Turns out you can't trust Russian hackers

[werepossum]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/22/turns-out-you-cant-trust-russian-hackers-anymore/

This is a point I raised earlier - assuming hackers do post incriminating and/or embarrassing emails from Hillary et all, how do we know that they are authentic if there's no provenance? We have no way to verify any provenance provided by the hackers, and no one with any independent moral authority has much reason to jump into the poo slinging. Well, turns out you can't trust Russian hackers after all. At least three documents from a Soros-funded entity have been posted in multiple places - and they don't match. While I cannot rule out the possibility of a Soros-friendly false flag operation to diffuse the leaks, it's enough to make the point: anonymous Russian hackers are inherently untrustworthy sources.

This damn well better not affect my Nigerian prince money is all I've got to say.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

You've come around to my thinking. Yes I like info but I prefer that info not come from Russian propaganda experts.

 

[Thump553]

You do realize you just put yourself in a bracket of approximately 0.001% of Republicans-those that don't automatically assume Hillary Clinton ia ALWAYS guilty of any possible allegation made against her. Keep it up and you will be vilified as much as FBI director James Comey was.

Sadly I doubt any of the media will waste even one second of precious airtime discussing the very real issue you raised.

 

[Indus]

*removes werepossum from conservaterrorist list and puts on to be debated with dignity list*

 

[JSt0rm]

Russia wants trump to win as it would end the un. If they try to hack our election system to have trump win it would be amazing.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm sure the usual suspects will still keep Soros on their "do not fly" list, fake documents or not.

The Beckians have vilified that guy for years now (like Hillary--though not nearly as long) to the point where facts are lost in the sea of innuendo and assumed truthiness. Soros is the only beacon of attack for the conservatives--the closest thing that Dems have to the vileness of team Koch--though clearly not as evil and insidious. But one must have enemies, mustn't they?

Spending much effort and much money to royally piss off Putin should be seen as enough of a noble deed, but I guess not.

 

[HumblePie]

What? I'm not suppose to believe everything I read? I don't believe you

 

[Zstream]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/22/turns-out-you-cant-trust-russian-hackers-anymore/

This is a point I raised earlier - assuming hackers do post incriminating and/or embarrassing emails from Hillary et all, how do we know that they are authentic if there's no provenance? We have no way to verify any provenance provided by the hackers, and no one with any independent moral authority has much reason to jump into the poo slinging. Well, turns out you can't trust Russian hackers after all. At least three documents from a Soros-funded entity have been posted in multiple places - and they don't match. While I cannot rule out the possibility of a Soros-friendly false flag operation to diffuse the leaks, it's enough to make the point: anonymous Russian hackers are inherently untrustworthy sources.

This damn well better not affect my Nigerian prince money is all I've got to say.

I'd agree with you if it weren't for those in charge of the DNC being fired.

 

[dank69]

I'd agree with you if it weren't for those in charge of the DNC being fired.

As I understand it, she resigned not because of the content found, but because the hack happened under her watch. The content turned out to be a lot cleaner than even I expected. Another scandal based on a nothingburger.

 

[SmilingBhudda]

I'm sure the usual suspects will still keep Soros on their "do not fly" list, fake documents or not.

The Beckians have vilified that guy for years now (like Hillary--though not nearly as long) to the point where facts are lost in the sea of innuendo and assumed truthiness. Soros is the only beacon of attack for the conservatives--the closest thing that Dems have to the vileness of team Koch--though clearly not as evil and insidious. But one must have enemies, mustn't they?

Spending much effort and much money to royally piss off Putin should be seen as enough of a noble deed, but I guess not.

So you don't think he was the man who broke the Bank of England? Why is he messing around in other countries anyway? You can't turn a country into a democracy from the outside. All that does is create wars, like in Ukraine, but I bet he has plenty of investments in the weapon industry too.

What's wrong with Putin anyway? The Russians seem to like him even though they know he's corrupt, but at least he doesn't make them attend a gaypride parade. They just love a manly man, not some wimp ass president.

