It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Investigating Russian Intervention is Racist!

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: omniEther


No it's fake news


I making a mental note of names and ignoring anyone who uses this phrase from now on.
They have nothing intelligent to say and are merely dismissing something they're uncomfortable with it.


Seriously let it die, dude.
It was funny the first few times.


Now let's get back to debate and dissemination of the information.
Well, it is.

There's nothing to debate and/or disseminate. You're not getting it. There is no evidence.

Link me to some evidence..
edit on 12-12-2016 by omniEther because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ksiezyc

Why can't you just admit that you love my threads? Maybe I shoudl say that you love to hate my threads but whatever the case may be, you're entertained!



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Six, please state the evidence of who and what was hacked?

Going to debate and answer? Or just going to skate around?


You're asking me for things I wouldn't have in my peon possession.

I'm not involved with intelligence nor do I wish to be.


You're not debating you're laying a trap.


So I guess I'll just step around it. Thanks though.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: omniEther

Why would evidence worthy of a "national security/classified" label be available on the internet?


What world do you people live in?



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The satire and "Enquiresque" post is pretty fun. I enjoyed it anyway. My scruple, however is here:



The Breitbart Ministry of Truth with its crack team of non-biased Trump-campaign staffers journalists or 17 intelligence agencies overrun with heathen libtards who hate America?! I call 'em UNintelligence agencies — amirite?


Regarding Breitbart, that's your opinion and you most certainly are welcome to it. Now, the intelligence report. Could I draw your attention to this?


From NRO:


What Clinton said was false and misleading. First of all, only two intelligence entities – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies. And what they said was ambiguous about Russian involvement. An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks. . . . are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.


This is the point of contention. I suspect you know this as you're not ignorant to false narratives and motives given some of your other threads.

This key piece of information is what is driving the anti-Russian narrative. So fine, lets do an investigation. Right, thorough and proper so that the maybe and probably is out of the equation.

Source
edit on 12-12-2016 by JinMI because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: omniEther

There's evidence linked right from the OP. I've linked evidence in a number of threads that you were participating in. This breakdown at Ars Technica is a good starting point though it misses some things, importantly Yahoo alerting Alexandra Chalupa that her email had been compromised. That's the reason that CrowdStrike was initially called in. You can read about that in my thread here.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Why should anyone believe an organization that armed and funded Osama bin Laden who later became the mastermind behind the 9/11 terror attacks?

Why should anyone believe an organization that was selling crack-coc aine to the Black gangs in LA to help fuel a guerilla war against a Socialist government who promoted literacy and universal healthcare?

Why should anyone believe an organization that embeds itself in media positions for the exact purpose of manipulating public opinion and undermining democratic elections?

If they want to be taken seriously, the evidence needs to be presented for everyone to scrutinize.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I read it and it happens to be a nice read, but I have to point out it is based on information from the FBI not the CIA,

The FBI has gone on the record and confirmed it does not agree with the CIA's Russian election rigging/hacking allegations. The same agency that provided the information that was sourced by you.

So which is it, do you agree with the F.B.I or not?
edit on 12-12-2016 by omniEther because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

That's not the intelligence report from the CIA that has been discussed recently. As for the 17 agency claim, it's actually true if you read the statement from October 7.

Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security:


The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.


I think the problem here is that people don't know what the USIC is. The USIC members are as follows:

Twenty-Fifth Air Force
Intelligence and Security Command
Central Intelligence Agency
Coast Guard Intelligence
Defense Intelligence Agency
Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence
Office of Intelligence and Analysis
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
Office of National Security Intelligence
Intelligence Branch Federal Bureau of Investigation Justice
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Reconnaissance Office
National Security Agency/Central Security Service
Office of Naval Intelligence

The head of the USIC is the DNI who reports to the President. That is currently James Clapper (who has already tendered his resignation effective at the end of Obama's term). The 16 agencies above plus Office of the Director of National Intelligence = 17.

EDIT:

Granted, it's hard to say to what extent if any individual agencies played a roll in collecting the information the DNI based this statement on. He does however collectively speak for 17 agencies.

EDIT #2:

Just to add: Amy Moreno is a liar and trolls for Trump on Twitter and when she's not simply posting inaccurate in propaganda, she often reposts "fake news" as in, s# that never happened.
edit on 2016-12-12 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: omniEther

Why would evidence worthy of a "national security/classified" label be available on the internet?


What world do you people live in?
Thanks, ive been wondering where the evidence was. That does it folks hazardous1408 says it is classified.

For anyone else who asks for evidence there you have it
edit on 12-12-2016 by omniEther because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: omniEther

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: omniEther

Why would evidence worthy of a "national security/classified" label be available on the internet?


What world do you people live in?
Thanks for correcting the record. Silly me, No wonder we haven't the evidence. Because it's classified


Furthering my point that many have nothing intelligent to say....

