What exactly are we accusing the Russians of doing concerning our election?

[Platapus]

I think it is important to get down to the base level here. What exactly do we think the Russians did concerning our election and was it illegal?

The press uses/misuses terminology a lot and this does not make it easier for people to keep the issue straight. Whether the press is misusing terminology due to bias or ignorance is not clear. Probably a bit of both.

Are we accusing the Russians of interfering with our elections or are we accusing the Russians of influencing our elections? The two, while related, are quite different.

Interfering with an election is preventing, hindering, or adversely affecting the actual running of the polls, collection of the votes, counting and reporting the votes and other official type activities that ensure the fair and honest running of the polling. This would be an illegal act and would violate both Federal and State laws.

Influencing an election, or more accurately, influencing a campaign is using both legal and illegal methods attempting to change the opinions and ultimately the voting decision of the voter. The concept of influencing a campaign is not intrinsically illegal. After all, the very idea of a campaign is attempting to influence the voter. However, the methods used for this influence can be legal (advertisements) or illegal (voter intimidation).

Countries trying to influence another country's campaigns is not unusual nor illegal. The US spends a lot of money and effort in influencing elections in other countries. There are campaigns and candidates that we want to be elected and those we don't want to be elected. The US is hardly unique in this.

But what exactly are we accusing the Russians of doing? And we need to be clear on the terminology.

If we are accusing the Russians of interfering with the election, then we need to have evidence that the Russians, or their agents, deliberately prevented or hindered election officials in the performance of their duties; or show evidence that the Russians adversely affected the operations of any election machine.

I have not seen such evidence, and as far as my precinct goes, there was no interference either foreign or domestic.

If we are accusing the Russians of influencing the campaigns, we need to look at the methods. Most methods of influencing campaigns are legal. There are federal laws that prevent foreign entities from directly contributing money to a specific campaign, but there are no legal prohibitions against any foreign entity from running or donating money to a Political Action Committee.

We may not like the idea of Russia trying to influence US voters, but I imagine that Russia does not like the idea of the US trying to influence Russian voters either. But not liking something does not mean that something is illegal.

So before we start to invest money into an investigation, we should be clear on what exactly are we investigating? We should not be spending money investigating something we may not like,but is not illegal.

The first step is to bound the issue and define the terms.

[Onkel Neal]

Good question. I'm not sure anything the Trump campaign did was illegal, but if they were coordinating information releases with Russia, another foreign power, or some hacker group like Wikileaks, it certainly is unethical and not admirable in any way, and that should come to light. I support an investigation, like Vienna said, strong denials have been absent.

[u crank]

I think this is an excellent question Platapus and one that is not getting a lot of traction in the media. The media seems to be looking for some giant, diabolical scheme planned and carried out by evil people. They are possibly intentionally confusing illegal activity with political wrong doing. It has been pointed out by some pretty good lawyers that there is a difference between illegal activity and political wrong doing. One can get you arrested, charged and put in jail. The other could get you bad press and cost you political points in the next election cycle. But they are two different things. And of course it is possible to do them at the same time.


Interfering with an election is preventing, hindering, or adversely affecting the actual running of the polls, collection of the votes, counting and reporting the votes and other official type activities that ensure the fair and honest running of the polling. This would be an illegal act and would violate both Federal and State laws.


I can't help but think that if this happened on a large scale we would be hearing about it. If there are leaks at the highest levels of government and intel agencies then why not here. :hmmm:

[Cybermat47]

The media certainly does have a flair for the dramatic, which has obviously resulted in our mistrust of them.

For example, the media accused the YouTuber known as PewDiePie of being a Nazi. In reality, he was mocking Nazis, as well as other YouTubers who had been openly racist in the past. But saying that YouTube's biggest star was a Nazi was more lucrative for the Wall Street Journal.

Did Russia interfere with the election? With the media's focus on money rather than truth, it's going to take a long time before anyone finds the answer.

[ikalugin]

Being the red under the bed?

but there are no legal prohibitions against any foreign entity from running or donating money to a Political Action Committee.
I mean if we are going into how foreighn powers were influencing the elections, we can look into where HC got her money from and if during her terms as a state official she was known to offer preferential treatment to the countries that sponsored her in any way.

[Rockstar]

I think it is important to get down to the base level here. What exactly do we think the Russians did concerning our election and was it illegal?

The press uses/misuses terminology a lot and this does not make it easier for people to keep the issue straight. Whether the press is misusing terminology due to bias or ignorance is not clear. Probably a bit of both.

Are we accusing the Russians of interfering with our elections or are we accusing the Russians of influencing our elections? The two, while related, are quite different.

Interfering with an election is preventing, hindering, or adversely affecting the actual running of the polls, collection of the votes, counting and reporting the votes and other official type activities that ensure the fair and honest running of the polling. This would be an illegal act and would violate both Federal and State laws.

Influencing an election, or more accurately, influencing a campaign is using both legal and illegal methods attempting to change the opinions and ultimately the voting decision of the voter. The concept of influencing a campaign is not intrinsically illegal. After all, the very idea of a campaign is attempting to influence the voter. However, the methods used for this influence can be legal (advertisements) or illegal (voter intimidation).

Countries trying to influence another country's campaigns is not unusual nor illegal. The US spends a lot of money and effort in influencing elections in other countries. There are campaigns and candidates that we want to be elected and those we don't want to be elected. The US is hardly unique in this.

But what exactly are we accusing the Russians of doing? And we need to be clear on the terminology.

If we are accusing the Russians of interfering with the election, then we need to have evidence that the Russians, or their agents, deliberately prevented or hindered election officials in the performance of their duties; or show evidence that the Russians adversely affected the operations of any election machine.

I have not seen such evidence, and as far as my precinct goes, there was no interference either foreign or domestic.

