https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-10/why-some-u-s-ex-spies-don-t-buy-the-russia-story
Last edited:
Why Some U.S. Ex-Spies Don't Buy the Russia Story
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-10/why-some-u-s-ex-spies-don-t-buy-the-russia-story
Summary for you idiots: The DNC server, the one which the DNC won't let the FBI even look at, had data transferred off of it at a rate of 180 megabits per second. This transfer rate is pretty much impossible over the internet. This means the data was not hacked by some external hacker but instead taken by someone INTERNALLY.
This whole thing is a fucking lie as I have said since the beginning. The deep state is FUCKING LYING about the russian hacking. Just like the intelligence agencies lied about the Iraq war.
This whole thing is a fucking lie as I have said since the beginning. The deep state is FUCKING LYING about the russian hacking. Just like the intelligence agencies lied about the Iraq war.
This is literally the same group that was exposing lies about WMD back in 2003. The same exact group.
Having been burned so badly on the Iraq intelligence claims in 2003, you would think major U.S. media would
apply more journalistic skepticism and rigor here,
even if, to the broader public, Russia is a faraway power to which it's easy to ascribe pretty much any nefarious activity.
Instead, these outlets seem more intent on noting Putin's bare-chested physique and accusing him of further meddling on social networks.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
VIPS includes former National Security Agency staffers with considerable technical expertise, such as William Binney, the agency's former technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis, and Edward Loomis Jr., former technical director for the office of signals processing, as well as other ex-intelligence officers with impressive credentials.
++
so it was an internal download to a thumb drive, and passed on as such to Wiki.
(and all the while that Deep State bullshit about "Russian cutouts").....
VIPS includes former National Security Agency staffers with considerable technical expertise, such as William Binney, the agency's former technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis, and Edward Loomis Jr., former technical director for the office of signals processing, as well as other ex-intelligence officers with impressive credentials.
++
so it was an internal download to a thumb drive, and passed on as such to Wiki.
(and all the while that Deep State bullshit about "Russian cutouts").....
crowonapost
Verified User
North Korea undermines it all. Russia is about Putin. Putin is about himself and money. Putin will give North Korea technology to undermine the United States. Fuck ALL that. It is the game.
You all play it i and have no clue. As a Crow. I see death.
You enable it.
You all play it i and have no clue. As a Crow. I see death.
You enable it.
Russiaphobic and reactive. Putin/Russia doesn't want a nuclear Korean peninsula
Facing the twin dangers of domestic instability and foreign attack, the North has devised a strategy for survival that depends (somewhat counterintuitively) on provoking the South and the United States.
The North will do something that it knows will infuriate its enemies, like testing an intercontinental ballistic missile or shelling a South Korean military base. This limit-pushing behavior is designed to show that the North is willing to escalate aggressively in the event of any kind of action from Washington or Seoul that threatens the regime, thus deterring them from making even the slightest move to undermine the Kim regime. It also sends a signal to the North Korean people that they’re constantly under threat from foreign invasions, and that they need to support their government unconditionally to survive as a nation.
The problem is that this strategy is inherently unstable. There’s always a risk that one of these manufactured crises spirals out of control, leading to a conflict that no one really wants. This is especially risky because the North Korean government is deeply insular:
Washington doesn’t have the kind of direct line of communication with the North that it had with the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, which was vital in preventing standoffs like the Cuban Missile Crisis from escalating.
Maybe the Trump administration responds too aggressively to a provocation, prompting North Korean retaliation. Maybe North Korea thinks it’s about to be invaded by the South, leading it to mount a preemptive strike. Maybe South Korea misreads the North’s signals and thinks it is about to launch a war, causing the South to do something wild like try to assassinate Kim Jong Un. That isn’t totally hypothetical: Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and a noted North Korean expert, thinks killing Kim is a real option that the South is considering if it thinks war is likely (mainly to head off a nuclear strike before it starts).
