Hawaii café bans Trump voters - "no Nazis" allowed
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
09 Jan 2017, 5:46 pm
EzraS wrote:
The only thing particularly relevant to me when it comes to Assange, is his expertise regarding computers and the internet. And add John McAfee to the list of experts who say it wasn't Putin.
Assange is hardly an innocent bystander in this case, so I'm going to take him with a grain of salt.
As for McAfee - there are better companies around that do a comparable job, according to my computer repair guy. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's written in stone.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
10 Jan 2017, 3:25 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The only thing particularly relevant to me when it comes to Assange, is his expertise regarding computers and the internet. And add John McAfee to the list of experts who say it wasn't Putin.
Assange is hardly an innocent bystander in this case, so I'm going to take him with a grain of salt.
As for McAfee - there are better companies around that do a comparable job, according to my computer repair guy. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's written in stone.
I agree with that. But I'm going to take their decades of experience in the field into consideration. Especially when I've come to similar conclusions on my own. It makes me worry about how easily the US intelligence services can be tricked into believing something. Someone pulls off a mediocre phishing scam that has "Putin was here" written all over it, and their conclusion is, hey must have been Putin. That or they just want it to be Putin. They seem awful anxious to start "throwing rocks" at Russia. Seems like they're just up to no good.
Last edited by EzraS on 10 Jan 2017, 3:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
10 Jan 2017, 3:44 am
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The only thing particularly relevant to me when it comes to Assange, is his expertise regarding computers and the internet. And add John McAfee to the list of experts who say it wasn't Putin.
Assange is hardly an innocent bystander in this case, so I'm going to take him with a grain of salt.
As for McAfee - there are better companies around that do a comparable job, according to my computer repair guy. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's written in stone.
I agree with that. But I'm going to take their decades of experience in the field into consideration. Especially when I've come to similar conclusions on my own. It makes me worry about how easily the US intelligence services can be tricked into believing something. Someone pulls a mediocre phishing scam and writes "Putin was here" all over it, and their conclusion is, must have been Putin. That or they just want it to be Putin. They seem awful anxious to start "throwing rocks" at Russia. Seems like they're up to no good.
Or, maybe it was Putin who was up to no good.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
10 Jan 2017, 3:46 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The only thing particularly relevant to me when it comes to Assange, is his expertise regarding computers and the internet. And add John McAfee to the list of experts who say it wasn't Putin.
Assange is hardly an innocent bystander in this case, so I'm going to take him with a grain of salt.
As for McAfee - there are better companies around that do a comparable job, according to my computer repair guy. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's written in stone.
I agree with that. But I'm going to take their decades of experience in the field into consideration. Especially when I've come to similar conclusions on my own. It makes me worry about how easily the US intelligence services can be tricked into believing something. Someone pulls a mediocre phishing scam and writes "Putin was here" all over it, and their conclusion is, must have been Putin. That or they just want it to be Putin. They seem awful anxious to start "throwing rocks" at Russia. Seems like they're up to no good.
Or, maybe it was Putin who was up to no good.
I wouldn't have any trouble believing that at all, if it weren't for all the gaping plot holes.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
10 Jan 2017, 12:08 pm
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The only thing particularly relevant to me when it comes to Assange, is his expertise regarding computers and the internet. And add John McAfee to the list of experts who say it wasn't Putin.
Assange is hardly an innocent bystander in this case, so I'm going to take him with a grain of salt.
As for McAfee - there are better companies around that do a comparable job, according to my computer repair guy. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's written in stone.
I agree with that. But I'm going to take their decades of experience in the field into consideration. Especially when I've come to similar conclusions on my own. It makes me worry about how easily the US intelligence services can be tricked into believing something. Someone pulls a mediocre phishing scam and writes "Putin was here" all over it, and their conclusion is, must have been Putin. That or they just want it to be Putin. They seem awful anxious to start "throwing rocks" at Russia. Seems like they're up to no good.
Or, maybe it was Putin who was up to no good.
I wouldn't have any trouble believing that at all, if it weren't for all the gaping plot holes.
What holes?
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
10 Jan 2017, 1:58 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The only thing particularly relevant to me when it comes to Assange, is his expertise regarding computers and the internet. And add John McAfee to the list of experts who say it wasn't Putin.
Assange is hardly an innocent bystander in this case, so I'm going to take him with a grain of salt.
As for McAfee - there are better companies around that do a comparable job, according to my computer repair guy. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's written in stone.
I agree with that. But I'm going to take their decades of experience in the field into consideration. Especially when I've come to similar conclusions on my own. It makes me worry about how easily the US intelligence services can be tricked into believing something. Someone pulls a mediocre phishing scam and writes "Putin was here" all over it, and their conclusion is, must have been Putin. That or they just want it to be Putin. They seem awful anxious to start "throwing rocks" at Russia. Seems like they're up to no good.
Or, maybe it was Putin who was up to no good.
I wouldn't have any trouble believing that at all, if it weren't for all the gaping plot holes.
What holes?
Mainly the unlikelihood that high level Russian intelligence would send a phishing email that had code saying "this came from the Russian government" written all over it.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
10 Jan 2017, 4:46 pm
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The only thing particularly relevant to me when it comes to Assange, is his expertise regarding computers and the internet. And add John McAfee to the list of experts who say it wasn't Putin.
Assange is hardly an innocent bystander in this case, so I'm going to take him with a grain of salt.
As for McAfee - there are better companies around that do a comparable job, according to my computer repair guy. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's written in stone.
I agree with that. But I'm going to take their decades of experience in the field into consideration. Especially when I've come to similar conclusions on my own. It makes me worry about how easily the US intelligence services can be tricked into believing something. Someone pulls a mediocre phishing scam and writes "Putin was here" all over it, and their conclusion is, must have been Putin. That or they just want it to be Putin. They seem awful anxious to start "throwing rocks" at Russia. Seems like they're up to no good.
Or, maybe it was Putin who was up to no good.
I wouldn't have any trouble believing that at all, if it weren't for all the gaping plot holes.
What holes?
Mainly the unlikelihood that high level Russian intelligence would send a phishing email that had code saying "this came from the Russian government" written all over it.
Intelligence agencies pull boneheaded stunts all the time. Contrary to popular belief, intelligence agencies couldn't change the order of the days of the week without anyone noticing. The Bay of Pigs invasion failed from the start because the secret training camps and prep were the worst kept secret ever! And that's not just the CIA, but also Russian intelligence, and their KGB predecessors. So just because the hacks can be traced back to Stalin jr hardly means that they're false.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
10 Jan 2017, 5:35 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The only thing particularly relevant to me when it comes to Assange, is his expertise regarding computers and the internet. And add John McAfee to the list of experts who say it wasn't Putin.
Assange is hardly an innocent bystander in this case, so I'm going to take him with a grain of salt.
As for McAfee - there are better companies around that do a comparable job, according to my computer repair guy. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's written in stone.
I agree with that. But I'm going to take their decades of experience in the field into consideration. Especially when I've come to similar conclusions on my own. It makes me worry about how easily the US intelligence services can be tricked into believing something. Someone pulls a mediocre phishing scam and writes "Putin was here" all over it, and their conclusion is, must have been Putin. That or they just want it to be Putin. They seem awful anxious to start "throwing rocks" at Russia. Seems like they're up to no good.
Or, maybe it was Putin who was up to no good.
I wouldn't have any trouble believing that at all, if it weren't for all the gaping plot holes.
What holes?
Mainly the unlikelihood that high level Russian intelligence would send a phishing email that had code saying "this came from the Russian government" written all over it.
Intelligence agencies pull boneheaded stunts all the time. Contrary to popular belief, intelligence agencies couldn't change the order of the days of the week without anyone noticing. The Bay of Pigs invasion failed from the start because the secret training camps and prep were the worst kept secret ever! And that's not just the CIA, but also Russian intelligence, and their KGB predecessors. So just because the hacks can be traced back to Stalin jr hardly means that they're false.
That's not a particularly forensic analysis. But then again, neither was their report for the most part. This just reminds me too much of Iraq having WMD's, according to someone setting them up with false evidence, as an excuse to go to war. "It's time to start throwing rocks at Russia".
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
11 Jan 2017, 12:40 am
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The only thing particularly relevant to me when it comes to Assange, is his expertise regarding computers and the internet. And add John McAfee to the list of experts who say it wasn't Putin.
Assange is hardly an innocent bystander in this case, so I'm going to take him with a grain of salt.
As for McAfee - there are better companies around that do a comparable job, according to my computer repair guy. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's written in stone.
I agree with that. But I'm going to take their decades of experience in the field into consideration. Especially when I've come to similar conclusions on my own. It makes me worry about how easily the US intelligence services can be tricked into believing something. Someone pulls a mediocre phishing scam and writes "Putin was here" all over it, and their conclusion is, must have been Putin. That or they just want it to be Putin. They seem awful anxious to start "throwing rocks" at Russia. Seems like they're up to no good.
Or, maybe it was Putin who was up to no good.
I wouldn't have any trouble believing that at all, if it weren't for all the gaping plot holes.
What holes?
