• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
confirmed: Russia interfered with USA elections (secret cia assessment)
<<
<
8 of 12
>>
>
Doctor_Wibble
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Well now you changed your argument to it's a re-run, not the same as a deliberate attempt to start it.”

Eh? What's the difference between a re-run and starting something that has already happened before and therefore would qualify as being *again* or 'a re-run' for all the zero difference that would make because the cold war is something that never really went away completely?
There is no 'changing of mind'.

Quote:
“Yes chilled relations could be the outcome. Doesn't mean that was the motive for releasing the intelligence.”

See above. These things never go away, then get shoved on the back-burner to warm up a bit before being shoved in a bag behind the ancient peas again.

Quote:
“It's not grandstanding to tell another country to get out of our election process.”

Of course it is! It always is! When is a 'spy vs spy' thing *not* about grandstanding?
D_Mcd4
13-12-2016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38301686

His Russian connections are probably all "mainstream media lies" too! I'm divided tbh. On one hand I've some schadenfreude at the downfall of America, with all their boasting about their great democracy and freedom of speech, but on the other it's a bit frightening!
bollywood
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by Doctor_Wibble:
“Eh? What's the difference between a re-run and starting something that has already happened before and therefore would qualify as being *again* or 'a re-run' for all the zero difference that would make because the cold war is something that never really went away completely?
There is no 'changing of mind'.


See above. These things never go away, then get shoved on the back-burner to warm up a bit before being shoved in a bag behind the ancient peas again.


Of course it is! It always is! When is a 'spy vs spy' thing *not* about grandstanding?”

You said "reads like an attempt to re-run the Cold War." Attempt means motive.

This is a reaction, not an offensive. This is about stopping the loss of boundaries with the US government and tangled with oil company deals. Can't see why that isn't blindingly obvious.

Making it 'spy versus spy' is apologizing for Russia and minimizing what occurred. We have to make judgements at some point. Judges don't rule, 'your word against theirs.' They make a finding.

To sum up, I guess it feels okay if it wasn't your election that got tampered with
Alrightmate
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“It's treason if a person in the U.S. was involved in a 'leak.'

Not sure why you keep going on about 'idiotic children' when Republicans also are asking for an investigation.

It's very common to have unnamed sources within an agency release information. There are a number of those in Congress who accept the conclusion and a number of other intelligence agencies who concur. You may ask yourself why Republicans are coming together with Democrats over this issue.

It sounds a lot more like some Alex Jones conspiracy theory to say all those intelligence agencies got together to make it up.”

What are you talking about, I've only said that once haven't I?

No, the definition of a conspiracy theory is to have a theory of a conspiracy without presenting any actual evidence and basing it on mere conjecture and hearsay.
You're doing it again 'so and so says it's true, therefore it must be'.
Citing unnamed sources is usually something on here which we criticise tabloid newspapers for when we know that they're making something up. You have sources who can stand by their comments or you have nothing. You have tittle tattle and rumour. With something as major as the idea that a foreign national power tried to circumvent the result of a national Presidential election it would be a necessity that evidence MUST be presented before the American public. If the American public just let that fly by then they themselves probably aren't being responsible as a citizen.

I don't need to ask myself why some Republicans are coming together with Democrats over this issue. Because it was evident during the campaign that some Republicans were anti-Trump as much as the Democrats. It would also be naive to assume that some Republicans aren't a part of the same machine as Hillary Clinton and her cronies.
There's also the thought that Donald Trump probably isn't what you'd call a natural Republican anyway, which would play some part in why some of the party faithful aren't happy with the direction that they fear Trump may take the party. Mitt Romney and John McCain are two such characters who spring to mind.
bollywood
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“What are you talking about, I've only said that once haven't I?

No, the definition of a conspiracy theory is to have a theory of a conspiracy without presenting any actual evidence and basing it on mere conjecture and hearsay.
You're doing it again 'so and so says it's true, therefore it must be'.
Citing unnamed sources is usually something on here which we criticise tabloid newspapers for when we know that they're making something up. You have sources who can stand by their comments or you have nothing. You have tittle tattle and rumour. With something as major as the idea that a foreign national power tried to circumvent the result of a national Presidential election it would be a necessity that evidence MUST be presented before the American public. If the American public just let that fly by then they themselves probably aren't being responsible as a citizen.

