Obama "vows retaliation" against Russia

[CGW]

^Wikileaks Assange was interviewed yesterday and categorically denied that any information they had published had come from the Russians, to date, 10 years or so Wikileaks have never been proven to have lied?

[craigt3365]

18 minutes ago, khunken said:

 

No credible evidence to prove Russia, ISIS, China or Mongolia did it either. Those in the 'know' lie, cheat and.... finger point. The link is only repeating the unproven opinions.

 

BTW I'm not saying the Russia didn't do it - just waiting for some facts (like we get from Wikileaks) that might contain proof.

How do you know Wikileaks is 100% accurate?  You seem to take their word, but dismiss what I linked to?  Seems a bit one sided.

[khunken]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

How do you know Wikileaks is 100% accurate?  You seem to take their word, but dismiss what I linked to?  Seems a bit one sided.

That's easy. Your link contained opinions. Wikileaks doesn't attempt to opine on the content of any of the emails & documents that it releases. It hasn't been accused of lying or finger pointing, just hacking - which provides information that those in the 'know' would rather keep hidden.

[CGW]

9 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I would think Facebook had vetted this source quite well.  In reality, we have very little idea what the US intelligence does or finds out. 

 

http://tech.thaivisa.com/facebook-gets-serious-about-fighting-fake-news/19020/

 

I think we get our news from different sources, its hardly a secret that Facebook uses algorithms to take the "news" in a direction they want! Didn't they say Hilary was going to be President?

[Nasrullah]

2 hours ago, Usernames said:

 

The messenger was wikileaks. The people who did wrong were Hillary and Podesta.

Assange has come out and said the sources of all these leaks-not from russia

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, khunken said:

That's easy. Your link contained opinions. Wikileaks doesn't attempt to opine on the content of any of the emails & documents that it releases. It hasn't been accused of lying or finger pointing, just hacking - which provides information that those in the 'know' would rather keep hidden.

I didn't see any opinions in my link.  You're trolling.  And you didn't answer the question.  How do you know wikileaks is 100% accurate.

[craigt3365]

Just now, Nasrullah said:

Assange has come out and said the sources of all these leaks-not from russia

And I say Santa Claus really exists.  Bit of BS there. But how do you know what Assange says is true?  Your quick to dismiss US allegations, but quick to accept what Assange says?  Hmmmm.....

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, CGW said:

I think we get our news from different sources, its hardly a secret that Facebook uses algorithms to take the "news" in a direction they want! Didn't they say Hilary was going to be President?

You mean their predictions Hilary was going to be president?

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prediction

Quote

a statement about what will happen or might happen in the future

 

[Nasrullah]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

And I say Santa Claus really exists.  Bit of BS there. But how do you know what Assange says is true?  Your quick to dismiss US allegations, but quick to accept what Assange says?  Hmmmm.....

have a look at the track record of the 2 -who's got less blood on his hands?....Again..show me russia compromised 

the US election!......maybe you have some classified information-show me!

[khunken]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I didn't see any opinions in my link.  You're trolling.  And you didn't answer the question.  How do you know wikileaks is 100% accurate.

Of course you wouldn't - it's just more propaganda. Now you're finger-pointing - 'You're trolling'. If so, not doing nearly as much as you.

I never said that Wikileaks is 100% accurate - straw man anyone? Wikileaks (this is getting repetitive) releases data and when those who are the subject of that data don't deny it and just attempt to shoot the messenger (like you do), it does point towards the truth.

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, Nasrullah said:

have a look at the track record of the 2 -who's got less blood on his hands?....Again..show me russia compromised 

the US election!......maybe you have some classified information-show me!

Nobody is saying for 100% certainty that Russia compromised the elections. Just that they did the hack.  That's been proven 100%.

[CGW]

^Dam Russians! again............

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, deathmule said:

 

We know because Wikileaks is indeed leaks from e-mails sent/received from the Hillary Clinton campaign team and herself. 

 

I know it's a little bit complicated thing for a person of your age (I'm assuming you are between 35-60) who is not educated in IT stuff.

 

To explain you like it's 1977 : You have a diary in your house saying all the bad things you have done, someone get's into your house, steals the diary and gives it to the local newspaper.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/is-wikileaks-reliable-legal-illegal-biased-dnc-hacks-the-podesta-emails-russian-hackers-trump-putin/

Quote

Is WikiLeaks Reliable? 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/23/are-clinton-wikileaks-emails-doctored-or-are-they-/

Quote

It’s possible to verify the legitimacy of some, but not all, of the emails, cybersecurity experts said. So we can’t definitively say none of the thousands of leaked emails, which came from campaign chair John Podesta's account, have been doctored.

 

P.S. my major in college was computer science.  I worked in the field until I retired. Part of the time, supporting classified projects in Southern California.  Though I had NO security clearance.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, CGW said:

Factcheck, wow what a credible source

Web sites like factcheck.org are. They are biased, politically motivated propaganda Web sites, manned and funded by biased political organizations who set up the sites for the sole purpose of deviously "backing up" the political arguments of those who hold the same views that they do. It's kind of like you have a friend who is in on your lie, and you use him to back up your story and don't tell anyone else he is your friend.

 

You may not have noticed the US intelligence community are not exactly a good source for information!

 

So basically, any source not echoing your views is rejected.

[khunken]

9 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Nobody is saying for 100% certainty that Russia compromised the elections. Just that they did the hack.  That's been proven 100%.

No it hasn't been proven at all. There you go again deliberately distorting opinion as proof.

[Morch]

37 minutes ago, khunken said:

That's easy. Your link contained opinions. Wikileaks doesn't attempt to opine on the content of any of the emails & documents that it releases. It hasn't been accused of lying or finger pointing, just hacking - which provides information that those in the 'know' would rather keep hidden.

 

Assange never "opined" on the US or HRC?

 

Wikileaks, in the name of freedom of information, provides information mostly related to Western countries. Rarely, if never on Russia, the PRC or other luminaries upholding freedom of information ideals. If anyone believes this is a coincidence, that's a their own choice, but not probably not a very smart one. Same goes for believing that releasing information harming one side during an election campaign is just a coincidence,.

[khunken]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Assange never "opined" on the US or HRC?

 

Wikileaks, in the name of freedom of information, provides information mostly related to Western countries. Rarely, if never on Russia, the PRC or other luminaries upholding freedom of information ideals. If anyone believes this is a coincidence, that's a their own choice, but not probably not a very smart one. Same goes for believing that releasing information harming one side during an election campaign is just a coincidence,.

No, I don't believe that it was a coincidence. But I do think that it was more retaliation against Clinton who has long wanted to get her claws on Assange, rather than any support for Trump.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, khunken said:

No, I don't believe that it was a coincidence. But I do think that it was more retaliation against Clinton who has long wanted to get her claws on Assange, rather than any support for Trump.

 

I don't think that I ever said anything about Assange being supportive of Trump, not sure how that's relevant. If Assange's motivation is anti-Clinton, then he can't be said to be free of agenda and bias.

[Slickrick]

All talk and no action, just stay in HI for the next 30 days.

[khunken]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think that I ever said anything about Assange being supportive of Trump, not sure how that's relevant. If Assange's motivation is anti-Clinton, then he can't be said to be free of agenda and bias.

No, you didn't say he was a TRump supporter but Some in this thread point (fingers) in that direction. I never said that Assange is free from bias or an agenda. But he hasn't spoken or written (opined) about it - apart from denying that a Russian supplied the recent data.

Edited December 17, 2016 by khunken

[craigt3365]

35 minutes ago, khunken said:

No it hasn't been proven at all. There you go again deliberately distorting opinion as proof.

OK.  Show me a link to a credible news site that says the Russian's didn't do it.  Credible link.

[melvinmelvin]

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

What Russia did in this U.S. election was an act of war. The USA and Russia are in conflict. trump will get that before too long even though arguably he will be president because of Putin. I don't see trump as a Russian agent. I see him as a naive MORON (with show business talent) way out of his league now.

 

 

 

wow, act of war? thats true?

 

Obama should hurry up retaliating then, he doesn't have much time left to make himself a complete a-hole

 

was it last week when FBI stated that there is no evidence of Russian interference in the US election?

 

what a farce

 

POTUS after POTUS work very hard to prevent the rest of the world taking them seriously

 

 

[deathmule]

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Assange never "opined" on the US or HRC?

 

Wikileaks, in the name of freedom of information, provides information mostly related to Western countries. Rarely, if never on Russia, the PRC or other luminaries upholding freedom of information ideals. If anyone believes this is a coincidence, that's a their own choice, but not probably not a very smart one. Same goes for believing that releasing information harming one side during an election campaign is just a coincidence,.

 

Doesn't it make sense that Assange cares about the West because he's Western ? 

[Rob13]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

OK.  Show me a link to a credible news site that says the Russian's didn't do it.  Credible link.

 

 

That's been the theme through the  whole election and post election. No credible evidence. Both sides calling foul and not putting up any real evidence. Makes both sides come off looking like clowns.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, deathmule said:

 

Doesn't it make sense that Assange cares about the West because he's Western ? 

 

Err, no?

Check out these forums, plenty of Westerners spewing bile on anything to do with the West. And wouldn't someone upholding Western ideals, like freedom of information, would wish to make it a global thing?

 

[khunken]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

OK.  Show me a link to a credible news site that says the Russian's didn't do it.  Credible link.

No. I haven't even said that Russia didn't do it. You show me and those reading this thread any link to real proof that Russia hacked anything. You have a problem understanding the difference between proven facts and opinion. Nothing anyone says deters you - just a hopeless case.

[canuckamuck]

Obama is just securing his legacy of limp ultimatums.

[dunroaming]

2 hours ago, CGW said:

My apologies I didn't realise you meant one of the other "agencies" that also get their news feeds from "associated press" releases.

You dont think there are actually still journalists out there doing honest reporting...................

 

Yes it's interesting that all the journalists out there are writing stories biased against Trumps actions.  All of them! Amazing how all the bias seems to be one way.  Left wing press and right wing press all reporting what a complete idiot Trump is.  And what about all the news channels indicating the same thing.  You would think that Trump would be feeling a bit paranoid by now, just like his supporters seem to be.

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, khunken said:

No, you didn't say he was a TRump supporter but Some in this thread point (fingers) in that direction. I never said that Assange is free from bias or an agenda. But he hasn't spoken or written (opined) about it - apart from denying that a Russian supplied the recent data.

 

And you trust Assange's word because...? Look at it this way, if his motivation is anti-Clinton as you assert, and the information was supplied by Russia - it casts the whole thing in a different light and way less damaging to HRC. Assange's motivation to come clean on this would be minimal. Further - neither Assange nor his "source" would necessarily be aware if information was supplied by Russia.

[Baerboxer]

8 hours ago, Opl said:

It's disturbing to notice that Trump supporters would rather back Putin than Obama in this case. 

D. Trump will not be only POTUS, as Commander in chief you would expect him to raise his concern at the appropriate level, it's not just about himself and his ego, it's about America.

But as many of his supporters constantly reply : he won and that's all.

 

    

 

What's disturbing is that not one shred of evidence to prove Obama's claims has been shown and verified.

 

If the US government systems are being hacked by anyone then that should be a matter of urgent attention for any government. Why hasn't the Obama regime noticed this before?

 

If a political party or any other private organization is hacked they should be addressing it with their IT experts or providers. 

 

This looks like a crude attempt to stir the pot with Russia before the hand over; turn people against Trump - are they really stupid enough to try and "give" the result to Hilary on Monday and see if they can get away with it; provide convenient scapegoats for Hilary's abysmal actual performance.

 

In all of this, the actual information leaked as never been denied or explained. So Hilary did conspire unfairly with the DNC to ensure she won over Bernie; she did get prior knowledge of debate questions denied to others; her foundation did receive a large "donation" from the German government; she has been accepting money off the Saudis  etc etc etc 

 

Let's focus on the hacking, those nasty Russian bogeymen, and try and smear Trump - seems that is the plan. Anything but admit reality.