 

[nickqt]

They just love a manly man, not some wimp ass president.

I would imagine that self-loathing closeted homosexuals love them some manly manly men rather than wimpy wimpy men.

No surprise that US conservatives love them some manly manly Putin, for a whole litany of reasons.

Keep on keepin' on, y'all.

 

[0roo0roo]

Because its very simple, if you alter documents, you run the risk of being caught when those with the originals come forward.
Either way, it flushes the real information into the open by forcing peoples hands.

In this case they just cross referenced cyberberkuts leak with dcleaks to find the difference.

You can take it further, those with an incentive to discredit leaks would also be motivated to drop such "obvious" mistakes to muddy the waters.

As for Elias Groll, considering the only thing of relevance he found worthy of retweeting yesterday was a quip by the known sjw sarah jeong...his leanings aren't exactly hidden.
Also was a writer for politico

Assange with the counterpoint
ASSANGE: Hillary ‘a demon that is going to put nooses around everyone’s necks’
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/assange-hillary-demon-going-put-nooses-around-everyones-necks/

 

[MongGrel]

Because its very simple, if you alter documents, you run the risk of being caught when those with the originals come forward.
Either way, it flushes the real information into the open by forcing peoples hands.

In this case they just cross referenced cyberberkuts leak with dcleaks to find the difference.

You can take it further, those with an incentive to discredit leaks would also be motivated to drop such "obvious" mistakes to muddy the waters.

As for Elias Groll, considering the only thing of relevance he found worthy of retweeting yesterday was a quip by the known sjw sarah jeong...his leanings aren't exactly hidden.
Also was a writer for politico

Assange with the counterpoint
ASSANGE: Hillary ‘a demon that is going to put nooses around everyone’s necks’
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/assange-hillary-demon-going-put-nooses-around-everyones-necks/

You're just amazingly pathetic, is all I can say to be honest.

Just looking through the crap in the responses says a lot about your sources to begin with.

 

[SmilingBhudda]

I would imagine that self-loathing closeted homosexuals love them some manly manly men rather than wimpy wimpy men.

No surprise that US conservatives love them some manly manly Putin, for a whole litany of reasons.

Keep on keepin' on, y'all.

You are on to me man, except I'm not from the US (nor Russia). It's just I keep having these fantasies about Putin and Trump in compromising positions. Very bear like I might add.

But seriously, Melania is attractive but not really my type. I'm more of a mrs. Assad kind of guy: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=assad+mrs&t=canonical&iax=1&ia=images Huma definitely makes my dick very limp.

But do you have any comments on why the Open Society is causing so much surveillance?

 

[zinfamous]

So you don't think he was the man who broke the Bank of England? Why is he messing around in other countries anyway? You can't turn a country into a democracy from the outside. All that does is create wars, like in Ukraine, but I bet he has plenty of investments in the weapon industry too.

What's wrong with Putin anyway? The Russians seem to like him even though they know he's corrupt, but at least he doesn't make them attend a gaypride parade. They just love a manly man, not some wimp ass president.

what the dumbfuck does that mean? Where do you live that you are forced to attend a gay pride parade? Lol--you think Putin is popular in Russia.

 

[SmilingBhudda]

what the dumbfuck does that mean? Where do you live that you are forced to attend a gay pride parade? Lol--you think Putin is popular in Russia.

Don't take everything you read on the internet litterally. It's just a manner of speaking to say that the Russian people are a traditional people, even though there is a gay bar in Moscow. They don't want gay marriage and they don't want gay parades. They want a man and a woman to marry and have children, which is quite natural.

I live in a country where the gay parade is broadcasted on national television, payed for by tax payers and where it is almost impossible to escape the constant ads about the upcoming event. Also the country where mass police presence, snipers on rooftops and concrete blocks on the road were necessary during the last gay parade because a disturbed muslim (you know, the 0,01% kind of muslim) might have blown himself up while attending the event.

