TargaryenVers2 said:

The Young Turk is garbage that is funded by Republican investment firms (despite railing against Democrats for superPACS) lead by a genocide denier. I cannot take them seriously as a "legitimate" Democrat platform.

Republican investment firms? Did you mean to say Democratic?
And who is a genocide denier?

Aeolus451 said:
Only lefties who are desperate to be rid of Trump are going with the russia narrative.

That means pretty much every single Republican house and senate member desperately wants to get rid of Trump?
You won't find any Republican representative (aside from Trump) who has not accepted CIA, FBI and NSA's conclusion. Both Republicans and Democrats voted essentially unanimously (98-2 votes) to implement sanctions against Russia largely because of this.
And the two who voted no, one of whom was Bernie Sanders, don't deny the Russia narrative. They had other reasons for voting against it.

They also voted 97-2 to strip Trump of his ability to lift the Russia sanctions:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/us/politics/trump-russia-sanctions.html

Even the Republicans appear to not trust Donald in regards to Russia.

Last edited by Hiku - on 10 February 2018

Around the Network
Lucas-Rio said:

Honestly, I can't believe it has been going on for so long as a major development in american media and politics.....

What were russia involvment ? A few targeted ads on facebook that were ridiculously low in numbers compared to the money spent by the two candidates, some bots on Twitter, the hack of the democratic commitee and some mail of Podesta, which faled too dig something important.

In comparison of that, the USA has decades of history of meddling with other country politics, by military actions, by sanctions, by financing coup d'etat and other coloured revolutions. Clinton herself tried to boost up Russian opposition, and medlde in Russian politics as the US did in Ukraine.

The US got a taste of their own medicine, and on a so little scale and so little level, that it is really ridiculous to see the reactions. You reap what you sow.

Shhhhhh! Please, you are making to much sense. There is no reason we should spoil the well-blossomed rusophobia that seems to be everywhere in the west now. Yes, its racist, xenophobic and often times idiotic, but hey, thas what the average Joe want



Hiku said:

This?

"Beyond the statements of the public figures above, the only real evidence comes from the analyses of private cybersecurity firms that track and defend against hackers, often in concert with the FBI, NSA and other government agencies.

One, CrowdStrike, was called in by the Democratic National Committee to analyze the hack against their computer system last April. With the DNC’s permission, CrowdStrike then posted details of what it had found. Attribution of hackers, whether by intelligence services or private firms, is a particular discipline. Much of it relies on signature methods used by the hackers, specific pieces of code, and distinguishing behavior.

CrowdStrike’s co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, uncovered evidence that two groups of Russian hackers he had named Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, had been behind the DNC hack. Cozy Bear used a tool called SeaDaddy that allowed it to stealthily exfiltrate information from a victim’s computer. The tool was almost identical to another exfiltration tool previously identified by Symantec as belonging to the group of Russian hackers known to have operated at the behest of Russia’s FSB, a main successor agency to the KGB.

CrowdStrike also found the other group of hackers, Fancy Bear, was sending command and control instructions from a server with an Internet Protocol (IP) address of 176.31.112.10. This was the same IP address that was linked to command and control of an attack against the German parliament in 2015. The DNC attacker also used a special program to open a communication channel with the command and control server that was identical in form and function to the one used in the German hack. Microsoft had previously identified the communication program as belonging to Fancy Bear, which Microsoft had named “Strontium” at the time.

Crowdstrike’s analysis includes other evidence of Russian connections. One of the elements of a truly advanced hack is that it opens, and keeps open, a hidden communication channel with the hacked network, allowing it to continue to avoid detection and to find and steal information in other parts of a hacked computer network. In the DNC hack, the software that opened the hidden communication channel was a piece of software known to have been used by Fancy Bear.

Subsequent analyses by other private firms found other evidence that Russia was behind the hack. And as the attacks broadened over the course of the 2016 campaign to include the DCCC and the email of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief, John Podesta, private firms found evidence linking the new hacks back to the DNC hack.