Mainly the unlikelihood that high level Russian intelligence would send a phishing email that had code saying "this came from the Russian government" written all over it.
Intelligence agencies pull boneheaded stunts all the time. Contrary to popular belief, intelligence agencies couldn't change the order of the days of the week without anyone noticing. The Bay of Pigs invasion failed from the start because the secret training camps and prep were the worst kept secret ever! And that's not just the CIA, but also Russian intelligence, and their KGB predecessors. So just because the hacks can be traced back to Stalin jr hardly means that they're false.
That's not a particularly forensic analysis. But then again, neither was their report for the most part. This just reminds me too much of Iraq having WMD's, according to someone setting them up with false evidence, as an excuse to go to war. "It's time to start throwing rocks at Russia".
Well, you might be interested in knowing that an agent of MI6 has learned that Putin had also been hacking into Trump's private business, and had collected a bunch of stuff he plans to extort Trump with. If this proves to be true, will you be so willing to let Russia off the hook?
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
11 Jan 2017, 2:25 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The only thing particularly relevant to me when it comes to Assange, is his expertise regarding computers and the internet. And add John McAfee to the list of experts who say it wasn't Putin.
Assange is hardly an innocent bystander in this case, so I'm going to take him with a grain of salt.
As for McAfee - there are better companies around that do a comparable job, according to my computer repair guy. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's written in stone.
I agree with that. But I'm going to take their decades of experience in the field into consideration. Especially when I've come to similar conclusions on my own. It makes me worry about how easily the US intelligence services can be tricked into believing something. Someone pulls a mediocre phishing scam and writes "Putin was here" all over it, and their conclusion is, must have been Putin. That or they just want it to be Putin. They seem awful anxious to start "throwing rocks" at Russia. Seems like they're up to no good.
Or, maybe it was Putin who was up to no good.
I wouldn't have any trouble believing that at all, if it weren't for all the gaping plot holes.
What holes?
Mainly the unlikelihood that high level Russian intelligence would send a phishing email that had code saying "this came from the Russian government" written all over it.
Intelligence agencies pull boneheaded stunts all the time. Contrary to popular belief, intelligence agencies couldn't change the order of the days of the week without anyone noticing. The Bay of Pigs invasion failed from the start because the secret training camps and prep were the worst kept secret ever! And that's not just the CIA, but also Russian intelligence, and their KGB predecessors. So just because the hacks can be traced back to Stalin jr hardly means that they're false.
That's not a particularly forensic analysis. But then again, neither was their report for the most part. This just reminds me too much of Iraq having WMD's, according to someone setting them up with false evidence, as an excuse to go to war. "It's time to start throwing rocks at Russia".
Well, you might be interested in knowing that an agent of MI6 has learned that Putin had also been hacking into Trump's private business, and had collected a bunch of stuff he plans to extort Trump with. If this proves to be true, will you be so willing to let Russia off the hook?
I think someone, N. Korea, China, ISIS, wants to start a war between the US and Russia. I think what I'm seeing are attempts at thwarting an alliance between the United States and Russia. Putin has only expressed wanting to on good terms with the US. And Trump has only expressed wanting to be on good terms with Russia. So naturally there's all this unsubstantiated stuff going on in the background, trying to make sure that doesn't happen.
Two things I wrote somewhere two or three days ago, 'what's next on the menu?' and 'when is MI6 coming into the picture?'
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
11 Jan 2017, 2:39 am
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The only thing particularly relevant to me when it comes to Assange, is his expertise regarding computers and the internet. And add John McAfee to the list of experts who say it wasn't Putin.
Assange is hardly an innocent bystander in this case, so I'm going to take him with a grain of salt.
As for McAfee - there are better companies around that do a comparable job, according to my computer repair guy. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's written in stone.
I agree with that. But I'm going to take their decades of experience in the field into consideration. Especially when I've come to similar conclusions on my own. It makes me worry about how easily the US intelligence services can be tricked into believing something. Someone pulls a mediocre phishing scam and writes "Putin was here" all over it, and their conclusion is, must have been Putin. That or they just want it to be Putin. They seem awful anxious to start "throwing rocks" at Russia. Seems like they're up to no good.
Or, maybe it was Putin who was up to no good.
I wouldn't have any trouble believing that at all, if it weren't for all the gaping plot holes.
What holes?
Mainly the unlikelihood that high level Russian intelligence would send a phishing email that had code saying "this came from the Russian government" written all over it.