If we are accusing the Russians of influencing the campaigns, we need to look at the methods. Most methods of influencing campaigns are legal. There are federal laws that prevent foreign entities from directly contributing money to a specific campaign, but there are no legal prohibitions against any foreign entity from running or donating money to a Political Action Committee.

We may not like the idea of Russia trying to influence US voters, but I imagine that Russia does not like the idea of the US trying to influence Russian voters either. But not liking something does not mean that something is illegal.

So before we start to invest money into an investigation, we should be clear on what exactly are we investigating? We should not be spending money investigating something we may not like,but is not illegal.

The first step is to bound the issue and define the terms.


Of course this doenst even come close to answering your question. But when I lived in the Panama Canal Zone. Soviet ships bristling with antennas were thought by many to be transiting the canal just to gather ELINT. Word about town was why do we let them do that? As one Navy puke once said "its all a game, we do the same to them".

[Platapus]

Of course this doenst even come close to answering your question. But when I lived in the Panama Canal Zone. Soviet ships bristling with antennas were thought by many to be transiting the canal just to gather ELINT. Word about town was why do we let them do that? As one Navy puke once said "its all a game, we do the same to them".


The Intel version of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!

[Skybird]

The German peace movement durign the cold war has been fundamentally manipoulated and dircted by the StaSi and the KGB. One cna take it for granted that somethign similiar is beign done today woth Wetsenr socieites, including the American. The infleunce might be subtle and not as coarse as all to allow pointing finghers at the one traitor with the smoking gun. Its more about supporting people to gain positions and accesses that are holdign views or are likely to care less for strategies, plans, Russian actions and events that are in Russian interests, amongst these interests is to weaken the will to resist to Russian goals, and to divide America and the European nations. This could include to bring somebody into the WH that holds no basic principles and tends to see politics as something that compares to business deals exclusively, without visions or ideals. Such people could be baited with giving them what thy want - money, profit, income, a trophy, in return for them not caring if Russia does soemthignt hat it wants and that does not threaten the profane profit goals of these people.

This is not about a Russian James Bond being sent to America. Its about preventing more Russia-critical personnel to raise in the hierarchy and gaining influence in decision making, and instead have people climbing up the ladder that are more uncaring and desinterested in Russia as long as they gain what they want.

Also, and htis was the case in Germany, Greece, France and elsewhere during the cold war already, it is about to increase the possibilities that Western societies gets destabilised from within their middle by inviting conflicts being carried into these societies, or unsettling their fundaments of these societies that before were stable. Feeding the media, encoruaging social conflicts, anti-Americanism - all this and mroe were tools form the KGB text book and it got practiced, and in parts still gets practiced, or gets practiced again, on the german battleground.

And you can bet the same stuff is done on the American battlefield as well.

Again, all this, like the tactics tried out on the VCrimean, are not new, they derive from KGB operational plans and textbopoks dating back to the 60s or 70s. Delaying enemy reacitons by speading doubt. Allowing the enemy to grow false hopes delaying him further. Smoke screens in the media. Contradicting news. Not allowing to get identified in the media. Sprreading more doiubt. Dementing, and then even dementing the dementi (what Trump does for the same purpose, too, btw.). Intimidation. Threatening. Raising what-if? speculations to have the enmy getting distracted by these. And so on and on.

Nothing new under the sun - except what the West lazily and carelessly allowed itself to forget.

[Rockstar]

Also, and htis was the case in Germany, Greece, France and elsewhere during the cold war already, it is about to increase the possibilities that Western societies gets destabilised from within their middle by inviting conflicts being carried into these societies, or unsettling their fundaments of these societies that before were stable. Feeding the media, encoruaging social conflicts, anti-Americanism - all this and mroe were tools form the KGB text book and it got practiced, and in parts still gets practiced, or gets practiced again, on the german battleground.


Kinda like what I percieve to be some of the problem with our own social media and news agencies now. They may not be the direct cause of certain strife within. But they do, to me atleast, appear to be so easily given over or manipulated by others to write whatever comes across their desk just increase their own political clout, notoriety and subscription sales. I wish they would think about the damge they can cause before they spout off sometimes. Personally I dont see much of anything news worthy ever reported. Just heresay, drama and innuendo and oh how the masses do love it so.

[vienna]

Kinda like what I percieve to be some of the problem with our own social media and news agencies now. They may not be the direct cause of certain strife within. But they do, to me atleast, appear to be so easily given over or manipulated by others to write whatever comes across their desk just increase their own political clout, notoriety and subscription sales. I wish they would think about the damge they can cause before they spout off sometimes. Personally I dont see much of anything news worthy ever reported. Just heresay, drama and innuendo and oh how the masses do love it so.

[Bold mine]

Odd...

...sounds very much like what has been said about Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars, et al ... :hmmm:




<O>

[Rockstar]

It sure does. Though rest assure my thoughts are directed at media outlets in general and how divisive it all has become. Well, except the best and most reliable intel rag The Onion of course.

[Mr Quatro]

This is simply the new world order ... an international chess match that is trying to prove that their side is more inteligent than our side. Planes, ships, rockets, tanks, men and machines are no longer enough to prove anything, after all you would have to use those items to prove anything. Nothing will not
stop nor will they admit that they are less intelligent than we are ... they are leading the way for countries like China and North Korea to enter this international battle for the minds of men and women every where. The media must change it's ways first and stop being a highway of misguided information that plants seed thoughts that taint the mind into believing a lie.

[em2nought]

It's obvious what Russia did wrong in the media's eyes, they are old "white" men from a culture that isn't metrosexual. Russians were ok by the media's standards, until they gave up that communism thing that is. :03: The idea of them becoming an ally? Absolutely intolerable now. We wouldn't want to win you know, well the media wouldn't want us to. :up:

...and that is absolutely my favorite scene from Casablanca and very apropo!

[daft]

Ehhh... The media wants to sell stories and they've taken the Russia story hook, line and sinker. I'm neither Trump nor Clinton, Republican or Democrat, I'm not even American, but I would trust the US Intelligence services to take Trump, or any President really, down if it turns out illegal collusion, espionage or whatever really happened. That trust might indeed be misplaced as I suspect that the intelligence community itself isn't entirely a-political all the time. What worries me though is that the media seem to lack both expertise, time and interest in putting the powers at be in the spotlight and report what's really going on rather than package everything in neat little slanted reports and pre-chewed analyses for the public to consume. This isn't specifically an American problem only. We see it here as well.

[ikalugin]

http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_what_does_russia_want_7297
This article may be of interest.

[vienna]

I'd been waiting to see what the other views might be on the original post by Platapus (good points, all, Platapus). I tend to view some of the efforts by investigative, legislative, and, sometimes, judicial entities to be more of a definitive and precedent-setting exercise. Sometimes you have to go through a process, not to reach a fully satisfactory conclusion, but, rather to define and codify the proper actions and limits to be the framework if a transgression or particular similar situation should occur in the future. The impeachment of Bill Clinton, although a seeming waste of time, effort and money to many, served the function of providing a fleshed-out guide of how a full, modern impeachment process should be conducted. An opportunity was missed in the 1970s when Nixon resigned rather than face full impeachment; it would have been a great learning experience for the US government and the citizens on the country on how to deal with a truly criminal impeachment case...

As far as the current Russian situation, there is also a great learning process opportunity. First of all, let's just get rid of the partisan aspect of the matter: we all know that if Obama or Clinton were facing the current situation, the same people who are decrying the efforts to investigate the election influence/tampering now in effect would be the loudest and most ardent in demanding just such investigations, so let's discard petty partisanship. Secondly, let's discard the Trump factor: as I have long stated, none of the investigations or reports have in any way directly linked Trump personally to any of the possible corruption allegations; all he had to do was just not say anything and let the process play out; if he's going to get nicked on anything, it will be due to his efforts, after the facts, to either obstruct justice or, if he is found to have proactively taken part in possible cover-up efforts, to have engaged in criminal conspiracy and/or subornation. while we're at it, let's leave Russia specifically out of this, as well...

The situation is this: allegations have been made of possible efforts by a foreign government, or their actors, to either influence or tamper with a Presidential election. Allegations are also some US citizens and/or other vested individuals in the US, either for personal financial or political gain, may have colluded with and assisted in the efforts by a foreign government to affect the election. The extent of or involvement in these efforts is not fully known nor are the means used to attempt to accomplish any of the goals. Some of the US citizens alleged to have colluded in the effort to affect the election are currently, or have been, officials in some of the highest and/or most sensitive levels of the government. The scope and means in which the efforts were undertaken are serious breaches of the security and integrity of the US election process, the means actually rising to the level of outright criminality. Without the politics or partisan colorings, the above charges, on their own, are very serious allegations worthy of serious scrutiny, if not full prosecution, in the end. The results of Legislative hearings, the investigative probes, and, if necessary the judicial holdings, will set the standard for what is or is not acceptable conduct in regards to the election process and will expose any flaws and breaches in the system so they can, hopefully, be remedied. There really hasn't been any comprehensive review of the electoral system since the days of the first paper ballots; technology, and its benefits and flaws, is very new territory. When the Constitution was enacted, the degree and pervasiveness of current technology was absolutely unimaginable, yet we continue as if we still live in a time without instant communication and the ability to use technology to corrupt the election process. If we don't act now to get to the bottom of the problems of and with our election systems, if we kick the can further down the road, the next instance of someone or something tampering with the most basic and fundamental cornerstone of our democracy could have a far more serious and dangerous result than we are now facing. It may seem like a waste of time and effort, but the expenditure needed to address a far greater crisis later on may be much more than we can muster. Its like a roof: either fix the leaks and cracks now or be faced with having to replace the roof later on, or, worse, having the roof fall in on you...

As a by-the-way, if there is any doubt of the very real possibility of foreign efforts to influence or tamper with the last Presidential elections, there is this:

Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election --

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/

The NSA has not denied the origin, authorship, or accuracy of the document; in fact, the person who leaked the report has been arrested and has confessed to copying and passing on the report. Here is a link to the actual document:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3766950/NSA-Report-on-Russia-Spearphishing.pdf

If there is any doubt of the need to settle the issue of foreign interference in the 2016 Elections and/or the active participation of US citizens in same, the above document should severely lessen any doubt. Who knew the greatest possible danger to the election process would come, not from home-grown "dead voters" but, rather, from foreign entities using modern technology? I don't know about anyone else, but the integrity of the election process is too important to just gloss over...




<O>

[ikalugin]

Interference or influence?

[vienna]

That's what investigation(s) will have to determine and that's why they are necessary...




<O>

[ikalugin]

That's what investigation(s) will have to determine and that's why they are necessary...




<O>
So there are reasonable reasons to believe that we interfered in the elections? From what I remember the official narrative was that there was no interference, if we use OP's terminology.

[vienna]

So there are reasonable reasons to believe that we interfered in the elections? From what I remember the official narrative was that there was no interference, if we use OP's terminology.

Which official narrative? If you mean Russia's, that is already suspect and open to serious question; it is analogous to the police and investigators accepting the word of a bank robbery suspect as the absolute final truth; you might have to consider the suspect has more than a little incentive to lie...

If you mean the narrative of the Trump associates and their motivations, I refer you to the above paragraph...

If you mean the narrative of the data and activities surrounding the questions of influence or interference, I refer you to the multitude of reports and documents fully indicating something serious has occurred which warrants further investigation, if only to put to rest any questions and to ensure, if there has been any wrongdoing, it is appropriately addressed, and measures put in place to prevent a recurrence...

This attempt to shift the question from the actual core issues to a quibble over "influence" or "interference" is little more than a weak ploy to deflect from the issue; it is essentially a newer take on the old "What is is" question. It strongly gives the impression of, failing to adequately argue the facts or core issues, a fallback has been made to turn the argument from the substantive to the stylistic: we can't win the argument, so let's talk about the suits they're wearing. Weak...

If you really want to know if its influence or interference, I have a really great new suggestion: let's investigate properly and get a definitive answer...




<O>

[ikalugin]

Before we do this, you really shouldnt get worked up emotionally as this leads to attacks against my person rather than my arguments.

Which official narrative?The USG and US mainstream media one ofc regarding the elections overall. For example did FBI (or other agencies) claim that there was interference (ie hacking voting machines)?

If you mean the narrative of the data and activities surrounding the questions of influence or interference, I refer you to the multitude of reports and documents fully indicating something serious has occurred which warrants further investigation, if only to put to rest any questions and to ensure, if there has been any wrongdoing, it is appropriately addressed, and measures put in place to prevent a recurrence...

This attempt to shift the question from the actual core issues to a quibble over "influence" or "interference" is little more than a weak ploy to deflect from the issue; it is essentially a newer take on the old "What is is" question. It strongly gives the impression of, failing to adequately argue the facts or core issues, a fallback has been made to turn the argument from the substantive to the stylistic: we can't win the argument, so let's talk about the suits they're wearing. Weak...

If you really want to know if its influence or interference, I have a really great new suggestion: let's investigate properly and get a definitive answer...First of all there is a significant difference between influence and interference, as it was already described by Platapus and there is no known evidence regarding Russian interference into the elections.

Secondly if we are discussing the influence then we are discussing degrees of influence Russia had over the US presidential elections as Russia would invariably have some degree of (indirect) influence by merely existing. As does for example Somalia.

Thridly the "evidence" that you have posted in the past regarding the influence (ie DNC hack stuff) is weak, especially in regards to attribution, as I have said before. Morever in that specific example I would view evidence as tainted and thus not credible because it was provided by a third party with vested interests (crowdstrike).

[vienna]

Before we do this, you really shouldnt get worked up emotionally as this leads to attacks against my person rather than my arguments.

...



Oh, I assure you, I am most calm and measured in my demeanor; I have nothing to worry about other than the need to get to the truth of the matter, which can best be got at by investigation...

..and I have not made any personal attacks against you specifically, just the methodology of argument employed; if you take this as a personal affront, there is little I can do about it: bad argument is bad argument...




...

The USG and US mainstream media one ofc regarding the elections overall. For example did FBI (or other agencies) claim that there was interference (ie hacking voting machines)?

...



No, but the NSA has:

From post #16 above --



...

As a by-the-way, if there is any doubt of the very real possibility of foreign efforts to influence or tamper with the last Presidential elections, there is this:

Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election --

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/...2016-election/ (https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/)

The NSA has not denied the origin, authorship, or accuracy of the document; in fact, the person who leaked the report has been arrested and has confessed to copying and passing on the report. Here is a link to the actual document:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...arphishing.pdf (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3766950/NSA-Report-on-Russia-Spearphishing.pdf)

If there is any doubt of the need to settle the issue of foreign interference in the 2016 Elections and/or the active participation of US citizens in same, the above document should severely lessen any doubt. Who knew the greatest possible danger to the election process would come, not from home-grown "dead voters" but, rather, from foreign entities using modern technology? I don't know about anyone else, but the integrity of the election process is too important to just gloss over...


The provenance of the document is known and acknowledged; none of the agencies involved in the investigation of the leak, most notably the NSA, has expressed any doubt as to the authenticity of the document nor have they denied its actual existence. Other non-governmental intelligence experts have affirmed the document is real and have used the most elemental of clues to do so; the NSA has even acknowledged the copy was made on one of their internal machines through the very, very simple means of verifying the 'yellow dot' codes virtually all modern printers and copiers are required by US law to provide on all documents processed by those machines. So, we have the acknowledgement the document is a copy of an internal NSA report, we have the tacit acknowledgement, by virtue of the FBI arresting the 'leaker', that an actual theft of an official government document has occurred, and we have the fact neither the NSA nor any other investigative agency has openly or furtively denied the origin, content, or authenticity of the document. I fail to see a real substantive doubt anywhere in the mix. Can you provide documented, substantive evidence of any of the above to be false or would you like to have time to, you know, investigate?...




...

First of all there is a significant difference between influence and interference, as it was already described by Platapus there is no known evidence regarding Russian interference into the elections.

Secondly if we are discussing the influence then we are discussing degrees of influence Russia had over the US presidential elections as Russia would invariably have some degree of (indirect) influence by merely existing.

...



Still falling back on the weak leg: give us something solid...




...

Thridly the "evidence" that you have posted in the past regarding the influence (ie DNC hack stuff) is weak, especially in regards to attribution, as I have said before. Morever in that specific example I would view evidence as tainted and thus not credible because it was provided by a third party with vested interests (crowdstrike).




Please be so kind as to be specific: what in the above, specifically and substantively, can you point to as being totally false? I have, at the very least, provided cites and sources and have done actual research for my comments, something your 'apples/oranges' arguments are sorely lacking. It is time to show your hand...

As I said at the top, I am not emotional about this, far from it; I am calm, confident of the substance of my arguments and evidence and am not fearful of defending the specifics. If you feel honest, open, factual presentations are a personal affront to you, there is nothing I can do about it; you, however, can aid your cause by giving actual, specific counters to what you fell is erroneous or false; arguing semantics is not a strong argument...




<O>

[Razoleg]

We are the boogeymen and the go-to guys when the "wrong" (as in - non-establishment) person gets elected. It's the kind of racism and dehumanisation that is easily accepted nowadays.

Sometimes I think the collective hatred of my country is just about the only thing that keeps the West from falling apart and starting World Wars.
:Kaleun_Wink:

[Rockstar]

I grew up on the tail end of being taught to hide under our school desks in the event of nuclear war with Russia.

Some on the other hand claiming to be older are to this day very much influenced by the propaganda they grew up with and still see Russia as a threat to their manhood.


https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4099/4819499541_f690659cf5_z_d.jpg

[Rockstar]

Your Truth Dollars will support all of your government investigations that will be needed to get to the bottom of the accusations!

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3267/2372800454_8b05b9bb6a_o_d.jpg

[August]

We are the boogeymen and the go-to guys when the "wrong" (as in - non-establishment) person gets elected. It's the kind of racism and dehumanisation that is easily accepted nowadays.

Sometimes I think the collective hatred of my country is just about the only thing that keeps the West from falling apart and starting World Wars.
:Kaleun_Wink:

Funny I've thought that exact same thing about your country too although it certainly proved insufficient to prevent the USSR from collapsing.

[Rockin Robbins]

We are the boogeymen and the go-to guys when the "wrong" (as in - non-establishment) person gets elected. It's the kind of racism and dehumanisation that is easily accepted nowadays.

Sometimes I think the collective hatred of my country is just about the only thing that keeps the West from falling apart and starting World Wars.
:Kaleun_Wink:

You've stumbled on the ugly truth! Russia, solely responsible for the survival of the world! Sacrificing her very international reputation for the good of all. Probably not true, but certainly no more untrue than all the Russia haters like to portray.

Let's make a movie! If these Russia haters want to believe a lie we might as well make some money!:up::up::up:

[Platapus]

It is part of the US culture that we have to have an adversary. Our MIC and very economy depends on it. Honestly, our culture depends on it. We are a fearful culture. But what made the US great is that we managed to turn fear into funding. :up:

Terrorists are a good adversary but they are small, isolated threats and don't lend themselves to needing high cost military equipment to feed the MIC

North Korea is easy to hate, but they are still the JV when it comes to adversaries. No real growth there

Iran is always one of our favourites, but they don't seem to be doing much but trying to fix their own domestic problems. They just won't come out and play with us. So unfair.

China? China is too busy making money while trying not to act too capitalistic. China likes making money and won't do anything as long as they are still in the manufacturing driver's seat. As soon as manufacturing moves to Africa, we can start worrying about China.

Who to hate? Who to hate? That's the question.

Mexico? Nah they are no national threat and we don't want to really end the war on drugs. Almost as much money can be made fighting drugs than can be made supplying them. Lots of money in for profit prisons.

Canada? Too cold and I like their beers

Germany? Been there done that. Twice. No money

France? Well if it were up to me... :D

Hmmm

Russia. Hey, there is always Russia. Best thing that happened to the US was the cold war. Great for science and great for the economy and we still have a generation that was taught to hate them commies.

So what if technically Russia aint commie any more, it will be good enough. If Russia was commie enough for me, they are commie enough for the younger generation!

Sorry Russia, You are still our BFF Best Frenemies for Ever.

Just play along this time and we can both make money. :up:

Too cynical? Meh

[Razoleg]

Yes, definitely. This is how some people have been taught in my country - if there's nobody to blame but yourself, then it's usually shifted to those pesky aliens and/or Americans. Some hard Stalin-loving commies still think that way.

Still, out of all the countries in the world I find we have the sacred task of keeping the whole thing from collapsing in on itself (because we've technically advanced so much in the business of trying to kill each other that eventually these weapons have to serve a "higher purpose" of hunting down ISIS and the like). Just like we vetoed Israel, Britain and France when they started the war against Egypt and it almost went nuclear. Just like we both pulled our forces back in Korea, because it was getting nowhere, and just like the Caribbean Missile Crisis ended with a talk, not with exchange of WMDs.

Frenemies is the right term. When SHTF I believe we'll be in the same foxhole, just like the first 2 world wars. Until then, agreed, let's make the dosh off all these shenanigans and throw piles of dung at each other. It doesn't stick, I would hope to believe. :haha:

P.S. Let's make a movie. Still love your K-19, would hope that someday my country would make one about brave US submariners (at least about those that served in the pacific), however lately it's been a giant marathon of "NKVD saves the day in 1941 by catching evil assassin ninja Nazis in Stalin's bedroom" kind of thing.

[Mr Quatro]

I have a plan ... lets only let two qualified people run for office, Republican or Democrat, male or female, white or black, that no matter which one wins America wins with them.

Don't like that plan?

Plan two ... we use the old European and still used today in some countries way of telling who has voted by dipping the right thumb into a bottle of ink, but now we add a little radioactive particles that can easily be scanned as proof that you have voted.

My earlier posting is still true they just want to prove that they are more intelligent than we are without having to resort to missiles, rockets, planes, tanks and bombs.

The problem is not going to go away ... They won't stop. They are breeding copy cats as we speak.

[Catfish]

[...] On 30th of January 1945, S-13 Submarine of the Baltic Fleet hit and sank "Wilhelm Gustloff", which was an armed cruise ship transporting Nazi military personnel. This was the biggest, single submarine kill of all time that is yet unmatched. The Captain of said submarine was Romanian-Soviet skipper by the name of Alexander Marinesko.

Really?

[Platapus]

I have a plan ... lets only let two qualified people run for office....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!:haha::haha::haha::haha:

You are killing me. Where do you come up with these gut-busters? I almost wet myself. Thanks I needed a good laugh. But, lets get serious.

I have given up on qualified and would gladly settle for "not bottom of the Barrel" or "what the hell were they thinking of?"

The average random person off the street ain't looking to bad these days.

You almost had me. "qualified people" :haha::haha::haha: Might a well hope for a pony for my birthday while I am at it.

[Mr Quatro]

I'm glad my innocence can provide you with humor ...

I'll just turn the other cheek :yep:

[Razoleg]

Really?

Yep, really. Care to contest - write in my private messages. I eat Nazi apologists for breakfast.

[Catfish]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Wilhelm_Gustloff.

[Aktungbby]

Really?

Yep, really. Care to contest - write in my private messages. I eat Nazi apologists for breakfast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Wilhelm_Gustloff. Close enough to "really" for a sig!:arrgh!: , The vessel was armed with '2 hastily mounted' antiaircraft guns; Herr Shön's research backs it all up, http://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-Germany-Wilhelm-Gustloff-Cruise-Liner (http://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-Germany-Wilhelm-Gustloff-Cruise-Liner) Propaganda notwithstanding. This being essentially a WWII U-boat forum ( with apologies to Cold Water buffs:O:) Of some interest was the role of unlucky Korvettankapitän Wilhelm Zahn and his formal hearing after the fact. Although Zahn had the highest rank on the ship, Petersen, as a merchant marine captain, had formal command of the vessel, a fact that ran counter to the sensibilities of Zahn, who was unwilling to accept Petersen's authority. At the same time, Zahn had military priorities which differed from those of civilian captain Petersen but since he did not have the legal authority to impose his decisions on the civilian captain, eventually the two men ran into conflict concerning the details of how to plot the path that Wilhelm Gustloff would take. Problems also arose between the two officers regarding the ship's speed and the taking of safety precautions related to avoiding attacks by submarines which could be present in the area at the time Zahn was drawing from his U-boat experience and was aware of British anti-submarine tactics in the Atlantic which included a minimum cruising speed limit of 15 knots for British commercial vessels, necessary to safely outrun the U-boats, and proposed this to Petersen. Petersen however was mindful of the damage the ship had sustained in an aerial bombardment the year before and did not believe that subsequent repairs to the hull were completely effective and had doubts that the ship's hull had the structural integrity to withstand the stresses imposed by the speed proposed by Zahn. He therefore insisted that the ship's speed not exceed 12 knots Clearly not entirely a Russian submarine problem but a clear violation of chain-of- command issues which contributed mightily: at sea there can/should B only one captain. The Croation crew was of little use too. Both captains survived the sinking.....:hmmm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Zahn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Zahn) Now we can get back on thread!

[August]

Yep, really. Care to contest - write in my private messages. I eat Nazi apologists for breakfast.

Catfish is hardly a nazi apologist.

[Catfish]

^ Thanks August.

Sorry for OT, maybe better in another thread.
I admit I was not exact, Razoleg's signature is not wrong. Of course there was "Nazi" personnell plus Gestapo and their families on the Gustloff, and the ship was also armed, if poorly. As Aktbby said it was not running under a red cross, thus following international conduct of war and treaties. Marinesko did nothing wrong, the Gustloff was a legitimate target, and sinking it was not a war crime.
The thing i do not like is that the signature looks as if there had been only military "Nazi" personnell aboard. There were also around 8000 to 9000 other civilians, an estimated 5000 of them being children. Of course by war propaganda all germans are "Nazis".
So the hero sank "Nazis". Nothing more to think about?

[Nippelspanner]

Yep, really. Care to contest - write in my private messages. I eat Nazi apologists for breakfast.

:hmmm:

Today I learned, Catfish is a Nazi-apologist.
I guess tomorrow I'll learn that the sun is cold, and the moon is but a giant cookie orbiting Earth... flat Earth, of course.

[Reece]

and the moon is but a giant cookie orbiting EarthReally!! all these years I thought it was like a small planet!!:hmmm: shows how much I know!!:oops::doh:

[August]

^ Thanks August.

You're welcome but I was just stating fact. Something that this 20 post new guy might have understood for himself had he had stuck around long enough to get to know people before dropping the "n" bomb like that.

[Jimbuna]

Yep, really. Care to contest - write in my private messages. I eat Nazi apologists for breakfast.

I can state I have only met the one around these parts over the past year or so and they certainly didn't go by the name 'Catfish' so now can we move back on topic please.

[Sailor Steve]

This being essentially a WWII U-boat forum ( with apologies to Cold Water buffs:O:)
The name is SubSim.com, not U-boat... It is a site for all sub sims.

Neal's first reviews, in December 1995, were for four games. Two of the were about U-boats, two were not. The first listed review is for Silent Service II, an American sub-in-the-Pacific game.
http://www.subsim.com/ssr/ssr_history.html
http://www.subsim.com/subsim_reviews_index.php

[vienna]

Further reports of Russian efforts to subvert US election processes:

Russian Cyber Hacks on U.S. Electoral System Far Wider Than Previously Known --

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections

Cyber attacks on 78% of the states is more than a little disturbing and very much worthy of investigation and remedy, unless of course, not offending the Russians and their US GOP apologists is more important than the integrity of the free and US citizens' protected right to vote...




<O>

[Catfish]

quote from link ^

"President Vladimir Putin
said in recent comments to reporters
that criminals inside the country
could have been involved
without having been sanctioned
by the Russian government."

:D

[ikalugin]

quote from link ^

"President Vladimir Putin
said in recent comments to reporters
that criminals inside the country
could have been involved
without having been sanctioned
by the Russian government."

:D
As I said this:
http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_what_does_russia_want_7297
article may be of interest.