I don't need to ask myself why some Republicans are coming together with Democrats over this issue. Because it was evident during the campaign that some Republicans were anti-Trump as much as the Democrats. It would also be naive to assume that some Republicans aren't a part of the same machine as Hillary Clinton and her cronies.
There's also the thought that Donald Trump probably isn't what you'd call a natural Republican anyway, which would play some part in why some of the party faithful aren't happy with the direction that they fear Trump may take the party,”

No I'm not saying 'so and so' says it's true. I'm saying 18 intelligence agencies think that.

See the difference?

This may help you see some of the circumstantial evidence in the case: who was targeted, long term investment, use of Russian language, connection to Fancy Bear;

https://www.google.com/amp/arstechni...ump/%3Famp%3D1


Where does it say that the public is entitled to all intelligence information? Can you show me?
Alrightmate
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
““The Russians are not our friends,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters Monday, voicing his support for an inquiry."


"To that end, the Russian government directed the hacking of emails to and from Democratic Party organizations and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, and then selectively disseminated this material through WikiLeaks and other outlets. The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence reached that conclusion months ago and said so in a public statement on Oct. 7."”

No shit that Russia aren't America's friends. Are you surprised after the last six months or so? Clinton has even been threatening war with them when she thought she was going to become the president. If anyone wasn't just a bit worried about that then they might need their head testing.
If Russia aren't America's friends whose doing do you think that is down to. At least Trump has said that he can work with them. Isn't that usually an attitude we would normally consider to be a responsible approach when it comes to foreigner policy?

If Russia did hack the emails quite frankly I wouldn't be surprised. But it would be naive to think that different countries don't spy on each other. It's uncomfortable to think that this goes on, but it does. In which case the Democratic Party shouldn't have been so careless and lax with their disregard for email security.
It is another case of the pot calling the kettle black too. As it wasn't so long ago that it was found that America had been spying on Angela Merkel. I don't recall American officials trying to make a major crisis out of it, and curiously Germany didn't fly off the handle either.

To make out that Trump has been in cahoots with Russia over this idea that they may have been responsible for the hacking of Democratic Party email servers is tin foil hat stuff. And why is nothing being made of the Democrats' blase approach to email server security?
mebiscuit
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“This is from the Guardian:

"The head of the British intelligence agency MI6, Alex Younger, has said cyber-attacks, propaganda and subversion from hostile states pose a “fundamental threat” to European democracies, including the UK.

In a rare speech by an MI6 chief while in office, Younger did not specifically name Russia but left no doubt that this was the target of his remarks. Russia has been accused of interfering in the US presidential election and there are concerns it could do the same in French and German elections next year."

So that means MI6 has no evidence either?

That makes 18 misinformed intelligence agencies!”

Where is the evidence? So far we have had a statement from such agencies as the CIA speaking utter rot! Apparently, this intelligence regarding Russia is from a anonymous source using said source's the anonymity to not show this evidence? Does anyone even believe that this intelligence actually exists? Because, where I stand, it sure stinks to high heaven!
bollywood
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“No shit that Russia aren't America's friends. Are you surprised after the last six months or so? Clinton has even been threatening war with them when she thought she was going to become the president. If anyone wasn't just a bit worried about that then they might need their head testing.
If Russia aren't America's friends whose doing do you think that is down to. At least Trump has said that he can work with them. Isn't that usually an attitude we would normally consider to be a responsible approach when it comes to foreigner policy?

If Russia did hack the emails quite frankly I wouldn't be surprised. But it would be naive to think that different countries don't spy on each other. It's uncomfortable to think that this goes on, but it does. In which case the Democratic Party shouldn't have been so careless and lax with their disregard for email security.
It is another case of the pot calling the kettle black too. As it wasn't so long ago that it was found that America had been spying on Angela Merkel. I don't recall American officials trying to make a major crisis out of it, and curiously Germany didn't fly off the handle either.”

