Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

It Wasn't Russian Hackers


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    Shiitake Novice 206 Logs

  • OG VIP
  • 8,644 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 20 December 2016 - 12:20 PM

One time British Ambassador, Craig Murray, a Scott, has admitted to being Wikileaks' source for the Democratic Party emails.  For some reason, in the shit storm of The Russians Did It MSM narrative, no one seems to be telling the nation that this man has stepped forward.   From what I can see, Ambassador Murray was a stand up guy.   Apparently not a quality the Blair government wanted in its Ambassador to Uzbekistan.  

 

Here is the story in Craig Murray's own words.

 

I found this 90 minute  radio play based on his book, Murder In Samarkand.  Highly recommended. 

 

Here is Julian Assange being questioned on the email leak's source by Sean Hannity.


  • ChimX and riseabovethought like this

#2 riseabovethought

riseabovethought

    innerspace explorer

  • App Administrator
  • 3,757 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 20 December 2016 - 01:12 PM

I know.  It was Comey.  He was a sleeper..- ex Bush operative and he was never supposed to be head of the FBI in the first place, but Obama figured he'd keep some of Bush's boys, which was a strategic mistake that cost him his legacy.  'The Russians Hacked Our Election!'  --just sounds so much more exciting!  Oh the horror!

 

I think we can rest assured that after surviving 8 years of 2 stolen terms by GWB, there is no worse threat to our nations' existence and the innocent lives of civilians than our real owners, who have proven crystal clearly that they can and will kill us in our sleep or at our cubicle, when we least expect it, and blame it on The Terrorists... when they are the Terrorists.  Smoke and Mirrors.  When will we wake up?  

 

And I wonder who is pulling Trump's strings.  Did you know he and Putin have about the same net worth?  Both have ~4B, which I believe is their most relevant thing in common. 


Edited by riseabovethought, 20 December 2016 - 01:15 PM.

  • ChimX and Alder Logs like this

#3 fungi2bwith

fungi2bwith

    cat-monkey

  • OG VIP
  • 1,355 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 20 December 2016 - 01:39 PM

I don't think I've ever seen such a fit thrown by a political party.....even going as far as making up fake hacking stories, begging the electoral college to change it's votes.....reminds me of children that didn't get their way.....

 

It almost makes me think that the dem's actually tried to rig the election, and when it didn't work, they were like "WTF. We demand a recount cuz we know we rigged it right..."


  • Coopdog, riseabovethought and Opalguy like this

#4 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    Shiitake Novice 206 Logs

  • OG VIP
  • 8,644 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 20 December 2016 - 01:48 PM

It almost makes me think that the dem's actually tried to rig the election, and when it didn't work, they were like "WTF. We demand a recount cuz we know we rigged it right..."

 

Kind of like when Fox News called Florida for Gore in 2000.   Papa Bush got on the horn to Jeb and Roger Ailes, said, "WTF?" and got that shit fixed up, straightaway!  


  • riseabovethought and fungi2bwith like this

#5 Coopdog

Coopdog

    Mycotopiate

  • OG VIP
  • 2,004 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 20 December 2016 - 01:52 PM

I truly believe they cost themselves the election by screwing Bernie out of the nomination. They could not have picked a worse candidate and how they figured to lie and cheat us into voting for her is beyond comprehension. Bernie had a huge fanbase. Hillary had way too much bad exposure in the year leading up to this mess. Oh and damn I am tired of discussing it! lol We need to move on now. Just saying...


  • riseabovethought, Skywatcher and Juthro like this

#6 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    Shiitake Novice 206 Logs

  • OG VIP
  • 8,644 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 20 December 2016 - 02:32 PM

We need to move on now. Just saying...

 

But sadly, and more importantly, dangerously, this bogus Russian hack story, the real "fake news," is part of the reaction to the true story that got out when the Democratic emails were leaked. They were leaked because someone on the inside saw how Bernie was being fucked, and more, us with him.   We've been fucked, whether anyone might like Trump or not.   Part of what spilled with those beans was the thinly coded pedos in high places that spawned the Pizzagate story.   The powers that be, being the military-industrial-security state-MSM complex, have moved to plans B,C,D,Q, & X,Y, & Z, to muddy the waters, protect the guilty, and the worst part, kill alternative reporting on the internet.   We all will lose.  Time to get ahead of the curve, if we possibly can.


  • riseabovethought and fungi2bwith like this

#7 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    Shiitake Novice 206 Logs

  • OG VIP
  • 8,644 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 20 December 2016 - 03:46 PM

This little 24 minute documentary from before the election is quite revealing.  The Democratic party is not what it once was.  Am I the only one who noticed when Bill was the prez?   Here, enjoy some history and what we used to know as investigative reporting.  Or, is it fake news?   I'm sure all the law suits filed by those mentioned therein will tell us, one way or another.

 

[Direct Link]



#8 Sidestreet

Sidestreet

    May your tracks be lost...

  • App Administrator
  • 7,334 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 21 December 2016 - 07:38 AM

Craig Murray does make some great points.  The Washington Post is a joke; it's as bad as Fox News or Breitbart for bombastic, editorial-only output.  The CIA has no credibility because they're by definition dealers of misinformation with a monstrous track record.

 

At the same time, since the stakes are so high, and since he blasts his enemies for their anonymous sourcing, why not reveal the source himself?  Also, by the end of his statement he arrives at a tone that doesn't convey credibility to me.

 

But who the fuck knows anymore.

 

In the meantime, he is at least trying to present some analysis that we should all be employing:

 

 

In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes “Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.” Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a “credible source”? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?

 

Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.


  • Coopdog likes this

#9 August West

August West

    Mycotopiate

  • OG VIP
  • 3,091 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 21 December 2016 - 11:22 AM

 

It almost makes me think that the dem's actually tried to rig the election, and when it didn't work, they were like "WTF. We demand a recount cuz we know we rigged it right..."

 

Kind of like when Fox News called Florida for Gore in 2000.   Papa Bush got on the horn to Jeb and Roger Ailes, said, "WTF?" and got that shit fixed up, straightaway!  

 

Don't forget, as President of the Senate, it was good ol' Al who presided over the final word on the election. No matter how many times Democrats wanted to blame Nader, it was a bi-partisan theft.

 

This message was not brought to you by Russia...



#10 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    Shiitake Novice 206 Logs

  • OG VIP
  • 8,644 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 21 December 2016 - 11:37 AM

 

At the same time, since the stakes are so high, and since he blasts his enemies for their anonymous sourcing, why not reveal the source himself?

 

Do you really have to ask this?  His source in the Democratic Party is at huge risk.   The Clinton's enemies, even their perceived threats, can have serious longevity issues.



#11 August West

August West

    Mycotopiate

  • OG VIP
  • 3,091 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 23 December 2016 - 12:00 PM

"The US Is No Stranger To Interfering In The Elections Of Other Countries"

 

The CIA has accused Russia of interfering in the 2016 presidential election by hacking into Democratic and Republican computer networks and selectively releasing  emails. But critics might point out the U.S. has done similar things. 

 


The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it’s done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

 

That number doesn’t include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn’t like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring.

 

Levin defines intervention as “a costly act which is designed to determine the election results [in favor of] one of the two sides.” These acts, carried out in secret two-thirds of the time, include funding the election campaigns of specific parties, disseminating misinformation or propaganda, training locals of only one side in various campaigning or get-out-the-vote techniques, helping one side design their campaign materials, making public pronouncements or threats in favor of or against a candidate, and providing or withdrawing foreign aid.

 

In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of “partisan electoral interventions” to be only about a 3% increase in vote share.

 

The U.S. hasn’t been the only one trying to interfere in other countries’ elections, according to Levin’s data. Russia attempted to sway 36 foreign elections from the end of World War II to the turn of the century – meaning that, in total, at least one of the two great powers of the 20th century intervened in about 1 of every 9 competitive, national-level executive elections in that time period.

 



Italy’s 1948 general election is an early example of a race where U.S. actions probably influenced the outcome. 

 

“We threw everything, including the kitchen sink” at helping the Christian Democrats beat the Communists in Italy, said Levin, including covertly delivering “bags of money”  to cover campaign expenses, sending experts to help run the campaign, subsidizing “pork” projects like land reclamation, and threatening publicly to end U.S. aid to Italy if the Communists were elected.

 

Levin said that U.S. intervention probably played an important role in preventing a Communist Party victory, not just in 1948, but in seven subsequent Italian elections.

 

Throughout the Cold War, U.S. involvement in foreign elections was mainly motivated by the goal of containing communism, said Thomas Carothers, a foreign policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The U.S. didn’t want to see left-wing governments elected, and so it did engage fairly often in trying to influence elections in other countries,” Carothers said.

 

This approach carried over into the immediate post-Soviet period. 

 

In the 1990 Nicaragua elections, the CIA leaked damaging information on alleged corruption by the Marxist Sandinistas to German newspapers, according to Levin. The opposition used those reports against the Sandinista candidate, Daniel Ortega. He lost to opposition candidate Violeta Chamorro.

 

In Czechoslovakia that same year, the U.S. provided training and campaign funding to Vaclav Havel’s party and its Slovak affiliate as they planned for the country’s first democratic election after its transition away from communism. 

 

“The thinking was that we wanted to make sure communism was dead and buried,” said Levin.

 

Even after that, the U.S. continued trying to influence elections in its favor.

 

In Haiti after the 1986 overthrow of dictator and U.S. ally Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, the CIA sought to support particular candidates and undermine Jean-Bertrande Aristide, a Roman Catholic priest and proponent of liberation theology. The New York Times reported in the 1990s that the CIA had on its payroll members of the military junta that would ultimately unseat Aristide after he was democratically elected in a landslide over Marc Bazin, a former World Bank official and finance minister favored by the U.S.

 

The U.S. also attempted to sway Russian elections. In 1996, with the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and the Russian economy flailing, President Clinton endorsed a $10.2-billion loan from the International Monetary Fund linked to privatization, trade liberalization and other measures that would move Russia toward a capitalist economy. Yeltsin used the loan to bolster his popular support, telling voters that only he had the reformist credentials to secure such loans, according to media reports at the time. He used the money, in part, for social spending before the election, including payment of back wages and pensions. 

 

In the Middle East, the U.S. has aimed to bolster candidates who could further the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In 1996, seeking to fulfill the legacy of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the peace accords the U.S. brokered, Clinton openly supported Shimon Peres, convening a peace summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheik to boost his popular support and inviting him to a meeting at the White House a month before the election.

 

“We were persuaded that if [Likud candidate Benjamin] Netanyahu were elected, the peace process would be closed for the season,” said Aaron David Miller, who worked at the State Department at the time.

 


In 1999, in a more subtle effort to sway the election, top Clinton strategists, including James Carville, were sent to advise Labor candidate Ehud Barak in the election against Netanyahu.

 

In Yugoslavia, the U.S. and NATO had long sought to cut off Serbian nationalist and Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic from the international system through economic sanctions and military action. In 2000, the U.S. spent millions of dollars in aid for political parties, campaign costs and independent media. Funding and broadcast equipment provided to the media arms of the opposition were a decisive factor in electing opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as Yugoslav president, according to Levin. “If it wouldn’t have been for overt intervention … Milosevic would have been very likely to have won another term,” he said.

 

 


  • riseabovethought likes this

#12 curandZero

curandZero

    VIP Member

  • OG VIP
  • 337 posts

Donator

Posted 30 December 2016 - 08:45 AM

Right after the election I noticed a few articles by pretty well-known progressive bloggers and journalists who were claiming that the results in the battleground states had been "rigged" by some obscure method of "vote flipping".  It made me wonder why it's so difficult for progressives to get their heads around the fact that US voters are perfectly capable of electing a bonafide butthead, especially when he's running against a tarnished and mud-spattered politician who people have grown tired of after thirty years in the spotlight.  (Although she still managed to get nearly 3 million more votes than the butthead.)

 

It's really not that different from the radical libertarians, preppers, dittoheads, and freepers who can't accept that Russia has been engaged in hack attacks, spreading misinformation, and leaking data for years, especially in Eastern Europe.   The denial seems strange to me since we know our intelligence services do this sort of thing as well. 



#13 curandZero

curandZero

    VIP Member

  • OG VIP
  • 337 posts

Donator

Posted 06 January 2017 - 04:58 PM

Yeah.



#14 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    Shiitake Novice 206 Logs

  • OG VIP
  • 8,644 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 06 January 2017 - 07:08 PM

I'd say it's the establishment doubling down. Maybe the Russians did order a hack, but maybe that straight leak, handed off by a Democratic Party insider, was the one that got to Wikileaks, just as the British ex-ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray (the man who lost that job because of his open humanitarian concerns and open whistle blowing, a man known for his honesty) who says it was him. And just like Julian Assange, also says, "it wasn't the Russians."

Follow the fucking money! Que bono? Who would want a new Cold War? The people who donated to all the candidates, except Bernie or the Donald (and I ain't sure about the Donald)?

Doubling down, dude, doubling down. Who controls the narrative? Could it be the military-industrial-security state-MSM complex? Could it?

As an added bonus, at least we've stopped talking about powerful people fucking little kids. Forget what's in the emails. Worry about who might have leaked them. There's money to be made while there are powerful interests to protect. It's win-win... for somebody.


Edited by Alder Logs, 06 January 2017 - 07:29 PM.

  • Skywatcher and Juthro like this

#15 happy4nic8r

happy4nic8r

    cyans rule!!

  • OG VIP
  • 3,430 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 07 January 2017 - 01:16 AM

I'd like to take credit for everything too, but if I had done it it would have worked.

 

Thank you, God.



#16 oneeye1

oneeye1

    Mycotopiate

  • OG VIP
  • 267 posts

Donator

Posted 07 January 2017 - 03:19 PM

It was us Brits

We aint forgotten you know
  • Sidestreet likes this




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!