The Russians hacking the US

antijoke said:
Wow that thread title, they didn't hack the US.

They allegedly tried to influence the outcome of the election, that's why they are annoyed with Russia and doing these sanctions.

They obviously have enough proof of this otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
Click to expand...

They illegally hacked private email server and illegally distributed confidential information to the the Kremlin's propaganda outlet, I.e. WikiLeaks.
 
Secret_Window said:
Yup, and pretty much everyone but Obama could see this happening, which makes it look worse for them.
Click to expand...

Be interesting to see how far they will go in the last few days - there is a subset of the Democrats that seem intent on trying to provoke Russia into war but don't want to take the first steps themselves.
 
Rroff said:
Be interesting to see how far they will go in the last few days - there is a subset of the Democrats that seem intent on trying to provoke Russia into war but don't want to take the first steps themselves.
Click to expand...

From their perspective it probably makes sense I guess to leave the US in a state of disarray for the next president to clean up, and then to make a case of putting the blame on the newly elected president/party for being in that position, despite the democrats instigating it themselves.
 
Russias response is brilliant. It's basically the biggest f you they could ever give to Obama. Who interestingly had zero balls during his eight years and now that hes on his way out decides to stir the pot. I don't buy anything him or his fellow cronies are doing at the moment.
 
Raymond Lin said:
They must have something concrete, there is no way these steps would have been taken based on a hunch. There is nothing to gain in return, there is no conspiracy to invade a country for oil under "WMD". The US is not going to go invading Russia any time soon or ever so they must have something.

Of course the critic will say, why don't you release it then. The problem is that people will believe anything and also disprove anything. Some people think 911 was created by the US government. Some people believe the moon landing never happened and there are people who believe the Holocaust never took place.
Click to expand...

Or one politician/political party leaving their newly elected opponents with a poisoned chalice?

These claims basically say that the Democrats would have won but for the illegal hacking.
 
Ejecting people for spying is one of the dumbest things you can do. Unless of course the spies somehow know their cover has been blown. But that's something you avoid. The best possible thing you can do with a spy is feed them false information. In fact, it's the kind of lottery win an intelligence organization longs for. What you don't ordinarily do is say: "Ah ha! We've found out you're a spy, we're telling the papers on you."

I mean sometimes, but only if you have a good reason to.
 
D.P. said:
They illegally hacked private email server and illegally distributed confidential information to the the Kremlin's propaganda outlet, I.e. WikiLeaks.
Click to expand...

As opposed to when the US or the UK do it; then it's perfectly fine.
 
Have you read some of the Podesta emails that were hacked/leaked?

They are far more concerning than the question of whether hacking took place.
 
I'm 100% sure America has rigged far more elections than the Russians, they just don't like being played at their own game. For Americans instilling Democracy in a country simply means they get to pick who gets elected.

Oh, and serves him right for interfering in our referendum.
 
iamtheoneneo said:
Russias response is brilliant. It's basically the biggest f you they could ever give to Obama. Who interestingly had zero balls during his eight years and now that hes on his way out decides to stir the pot. I don't buy anything him or his fellow cronies are doing at the moment.
Click to expand...

This. It just smacks of some kind of 'scorched earth' policy, knowing full well that he (Obama) is now yesterday's man. It also makes him look incredibly petulant, like a child who flounces off and takes his football home with him.

With regard to Putin in general, whilst I'm in no way suggesting the man is a saint (he's far from it), the way he's being blamed for most of the West's ills right now reeks of him being set up as the current bogeyman, like Blair did with Saddam Hussein or Cameron did to a lesser extent with Colonel Gaddafi. Presumably because it gives our leaders a readymade excuse when something goes base-over-apex - no proof is needed or offered, just "Evidence suggests <insert name of current bad guy> was involved in ..."

The difference here is what they're stoking up is not, by comparison, some limited skirmish with a ragtag bunch of desert nomads, but a confrontation with the world's other superpower. No doubt the world's arms manufacturers are getting a bit fed up with the so-called 'peace dividend' and someone somewhere has decided we need a nice world war to fix their bottom line ...
 
h4rm0ny said:
Finding out that the Democratic National Congress which was supposedly neutral was actually aiding Hillary Clinton in her bid to beat Sanders is "juicy", imo. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC had to resign when it was found out she was actively working on Clinton's behalf to get her the candidacy over Sanders.

I'd say things like reviewing lists of donors for appointment to federal positions is "juicy".

Clinton's soul is black as pitch. Yes, it was an attempt to influence the election. But isn't revealing the truth to the electorate and exposing dishonesty a legitimate way of influencing an election? And the people who provided the emails to the public (and therefore are in an unquestioned position to know rather than CIA with their suppositions about 'have been associated with the Kremlin') are adamant that it was a leak from someone in the party itself. Which given the sabotage of Sanders and evident corruption in the emails, is extremely plausible.
Click to expand...

Juicy as in "arrests", career ending info about Clinton etc. You know, the things we were promised by those so against Clinton. All we ended up with was gossip and dirty laundry, with some favouritism in there. Donors appointed to federal positions? That a well known fact of life with US elections - many ambassadorships are and have been appointed that way for several administrations for example.

The reality is they were a completely damp squib, but almost certainly formed a negative pall over Clintons election chances. The likelihood is Trumps election emails would have been just as "juicy", but they weren't leaked were they...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom