A War With Russia = Possible Extinction of the Human Race

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think you and I are getting off on the wrong foot here... you seem to be missing the meaning of my posts...

To clarify.... I'm agreeing with you...

It's a bit like complaining about the splintered wood of the guillotine....

Much like all the fuse the British made over Russian sailing closed to Britain and sent ships to 'defend' against....

Not all comments are responses to questions.

I wrote a post and you responded with a single line starting with 'Because of', which is typically used to respond to a question why or how...

Do you see?

Korg.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Except this time we are Germany.

originally posted by: LAkadian
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Except this time we are Germany.

no we are not...





Joke aside... I get your meaning... the question 'what were the people thinking?' springs to mind a lot when thinking about the rise of Hitler.

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
Okay here is the logic. Hillary is blaming Russia. Hillary wants war with Russia. War with Russia = Extinction of the human race. Therefore Hillary = Insane. This is not even up for debate. It is plain and simple, a war with Russia involves Nukes= Millions (possibly billions) of lives lost.

So let's follow this logic through, does any war mean extinction of the human race or only war with Russia?

Trump isn't all sunshine and pacifism, thankfully. The man in the running to be secretary of state Tillerson's deputy, John Bolton, has vociferously argued the US should bomb Iran to stop its nuclear program.

Should we ONLY fight against countries if they DON'T have nukes?

What happened to our party?

The Republican party always had one thing right.

Do not bow to a tyrant. Especially not one who wants to subjugate Europe, and now the United States.

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
Okay here is the logic. Hillary is blaming Russia. Hillary wants war with Russia. War with Russia = Extinction of the human race. Therefore Hillary = Insane. This is not even up for debate. It is plain and simple, a war with Russia involves Nukes= Millions (possibly billions) of lives lost. What does Hillary want? War with Russia as she stated in her own words:

As president I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses.“

By Siding with Hillary you side with the doom of our lives. No matter who you are, and I for one will not stand for it. Hillary needs to be stopped, because if she has her way we will ALL be in danger. And before anyone defends her; take notice, anything you say can and will be held against you, and her words spoke clearly on her intentions.

What should we strive for? Good relations with the guy who may nuke you if you poke him hard. In other words, make LOVE not war. It also means PLAY nice so we can live longer. This is a very dangerous game the liberal left are playing.

I know this will get ignored by the Majority, even while the current propaganda demonizes Russia/ poking the bear while trying to sneak daath (Hillary = Reaper) through the backdoor and into the oval office.

How can anyone want her in office despite these facts which has been largely ignored by Fakestream Media?

Just saying; you better choose sides wisely, because fanaticism or that hefty paycheck wont do you any good during WW3.

Over some hacked emails from the DNC.., albeit you'll want to know with precision precisely what happened and see the computer forensics proving it, in order to put safeguard in place for the future, but the hype, is just right over the top.

As of today, December 15th, it's a full court press.

It appears that they've made this the MAIN talking point from now until inauguration day, but I'm not sure that the American people are buying it ie: that it actually influenced the election, which was Hillary's doing, or undoing.

The implication is that the DNC leaks and the Podesta email leaks impacted the outcome of the election, and that's absurd and preposterous.

And as to Podesta's emails, what was really in there except a bunch of coded references to what appears to be pedophilia?

What I find interesting in all of this is the release of the FBI documents outlini the code and symbols for pedophilia taking place at around the same time that Podesta'ss emails were leaked. Was that a hack of the FBI by Russia, or was it leaked, and if so, why?

Which suggests to me that the phishing of Podesta's email password was an "inside job" by that same insider or group with ties to the FBI.

Therefore, I think that the Russian hacking angle is being used to conflate both WikiLeaks releases, as if they came as a result of the same source, in this case a Russian hack.

From what I've been able to gather, they have forensics on the DNC hack, but not on the phishing hack of Podesta that tricked him into giving his password, which was a variation of the word, password.

By amping up to the nth degree, the Russian hacking angle, it's entirely possible that an attempt is being made to turn people away from just who leaked John Podesta's emails, but if what's contained therein is so innocuous and lacking in anything "explosive" (Obama) then why all this flag waving? and what is the basis to think that the two things, the DNC hack and the Podesta hack are both directly connected to the same Russian hackers?

I wonder if Julian Assange held anything back..?

And if it turns out that Podesta was hacked and leaked from an insider, even someone connected with the FBI thus the leak of the FBI's child pedo manual timed to coincide with Podesta's email leak, but was NOT in fact hacked by the same group who hacked the DNC - then won't this bring a renewed focus and attention on the contents of Podesta's emails, including use of "the code"?

Podesta himself has only tweeted once since the election and it was about Russia.

I detect a deflection at work.

Furthermore, the truth's that have been leaked, even from the DNC showing the degree of collusion between the Clinton camp and the MSM is rather telling, as if their full court press on Russian hacking now.

This whole thing is an absolute assault on Trump either directly or indirectly, and ought to be seen, whether true or not (Russia), as a great wave of backlash from the "elite" establishment against the outcome of the election, but I think there's more ie: the deflection from the idea that Podesta's emails were released, in conjunction with the FBI pedo manual, by insiders, who after obtaining his password, leaked it through WikiLeaks.

Something tells me that this is all playing straight into the hands of Julian Assange who's probably evaluating the explosive nature of whatever he held back.

At the very least, what we're seeing is a demonstration of the existing systems residual power and influence, particularly over the MSM and channels like CNN.

This type of overwhelming hype, in my mind, represents the last gasp of that very system, including Obama's own remaining grasp on power for the next month.

And let's not forget what Russia was facing, which is the equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis, so they might have tried to hack and meddle as much out of fear than anything, since they could see the brink that they were being pushed to.

You can poke a bear or even throw a net around him, or manage to get loose chains on him, but the one thing that you shouldn't do, is to try to corner and cage the bear.

The whole "Strategy of Tension" was a bad policy, all the way down the line, and like Saddam Hussein, Russia took the bait with the Crimea situation.

However, what will these same establishment "elite" do, if Trump manages to shut down all threats by getting Russia and Iran to agree to a SAFE ZONE on the ground and in the air in a large area of Syria, in apparent violation of that country's "territorial integrity" Where's Raqqa? Draw a line on the other side of it, clear and secure the region, while rolling ISIS back out of Iraq, and voila, the immigration crisis that's putting a great strain on Europe will be solved, and maybe even a future land for peace deal in Israel/Palestine.

Anything's possible, but not the way the existing establishment has been going about it.

They are obviously freaked right out.

If I were Trump I'd ignore it and continue to draw up plans to END the war, including the new cold war, and bring about Peace, where the payoff is a sustained mutual prosperity, and mutual security.

I think that Obama, and Clinton and all their people, including all their imbedded people in the MSM are operating from the POV of an outmoded worldview and paradigm that gets all it's power from the cutting edge of danger, in the process of which is wrought untold death and destruction.

Their great game of RISK is at an end.

It's time for new ideas and approaches that produce favorable results for one and all, including the Syrian Refugees, the Russians, the Iranians, the Chinese, the Isrealis.

I wish I was an American policy wonk in the Donald Trump Administration, so as to look at every way imaginable, to replace the old with the new

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: SoulSurfer

This is a very dangerous game the liberal left are playing.

Not as dangerous as bending over and kissing Russia's ass like the next idiot in chief is doing. So it's ok for Russia to cyber attack America and we should do nothing about it. If Putin is so worried about Clinton then just stop cyber attacking America then problem solved. I forgot their attacks were to help Trump so that makes everything a ok.

smdh.