Now you're overstating. She said responses, not war.

Yes different countries spy and if they're caught, they get 'responses.'

How did the RNC get hacked? Careless?
bollywood
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by mebiscuit:
“Where is the evidence? So far we have had a statement from such agencies as the CIA speaking utter rot! Apparently, this intelligence regarding Russia is from a anonymous source using said source's the anonymity to not show this evidence? Does anyone even believe that this intelligence actually exists? Because, where I stand, it sure stinks to high heaven!”

Show me your evidence for 'utter rot.'

Your evidence as to where 17 intelligence agencies got their information. I'm sure they haven't told you where.
Alrightmate
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by Aetius_Maralas:
“The CIA complaining about foreign governments installing right wing politicians.

And they say the universe doesn't have a sense of humour.”

And more specifically Russia. One minute they're commie, the other they're far-right.
Alrightmate
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by Parker45:
“With these accusations of Russian hacking, it's worth remembering that during the cold war the US intelligence agencies vastly overestimated the number of missiles held by Russia. They have a history of over-inflating Russia's potential as an enemy.....but of course it helps the armed services and the defence industries to portray them like that.”

They even claimed that Russia had invisible submarines at the time. When asked for evidence of this they said that because the submarines were invisible it's hard to present evidence but it just shows you how good they are.
mebiscuit
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Show me your evidence for 'utter rot.'

Your evidence as to where 17 intelligence agencies got their information. I'm sure they haven't told you where.”

I see we you used the age old tactic of deflection here. Simply put, these agencies have not shown one bit of evidence... wouldn't it be in the public interest to show this evidence?

Here's some REAL evidence for you to chew over.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN14204E

Now I wonder why this has happened? Maybe because of the lack of evidence!
mebiscuit
13-12-2016
So I guess this thread now needs to edit it's title from "confirmed" to unconfirmed and lack of any evidence at all?!

---edit--- It could be advantageous to report this thread as "fake news"
Alrightmate
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“What is your argument? That two wrongs make a right?

"Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya."”

I could describe dozens of 'what about' scenarios. But it swerves from the main point. It's not about goodies and baddies. I think most people here would state that Russia have hardly been a paradigm of virtue over the years themselves. But to say 'what about Russia?' is sidetracking from the point which was about America's less than trustworthy track record when considering their credibility when it comes to being truthful to the public.
sorcha_healy27
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Going to go too far off topic to get into this. Just because one group is bad doesn't make the other good. That is Obama's dilemma.”

Better the devil you know though eh
Alrightmate
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“That's your opinion, no evidence, but many politicians both Republican and Democrat, concur that the CIA have made the link at least to one step next to the Russian government.

I'm not sure what you expect, that the CIA is going to compromise its methods and staff by publishing in the news, what they have and naming names. So that any agents close to those names would be outed? That's pretty naive.

Why Obama wants the investigation to be secret.

Just because you don't know what Senators and Congressman know, doesn't =no evidence.

P.S. I don't see where anyone wants to re-ignite the Cold War.”

Then I guess that if enough people believe it to be true then it must be then. A bit like how they arrived at the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
They played The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game back then too.

'Unnamed sources' is bullshit until names can be presented who can then be called to account and questioned.
If we are critical of the press like The Daily Mail and The Guardian when they 'report' using the old 'sources revealed' chestnut then we should be holding a government to the same standards, if not a higher standard.
bollywood
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by sorcha_healy27:
“Better the devil you know though eh”

Nothing like that. Did you misread my post?
Alrightmate
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“From TheHill.com:

"Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) on Monday said that Russia’s hacking of the United States presidential election “is not open to debate.”

“This is not a fact that is in dispute by any of our 17 intelligence agencies, and I’ve been in the room, as have my colleagues,” Himes told CNN’s “New Day.”

So maybe if he was in the room, you think he has more information than the public?