The private firms admit their open source evidence is not conclusive, but say in the world of cyber-attribution, this is close to as good as it gets. Those familiar with the classified evidence say there is even more convincing information that has not been released. President Obama has ordered a review of the influence operation, the results of which will be released before he steps down on Jan. 20, 2017."
http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

There have been analyses by multiple private firms finding evidence of Russia being behind the DNC hacks. I'm guessing they're all biased against Trump?
Crowdstrike in particular are at times employed by FBI and NSA for these type of investigations. Though they did admit that their findings aren't absolutely conclusive, but "as good as it's going to get".

With all the info we do have, not to mention the info a few days ago that Russia apparently penetrated a few voting machines: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/russians-penetrated-u-s-voter-systems-says-top-u-s-n845721
(No evidence of votes being altered though)

who else is more likely to have hacked the DNC?
Both Republicans and Democrats voted to impose sanctions on Russia. But Trump refuses to implement them.
And now he's attacking and discredeting his own justice department. Whether you think Russia was behind the hacking or not, they got what they wanted.

You forgot this particular passage: "The private firms admit their open source evidence is not conclusive, but say in the world of cyber-attribution, this is close to as good as it gets. Those familiar with the classified evidence say there is even more convincing information that has not been released."

It's hard to take these firms' words for it if they don't provide the evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This is like saying VGChartz is the only site to provide worldwide hardware and software numbers, so therefore we should trust its numbers. Want the skeptics to shut up? Stop playing the "he said, she said" game and just show the hard cold evidence once and for all.



Aura7541 said:
Hiku said:

This?

"Beyond the statements of the public figures above, the only real evidence comes from the analyses of private cybersecurity firms that track and defend against hackers, often in concert with the FBI, NSA and other government agencies.

One, CrowdStrike, was called in by the Democratic National Committee to analyze the hack against their computer system last April. With the DNC’s permission, CrowdStrike then posted details of what it had found. Attribution of hackers, whether by intelligence services or private firms, is a particular discipline. Much of it relies on signature methods used by the hackers, specific pieces of code, and distinguishing behavior.

CrowdStrike’s co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, uncovered evidence that two groups of Russian hackers he had named Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, had been behind the DNC hack. Cozy Bear used a tool called SeaDaddy that allowed it to stealthily exfiltrate information from a victim’s computer. The tool was almost identical to another exfiltration tool previously identified by Symantec as belonging to the group of Russian hackers known to have operated at the behest of Russia’s FSB, a main successor agency to the KGB.

CrowdStrike also found the other group of hackers, Fancy Bear, was sending command and control instructions from a server with an Internet Protocol (IP) address of 176.31.112.10. This was the same IP address that was linked to command and control of an attack against the German parliament in 2015. The DNC attacker also used a special program to open a communication channel with the command and control server that was identical in form and function to the one used in the German hack. Microsoft had previously identified the communication program as belonging to Fancy Bear, which Microsoft had named “Strontium” at the time.

Crowdstrike’s analysis includes other evidence of Russian connections. One of the elements of a truly advanced hack is that it opens, and keeps open, a hidden communication channel with the hacked network, allowing it to continue to avoid detection and to find and steal information in other parts of a hacked computer network. In the DNC hack, the software that opened the hidden communication channel was a piece of software known to have been used by Fancy Bear.

Subsequent analyses by other private firms found other evidence that Russia was behind the hack. And as the attacks broadened over the course of the 2016 campaign to include the DCCC and the email of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief, John Podesta, private firms found evidence linking the new hacks back to the DNC hack.

The private firms admit their open source evidence is not conclusive, but say in the world of cyber-attribution, this is close to as good as it gets. Those familiar with the classified evidence say there is even more convincing information that has not been released. President Obama has ordered a review of the influence operation, the results of which will be released before he steps down on Jan. 20, 2017."
http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

There have been analyses by multiple private firms finding evidence of Russia being behind the DNC hacks. I'm guessing they're all biased against Trump?
Crowdstrike in particular are at times employed by FBI and NSA for these type of investigations. Though they did admit that their findings aren't absolutely conclusive, but "as good as it's going to get".

With all the info we do have, not to mention the info a few days ago that Russia apparently penetrated a few voting machines: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/russians-penetrated-u-s-voter-systems-says-top-u-s-n845721
(No evidence of votes being altered though)

who else is more likely to have hacked the DNC?
Both Republicans and Democrats voted to impose sanctions on Russia. But Trump refuses to implement them.
And now he's attacking and discredeting his own justice department. Whether you think Russia was behind the hacking or not, they got what they wanted.

