Popular Post Opl Posted July 22, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 22, 2018 1 minute ago, tumama said: Because there is none. Saying that the CIA says it's so doesn't constitute as evidence. The Iraq war should have taught you that lesson. Trump has been confronted with évidences by the intelligence Community, what else do you need, Putin to plea guilty? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opl Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, tumama said: Because there is none. Saying that the CIA says it's so doesn't constitute as evidence. The Iraq war should have taught you that lesson. " The special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election issued an indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers on Friday in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton presidential campaign. From phishing attacks to gain access to Democratic operatives, to money laundering, to attempts to break into state elections boards, the indictment details a vigorous and complex effort by Russia’s top military intelligence service to sabotage the campaign of Mr. Trump’s Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indictment-russian-intelligence-hacking.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tumama Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 1 minute ago, sirineou said: Tones of meddling proof, russian agents have being indicted, their names indicated in the indictments along with proof of the involvement. Don't you think that Trump should have asked Putin. Hey there is an indictment of election meddling by Russian agents under your command. Here are their names and proof, Do you know these people? are they indeed under your command? No you don't know about it? Have lost control of your military? Now that you know about heads will roll right? 12 Russians have been indicted. We have yet to see what evidence they have on these guys or if they are even connected to Russian intelligence. That is not proof. It could very well be a huge nothing burger. We've already seen proof of a cheating FBI agent who had a bias against Trump. Let's not speculate, let's wait to see the evidence that might be coming soon. Yeah I mean Trump is an idiot. He has top security clearance. He knows things we don't know. So I would expect him to say something like that when he defends Putin. But he doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tumama Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, Opl said: Trump has been confronted with évidences by the intelligence Community, what else do you need, Putin to plea guilty? What part of the Iraq war did you fail to comprehend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tumama Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Opl said: " The special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election issued an indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers on Friday in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton presidential campaign. From phishing attacks to gain access to Democratic operatives, to money laundering, to attempts to break into state elections boards, the indictment details a vigorous and complex effort by Russia’s top military intelligence service to sabotage the campaign of Mr. Trump’s Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indictment-russian-intelligence-hacking.html Yeah because everyone who are indicted are guilty. Again, I want to see the evidence. If there's hard evidence I would have no problem saying that the Russians did in fact meddle. But first I have to see the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirineou Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, tumama said: 12 Russians have been indicted. We have yet to see what evidence they have on these guys or if they are even connected to Russian intelligence. That is not proof. It could very well be a huge nothing burger. We've already seen proof of a cheating FBI agent who had a bias against Trump. Let's not speculate, let's wait to see the evidence that might be coming soon. Yeah I mean Trump is an idiot. He has top security clearance. He knows things we don't know. So I would expect him to say something like that when he defends Putin. But he doesn't. The indictment is public for anyone to read, http://time.com/5338451/rod-rosenstein-russian-indictment-transcript/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brunolem Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 7 minutes ago, heybruce said: Once again, links you won't read. In advance, I will not summarize the information into bite size pieces you can then question, refuse to believe, or deflect on. You're on your own. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/13/timeline-how-russian-agents-allegedly-hacked-the-dnc-and-clintons-campaign/?utm_term=.7958b79345e0 https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.7e7aa44c42d4 Obviously there is much more on this topic for those who want to be informed. Obviously you aren't one of those people. Let's assume that Russians hacked the DNC server, isn't the content of the message delivered by means of this hacking more important than the name of the messenger/hacker? What did we learn from this hacking? That the Democrats had tilted the balance in favor of Hillary, to get rid of the pesky Bernie! That, in itself, is a thousand times more important than whatever the Russians did, because by tilting the balance in favor of Hillary, the hapless Democrats prepared the bed for Trump! All the surveys showed that Bernie was in a much stronger position than Hillary to defeat Trump. Many people didn't vote for Trump, but against Hillary...and to this day the Democrats still can't come to term with their huge mistake/corruption, and the resulting TDS is now threatening to lead the country to a civil war... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 13 minutes ago, tumama said: So let me get this straight. All the info in these three articles say that US intelligence agencies made that claim. In other words no evidence. So let me get this straight, you haven't read them, and you won't believe them if you did. I could argue that nothing exists outside my own world by that logic. How do I know there is a Sweden? I've never seen it, just pictures people claimed were Sweden. In other words, no evidence. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, Brunolem said: Let's assume that Russians hacked the DNC server, isn't the content of the message delivered by means of this hacking more important than the name of the messenger/hacker? What did we learn from this hacking? That the Democrats had tilted the balance in favor of Hillary, to get rid of the pesky Bernie! That, in itself, is a thousand times more important than whatever the Russians did, because by tilting the balance in favor of Hillary, the hapless Democrats prepared the bed for Trump! All the surveys showed that Bernie was in a much stronger position than Hillary to defeat Trump. Many people didn't vote for Trump, but against Hillary...and to this day the Democrats still can't come to term with their huge mistake/corruption, and the resulting TDS is now threatening to lead the country to a civil war... No, the context of private communications and election strategies, presented to the opposition and screened to present the most negative evidence to the public, is not the most important thing. The illegal hacking of private communications is the most important thing. That is the crime. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opl Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 11 minutes ago, tumama said: What part of the Iraq war did you fail to comprehend? What part of the annexion of Crimea did you fail to comprehend? In 2014, Putin swore there were no Russian troops in Crimea, even though reporters could see them with their own eyes. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tumama Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 9 minutes ago, sirineou said: The indictment is public for anyone to read, http://time.com/5338451/rod-rosenstein-russian-indictment-transcript/ Yet it contains zero evidence. Which is my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tumama Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 8 minutes ago, heybruce said: So let me get this straight, you haven't read them, and you won't believe them if you did. I could argue that nothing exists outside my own world by that logic. How do I know there is a Sweden? I've never seen it, just pictures people claimed were Sweden. In other words, no evidence. No, if there was something in there I would already know about it. Or at the very least someone could make a claim and then link to the articles. The fact that you don't makes it obvious to me that there's nothing in there. So why bother to even spend time on it? How do you know there's a Sweden? I mean just when you think this debate couldn't get any dumber, you totally surprised me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brunolem Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 1 minute ago, heybruce said: No, the context of private communications and election strategies, presented to the opposition and screened to present the most negative evidence to the public, is not the most important thing. The illegal hacking of private communications is the most important thing. That is the crime. A crime commited 24/7 by the NSA, among other agencies... I hope you realize that what you write borders on fanaticism... Even though there is evidence that the DNC sabotaged the primaries and by extension made Trump's victory possible, you prefer to ignore the facts and stay focused on the messenger because he is Russian! Sometime, something good can result from an illegal action...but with your extreme views of the law you would probably condemn the guy who tried to assassinate Hitler, because assassination is a crime!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tumama Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 5 minutes ago, Opl said: What part of the annexion of Crimea did you fail to comprehend? In 2014, Putin swore there were no Russian troops in Crimea, even though reporters could see them with their own eyes. What part of the UN charter prohibits people from self determination? Also, I don't see US having any problem with Kosovo doing the same thing. In fact they even bombed Belgrade to force them hand over control to the rebels. When did Russia bomb Kiev again? Yeah that's right, they didn't. Sure Putin did lie about that. But then he admitted it afterwards. Kinda dumb if you ask me. But getting back to what we were discussing, there are two points here: 1. You think evidence constitutes your government's intelligence agencies word for it. 2. You think that people's right to self determination only applies in certain cases where it suits you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, tumama said: No, if there was something in there I would already know about it. Or at the very least someone could make a claim and then link to the articles. The