RUSSIA 🇷🇺 Thread: Wikileaks=FSB front, UKRAINE?, SNOWED LIED; NATO Aggression; Trump = Putins B!tch

无名的

Superstar
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Messages
5,608
Reputation
1,386
Daps
15,011
I can't, in one post, recount the amount of hobby knowledge and reading and lectures etc. that i've dived into to learn about how this stuff works and what it means to the world.

So yeah, i've spent most of my time on here showing all the evidence and you all just want the USA to say "russia did it"...when they've ALREADY said it.

This is still in the realm of espionage and if the USA says "this is exactly how it happened" they reveal how much they know and what they can do.

You don't play all your cards. Its stupid.

I don't want to burst your bubble because you seemingly have a glamorous, romanticized version of how intelligence works, but you're wrong. Your statement makes it seems as if any time anybody says "we know to a certain degree", they know for a fact and that couldn't be further from the truth. Intelligence is opaque. Opposition goes to great lengths to send false signals and incontrovertible evidence is probably the exception and not the rule.

Every now and then, sure, they play this game because you're right, it makes sense not to fully expose capabilities in certain situations; however, they often simply aren't sure.

And I know this not because I've read books about intelligence.

:sas2:
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,226
Reputation
-34,292
Daps
617,630
Reppin
The Deep State
I don't want to burst your bubble because you seemingly have a glamorous, romanticized version of how intelligence works, but you're wrong. Your statement makes it seems as if any time anybody says "we know to a certain degree", they know for a fact and that couldn't be further from the truth. Intelligence is opaque. Opposition goes to great lengths to send false signals and incontrovertible evidence is probably the exception and not the rule.

Every now and then, sure, they play this game because you're right, it makes sense not to fully expose capabilities in certain situations; however, they often simply aren't sure.

And I know this not because I've read books about intelligence.

:sas2:
Smarten up.

I can do this all day.


We won't get anywhere if you don't read the fundamentals.

Theres enough meta data that independent analysts have tracked back to the Russians. And this hack was done months ago. 99% of ya'll weren't paying attention either.

It bears the same markings of the french TV station hack and the german BND hack
 

The American

Defending America against cacs
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
3,623
Reputation
-740
Daps
6,496
She is taking away Hillary supporters that is waht is happening.. .
Exactly, her VP choice is so blatant, it's laughable. Since Trump can't do shyt on his own, Putin has stepped in to contribute to Stein's campaign fund. This race is literally Putin vs Clinton. Dude is no fool.
Bruh, everyone catching strays out here :wow:

Dudes gonna learn to follow the money one day :wow:

Its Black America all day over here tho :salute:
Don't start being a fakkit again, nikka
 

无名的

Superstar
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Messages
5,608
Reputation
1,386
Daps
15,011
Smarten up.

I can do this all day.


We won't get anywhere if you don't read the fundamentals.

Theres enough meta data that independent analysts have tracked back to the Russians. And this hack was done months ago. 99% of ya'll weren't paying attention either.

It bears the same markings of the french TV station hack and the german BND hack


Apparently, you missed what I said.

"We know to a certain degree" ≠ "We know for certain"

In this case - possible - but you've made it seem like if intel says "we know to a certain degree", we can infer it's a certainty. Not true.

Just as a "high confidence" assessment by the IC (like in this case) does not necessarily demonstrate certainty, although that's a stronger indicator than assuming the government knows because they've coyly said "we know to a certain degree".

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you've inferred Trump is being used by Putin and Putin is directly interfering in our election process, while the IC says they don't know that. You're parroting a liberal talking point that's convenient for Hillary to deflect from the issue.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,226
Reputation
-34,292
Daps
617,630
Reppin
The Deep State
Apparently, you missed what I said.

"We know to a certain degree" ≠ "We know for certain"

In this case - possible - but you've made it seem like if intel says "we know to a certain degree", we can infer it's a certainty. Not true.

Just as a "high confidence" assessment by the IC (like in this case) does not necessarily demonstrate certainty, although that's a stronger indicator than assuming the government knows because they've coyly said "we know to a certain degree".

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you've inferred Trump is being used by Putin and Putin is directly interfering in our election process, while the IC says they don't know that. You're parroting a liberal talking point that's convenient for Hillary to deflect from the issue.
the IC never says "know for certain" because of the inherent risk in revealing how much they can prove something to the media.

This is cyber we're talking.

Again:



Read between the lines, and stop insulting my, and your intelligence.
 
Top