These scenarios illustrate that a basic truth: A situation where one side is constantly provoking the other is extremely volatile.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/5/15922446/north-korea-nuclear-war-casualties
The North will do something that it knows will infuriate its enemies, like testing an intercontinental ballistic missile or shelling a South Korean military base. This limit-pushing behavior is designed to show that the North is willing to escalate aggressively in the event of any kind of action from Washington or Seoul that threatens the regime, thus deterring them from making even the slightest move to undermine the Kim regime. It also sends a signal to the North Korean people that they’re constantly under threat from foreign invasions, and that they need to support their government unconditionally to survive as a nation.
The problem is that this strategy is inherently unstable. There’s always a risk that one of these manufactured crises spirals out of control, leading to a conflict that no one really wants. This is especially risky because the North Korean government is deeply insular:
Washington doesn’t have the kind of direct line of communication with the North that it had with the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, which was vital in preventing standoffs like the Cuban Missile Crisis from escalating.
Maybe the Trump administration responds too aggressively to a provocation, prompting North Korean retaliation. Maybe North Korea thinks it’s about to be invaded by the South, leading it to mount a preemptive strike. Maybe South Korea misreads the North’s signals and thinks it is about to launch a war, causing the South to do something wild like try to assassinate Kim Jong Un. That isn’t totally hypothetical: Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and a noted North Korean expert, thinks killing Kim is a real option that the South is considering if it thinks war is likely (mainly to head off a nuclear strike before it starts).
These scenarios illustrate that a basic truth: A situation where one side is constantly provoking the other is extremely volatile.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/5/15922446/north-korea-nuclear-war-casualties
crowonapost
Verified User
No, they want an unstable world power. Period. You missed that. I did not.
Life is Golden
The Sage
And the sot returns, drunk as usual.
crowonapost
Verified User
crow. you can't discuss Russian behaviors with such simplicity
Do they want an unstable Donbass? Only for now -because they have to rely on the eastern UK as their buffer.
Otherwise they want Uk back stable . They seized Crimea for Sevastopol access
NATO expansion has brought about such horrific amount of firepower lately reinforced by
Obama's "European Reassurance Initiative" - that any state involved would crave stability if only for self survival
crowonapost
Verified User
I can. Stability is based on democracy. right or wrong, it's not perfect, it's about people. . Plutocracy is mafia. What's Putins interest, it's not the 'power' of the people, it's mafia (Money). That you miss that is insightful for others, not you, you are lost. You are neither Buddhist or spiritual, you are reactive. You NEED more time to understand detachment. Or You will too be eaten by Crows.
Nature of things.
Trump don't care, Putin don't care, parties don't care.
Good luck.
i love how when the russian story is crumbling at your feet you now and try to distract with north korea. Very convenient.
It was the clintons that gave nuke secrets to china, who then passed them to NK, not putin. Clinton.
jeeze crow..now you're talking like a neocon about how democracy is an end to it's self.
Libya wasn't a democracy and was damn stable until we decided to blow it up.
US/Russian relations do not directly depend on how Putin hold power. He holds power is all that matters
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Neither Putin nor China has an interest in nuclear war because they could get sucked into it. MAD, remember your history?
And both countries signed off on the unprecedented 10-0 UN Security Council resolution that put crippling sanctions on NK.
Right now, nobody is on Bowl Cut's side. Except maybe liberals and the media.
jmotivator
Verified User
Which matches the Wikileaks statement that the documents they posted were passed to them by an insider during a clandestine meeting in a Washington DC park...
yes. the "Russian cutout" was always this ghost figure dreamed up by the Deep State -absolutely no attribution.
But I find this a tedious rebuttal that goes nowhere up against the Deep State's Russiaphobia
and cowardly Congress ( or bloodthirsty members)
My contention is sanctioning/marginalizing Russia doesn't help,and in fact pushes further apart from US/Europe business ties.
Economic ties are the best way to incorporate Russia's legitimate needs,and make NATO expansion less dangerous