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.

 

GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


Some simple evidence that Russia aimed to hack in order to influence the election would be nice.


So you admit that they hacked the DNC, and you admit that the released information from that hack may have influenced the election, but you cannot bring yourself to conclude that it was intentional?


I am saying there is no evidence at all that Russia released ANY information, only that they have been hacking US political institutions for a long time. Once again, the claim is that Russia provided wikileaks with the information wikileaks published and that they did it to help Trump. The latter accusation is predicated on the claim that they also hacked the RNC AND the assumption (with no evidence) that it was Russia who handed documents to wikileaks. There is no evidence provided for any of those claims in the document and data published.

I think there is no doubt that the information itself influenced the election.
edit on 30/12/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Indeed - outrage that the truth could have influenced the minds of citizens.
The source, given the long history of hacking, is irrelevant. Unless of course there is evidence of links between the hackers and wikileaks and/or the hackers and the RNC/Trump campaign.


But it was not the truth that influenced the elections, it was the false allegations made about the contents of the emails. They revealed no criminal activity... unless you consider having cheese pizza for lunch to be criminal. The emails were just a hook to make lies look more plausible. On the other hand, the hack itself is a crime.

The connection of the hackers to the RNC and/or Trump is completely irrelevant. The action was initiated by the Kremlin to serve its own ends. It has been waging a covert war against western democracies for years. This has been amply documented here on ATS long before it was picked up by the mainstream media.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 07:53 AM
link   


But it was not the truth that influenced the elections, it was the false allegations made about the contents of the emails.


Truth is often not the basis of opinion, especially in politics. Opinion is usually what voters use when they vote.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


Indeed - outrage that the truth could have influenced the minds of citizens.
The source, given the long history of hacking, is irrelevant. Unless of course there is evidence of links between the hackers and wikileaks and/or the hackers and the RNC/Trump campaign.


But it was not the truth that influenced the elections, it was the false allegations made about the contents of the emails. They revealed no criminal activity... unless you consider having cheese pizza for lunch to be criminal. The emails were just a hook to make lies look more plausible. On the other hand, the hack itself is a crime.

The connection of the hackers to the RNC and/or Trump is completely irrelevant. The action was initiated by the Kremlin to serve its own ends. It has been waging a covert war against western democracies for years. This has been amply documented here on ATS long before it was picked up by the mainstream media.


Don't try and conflate pizzagate with all the revelations that came out of the emails. It won't wash.

It was not about criminal activity, it was about underhand tactics and duplicity that showed the DNC to be corrupt. The emails gave great insight into the DNC and people were rightly disgusted by it.

Let's look at the claims again, summarised by the NYT

WASHINGTON — American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials. They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks. In the months before the election, it was largely documents from Democratic Party systems that were leaked to the public. Intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russians gave the Democrats’ documents to WikiLeaks.


The emails were released by wikileaks.
Where is the evidence Russia gave any information to wikileaks?
Where is the detail that confirms no other hacks from other sources were found?
Where is the investigation into possible leaks from within the DNC? Wikileaks have already confirmed the time and place where they received the information.
How come the investigation and findings from the particpants at that event are nowhere to be seen?
Where is the evidence that the RNC was hacked? (this by the way is the whole basis of the accusation that Russia was trying to help Trump and is therefore crucial to the claims being made)

Once again, no evidence at all has been provided to substantiate the claims summarised by the NYT. The only evidence we have is that Russia have been hacking the US govt institutions for a long time.

So, I'll ask again. Why the major media and political focus now? Can you bring yourself to admit the reason? I doubt it.


edit on 30/12/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


So, I'll ask again. Why the major media and political focus now?


The media focus is because the administration has made the accusation official. The accusation is being made because the Kremlin violated an unspoken agreement... nations can gather intelligence on one another, and use that information to shape their own policies. Using it to actually interfere with another nation's internal affairs is an overt act of war. It is no different in principle than sabotage or assassination.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


So, I'll ask again. Why the major media and political focus now?


The media focus is because the administration has made the accusation official. The accusation is being made because the Kremlin violated an unspoken agreement... nations can gather intelligence on one another, and use that information to shape their own policies. Using it to actually interfere with another nation's internal affairs is an overt act of war. It is no different in principle than sabotage or assassination.


So I will ask this again - where is the evidence that Russia gave information to wikileaks?
Why has Obama made this 'official' now when his govt has already been hacked and several countries are known to have hacked or tried to hack the US for years?
While you are at it, can you explain why it was not made 'official' before the election when the same accusations were being made? I seem to recall Obama was quite relaxed about the whole issue.

Offical or not, there is zero evidence provided for the claims made, and I'd point out that the media were running this story daily BEFORE the official statement from intelligence agencies in October.
Right now, with the information to hand, the only conclusion is that nothing out of the ordinary happened.
edit on 30/12/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


So I will ask this again - where is the evidence that Russia gave information to wikileaks?


Once again, what would you consider to be evidence? Please be specific. I cannot think of anything you would not be able to dismiss as "disinformation." Please stop playing games. Russia's attempt to influence the election fits a clearly defined pattern. They had the means and motive. What evidence do you have that they did not do it?



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


So I will ask this again - where is the evidence that Russia gave information to wikileaks?