fact that you don't makes it obvious to me that there's nothing in there. So why bother to even spend time on it? How do you know there's a Sweden? I mean just when you think this debate couldn't get any dumber, you totally surprised me. Once again you make it clear you won't read anything on your own, you want people to explain things to you. You've just explained yourself very well. I believe there is a Sweden even though I haven't been there. I also believe the conclusions of intelligence agencies who have no reason to lie and every reason to accurately report what they've found. BTW: Intelligence agency failures did not lead to the Iraq War, politicians intentionally mis-representing the intelligence for political purposes led to the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tumama Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, heybruce said: Once again you make it clear you won't read anything on your own, you want people to explain things to you. You've just explained yourself very well. I believe there is a Sweden even though I haven't been there. I also believe the conclusions of intelligence agencies who have no reason to lie and every reason to accurately report what they've found. BTW: Intelligence agency failures did not lead to the Iraq War, politicians intentionally mis-representing the intelligence for political purposes led to the war. You even had the head of the NSA, testifying under oath, that the NSA didn't spy on Americans. Thanks to the patriot Edward Snowden, we know for a fact that is was not true. Yet even lying under oath he was not prosecuted. And you think they are telling the truth this time. That clearly shows what kind of intelligence you possess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brunolem Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 9 minutes ago, Opl said: What part of the annexion of Crimea did you fail to comprehend? In 2014, Putin swore there were no Russian troops in Crimea, even though reporters could see them with their own eyes. Extremely unlikely that Putin said such a thing! Crimea has harbored a huge Russian military base since 1783, which is why Putin wanted to keep it under control after the coup in Ukraine. Crimea is the only warm water military port of Russia. It was attached to Ukraine by Krutchev in 1954, because at that time no one in the USSR imagined that Ukraine would become independent. Before jumping to conclusions, it is always good to know the whole story... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirineou Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, tumama said: Yet it contains zero evidence. Which is my point. "I briefed President Trump about these allegations earlier this week. The President is fully aware of the Department’s actions today. " " We do not try cases on television or in congressional hearings. " http://time.com/5338451/rod-rosenstein-russian-indictment-transcript/ The evidence have being made to the appropriate agencies and individuals as per procedure required under law. So what you mean is that the evidence has not being made available to you. and as such are invalid? Edited July 22, 2018 by sirineou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtls2005 Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 27 minutes ago, tumama said: But first I have to see the evidence. Be patient. It takes a long time to build a case against Organized Crime. All will be exposed. Whether you choose to believe is another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, Brunolem said: A crime commited 24/7 by the NSA, among other agencies... I hope you realize that what you write borders on fanaticism... Even though there is evidence that the DNC sabotaged the primaries and by extension made Trump's victory possible, you prefer to ignore the facts and stay focused on the messenger because he is Russian! Sometime, something good can result from an illegal action...but with your extreme views of the law you would probably condemn the guy who tried to assassinate Hitler, because assassination is a crime!!! Even if the NSA has committed crimes (I think it is more likely Congress has allowed it legal loopholes) it does not justify Russian interference in the election. Don't you agree? I'm a fanatic for thinking law enforcement agencies should focus on the crime? The DNC is a private organization, and allowed to support a life-long Democrat over an opportunist who recently declared himself to be a Democrat. You and tumama speculating on what I think is a deliberate diversion and trolling, 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tumama Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, sirineou said: So what you mean is that the evidence has not being made available to you. and as such are invalid? Yes that is exactly what I mean. I prosecutor can't stand up in court to tell the jury we have evidence, but we can't show it to you. Edited July 22, 2018 by tumama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tumama Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 1 minute ago, heybruce said: You and tumama speculating on what I think is a deliberate diversion and trolling, All we are doing is pointing out your blatant hypocrisy and complete lack of evidence to support your assertions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tumama Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, mtls2005 said: Be patient. It takes a long time to build a case against Organized Crime. All will be exposed. Whether you choose to believe is another matter. Exactly. But