[Catfish]

While it may be that "several" different takes on "meddling" with "the West" done by not one but several "organisations" are taking place simultaneously, one thing is sure: Nothing happens without Putin's knowledge and affirmation. Which is why this declaration is so funny, and obvious nonsense.
It is like those "talks" betwen Putin and Medjedjew back then in the TV: Everyone in the world instantly knew that this was staged and found this ridiculous, and i wonder if any russians really believed that show.
"Meddling" with the outcome of national elections of other nations.. Putin sure is not dumb but he should be careful.

[ikalugin]

Nothing happens without Putin's knowledge and affirmation.This is a (convenient) myth.

And this is not only true regarding foreighn stuff, this is true regarding domestic stuff, for example Shaltai-Boltai group, which was affiliated with an FSB officer got closed not for their political actions (Medvedev was especially badly hit due to his exposure) but for going comercial.

p.s.
The other cause behind this myth (apart from how convenient it is politically) is projection. US has the most advanced cyberwarfare apparatus in the world at the moment, with the best organisation, most advanced institutions, etc. That vision is projected onto the very young Russian cyberwarfare efforts, which are currently based on semi independent personally (as in to a specific officer who provides legal cover for them) affiliated non interconnected hacker groups.
So not only Putin doesnt know what they do, but their own running officers may not know what they do.

[Catfish]

So you say western fear of Russia is again exagerrated?

Military expenses could not keep up back then up to 1989, we read that the US-alleged russian military capabilities were exagerrated and (ab)used to get more money for their own military.
I guess this was true, however regarding hacking and cyber warfare we can expect all do it; when it comes to Russia i think you underestimate your people's capabilities :yep:

[ikalugin]

So you say western fear of Russia is again exagerrated?
Yes, for the time being we do not have compatable capability and we are currently focusing on cyber security/hardenening and enablers.

I guess this was true, however regarding hacking and cyber warfare we can expect all do it; when it comes to Russia i think you underestimate your people's capabilitiesWe do cyber, the issue is that the nature of our cyber capability is not understood when people make statements like how Putin would be atleast aware of such operations, especially in how there is no chain of command, no enforced control, etc.

I can speculate regarding the reasons behind this and in addition to political convenience my guess is that US experts project their own approaches to cyber operations (for example where hard kill cyber requires direct authorisation by POTUS) to our operations (where officers primarily in law enforcement cover for hacker groups personally affiliated with them).

[Nippelspanner]

We do cyber, the issue is that the nature of our cyber capability is not understood when people make statements like how Putin would be atleast aware of such operations, especially in how there is no chain of command, no enforced control, etc.
Not officially, no.

[Rockstar]

From CIA Fact book


Emerging National Programs/Nation States

We are detecting, with increasing frequency, the appearance of doctrine and dedicated offensive cyber warfare programs in other countries. We have identified several, based on all-source intelligence information, that are pursuing government-sponsored offensive cyber programs. Foreign nations have begun to include information warfare in their military doctrine, as well as their war college curricula, with respect to both defensive and offensive applications. They are developing strategies and tools to conduct information attacks. Those nations developing cyber programs recognize the value of attacking adversary computer systems, both on the military and domestic front. Just as foreign governments and the military services have long emphasized the need to disrupt the flow of information in combat situations, they now stress the power of cyber warfare when targeted against civilian infrastructures, particularly those that could support military strategy.

Many of the countries whose cyber warfare programs we follow are the same ones that realize that, in a conventional military confrontation with the United States, they will not prevail. These countries perceive that cyber attacks, launched from within or outside the U.S., against public and private computer systems in the U.S., represent the kind of asymmetric option they will need to level the playing field during an armed crisis against the United States.

Just as foreign governments and their military services have long emphasized--and still do--the need to disrupt the flow of information in combat situations, they now also stress the power of "Information Warfare" when targeted against civilian information infrastructures. The following statements by high-level foreign defense or military officials illustrate the importance of information warfare in the decades ahead.

In an interview a senior Russian official commented that an attack against a national target such as transportation or electrical power distribution would - and I quote - ". . . by virtue of its catastrophic consequences, completely overlap with the use of [weapons] of mass destruction."

A Chinese General in 1996 indicated in a military publication that in future wars computers would be vulnerable in three ways. "We can make the enemy’s command centers not work by changing their data system. We can cause the enemy’s headquarters to make incorrect judgment by sending disinformation. We can dominate the enemy’s banking system and even its entire social order."

As these anecdotes illustrate, the battle space of the information age would surely include attacks against our domestic infrastructure.


Makes sense, governments which cannot monetarily support a military conflict against the US. Can at a fraction of the cost direct funds to develope cyber warfare systems and doctrine that can cripple us. Not only will our soldiers be fighting abroad some would have to remain behind to maintain order in our own country after infrastructures collapse.

Just look at the information being spread out there today it has us looking at each other as the enemy over the two most commonly talked about subjects known to mankind party politics and the weather. Someone said a nation divided will fall much easier. I suggest rather than shooting each other over stupid sheet like this just go fishing.

I took an oath too very similar to Comey's. Some people think that complaining and finger pointing day and night somehow makes them patriots. But I can tell you it takes a lot more than that to live by it. It takes hard physical labor, sacrifice, blood, sweat, tears, staying up til the wee hours, being away from home, getting the job done. And believe it or not it takes one heckuva amount of trust that those in authority will do the right thing and do what it takes to protect this country. Just as they trusted me to do the right thing. As Comey said there are people and organizations that want to tear us down lets not make it any easier for them.

[ikalugin]

Not officially, no. Nor unofficially, as there is no chain of command or enforced control.

[vienna]

...and how many times have you ever heard a guilty criminal deny any implication by saying "that other guy did it"?...

...and do you really believe Putin is by any means a paragon of truthfulness?...

...or, perhaps, Putin is just quoting a famous US politician: "I am not a crook".




<O>

[Platapus]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections



The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day...

