accusations

POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Monday, October 10, 2016 23:52
VIEWED: 2129
PAGE 1 of 1

1KIKI

Saturday, October 8, 2016 11:35 AM

US accuses Russia of cyber attacks

Well ! This was certainly an interesting article. I’ve been following this particular topic ever since it came up, and I actually click on the links in the articles and go backwards to previous articles, then click on the links in those articles to go backward to previous articles … and so on … until I hit a dead end.

So in this article I looked very carefully for any evidence for the US claims, because, frankly, the US has a habit of making all sorts of claims without evidence – and US people have a history of believing those claims even if presented without evidence (such as Hussein’s WMDs – Assad gassing his own people … and so on). And then I went to the links found in the article and checked them out, and then to the links in the links …

Here’s what I found

What evidence is presented within the article proper that Russians are behind the cyberattacks?
"consistent with the methods and motivation of Russia-directed efforts"
“scope and sensitivity of these efforts”
Answer: no claimed specific intelligence

What evidence is presented in the linked article that supports the accusation that Russians are behind the cyberattacks?:
The link in the article is found here: “a hacker calling himself Guccifer 2.0 … (release of documents from the DNC)”
The evidence in the linked article that supports the accusation that Russians are behind the cyberattacks is this:
in the article analysis of the attack on the DNC by US security firm CrowdStrike
Attribution, the experts say, is always difficult. Translated, this means nobody knows who to blame.
Answer: the linked article doesn’t support the accusations of US officials that pinpoint Russia

What evidence is presented in the linked article that supports the accusation that Russians are behind the cyberattacks?:
The link in the article is found here: “At an early stage, MANY US officials linked the breach to Russia.”
The evidence in the linked article that supports the accusation that Russians are behind the cyberattacks is this:
Hacking tools allegedly developed by the US National Security Agency (NSA) were dumped online by a group calling itself Shadow Brokers (also linked to the NSA)
speculation a server operated by the NSA (was) hacked; or an insider decided to steal the data; but whether the same insider then went on to leak it is unanswered
Russia has been accused by US officials of being involved in the DNC leaks
Answer: the linked article doesn’t support the accusations of US officials that pinpoint Russia, in fact many alternate explanations are given

What evidence is presented in the linked article that supports the accusation that Russians are behind the cyberattacks?:
The link in the article is found here: “The leaked emails appeared to show” that that Democratic Party officials were biased against Bernie Sanders
The evidence in the linked article that supports the accusation that Russians are behind the cyberattacks is this:
US officials widely believe that the cyber attacks were committed by agents working for the Russian government.
Some fear that Russia may be trying to influence the presidential election.
The FBI said it was investigating the allegations and the extent of any hacking.
Answer: the linked article doesn’t support the accusations of US officials that pinpoint Russia

In the end none of the articles contained any evidence.

So, without further ado – the article

US accuses Russia of cyber attacks

US officials have formally accused Russia of cyberattacks against political organisations in order "to interfere with the US election".
Recent hacked emails are "consistent with the methods and motivation of Russia-directed efforts", the Department of Homeland Security said.

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 8, 2016 3:51 PM

Whoever it was that attempted to break into voter registries and other aspects of the voting and vote-counting systems did the USA population tremendous favor. By causing the national and local officials to put a laser focus on cyber security, they made it much more difficult for anyone (like Hillary, ahem!) to steal the vote.

There is some indication that Hillary may have, in fact, stolen the primary election. Snopes, a favorite fact-checking website, provides some credence to the research:

Quote:
That social media share described the document as "a fantastic research piece put together by a couple of college students, Rodolfo Cortes Barragan & Axel Geijsel." That document (properly termed a "paper," not a "study," as the latter term implies some form of professional vetting) concluded with the statement that the data examined by its author "suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election" and that "this fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders"

Analysis: ?The [data] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. [voting patterns with and without a paper trail] States without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton than states with paper trails. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations, including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time.

http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exi
t-poll-discrepancies/

This is very similar to the issues that were raised in the 2000 Supreme Court selection of GWB, and the 2004 so-called "election" of GWB.

The former (2000) was centered on the "hanging chad" vote count in Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia Counties. In 2001, after the partial recount was stopped by the Supreme Court selecting GWB as President, a consortium of newspapers did a FULL STATEWIDE recount. They re-examined the vote count based on full punchouts, three corners detached, two corners, one corner, and a dimple and found the results didn't change based on how the hanging chads were counted, or not counted. What absolutely and positively threw the vote count to GORE (NOT BUSH) was a recount of the votes that were counted ELECTRONICALLY. The original vote mysteriously subtracted 16,000 votes from Gore and added 2,000 votes to Bush ... no small difference in an outcome determined by less than 1,000 votes. As demonstrated by the interest group Black Box Voting, there are all kinds of ways to electronically manipulate the vote count, and this problem is especially acute with systems which do not maintain and independent PAPER COUNT which allows the electronic vote to be audited.

The Democratic Party, for whatever reason, did not take the issue seriously and in 2004...

Evidence of a massive, six-state electronic vote manipulation was surfaced by university professors of statistics and mathematics who were examining the discrepancies between exit polls and vote counts.