I give you exhibit A.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Thanks for the info,

Sounds like we need to get the politics out of the intelligence communities.

Obama's hand-picked goons stirring BS pot.




posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian





Granted, it's hard to say to what extent if any individual agencies played a roll in collecting the information the DNI based this statement on. He does however collectively speak for 17 agencies.


That's the part that needs to be recognized when news reports dress up the facts.

From your source:

These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.


How is this any different than media within the US borders?

Also:

Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government.

To me that's ballgame. End of story for now. Proceed with the proper investigations.

Also, thanks for the overview of USIC as I would doubt many know what exactly they entail and the mouthpiece for them.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

What point. You don't have one. Just like you don't have any evidence ..



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I am far from being a fan of Trump. I have taken the same "cautiously optimistic" attitude as I did in 2008.

But I have to say - After almost, what? Half a year now of essentially the exact same post from you- over, and over, and over...multiple times a day...

I know I can't be the only person to open a thread hoping for an intriguing and thought provoking discussion only to see your avatar at the top and immediately close the tab.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: blood0fheroes


I know I can't be the only person to open a thread hoping for an intriguing and thought provoking discussion only to see your avatar at the top and immediately close the tab go on a cry baby diatribe.


Fixed that for you.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Boy, this desperate hacker disinformation campaign is falling apart quicker than the pathetic recount scam.

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources
www.reuters.com...



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Sorry messed up quotes
edit on 12-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Messed up quotes



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: omniEther

That's actually incorrect. The FBI had some sort of information as early as November of 2015. I would assume it wasn't very definitive though as they apparently didn't tell the DNC that they believed the Russians were hacking the DNC.

Dell SecureWorks picked up evidence of the spear-phishing campaign and linked it to Russia. That evidence was captured between October of 2015 and May of 2016.

What finally tipped off the DNC though is missing from the Ars Technica article and that was an alert from Yahoo's security team to a DNC staffer who was in contact with people in Ukraine (and I believe Russia — going on memory) trying to dig up information on Paul Manafort. So Yahoo has some evidence. Probably in the form of logins from unusual IPs but possibly email activity (forwarded emails to addresses in suspect domains for instance).

That prompted the DNC to call in CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike monitored the activity over the course of weeks. It was then on June 14th that the CTO and co-founder announced that the DNC had been hacked and that they had concluded that it was the Russians. The best evidence comes from them.

Then there is evidence that comes from the Guccifer 2.0 wordpress site and DC Leaks. There is a pretty comprehensive breakdown from ThreatConnect about some of this. That also touches on something involving "Guccifer 2.0" communication with Motherboard (Vice) I believe, if not, I have a link somewhere. That bit is really circumstantial though.

I know I'm leaving some things out. Maybe I'll put together a thread with all of the evidence that has been discussed publicly.

What's important is that none of that except that early warning has anything to do with the FBI. I'm not sure when exactly the FBI was called in though I would imagine it was after CrowdStrike confirmed the presence of ongoing hacks. Then there's the CIA. No idea when/how they got involved.

The point is that even without any reports from the FBI & CIA, there is a substantial amount of evidence coming from independent sources. In addition to those who collected the evidence, there were independent reviews of the evidence by multiple other cyber security firms and independent researchers. There wasn't much doubt among professionals from private cyber security firms who'd seen the evidence. It was pretty compelling with what was publicly known from non-government sources.


The FBI has gone on the record and confirmed it does not agree with the CIA's Russian election rigging/hacking allegations. The same agency that provided the information that was sourced by you.


So no, the FBI didn't provide the information I'm citing at all. You're trying to make the gap between the FBI and CIA conclusions much more of a thing then it actually is — as though the FBI has evidence refuting the CIA. That's simply not the case from anything that I've read. The key difference was the FBI didn't think the evidence of motivation was conclusive. That's not the FBI saying the CIA's assessment is wrong. It's the FBI saying that there's insufficient proof of the assertion that the motivation for the hack was to get Trump elected.

The way to get to the bottom of this is for it to be investigated thoroughly — all facets — not just the DNC hack or the Podesta email hack but also the intrusions into state election websites and any attempts to get into things like voter registration databases. This should be done with bipartisan congressional oversight and the results should be released to the American people.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

It's the same deal as the FBI. Per usual, you ignore nuance to support a false assertion. The ODNI has the same position as the FBI. They all believe the hacking was done by the Russians, they're not prepared to go as far as the CIA in claiming that the motivation was to get Trump elected.


"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said.


In your deep desire to make this go away, you've somehow miscontrued that as meaning that there's some disagreement about whether or not the hacking was the work of the Russians. That's simply not true. There's a very short list of folks who don't believe that Russia was behind the hacking or are saying that they don't believe it:

1. Donald Trump
2. Trump supporters
3. Putin/Russia/RT/Sputnik



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join