And yes, Putin is popular in Russia. It's not a matter of thinking, it's a fact. It would help if your president could get along with him, and not constantly bring up 'human rights'.

 

[werepossum]

I'd agree with you if it weren't for those in charge of the DNC being fired.

Oh, I don't doubt that they should have been fired. I'm just pointing out that nothing which comes from hackers can be trusted, unless there is some other way of verifying it.

Because its very simple, if you alter documents, you run the risk of being caught when those with the originals come forward.
Either way, it flushes the real information into the open by forcing peoples hands.

In this case they just cross referenced cyberberkuts leak with dcleaks to find the difference.

You can take it further, those with an incentive to discredit leaks would also be motivated to drop such "obvious" mistakes to muddy the waters.

As for Elias Groll, considering the only thing of relevance he found worthy of retweeting yesterday was a quip by the known sjw sarah jeong...his leanings aren't exactly hidden.
Also was a writer for politico

Assange with the counterpoint
ASSANGE: Hillary ‘a demon that is going to put nooses around everyone’s necks’
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/assange-hillary-demon-going-put-nooses-around-everyones-necks/

Maybe it flushes the real information into the open, but there's seldom any way to tell the real information from the faked. And where information is faked, it's probably going to be the most damaging bits. And of course it tempts Hillary's supporters to offer their own fake information to discredit the true bits - but if they do that, they face the same possibility of falling on their faces. Smart money would be on accepting the less damaging and denying the more damaging. After all, they can point to evidence to at least raise reasonable doubt.

Don't take everything you read on the internet litterally. It's just a manner of speaking to say that the Russian people are a traditional people, even though there is a gay bar in Moscow. They don't want gay marriage and they don't want gay parades. They want a man and a woman to marry and have children, which is quite natural.

I live in a country where the gay parade is broadcasted on national television, payed for by tax payers and where it is almost impossible to escape the constant ads about the upcoming event. Also the country where mass police presence, snipers on rooftops and concrete blocks on the road were necessary during the last gay parade because a disturbed muslim (you know, the 0,01% kind of muslim) might have blown himself up while attending the event.

And yes, Putin is popular in Russia. It's not a matter of thinking, it's a fact. It would help if your president could get along with him, and not constantly bring up 'human rights'.

The Russians also have a very real birth rate crisis, so are motivated to see gays as not doing their duty.

And of course Putin is popular in Russia. If one can successfully kill off everyone who writes bad things about him and intimidate and control the others, then the people only hear good things about him. Puffy Li'l Kim is very popular in North Korea too.

 

[SmilingBhudda]

Oh, I don't doubt that they should have been fired. I'm just pointing out that nothing which comes from hackers can be trusted, unless there is some other way of verifying it.


Maybe it flushes the real information into the open, but there's seldom any way to tell the real information from the faked. And where information is faked, it's probably going to be the most damaging bits. And of course it tempts Hillary's supporters to offer their own fake information to discredit the true bits - but if they do that, they face the same possibility of falling on their faces. Smart money would be on accepting the less damaging and denying the more damaging. After all, they can point to evidence to at least raise reasonable doubt.


The Russians also have a very real birth rate crisis, so are motivated to see gays as not doing their duty.

And of course Putin is popular in Russia. If one can successfully kill off everyone who writes bad things about him and intimidate and control the others, then the people only hear good things about him. Puffy Li'l Kim is very popular in North Korea too.

You really don't understand the Russian people. Read War and Peace, especially the epilogue. Tolstoi can explain it better than me. What you need now is a man that can be Putin's friend, not a woman that only pisses him off. And for what? Human rights, gay marriage, democracy? Russians don't care about that, and imposing it on them will only make them angry and resist more.

Ukraine is also not the problem, islam is the problem. Like the Russians that had their nose cut off and after that were skinned layer by layer in Afghanistan know (no, the Russians didn't start that war, the Afghans themselves did). Didn't hear muslims complaining about intervention from the West when you armed the mujahedin btw.