Intelligence agencies pull boneheaded stunts all the time. Contrary to popular belief, intelligence agencies couldn't change the order of the days of the week without anyone noticing. The Bay of Pigs invasion failed from the start because the secret training camps and prep were the worst kept secret ever! And that's not just the CIA, but also Russian intelligence, and their KGB predecessors. So just because the hacks can be traced back to Stalin jr hardly means that they're false.
That's not a particularly forensic analysis. But then again, neither was their report for the most part. This just reminds me too much of Iraq having WMD's, according to someone setting them up with false evidence, as an excuse to go to war. "It's time to start throwing rocks at Russia".
Well, you might be interested in knowing that an agent of MI6 has learned that Putin had also been hacking into Trump's private business, and had collected a bunch of stuff he plans to extort Trump with. If this proves to be true, will you be so willing to let Russia off the hook?
I think someone, N. Korea, China, ISIS, wants to start a war between the US and Russia. I think what I'm seeing are attempts at thwarting an alliance between the United States and Russia. Putin has only expressed wanting to on good terms with the US. And Trump has only expressed wanting to be on good terms with Russia. So naturally there's all this unsubstantiated stuff going on in the background, trying to make sure that doesn't happen.
Two things I wrote somewhere two or three days ago, 'what's next on the menu?' and 'when is MI6 coming into the picture?'
Putin doesn't want good relations with America, he wants to reduce America to being his b*tch, because he considers America responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union, and wants to make us pay. It's a skill of spymasters like Putin to use dirt on a person for leverage and manipulation. He's doing what he was born and trained to do.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
11 Jan 2017, 3:57 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The only thing particularly relevant to me when it comes to Assange, is his expertise regarding computers and the internet. And add John McAfee to the list of experts who say it wasn't Putin.
Assange is hardly an innocent bystander in this case, so I'm going to take him with a grain of salt.
As for McAfee - there are better companies around that do a comparable job, according to my computer repair guy. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's written in stone.
I agree with that. But I'm going to take their decades of experience in the field into consideration. Especially when I've come to similar conclusions on my own. It makes me worry about how easily the US intelligence services can be tricked into believing something. Someone pulls a mediocre phishing scam and writes "Putin was here" all over it, and their conclusion is, must have been Putin. That or they just want it to be Putin. They seem awful anxious to start "throwing rocks" at Russia. Seems like they're up to no good.
Or, maybe it was Putin who was up to no good.
I wouldn't have any trouble believing that at all, if it weren't for all the gaping plot holes.
What holes?
Mainly the unlikelihood that high level Russian intelligence would send a phishing email that had code saying "this came from the Russian government" written all over it.
Intelligence agencies pull boneheaded stunts all the time. Contrary to popular belief, intelligence agencies couldn't change the order of the days of the week without anyone noticing. The Bay of Pigs invasion failed from the start because the secret training camps and prep were the worst kept secret ever! And that's not just the CIA, but also Russian intelligence, and their KGB predecessors. So just because the hacks can be traced back to Stalin jr hardly means that they're false.
That's not a particularly forensic analysis. But then again, neither was their report for the most part. This just reminds me too much of Iraq having WMD's, according to someone setting them up with false evidence, as an excuse to go to war. "It's time to start throwing rocks at Russia".
Well, you might be interested in knowing that an agent of MI6 has learned that Putin had also been hacking into Trump's private business, and had collected a bunch of stuff he plans to extort Trump with. If this proves to be true, will you be so willing to let Russia off the hook?
I think someone, N. Korea, China, ISIS, wants to start a war between the US and Russia. I think what I'm seeing are attempts at thwarting an alliance between the United States and Russia. Putin has only expressed wanting to on good terms with the US. And Trump has only expressed wanting to be on good terms with Russia. So naturally there's all this unsubstantiated stuff going on in the background, trying to make sure that doesn't happen.
Two things I wrote somewhere two or three days ago, 'what's next on the menu?' and 'when is MI6 coming into the picture?'
Putin doesn't want good relations with America, he wants to reduce America to being his b*tch, because he considers America responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union, and wants to make us pay. It's a skill of spymasters like Putin to use dirt on a person for leverage and manipulation. He's doing what he was born and trained to do.
The facts are that Putin was never a KGB agent and he supported Perestroika and Mikhail Gorbachev. Also spymasters don't send phishing scams with their name all over it. Why do you seem to favor sensationalism over critical thinking? Were you also in favor of the US bombing Baghdad over non-existent WMD's back in the day?
11 Jan 2017, 4:29 pm
EzraS wrote:
It makes me worry about how easily the US intelligence services can be tricked into believing something. .