Not to mention that kompromat is a well known Russian strategy. People only have to think there are very damaging emails against Hillary. The emails don't have to exist. What Assange did with his announcements. Must have learned kompromat well.”

Not open to debate???
Jesus, that line in itself tells you so much in itself.
Not open to debate.
So what happens if we want to debate it? It's not allowed? It's not acceptable? It's wrong? We shouldn't question power?

Of course it's open to debate.
I'm not stating that Russia definitely didn't hack the Democrat email servers, but it is open to debate.
bollywood
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by Alrightmate;848*****:
“Then I guess that if enough people believe it to be true then it must be then. A bit like how they arrived at the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

'Unnamed sources' is bullshit until names can be presented who can then be called to account and questioned.
If we are critical of the press like The Daily Mail and The Guardian when they 'report' using the old 'sources revealed' chestnut then we should be holding a government to the same standards, if not a higher standard.”

Has anyone said there shouldn't be an investigation? Or that information that is safe to be declassified, shouldn't be?

We elect our representatives to hear things that might not be revealed to the public and act on them. Otherwise we wouldn't need representatives.

There were a lot of Dems against the war in Iraq. Not a good analogy. It was well known at the time by the public, what the problem was with that strategy.
Alrightmate
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“This is from the Guardian:

"The head of the British intelligence agency MI6, Alex Younger, has said cyber-attacks, propaganda and subversion from hostile states pose a “fundamental threat” to European democracies, including the UK.

In a rare speech by an MI6 chief while in office, Younger did not specifically name Russia but left no doubt that this was the target of his remarks. Russia has been accused of interfering in the US presidential election and there are concerns it could do the same in French and German elections next year."

So that means MI6 has no evidence either?

That makes 18 misinformed intelligence agencies!”

Would this include Merkel being spied on by America? Or is it okay when they do it?

You've got to laugh. The head of Britain's top spying agency MI6 telling the public that it's wrong to spy.
bollywood
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“Not open to debate???
Jesus, that line in itself tells you so much in itself.
Not open to debate.
So what happens if we want to debate it? It's not allowed? It's not acceptable? It's wrong? We shouldn't question power?

Of course it's open to debate.
I'm not stating that Russia definitely didn't hack the Democrat email servers, but it is open to debate.”

The conclusion he heard from 17 agencies isn't debatable. Most likely some juicy details in there.
bollywood
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“Would this include Merkel being spied on by America? Or is it okay when they do it?

You've got to laugh. The head of Britain's top spying agency MI6 telling the public that it's wrong to spy.”

Well I said several times now that if someone gets caught, they suffer consequences, didn't I?

Anything from embarrassment to sanctions.

Spying and implying bad things about a Presdential candidate who wants cleaner air and national healthcare, are two different things.
mebiscuit
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“Not open to debate???
Jesus, that line in itself tells you so much in itself.
Not open to debate.
So what happens if we want to debate it? It's not allowed? It's not acceptable? It's wrong? We shouldn't question power?

Of course it's open to debate.
I'm not stating that Russia definitely didn't hack the Democrat email servers, but it is open to debate.”

No it's not open for debate. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN14204E this article will set things straight.
Doctor_Wibble
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Making it 'spy versus spy' is apologizing for Russia”

No it really isn't.

Quote:
“To sum up, I guess it feels okay if it wasn't your election that got tampered with”

No, it is that this kind of accusation is serious enough to require proof, not 'evidence' from unnamed sources which is being reported in a way that is indistinguishable from conflating 'apparently by people in former soviet states' with 'it was the Russians done it'.

Far better to wait for the results of a proper conclusive (as far as it can be) investigation by people in possession of the full facts (as far as they can be determined) before going off half-cocked and poking a bear with a pointy stick.
bollywood
13-12-2016
Originally Posted by mebiscuit:
“No it's not open for debate. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN14204E this article will set things straight.”

Did you read it?

It said this:

"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named."

The only thing that isn't nailed down is that they wanted Trump. It's agreed they wanted to compromise Hillary.

They don't disputed the overall analysis. There are 17 agencies supporting it.
<<
<
8 of 12
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map