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.

 

Russia charges four top intelligence officials with treason

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense




So let's see, today it was reported a KGB chief linked to Trump was found dead amid the Kremlin cover up claims.


Except it was reported that "KGB chief linked to Trump file was found dead", not "KGB chief linked to Trump was found dead". I'm not sure if that is a simple mistake on your part, or if you have misread it in a fit of confirmation bias, but such an accusation needs to be corrected.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense




So let's see, today it was reported a KGB chief linked to Trump was found dead amid the Kremlin cover up claims.


Except it was reported that "KGB chief linked to Trump file was found dead", not "KGB chief linked to Trump was found dead". I'm not sure if that is a simple mistake on your part, or if you have misread it in a fit of confirmation bias, but such an accusation needs to be corrected.


Let's say there is a file on you, say a police record, and other interesting details about whatever sordid past you might have. And let's imagine someone had that file and was using it to blackmail you and suddenly they mysteriously ended up dead. Would it make equally as much sense to say, "Blackmailer linked to LesMisanthrope was found dead" as "Blackmailer linked to LesMisanthrope's file was found dead." Sounds about the same doesn't it? Yeah, I thought so too.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSenseYou get the president being a double agent just due to this.......come on man.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense




So let's see, today it was reported a KGB chief linked to Trump was found dead amid the Kremlin cover up claims.


Except it was reported that "KGB chief linked to Trump file was found dead", not "KGB chief linked to Trump was found dead". I'm not sure if that is a simple mistake on your part, or if you have misread it in a fit of confirmation bias, but such an accusation needs to be corrected.


Let's say there is a file on you, say a police record, and other interesting details about whatever sordid past you might have. And let's imagine someone had that file and was using it to blackmail you and suddenly they mysteriously ended up dead. Would it make equally as much sense to say, "Blackmailer linked to LesMisanthrope was found dead" as "Blackmailer linked to LesMisanthrope's file was found dead." Sounds about the same doesn't it? Yeah, I thought so too.


It doesn't if I'm in no way linked to the guy who made the file. That's like saying you're linked to Trump because you wrote a post about him.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you're saying an article about a purported KGB chief, and I quote, "suspected of helping the former MI6 spy Christopher Steele to compile his dossier on Donald Trump" has nothing to do with Trump? Or as much of a connection to Trump as a forum post. Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Only warning



The rhetoric in this thread stops now.

This is not the Mud Pit, and outside the pit the rules of normal civilised conversation most definitely apply.

If you can't speak to each other in a civilised manner the thread will be closed.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you're saying an article about a purported KGB chief, and I quote, "suspected of helping the former MI6 spy Christopher Steele to compile his dossier on Donald Trump" has nothing to do with Trump? Or as much of a connection to Trump as a forum post. Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman.


You said the KGB chief was linked to Trump, not me. It was either stupidity or deceit. You choose.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you're saying an article about a purported KGB chief, and I quote, "suspected of helping the former MI6 spy Christopher Steele to compile his dossier on Donald Trump" has nothing to do with Trump? Or as much of a connection to Trump as a forum post. Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman.


You said the KGB chief was linked to Trump, not me.


The article mentioned it and I reduced it for simplicity and clarity of wording. You'll get no further conversation from me, but it's always interesting to hear other member's feedback.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

You mention US Intelligence officials being 'quoted' twice.
What might their names be?
It is helpful when vetting the source of a quote if a person knows who supposedly said it.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

You mention US Intelligence officials being 'quoted' twice.
What might their names be?
It is helpful when vetting the source of a quote if a person knows who supposedly said it.


Click the links, I was talking about quotes.

Quotes as in I was quoting the article.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

You mention US Intelligence officials being 'quoted' twice.
What might their names be?
It is helpful when vetting the source of a quote if a person knows who supposedly said it.


Click the links, I was talking about quotes.

Quotes as in I was quoting the article.

Read my post again.
I did go to the links.
You can quote the article all day, if there is no one cited as having made the statements, there is no substantiation.
In the old days, there may have been reason to believe some unsupported information from the MSM. Today... not so much.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

That's your call, write the author and see if you can fish out any info.

