CIA Prepping for Possible Cyber Strike Against Russia | Hacker News Reader

CIA Prepping for Possible Cyber Strike Against Russia

nbcnews.com

27 pointsjackgavigan27 comments

US MSM and HRC talk about Russia being responsible for cyber attacks. Yet, not a shred of proof is presented to the US and world public.

In 2003 US has started another war based on a lie. The "enemy" was weak and had inferior military, yet the war caused deaths of US soldiers and Iraqis, destruction of Iraq and we now have IS(IS).

And again we, it seems, have a lie. But now the "enemy" isn't inferior. The chaos US has caused in Iraq will look like a three-year-old-birthday-party compared with the war with Russia.

Are we willing to go that far? Have we learned anything from the recent past? Do we really want to destroy the World based on a lie?

We have more reason to bomb Saudi Arabia to bits than to attack Russia. I will never fight against Russia even if there is a draft. Stand against your government.

> We have more reason to bomb Saudi Arabia to bits than to attack Russia.

Yeah but Russia doesn't donate as much to the Clinton Foundation.

With neocons like Hillary Clinton who takes a lot of Saudi money anything is possible except bombing Saudi Arabia. And USA always needed a big bad enemy for fear mongering, Saddam, Bin Laden, Putin, US needs a "big baddy" to justify its insane military spendings.

Neoconservatism isn't just about the military industrial complex, or oil, it's also about the Jewish lobby.

Look's like I've said one of those "true if you think it's a good thing, crazy conspiracy if you thank it's a bad thing" facts. No one really denies the link between Jewish Americans, the various Jewish organizations that are active in politics (AIPAC, ADL etc) and US Foreign policy. But people strongly deny this in the context where people criticize foreign policy, and want to redirect discussion towards safe topics like the military industrial complex or oil.

Some will say the most American Jews are liberals and therefore wouldn't support neoconservatism. It's true that they are mostly liberals on domestic policy, but by judging candidates on a single issue (Israel) they end up implicitly helping neoconservative thinking, which places the most emphasis in the US-Israel relation.

> And USA always needed a big bad enemy for fear mongering

Not only for fearmongering. From the pen of a "conspiracy theorist" George F. Kennan, former US ambassador to Moscow and distinguished Council on Foreign Relations member:

"Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy."

The DNC is a private organization. Why does its hacking justify a government-sponsored response?

Because it's one of the two major political parties in a democracy, with an election just around the corner.

I feel like you already know the answer to this question.

So? Why does a democracy protect the 2 largest incumbents instead of promoting a freer system in which 3rd parties can have proportional representation?

You're two thirds of the way to completing the reductio ad absurdum.

You do realize American 'democracy' is absurd to the rest of the world, right?

I think most non-Americans who are cheering for Trump are doing so because the Bush/Clinton dynasties have fucked things up so much that anything different would be an improvement.

> I think most non-Americans who are cheering for Trump are doing so because the Bush/Clinton dynasties have fucked things up so much that anything different would be an improvement.

Those people would be complete, total dipshits then, if they think Trump will be an improvement -- for the US or anyone else.

Luckily, they aren't voting here.

And if it had happened to the RNC, same response right? Somehow I doubt it. This is setting a very dangerous precedent.

Yes, the same response.

I doubt it. Just as I doubt a Republican pres. would go after Russia for DNC hacking. When the president is the head of the political party, expect conflicts of interest. But warring with nuclear-armed foes - when things are already quite tense with them in Syria - seems dangerous and dumb.

The people behind this attribution work aren't political appointees. People forget that the overwhelming majority of the public workforce consists of career public servants. If those public servants happen to work in law enforcement, the military, or intelligence, they're much more likely to be Republicans than Democrats.

So with that having been said, and with I promise more respect than this question will make it sound like I have for your viewpoint: what is it, exactly, that makes your doubts about this attribution being politically motivated more credible than the (extremely common) doubts Trump supporters have that Hurricane Matthew wasn't generated by Obama's wind farms to suppress voter registration?

Your comparison is absurd. Did you somehow miss that whole bit about faulty intelligence causing the Iraq war?

The hack seems politically motivated; no one can say with 100% assurance that it was caused by Russia; the DNC is a private organization, in any event, why should the citizens of the US be drawn into a war with a nuclear armed foe over their poor cyber security?

None of this has anything to do with my comment.

And neither of your comments had anything to do with my original point. Why is the hack of a private political organization justification for a war footing from our federal government?

Who reads (and believes) this kind of crap?

NBC News?

I like this kind of war.

"We're airing all your dirty laundry!"

"Oh yeah? Then we're shining light on your corrupt dealings!l

It's all fun and games until someone shuts off someone else's entire power grid, destroys their banking data or makes their planes fall out of the sky.

Or elects Trump. Us in the wider world were getting concerned for a while there.

So much nonsense and buzzword crap are strung together in that piece that I frankly have no clue what this would even amount to. I don't expect much coming of this.

Weirdest part is they say its covert. How is anything o NBC News going to be covert?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com