You forgot this particular passage: "The private firms admit their open source evidence is not conclusive, but say in the world of cyber-attribution, this is close to as good as it gets. Those familiar with the classified evidence say there is even more convincing information that has not been released."

It's hard to take these firms' words for it if they don't provide the evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This is like saying VGChartz is the only site to provide worldwide hardware and software numbers, so therefore we should trust its numbers. Want the skeptics to shut up? Stop playing the "he said, she said" game and just show the hard cold evidence once and for all.

By "forgot" you mean how I included it? And also referenced it myself afterwards?
Look at the bolded.

I was very thorough about not omitting that. And I don't want skeptics to shut up. I want them to be properly informed. The person I replied to said that only one (pro-Democrat, anti-Russia) third party investigated this. I don't know if he can even back up the biased claim, but either way there were several private firms looking into this reaching the same conclusions.

Last edited by Hiku - on 10 February 2018

VGPolyglot said:
Wow, Cenk Uygur is such a warmonger, wanting to keep troops built up on the Russian border.

I have concluded Obama took the right course of action.... [bombing regime change in Libya]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEH7CW9ZDAA



Around the Network
Hiku said:
Aura7541 said:

You forgot this particular passage: "The private firms admit their open source evidence is not conclusive, but say in the world of cyber-attribution, this is close to as good as it gets. Those familiar with the classified evidence say there is even more convincing information that has not been released."

It's hard to take these firms' words for it if they don't provide the evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This is like saying VGChartz is the only site to provide worldwide hardware and software numbers, so therefore we should trust its numbers. Want the skeptics to shut up? Stop playing the "he said, she said" game and just show the hard cold evidence once and for all.

By "forgot" you mean how I included it? And also referenced it myself afterwards?
Look at the bolded.

I was very thorough about not omitting that. And I don't want skeptics to shut up. I want them to be properly informed. The person I replied to said that only one (pro-Democrat, anti-Russia) third party investigated this. I don't even know if he can even back up the biased claim, but either way there were several private firms looking into this reaching the same conclusions.

How many is "several" and how do you know that them reaching the same conclusions is not ad populum?



The attacks on Cenk Uygur and TYT is hilarious and sad. He already said the genocide happened, yet it's still thrown around. Why? Because it isn't about the Armenian genocide. It's about making that genocide a stick to beat TYT and Cenk with. They don't really give a damn about Armenians, they probably don't know anything about Armenia or the first world war and the caucasus theatre. It's used as ammo and it's disgusting. Now on the point of their financiers. They have been accused of so many dumb baseless backings of people and organisations. If it's not boogeyman Soros, then it's Saudi Arabia or Qatar. It's absolute toss and they have always been open about their funds. Also, they are openly progressive. They have always said that.

Now having said all that. I don't agree with all of their points. However, I do agree with Cenk. Russia is a dangerous dangerous country that is expansionist (Ukraine, Georgia, Moldavia etc), is a dictatorship, kills political opponents, does cyberattacks, does proxywars and propaganda campaigns against other countries, supports separatist movements all over the world, divides and turns people against each other through internet troll farms, cheats in olympic sports etc. The list is long and people defending them are either trolls or useful idiots. Russia must be isolated and stood against. Because they are attacking us, whether you know it or not.




Aura7541 said:
Hiku said:

By "forgot" you mean how I included it? And also referenced it myself afterwards?
Look at the bolded.

I was very thorough about not omitting that. And I don't want skeptics to shut up. I want them to be properly informed. The person I replied to said that only one (pro-Democrat, anti-Russia) third party investigated this. I don't even know if he can even back up the biased claim, but either way there were several private firms looking into this reaching the same conclusions.

How many is "several" and how do you know that them reaching the same conclusions is not ad populum?

My argument is not dependent on how many "several" is (although I don't know, and would like to know more about it), as long as it's more than one. Because the person I replied to made it sound like this conclusion only came from one single (pro-Democrat, anti-Russia) third party.
And it's not dependent on me knowing how they reached their conclusions either. I'm saying that multiple firms found what they reported as evidence of Russia being behind this.

