Because you ignore evidence when presented to you in order to advance an agenda that has no factual basis, just throwing smoke at things to distract. It makes me wonder what your agenda here actually is. It isn’t reasoned Discourse.
4 Likes
On the plus side, at least he didn’t post one of John Schindler’s dick pics he has a habit of sharing.
4 Likes
You mean the guy who thinks that all the social media companies are systematically censoring him? He’s paranoid and delusional.
3 Likes
If I was guilty of molesting swedish women, I would probably have left Sweden almost immediately rather than hang around for about a month. I’m surprised the Swedish prosecutors took so long to decide to interview him.
Mod note: Play nice.
6 Likes
They say they are a Marxist, but spend a lot of their time defending Trump, and can’t see the contradiction.
Maybe they are hoping for an accelerationist revolution. It’s not going to happen.
I think they should stick to dancing.
5 Likes
On the plus side, at least he didn’t post one of John Schindler’s dick pics he has a habit of sharing.
Excellent. Then this exchange wasnt a waste. I have never liked that guy and he has absurd anti russian arguments. I shall send that to one of the ex-cia jerks I know who push the “Russians hate us for our freedoms” bullshit.
Putin’s just sitting there saying “It’s too easy!”
And laughing.
7 Likes
Defending Trump? Where?
Yup, that’s Nobby Stiles. One of the greatest footballers england ever produced.
I posted a link to his website cos he is the most prominent intelligence insider i am aware of who writes that the Russians are constantly trying to subvert western democracy. I think it’s clearly bullshit. The Russians have enough trouble feeding their population and keeping the federation intact. But if you read Schindler’s material you will see that the cold war never ended, and the problem wasnt Communists but Russians. I thought the specific article at least gave a flavor of his work.
4 Likes
So… a ham-fisted straw man to say that everyone blaming Russia is a conservative exhibitionist philanderer stuck in a Cold War mentality?
6 Likes
Well I thought I had above in two separate posts.
I don’t think I did.
I made three points.
-
Those with access to the source state clearly that the source was American. So you have to know they are lying to believe that Russians released the data to wikileaks.
-
The metadata is suggestive of russian involvement but it’s presence itself is curious. If skilled state sponsored hackers wished to make their presence known then this would be how they might do it. Otherwise might they not have chosen to cover their tracks better? It might not be so difficult to to use a different C&C address for example. One might then ask the question why they chose to make their involvement clear.
-
Russia is known to use the services of individuals who are not GRU or FSB personnel but do work for these agencies. This does not preclude them doing work for themselves. I have read that on occasion that they take it upon themselves to do patriotic favors. The piece I read called it the “turbulent priest” scenario - a riff on Henry II. Moreover attribution of Advanced Persistent Threats is not a mathematically precise activity. You can never state that a hack is 100% guaranteed to be apt 28. You can only say that it shares many characteristics in common with apt 28. There is no unique identifier.
Anyway, this was my understanding of the arguments surrounding this. If this is woefully inadequate then I apologise. However I don’t see how these points constitute throwing smoke or the absence of a factual basis. I would consider it a favor to be corrected in this if I am incorrect.
It’s true I have no respect for Schindler et al. It’s also true that those who argue that Russia definitely gave wikileaks those emails have some strange bedfellows. But in addition it was the question of motive. I think the idea is some kind of variant of “they hate us for our freedoms”. In this case the Russians want to undermine democratic institutions in the west to weaken western democracies. This is a defining axiom in Schindler’s work. It’s only recently that people started suggesting the Russians preferred Trump to win rather than just trying to undermine confidence in elections. In both cases I think the arguments don’t ring true. I think russia is weak and knows it is weak. They are not investing a lot in bringing down western institutions. That doesn’t mean they won’t fund the Front Nationale in France or whatever. But hacking the DNC emails and leaving plain evidence of it? What if Clinton had won?
Agreed.
1 Like
Everybody pay more attention to @emo_pinata’s post!
3 Likes
It was already done and you ignored the content so, no.
4 Likes
So in response to pointing out your strawman, your response is “it wasn’t just the one, I have another right here!”
6 Likes
5 Likes
What Patrick Said:
8 Likes