Honestly I think we'd all love to get that level of detail rather than having to depend on "inside sources say."



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense Pretty obvious you are a one of those vwho hear something favorable ,automatically think it is true,if your kind had it's way we would already become a communist state,you are a perfect candidate for NWO,believe anything,and I've checked all reliable sources,and can find nothing of this even mentioned,I thought ATS,was for information,not liberal propoganda,they used to verify here,but guess thats out the door



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense Pretty obvious you are a one of those vwho hear something favorable ,automatically think it is true,if your kind had it's way we would already become a communist state,you are a perfect candidate for NWO,believe anything,and I've checked all reliable sources,and can find nothing of this even mentioned,I thought ATS,was for information,not liberal propoganda,they used to verify here,but guess thats out the door


UPI is a newswire service like Reuters and the AP. UPI has been around for over a century. The news is the news even if you don't like what it says. Also how in the world is this favorable? Four men that were very likely working with our intelligence service helping the United States are likely to be killed due to a mole. This is FAVORABLE to you? I'm sorry, but that's sick.

edit on 29-1-2017 by ThingsThatDontMakeSense because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense
a reply to: butcherguy

That's your call, write the author and see if you can fish out any info.

Honestly I think we'd all love to get that level of detail rather than having to depend on "inside sources say."

No thanks.
Instead of that, I will regard it as what it is, an article that offers no proof for the author's suppositions.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

And this man hasn't been seen since he was dragged out of a meeting. With a black out bag over his head!



www.usatoday.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: amfirst1

No the dossier has not been debunked. Unconfirmed does not mean debunked in any Mandela universe.

This actually gives it legs. Why is Russia getting nervous ?
Let's speculate just a tiny bit.
Putin gets a copy of this dossier.
He reads down the list of claims and he laughs a bit.
"Well that's not true, and that's not true and that and that and huh? Oh $hit that IS TRUE !
Someone in the Kremlin is talking.
Then agents start to disappear.
From meetings.
With bags over their heads.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:11 AM
link   
And the investigation by the FBI into Donald Trump continues.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

And by arrest we mean murdered.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I don't have a problem understanding the word speculation, do you know the meaning of treason?

What other possible link would you have between the assassination of a KGB chief and then the arrest of several agents for treason immediately following a spat with the United States where the entirety of our intelligence apparatus confirmed the DNC was attacked by Russia?

Hm... I just can't figure it out.




There is no evidence that the Russians released the information to Wikileaks or any other organization. There is evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC and also the Republicans. If you read almost all of the articles directly from the agencies, they state that Russia Hacked, none really say they attacked anyone. China and Israel also hacked both places, are we saying they are also enemies of the USA? Other countries also hacked. Seems like we ought to boost security on these things. The USA is constantly hacking Russia, the USA has some of the best hackers in the world but it appears it has a weak defense against other hackers.

People are reading the articles from the CIA and FBI and reading things into them that are not there. These agencies did not bring charges against Trump, they only said that Russia hacked us and that there may be a good chance they tried to use this information to influence our election. They have their own Trolls out there, and these trolls are still at work trying to cause chaos in this country. They did not stop at the election, as far as I figure, maybe some of the disruptive far left are actually Russian Trolls and shills that are trying to disrupt our country. I do not trust the Russians, I am only stating that the Russians most likely are not wikileaks source and that since wikkileaks is the only major player that made a real difference, then our government should start finding ways how to boost security instead of blaming others for things they themselves do.

I agree, our Government agencies should be hacking other countries to try to find out things, but saying we can do it while others can't is rediculous. It is an age of hacking, we have to protect our country from the wrong type of people doing this, not just ignore this weakness and hack others more. These agencies were spending their time protecting more important things than the DNC and Republicans. I see they have some priorities that are right, but protecting the whole system of government is necessary.

If I was going to blame anyone for this hacking, I would blame the Obama administration, Obama should have steered these agencies to boost security throughout our country. I hope Trump does.
edit on 29-1-2017 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join