If this is true, and it has not been confirmed, this would move this issue toward actually interfering with the election instead of just influencing the election.

[Rockstar]

...and how many times have you ever heard a guilty criminal deny any implication by saying "that other guy did it"?...



<O>

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It shows that 4.1 percent of defendants who are sentenced to death in the United States are later shown to be innocent: 1 in 25.

Death sentences are uniquely well-documented. We don’t know nearly enough about other kinds of criminal cases to estimate the rate of wrongful convictions for those. The rate could be lower than for capital murders, or it could be higher. Of course, in a country with millions of criminal convictions a year and more than 2 million people behind bars, even 1 percent amounts to tens of thousands of tragic errors.

[vienna]

The actual NSA report can be found on this link:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766950-NSA-Report-on-Russia-Spearphishing.html

Again, it is of note the NSA has and does not deny the authenticity of the document; in fact, the NSA's only official action in regard to the disclosure has been to ask for and receive the cooperation of The Intercept in making redactions of certain highly sensitive data. There has been no other denials of the authenticity from any other intelligence, investigative, or legislative entity involved with ongoing probes...

A couple of days ago, I heard some CA-GOP official make the claim the probes should be abandoned because no actual evidence of votes being changed has been found; when pressed about the evidence of actual breaches of parts of the electoral systems, he shrugged it off by saying something like 'well, no actual harm was done, so it doesn't really matter'. Let's look at an analogous situation: you come home from work one day and find you door lock has been tampered with, there is evidence person or persons have been in your home, but nothing was taken or damaged; you call the police, they arrive, listen to your story, look around and ask you "Did they take anything?" "No". "Well, then it doesn't really matter. Call us back if anything is taken". If some one breaks, enters and trespasses into your home that actually is a crime, regardless of whether anything was actually taken or harmed. Sensible people would want the authorities to investigate and try to apprehend the culprits; sensible people would use the experience as an incentive to fortify their homes to prevent a repeat occurrence; sensible people would probably invest in the acquisition of some sort of alarm system to deter a repeat occurrence; that's what sensible people would do...

Someone has trespassed into a very basic aspect of our US democracy. We need to find out who. how, and why, and we need to determine how to protect ourselves against future occurrences. Its what sensible people would do...

Only idiots would leave their home undefended...




<O>

[vienna]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It shows that 4.1 percent of defendants who are sentenced to death in the United States are later shown to be innocent: 1 in 25.

Death sentences are uniquely well-documented. We don’t know nearly enough about other kinds of criminal cases to estimate the rate of wrongful convictions for those. The rate could be lower than for capital murders, or it could be higher. Of course, in a country with millions of criminal convictions a year and more than 2 million people behind bars, even 1 percent amounts to tens of thousands of tragic errors.

Oh, Oh, he's turned on his deflector shields! Red alert!... :haha:

Don't really see what any of that has to do with the Russian hacking probes, unless you're trying to suggest or prove Putin has a 4.1% chance of being innocent... :haha:




<O>

[August]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It shows that 4.1 percent of defendants who are sentenced to death in the United States are later shown to be innocent: 1 in 25.

What period does it cover? I'd think that with the advances in forensic science that the ratio is a lot better now.

[Rockstar]

Vienna, I really had no idea what your point was or who your remarks were directed too. I just tried to answer your question as to when the last time I heard a guilty person say it was the other guy. As you can see by the statistics it appears to happen more often than it should.

Anyone with half a brain should realize cyber warfare wether conducted by Russians, Chinese, Best Korea, or Santa Claus is something that should be expected in this day amd age. Just as they should expect it from us. Dont understand why everyone got thier panties in a bunch over it. Its been going on long before it made today's headlines. And as 'Solar Sunrise' proved and as Putin seems to suggest not all cyber attacks are sanctioned by governments.

NSA has my full support to do what it takes to crush attempts to harm my country. Whoever it may be.

[Catfish]

If all do it we have to be better, or worse. Depends on p.o.v.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/06/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-hack-french-election-marine-le-pen.html?_r=0

"One document had last been modified by a Russian user named Roshka Georgiy Petrovich. Mr. Petrovich, 32, an employee of the Moscow-based Eureka CJSC, a Russian technology company, did not immediately return emails requesting comment. Eureka CJSC’s clients include several Russian government agencies."

Of course this has nothing to do with the government, or Putin :03:
But they have really embraced the idea of capitalism, if the russian government orders civilian companies to act in their favour, for money.

But the US "alt-right" also did it:
“They tried to bombard French Twitter with memes favorable to Le Pen,” said Padraic Ryan, a project coordinator at Storyful, an online marketing company that tracks social media activity around news events. “The campaigns are showing an increasing level of sophistication and coordination.”

So i guess future elections of democratic countries depend on whether Russia or the USA hack the elections better? :hmmm:

[ikalugin]

As our IT specialists joke, atleast they didn't imput Putin into that provocation.

[mapuc]

Been thinking for a while

I can't of course say what Russia have done or not regarding the American election.

There is though a question I need an answer to.

Did Russia something to all the American voters who was tired of the Dem and Obama and their politics ?

Markus

[vienna]

Been thinking for a while

I can't of course say what Russia have done or not regarding the American election.

There is though a question I need an answer to.

Did Russia something to all the American voters who was tired of the Dem and Obama and their politics ?

Markus

The only flaw in the last sentence is the fact the DEM candidate actually defeated the GOP candidate in the popular vote, which is, by virtue of the vote being a direct measure, the will of the voters, without any 'handicapping' by other processes. The popular vote would suggest voters of parties other than the GOP and Independents, by a definitive majority, chose anything other than the GOP and their candidate. This is bolstered by the fact the GOP candidate not only could not win a majority, he could not even win a plurality; that is a fact, not an opinion...




<O>