How sure are you they have been tricked? Seems odd they have been protecting US national interests for all these years with full support of the conservative right and suddenly their credibility is being questioned because it involves Trump?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
11 Jan 2017, 8:04 pm
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The only thing particularly relevant to me when it comes to Assange, is his expertise regarding computers and the internet. And add John McAfee to the list of experts who say it wasn't Putin.
Assange is hardly an innocent bystander in this case, so I'm going to take him with a grain of salt.
As for McAfee - there are better companies around that do a comparable job, according to my computer repair guy. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's written in stone.
I agree with that. But I'm going to take their decades of experience in the field into consideration. Especially when I've come to similar conclusions on my own. It makes me worry about how easily the US intelligence services can be tricked into believing something. Someone pulls a mediocre phishing scam and writes "Putin was here" all over it, and their conclusion is, must have been Putin. That or they just want it to be Putin. They seem awful anxious to start "throwing rocks" at Russia. Seems like they're up to no good.
Or, maybe it was Putin who was up to no good.
I wouldn't have any trouble believing that at all, if it weren't for all the gaping plot holes.
What holes?
Mainly the unlikelihood that high level Russian intelligence would send a phishing email that had code saying "this came from the Russian government" written all over it.
Intelligence agencies pull boneheaded stunts all the time. Contrary to popular belief, intelligence agencies couldn't change the order of the days of the week without anyone noticing. The Bay of Pigs invasion failed from the start because the secret training camps and prep were the worst kept secret ever! And that's not just the CIA, but also Russian intelligence, and their KGB predecessors. So just because the hacks can be traced back to Stalin jr hardly means that they're false.
That's not a particularly forensic analysis. But then again, neither was their report for the most part. This just reminds me too much of Iraq having WMD's, according to someone setting them up with false evidence, as an excuse to go to war. "It's time to start throwing rocks at Russia".
Well, you might be interested in knowing that an agent of MI6 has learned that Putin had also been hacking into Trump's private business, and had collected a bunch of stuff he plans to extort Trump with. If this proves to be true, will you be so willing to let Russia off the hook?
I think someone, N. Korea, China, ISIS, wants to start a war between the US and Russia. I think what I'm seeing are attempts at thwarting an alliance between the United States and Russia. Putin has only expressed wanting to on good terms with the US. And Trump has only expressed wanting to be on good terms with Russia. So naturally there's all this unsubstantiated stuff going on in the background, trying to make sure that doesn't happen.
Two things I wrote somewhere two or three days ago, 'what's next on the menu?' and 'when is MI6 coming into the picture?'
Putin doesn't want good relations with America, he wants to reduce America to being his b*tch, because he considers America responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union, and wants to make us pay. It's a skill of spymasters like Putin to use dirt on a person for leverage and manipulation. He's doing what he was born and trained to do.
The facts are that Putin was never a KGB agent and he supported Perestroika and Mikhail Gorbachev. Also spymasters don't send phishing scams with their name all over it. Why do you seem to favor sensationalism over critical thinking? Were you also in favor of the US bombing Baghdad over non-existent WMD's back in the day?
I did not believe Hussein had WMD's, and opposed Bush's adventurism into Iraq from the start.
Yes, Putin had been a Gorbachev supporter, but Hitler had also briefly flirted with communism after WWI. People and their intentions change.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
11 Jan 2017, 11:02 pm
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
It makes me worry about how easily the US intelligence services can be tricked into believing something. .
How sure are you they have been tricked? Seems odd they have been protecting US national interests for all these years with full support of the conservative right and suddenly their credibility is being questioned because it involves Trump?
No it's because it reminds me of the intel that tipped off the intelligence agencies that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction at some compound etc, which lead to a war, and then we found out the WMD intel turned out to be a
hoax. There never were WMD's in Iraq, the compound bunker they were showing satellite pictures of was just a generic empty warehouse that never had any such operation taking place.
I think there's a likelihood that the phishing email sent to John Podesta was made to look like it came from Putin. The problem I have with it is that it looks too much like that's where it came from. On one hand I hear about what a superspy KGB agent cyber hacker espionage pro Putin is supposed to be, and on the other hand I'm being told he's only capable of operating on a minimal level, sending phishing hacks with his fingerprints all over them.
What I wrote in the two paragraphs above just makes me feel somewhat leery and suspicions of the situation. I can't imagine feeling differently about it no matter who it involved.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| SoCal, Hawaii earthquakes |
09 Feb 2024, 10:02 pm |
| GOP Politician uses IVF and then bans it |
02 Mar 2024, 9:42 pm |
| L.I. county bans trans athletes from competing with girls |
14 Apr 2024, 1:04 pm |
| Donald Trump Likely Going To Prison |
29 Feb 2024, 1:04 am |