Have you ever spoken to a statistician? I have. It's like listening to a weather forecaster: impossible for them to be definitive about almost anything, they will always talk probabilities.

In THIS particular case, however, the statisticians who worked on the study, with full knowledge of the historic error rates of both vote counts AND exit polls, noted the following

The unexpectedly large discrepancy between exit polls and vote counts only occurred in states where there was a significant amount of touchscreen electronic voting

The statistically significant differences only occurred in six "battleground" states. In other states, the exit polls were as accurate as usual

They produced a "swing" i

THGRRI

Saturday, October 8, 2016 7:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
US accuses Russia of cyber attacks

Well ! This was certainly an interesting article. I’ve been following this particular topic ever since it came up, and I actually click on the links in the articles and go backwards to previous articles, then click on the links in those articles to go backward to previous articles … and so on … until I hit a dead end.

Of course you did comrade...

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

THGRRI

Saturday, October 8, 2016 7:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Whoever it was that attempted to break into voter registries and other aspects of the voting and vote-counting systems did the USA population tremendous favor.

Sorry SIG but this is about Russian hackers so I am not going to repost your subjective rant. And 1kiki's rant wow. Does she really expect us to read that shit past the first few lines. As if her research would uncover anything. No, our government called the Russians out on their hacking; simple.

SIG I am reposting only your refusal to back the United States by suggesting you don't know who the hacker was. Our government has called Russia out on not just this but war crimes in Syria as well.

Now the push back on Russia begins

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

1KIKI

Sunday, October 9, 2016 10:13 AM

Thanks for the bump THUGGR!

As always, an idiot.

As always, useful.

In any case, I'm sure no one, except someone as tedious as I am, actually reads through entire articles, and then clicks on every link going backwards. But I find it useful, because I always want to see what, exactly, am I being sold. What DO they expect me to believe? And how low exactly do they rate my intelligence according to the 'swill' rating of what they present?

And also, having gone through multiple 'sources' over a long time, it makes my claims REALLY hard to refute. In this case, having read through MANY articles (this being but one example) and having tracked back through EVERY active link, I can state with confidence that there is - literally - no government evidence publicly available to back up its claims about Russian hacking.

But WAIT! there's more! More than that, I get to observe how gullible the overwhelming majority of people are, and how very, VERY little it takes to turn the attention of the slobbering masses in the direction of choice.

I think you all are god awful imbecilic for believing ANYthing the government says. And you do it with such imbecilic gusto, too!

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

THGRRI

Sunday, October 9, 2016 6:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Thanks for the bump THUGGR!

As always, an idiot.

As always, useful.

In any case, I'm sure no one, except someone as tedious as I am, actually reads through entire articles, and then clicks on every link going backwards. But I find it useful, because I always want to see what, exactly, am I being sold. What DO they expect me to believe? And how low exactly do they rate my intelligence according to the 'swill' rating of what they present?

And also, having gone through multiple 'sources' over a long time, it makes my claims REALLY hard to refute. In this case, having read through MANY articles (this being but one example) and having tracked back through EVERY active link, I can state with confidence that there is - literally - no government evidence publicly available to back up its claims about Russian hacking.

But WAIT! there's more! More than that, I get to observe how gullible the overwhelming majority of people are, and how very, VERY little it takes to turn the attention of the slobbering masses in the direction of choice.

I think you all are god awful imbecilic for believing ANYthing the government says. And you do it with such imbecilic gusto, too!

Chances are, you've encountered a narcissist. You know, that someone who somehow manages to revert every topic of conversation back to herself. Easy to see from this latest post you do think very highly of yourself.

Yep 1kiki the troll who posts in these threads can tell from newspapaer articles past and present that Russia is not the hacker. And further that my government is misleading me. Sounds more like something the Russian government would do. Don't you agree comrade?

And thanks to you and SIG for creating many threads for us to discuss this. It's obvious that once a thread has many posts showing you and SIG to be liars and asses, you run from that thread and create a new one. Not to worry, we can start again comrade.

United States government accuses Russian government of hacking the DNC and Syrian war crimes. There ya go 1kiki; lets begin.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 9, 2016 8:09 PM

Quote:
Chances are, you've encountered a narcissist. You know, that someone who somehow manages to revert every topic of conversation back to herself. Easy to see from this latest post you do think very highly of yourself.

No, son, it's just that we think very little of people like you.

"Don't confuse your ignorance for my intelligence"

Here's the sad, pathetic part that is you: KIKI just gave you a procedure by which YOU can elevate yourself from the mass of reactive, emotional sheeple in which you seem to belong. It's simple. Look for EVIDENCE. Not allegations, not accusations, but EVIDENCE. If there is no evidence, you can eliminate the accusation at first glance.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

THGRRI

Sunday, October 9, 2016 11:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Chances are, you've encountered a narcissist. You know, that someone who somehow manages to revert every topic of conversation back to herself. Easy to see from this latest post you do think very highly of yourself.

No, son, it's just that we think very little of people like you.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

1KIKI

Monday, October 10, 2016 5:10 AM

Yep 1kiki the troll who posts in these threads can tell from newspapaer articles past and present that Russia is not the hacker.

Strange, that's not what I posted. I'd almost think the person who posted that has such a poor grasp on English that they can't understand it at even the simplest level.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!