politicians breathing down their necks. Now, when the entire intelligence community is saying the same message, without being goaded or directed to by Congress, you can be reasonably certain that they're not skewing facts or bullshitting for political reasons, thanks to the events of 2001.[/QUOTE] People bring up the 'but they said there were WMDs in Iraq!' like it's a trump card, without realizing that as a direct result of the Iraq fuckup the intelligence community was overhauled to remove the influences that skewed analysis in the first place. I'm inclined to believe the intelligence community in this case because I have yet to see any credible motive to lie. Needlessly raising tensions with Russia benefits nobody.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51601165]Let me repeat what I said in another thread: People bring up the 'but they said there were WMDs in Iraq!' like it's a trump card, without realizing that as a direct result of the Iraq fuckup the intelligence community was overhauled to remove the influences that skewed analysis in the first place. I'm inclined to believe the intelligence community in this case because I have yet to see any credible motive to lie. Needlessly raising tensions with Russia benefits nobody.[/QUOTE] That does not mean they dont have to re-earn their trust any more. Post all the data, censor the informants etc but post it all... if not you have shit to hide.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51601180]That does not mean they dont have to re-earn their trust any more.[/QUOTE] Nobody ever trusted them. Nobody ever will. It comes with the territory. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;51601180]Post all the data, censor the informants etc but post it all... if not you have shit to hide.[/QUOTE] 'Censoring the informants' means concealing the sources and methods used to acquire information. So instead of saying 'we got this info from an NSA operation that hacked into a government server' or 'we got this info from a CIA mole feeding secret data' they just say 'we have this info', exactly like they did, and then you complain that they're hiding stuff and not offering any proof. Again, I have yet to see a compelling motive for this claim to be falsified. They're not trying to save face for the Democrats by providing a scapegoat, because this is a bipartisan measure directing a functionally apolitical intelligence apparatus. Obama's not building casus belli against Russia when he's out of office in less than a month. The only area of actual conflict between the US and Russia is Syrian intervention, and we've been out of that for a while. All the objections I've seen so far basically amount to 'I think they're lying because they're a bunch of meanies who don't like Russia', and that's the kind of motivation that you see in children's cartoons, not international politics.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51601200]Nobody ever trusted them. Nobody ever will. It comes with the territory.[/QUOTE] Then they are useless and the money is better spent elsewhere. if you cannot trust your own eyes and ears, it is better to cut them off and stab them out yourselves, for at least then they serve the function in their dismemberment they will [deter more lies]. -Niccolò Machiavelli [QUOTE=catbarf;51601200] 'Censoring the informants' means concealing the sources and methods used to acquire information. So instead of saying 'we got this info from an NSA operation that hacked into a government server' or 'we got this info from a CIA mole feeding secret data' they just say 'we have this info', exactly like they did, and then you complain that they're hiding stuff and not offering any proof. Again, I have yet to see a compelling motive for this claim to be falsified. They're not trying to save face for the Democrats by providing a scapegoat, because this is a bipartisan measure directing a functionally apolitical intelligence apparatus. Obama's not building casus belli against Russia when he's out of office in less than a month. The only area of actual conflict between the US and Russia is Syrian intervention, and we've been out of that for a while. All the objections I've seen so far basically amount to 'I think they're lying because they're a bunch of meanies who don't like Russia', and that's the kind of motivation that you see in children's cartoons, not international politics.[/QUOTE] Then that is not enough, and the information is useless... it is not the task of the people to prove they are lying, its the task of the obama administration and cia etc to convince the people they are not lying... extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, for a moment i thought it was this document, but it is not... meaningless platitudes.
Sanctions do fuck all
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51601253]Then they are useless and the money is better spent elsewhere.[/QUOTE] Congress and the President trust them because the HSCI, SSCI, and President have the security clearance to actually see the evidence you're expecting, and Congress and the President are who make decisions. The public doesn't trust them, never has, and likely never will, because the work they do cannot be verified or often even acknowledged. Get that pseudo-intellectual Machiavelli bullshit out of here. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;51601253]Then that is not enough, and the information is useless... it is not the task of the people to prove they are lying, its the task of the obama administration and cia etc to convince the people they are not lying...[/QUOTE] Convincing you isn't their job. You can sit there and praise Putin while calling it baseless accusations all you want. You can say that it's false until Obama and Brennan personally swing by your house and convince you that it's genuine. Doesn't matter one iota either way. It's the task of the intelligence community to inform policymakers so that those policymakers can make informed decisions, not to educate the public. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;51601253]extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, for a moment i thought it was this document, but it is not... meaningless platitudes.[/QUOTE] You don't have any idea how this works, do you? The publication was to help the private sector protect against further intrusion, not to convince the world that Russia was behind it by revealing classified sources and methods. That's not going to be revealed until there's a compelling international interest to do so (there isn't) or the mandatory declassification review date hits in 25 or 50 years. Still waiting on any plausible motive for the accusations to be falsified.
Ummm [T]http://bazavan.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/boris.jpg [/t]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.