Last edited by Hiku - on 10 February 2018

Hiku said:
TargaryenVers2 said:

The Young Turk is garbage that is funded by Republican investment firms (despite railing against Democrats for superPACS) lead by a genocide denier. I cannot take them seriously as a "legitimate" Democrat platform.

Republican investment firms? Did you mean to say Democratic?
And who is a genocide denier?

Aeolus451 said:
Only lefties who are desperate to be rid of Trump are going with the russia narrative.

That means pretty much every single Republican house and senate member desperately wants to get rid of Trump?
You won't find any Republican representative (aside from Trump) who has not accepted CIA, FBI and NSA's conclusion. Both Republicans and Democrats voted essentially unanimously (98-2 votes) to implement sanctions against Russia largely because of this.
And the two who voted no, one of whom was Bernie Sanders, don't deny the Russia narrative. They had other reasons for voting against it.

They also voted 97-2 to strip Trump of his ability to lift the Russia sanctions:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/us/politics/trump-russia-sanctions.html

Even the Republicans appear to not trust Donald in regards to Russia.

No. Just no. The whole russia angle is about Trump supposedly working with Russia to win the election. If they can't prove that, they have jack shit. It is not about Russia trying to influence US elections. Russia has likely tried to influence US politics and elections since WWII. It's normal for countries to do that crap with eachother. The US had its hands in everyone's cookie jar so it doesn't have a leg to stand on with interfering in elections.

Dems do everything they can to incentivize illegal immigration while adamantly fighting any voter ID laws in any state. Gee.. I wonder why. So the only damn reason dems care about Russia or the rigging of elections now, it's politically convenient to use it to sway public opinion and trick normies into thinking he's not a legit president.



Aeolus451 said:
Hiku said:

Republican investment firms? Did you mean to say Democratic?
And who is a genocide denier?

That means pretty much every single Republican house and senate member desperately wants to get rid of Trump?
You won't find any Republican representative (aside from Trump) who has not accepted CIA, FBI and NSA's conclusion. Both Republicans and Democrats voted essentially unanimously (98-2 votes) to implement sanctions against Russia largely because of this.
And the two who voted no, one of whom was Bernie Sanders, don't deny the Russia narrative. They had other reasons for voting against it.

They also voted 97-2 to strip Trump of his ability to lift the Russia sanctions:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/us/politics/trump-russia-sanctions.html

Even the Republicans appear to not trust Donald in regards to Russia.

No. Just no. The whole russia angle is about Trump supposedly working with Russia to win the election. If they can't prove that, they have jack shit. It is not about Russia trying to influence US elections. Russia has likely tried to influence US politics and elections since WWII. It's normal for countries to do that crap with eachother. The US had its hands in everyone's cookie jar so it doesn't have a leg to stand on with interfering in elections.

Dems do everything they can to incentivize illegal immigration while adamantly fighting any voter ID laws in any state. Gee.. I wonder why. So the only damn reason dems care about Russia or the rigging of elections now, it's politically convenient to use it to sway public opinion and trick normies into thinking he's not a legit president.

Ok. I understand what you were referring to then. I've heard "Russia narrative" some times being used in reference to the investigation about the election interference as well. There are people who legit don't think that FBI, CIA and NSA reached the conclusion they made public to everyone last year.
They reference some news article that came out before they publicized their investigation, that stated that they had not (yet) found any evidence.

As for Trump working with Russia to win the election, does something like Don Jr meeting with Russian officials to get dirt on Hillary count?
He says the meeting turned out to be about something else, but he admitted to wanting to meet for that reason originally in his email.

I wouldn't pretend to know any likely scenario of events that could have transpired between Trump and Russia to win the election. Some say it has to do with lifting sanctions for Exxon Mobil. Others about Trump borrowing money from a Deuche Bank.
But I will say this. Donald has been acting like someone who is guilty of something they don't want the investigators to find. Firing multiple people involved in the investigation, including Comey while admitting on TV that "I thought to myself, this Russia thing is fake" was on his mind when he made the decision.

Last edited by Hiku - on 10 February 2018