Our internal firewall had been blocking the NYT for a bit this afternoon.
Is it an attack from the loyalists, or from the rebels pretending to be loyalists hackers ? Or loyalists pretending to be rebels hackers pretenting to be loyalists ?
It is a bunch of Cetaceans who wonder why these stupid humans can't figure out that Sea means that Ocean thing.
Done by U.S. Government pretending to be SEA as part of a campaign to whip people into a frenzy and start yet another war.
I don't care what the deal is. I called my senator and gave an emphatic NO! The US has been at war for 13 years. Enough.
Do you have any actual evidence for this, or are you just saying it because it makes you feel smart?
Do you have any empirical verification which refutes the claim? I ask, "wwchd?"
What Would Charles Fort Do?
The burden of proof lies upon the person presenting a claim, not the person requesting evidence before accepting a claim. "You can't prove it didn't happen" is not a solid argument, particularly with regards to events which actually impact the lives of people.
If you can accept a laundry list of times in the past where we know our government has overthrown sovereign governments by planting fake 'rebels', introduced agent provocateurs to give the illusion that a group is radical, attacked civilian targets and blamed the enemy, introduced chemical agents on innocent populations, sank our own ships and killed our own people to start a war, etc etc
You see, with these NSA stories, how our government reacts to whistle blowers, its tendency to label everyone and everything terrorist, and a litany of bald faced lies, all credibility and good will this government may have had has been tossed out the window.
How did we get here? Plausible deniability. All our government has to do is make sure there is little to no proof of their activities until years after the fact to keep the operation going. Since there is no proof immediately available, people argue that since there is no proof then it's not a valid argument. Yet, when the evidence is uncovered years later these same people will ignore the evidence of past behavior thinking "well, that was in the past under administration X".
I submit that a pattern of past behavior is evidence of present activity. Sure, my conclusions may be wrong, but given how little faith we have in our own government, is it any surprise that such accusations are asserted?
Remember the Maine!
Are you asking about the NYT hack, or the Sarin Gas?
OK this, let's ask this differently. Do you have any concrete evidence that this (the hacking or more importantly the chem weapon attack) was done by the Assad regime?
I always suspected Anonymous was affiliated with the Syrian resistance. That's what makes this such a shocker.
No, but I never claimed that it was. Which makes the cries of "false flag" even more bizarre. If the U.S. government was going to attempt to drum up support for a war, they could do much better than the takedowns of a couple of news sites by people claiming a tenuous connection to the people the government supposedly wants to bomb.
On the one hand, the U.S. government's history of skullduggery is well-known and relevant. But to then assume that because the government denies it, then it must be true is kind of true. I'm sure that the U.S. government would deny any role in, say, the Luxor massacre. By your logic, because a) someone claimed the U.S./Israel/Lizardmen were behind it b) the government can't provide evidence that it wasn't involved, then the government must be involved.
Sure, my conclusions may be wrong,
I'm glad we can agree on that.
You're spending several paragraphs making a complication and completely irrational argument. Without any semblance of proof it is rather daft to blame the US gov't for hacking the NYT in a false flag operation. Or we can all just bust out the tin foil hats; that's an option too.
I mean, sea took credit for it, but as we all know, admissions of guilt are completely circumstantial. It's obvious the CIA has put mind implants in their brains and is forcing Assad's lackeys to hack the NYT.
My bad, the NSA is doing it.
No, I don't think the NSA had anything to do with these hackings. Basically these are small beans. If there was any 'false flag' operation, it was the chemical weapons.
That being said, in this say and age, no, a 'signed confession' doesn't amount to much. Did you know the guy who confessed?
All you need for a 'confession' is some stooge to get on camera and say 'I confess.' It doesn't really mean much. Look at Bin Laden's 'confession' to carrying out 9/11, the confession tape that launched the Afghan War, where the guy who confesses doesn't even look the least like OBL...
Aaaaaand I'm done. So much for that.
next page →