Once again, what would you consider to be evidence? Please be specific. I cannot think of anything you would not be able to dismiss as "disinformation." Please stop playing games. Russia's attempt to influence the election fits a clearly defined pattern. They had the means and motive. What evidence do you have that they did not do it?


Games? That's funny, especially as I have already listed all the points of investigation and information that would help substantiate the actual claims made.
You've lost your mind to a place where you can be told anything with no evidence as long as it suits your agenda. Good luck with that mindset. When you can answer my questions - all listed above - then I might engage further. Till then, well, you're not just playing games, you're playing silly games - especially when you try and ask for evidence that they did NOT do it. Amazing.

edit on 30/12/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

Did you read?

"Probably" state sponsored meaning they don't know. It would be useful to know how they determine what makes the group a probably state sponsored group. Do they have actionable intel or are they just making a guess based on the types of targets they've been hacking?



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


So I will ask this again - where is the evidence that Russia gave information to wikileaks?


Once again, what would you consider to be evidence? Please be specific. I cannot think of anything you would not be able to dismiss as "disinformation." Please stop playing games. Russia's attempt to influence the election fits a clearly defined pattern. They had the means and motive. What evidence do you have that they did not do it?


I would need more than a list of IP addresses originating in Russia.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


So, I'll ask again. Why the major media and political focus now?


The media focus is because the administration has made the accusation official. The accusation is being made because the Kremlin violated an unspoken agreement... nations can gather intelligence on one another, and use that information to shape their own policies. Using it to actually interfere with another nation's internal affairs is an overt act of war. It is no different in principle than sabotage or assassination.


Or could it be that the media focuses on it because the Wikileaks emails made the media look as corrupt as the DNA, Podesta, the Clinton Foundation, and the Clinton Campaign?

The press hasn't bothered to deny the emails exposing their open collusion either.


That means they are tacitly owning that they were working very hard with the Clinton Campaign and Podesta to spin out stories and propaganda friendly to Clinton and negative to Trump (and Bernie) all cycle. Hardly a free and objective press.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


That's funny, especially as I have already listed all the points of investigation and information that would help substantiate the actual claims made.


Sorry, I must have missed that post. Would you link to it please?



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Its at the stage now where if I see an American flag or hear an American voice on television I automatically assume that I am being bull####ed I wish Trump the best but even long term allies like my country are waking up to the fact that we haven't necesarily supported the 'good' guys.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
For those looking to understand the document,
IP addresses can be pinned down to a location.

www.iplocation.net...

If you were able to identify one, or some of them as being tied to a government entity, then you would have circumstantial evidence. (I don't have the ability to do that, so please ignore my post) Even if an IP was tied to government entity, the hacker may have acted independently, but that is somewhat unlikely. (but possible)

If you just forgo all the BS and accept that Russian Government hacked the DNC and exposed those e-mails to the world, then you still have that tiny little issue of the e-mails being 100% factual, and the damage done by them is the fault of the DNC and the DNC alone. Russia didn't infiltrate Podesta's soul and force him to screw Sanders and try to hoodwink the US public. He/they did all that on their own. So, who hacked who, means nothing unless you are a low information citizen who needs to be spoon fed information by CNN.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude


If you just forgo all the BS and accept that Russian Government hacked the DNC and exposed those e-mails to the world, then you still have that tiny little issue of the e-mails being 100% factual, and the damage done by them is the fault of the DNC and the DNC alone.


Not exactly. The hackers did not expose similar machinations going on in the RNC, which tilted public perceptions. That was the whole point to the exercise.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
Its at the stage now where if I see an American flag or hear an American voice on television I automatically assume that I am being bull####ed I wish Trump the best but even long term allies like my country are waking up to the fact that we haven't necesarily supported the 'good' guys.


In other words, the Russian propaganda worked.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Well and we know that Podesta fell to a phishing scheme that even a child knows not to fall for. He was the victim of his own staffer's carelessness.

If Russia was trying to hack him and seriously wanted to do so, don't you think they would just do it and not mess around with phishing schemes?

Also, the RNC denies they were hacked although they say someone tried to infiltrate their systems. Either they take their cyber security much more seriously or, if you are a leftist, they use systems from the stone age that a hacker just can't penetrate because they're all still on floppy or something and antiquated (carrier pigeon and quill and ink?) to be hacked by modern means.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: network dude


If you just forgo all the BS and accept that Russian Government hacked the DNC and exposed those e-mails to the world, then you still have that tiny little issue of the e-mails being 100% factual, and the damage done by them is the fault of the DNC and the DNC alone.


Not exactly. The hackers did not expose similar machinations going on in the RNC, which tilted public perceptions. That was the whole point to the exercise.


How exactly do you know that? I mean, we have Assange who stated he got his info from a DC insider, then also stated that he got hacks from the RNC as well, but there wasn't anything juicy enough to spill there.

All we know for sure about the RNC is how inept they were at finding electable people to prop up. Unless you have something of substance to add.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Depends on how you look at it.

Russia wants to undermine confidence in the US electoral process. So for those trying like mad to deny the election ... yes it did.

I had lost complete confidence in this administration and its ability to tell me anything resembling the truth long before it dug Russia out of the boogeyman closet.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

look at it this way, did the released e-mails change your voting plans at all? If not, do you think you are an anomaly, or are you a fairly stable representation of a US citizen?




top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join