people jump to conclusions before even seeing any evidence. It could very well be that the Russians meddled. But before I come to that conclusion I need to see evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, tumama said: You even had the head of the NSA, testifying under oath, that the NSA didn't spy on Americans. Thanks to the patriot Edward Snowden, we know for a fact that is was not true. Yet even lying under oath he was not prosecuted. And you think they are telling the truth this time. That clearly shows what kind of intelligence you possess. Yes, I think they're telling the truth this time. Why wouldn't they? Plus, the evidence released is convincing, not that you'd know since you won't read it. I'm not surprised that they lie in public when questioned about intelligence gathering methods and operations. Under oath is different, I suspect the decision to not prosecute was political. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, tumama said: All we are doing is pointing out your blatant hypocrisy and complete lack of evidence to support your assertions. Identify a hypocritical assertion I have made. Don't attribute words to me I never posted, use a direct quote from one of my posts. If you can't, you are trolling. Edited July 22, 2018 by heybruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirineou Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 1 minute ago, tumama said: Yes that is exactly what I mean. I prosecutor can't stand up in court to tell the jury we have evidence, but we can't show it to you. Common man. It's not rocket science. but you are not the jury! when and if there is a trial I am sure the prosecutor will make his/hers case supported by the available evidence/ I think it is a waste of both our time to discuss the merits of the number Twelve if one of the party does not understand the meaning of the number One and or the number Two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opl Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Brunolem said: Extremely unlikely that Putin said such a thing! Crimea has harbored a huge Russian military base since 1783, which is why Putin wanted to keep it under control after the coup in Ukraine. Crimea is the only warm water military port of Russia. It was attached to Ukraine by Krutchev in 1954, because at that time no one in the USSR imagined that Ukraine would become independent. Before jumping to conclusions, it is always good to know the whole story... FYI ( sorry I can't remove the red colour..) " It's all nonsense, there are no Russian units, special forces or instructors in the East of Ukraine Putin said"...Anyone could buy russian uniforms he said, weeks later he was paying tribute to those Russian troops" https://nationalpost.com/news/world/vladimir-putin-admits-for-first-time-russian-troops-took-over-crimea-refuses-to-rule-out-intervention-in-donetsk It's always good to know the other side of the story, Edited July 22, 2018 by Opl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tumama Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, heybruce said: Yes, I think they're telling the truth this time. Why wouldn't they? Plus, the evidence released is convincing, not that you'd know since you won't read it. I'm not surprised that they lie in public when questioned about intelligence gathering methods and operations. Under oath is different, I suspect the decision to not prosecute was political. Same reason they lied about Iraq. A lot of rich people made a whole lot of money from that war. And they continue making a lot of money from getting NATO members to buy their arms. All you need is a perceived enemy. The evidence is not convincing because there is none. You have consistently failed to bring up a single piece of evidence here. All you do is say there is evidence which we are not allowed to see. That is not evidence. That is just proof that people are sheep. Yeah for sure it was political. They can lie under oath and get away with it. So why would they choose to tell the truth when they can just lie unimpeded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brunolem Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 1 minute ago, heybruce said: I'm a fanatic for thinking law enforcement agencies should focus on the crime? The DNC is a private organization, and allowed to support a life-long Democrat over an opportunist who recently declared himself to be a Democrat. You become a fanatic if you think that the law must be applied by the book, like others think that the religious texts must be followed to the letter. No matter how the DNC hacking was a massive "crime", it would seem to a non-biased observer that this hacking in itself did much less to tilt the elections in favor of Trump, than the DNC shenanigans. If the DNC actions were allowed, why the scandal and the resignation of the DNC chair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tumama Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 5 minutes ago, heybruce said: Identify a hypocritical assertion I have made. Don't attribute words to me I never posted, use a direct quote from one of my posts. If you can't, you are trolling. You kept insisting US doesn't meddle. Even when being confronted with evidence of it. Yet you say it's proven that Russia did meddle, without you showing any evidence of it. Then you proceeded to talk about Crimea, without admitting US bombed Belgrade so the rebels there could gain their independence. I mean do you really want me to go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now