• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Confirmed, Russian hackers ARE NOT the source behind the recent WikiLeaks

 
 
 
barbos said:
Russian hackers are not the source behind the recent WikiLeaks release of leaked secret data on German-US intelligence cooperation and a parliamentary inquiry into it, Der Spiegel reports, citing unnamed security officials who have indicated it’s an inside job
Click to expand...
https://www.rt.com/news/370648-germany-wikileaks-russian-hackers/
Click to expand...

"The respective German officials are “confident” that the documents published by WikiLeaks were not obtained through a cyberattack last year on the Parliament (Bundestag), allegedly committed by Russian hackers."

Missed something there... bolded it for you.
 
whichphilosophy said:
Loren Pechtel said:
www.rt.com isn't a credible source.
Click to expand...

I take all sources with a pinch of salt. We have Faux News, Clinton News Network (CNN) and the British Brainwashing Corporation (BBC)
Click to expand...

Your approach leads you to the very error you seek to avoid.

By declaring ALL sources to be unreliable, you lead yourself to the false conclusion that they are all equal in their (un)reliability. RT and Fox News are utter horseshit. CNN and the BBC are imperfect, but they are not in the same class as RT or Fox - the BBC at least still appears to be embarrassed when they are caught in an error, while Fox News double down if called on their lies, and RT don't appear to give a shit at all.

This business of allowing oneself to accept the unacceptable by simply declaring ALL instances to be 'equally bad' because none are perfect is becoming very common, and it is insidious and dangerous, as well as being stupid and illogical.

Politicians ALL lie, so Trump is no worse than Clinton (even though she lies 5% of the time and he lies 95% of the time).
News media is ALL biased, so RT is no worse than the BBC (even though the BBC is only mildly biased, while RT is off the planet).

The Americans call this 'Moore-Coulter'; And it is a major factor in the acceptance of the unacceptable by the gullible.

Even if the BBC and CNN were totally unreliable, you should not delude yourself that their unreliability renders RT (or Fox, or anyone else) acceptable as news sources. If someone else is eating dog shit, that doesn't make it in any way reasonable for you to eat a cow pat.
 
OK people. I knew that would happen but I had no choice because source was german paper, after all it was about "russian hackers" in Germany.
So the only place which reported it in English was RT and other russian "propaganda" sources. This kinda tells you how reliable western media is at ignoring anything which goes against their naratve. Germans went apeshit over their russian hackers only to determine that it was actually inside job. Reminds you of anything?
 
barbos said:
OK people. I knew that would happen but I had no choice because source was german paper, after all it was about "russian hackers" in Germany.
So the only place which reported it in English was RT and other russian "propaganda" sources. This kinda tells you how reliable western media is at ignoring anything which goes against their naratve. Germans went apeshit over their russian hackers only to determine that it was actually inside job. Reminds you of anything?
Click to expand...
I hadn't seen the original news about Russian hackers being responsible either. In fact I had no idea it happened. Maybe this simply isn't such big news outside Germany?
 
Jayjay said:
barbos said:
OK people. I knew that would happen but I had no choice because source was german paper, after all it was about "russian hackers" in Germany.
So the only place which reported it in English was RT and other russian "propaganda" sources. This kinda tells you how reliable western media is at ignoring anything which goes against their naratve. Germans went apeshit over their russian hackers only to determine that it was actually inside job. Reminds you of anything?
Click to expand...
I hadn't seen the original news about Russian hackers being responsible either. In fact I had no idea it happened. Maybe this simply isn't such big news outside Germany?
Click to expand...
Well, Bundestag hack was mentioned much less but it was mentioned.
https://www.ft.com/content/668a131e-1928-11e6-b197-a4af20d5575e
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/
A second mistake had to do with the computer that had been used to control the hacking operation. Researchers found that the malicious software, or malware, used to break into the DNC was controlled by a machine that had been involved in a 2015 hack of the German parliament. German intelligence later traced the Bundestag breach to the Russian GRU, aka Fancy Bear.
Click to expand...
Here they talk about both hacks Bundestag and DNC/RNC. Now they determined that Bundestag was inside job no fancy bears were involved at all. But before that they were sure as hell Putin was the hacker.
 
barbos said:
OK people. I knew that would happen but I had no choice because source was german paper, after all it was about "russian hackers" in Germany.
So the only place which reported it in English was RT and other russian "propaganda" sources. This kinda tells you how reliable western media is at ignoring anything which goes against their naratve. Germans went apeshit over their russian hackers only to determine that it was actually inside job. Reminds you of anything?
Click to expand...
You mean after the Germans investigated it, they found the source (internal leak), kind of like how the Americans investigated it and found the source (The Russians). I'm not seeing a parallel here.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
barbos said:
OK people. I knew that would happen but I had no choice because source was german paper, after all it was about "russian hackers" in Germany.
So the only place which reported it in English was RT and other russian "propaganda" sources. This kinda tells you how reliable western media is at ignoring anything which goes against their naratve. Germans went apeshit over their russian hackers only to determine that it was actually inside job. Reminds you of anything?
Click to expand...
You mean after the Germans investigated it, they found the source (internal leak), kind of like how the Americans investigated it and found the source (The Russians). I'm not seeing a parallel here.
Click to expand...
No, that's not how it happened with germans. They simply made baseless accusations, but eventually realized they were wrong and started an investigation. CIA is at the "baseless accusation" stage now.
 
barbos said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
You mean after the Germans investigated it, they found the source (internal leak), kind of like how the Americans investigated it and found the source (The Russians). I'm not seeing a parallel here.
Click to expand...
No, that's not how it happened with germans. They simply made baseless accusations, but eventually realized they were wrong and started an investigation. CIA is at the "baseless accusation" stage now.
Click to expand...
Baseless accusation, months after they started investigating? Please, catch up with the actual situation, not what you see with your Putin Goggles on.
 
bilby said:
whichphilosophy said:
I take all sources with a pinch of salt. We have Faux News, Clinton News Network (CNN) and the British Brainwashing Corporation (BBC)
Click to expand...

Your approach leads you to the very error you seek to avoid.

By declaring ALL sources to be unreliable, you lead yourself to the false conclusion that they are all equal in their (un)reliability. RT and Fox News are utter horseshit. CNN and the BBC are imperfect, but they are not in the same class as RT or Fox - the BBC at least still appears to be embarrassed when they are caught in an error, while Fox News double down if called on their lies, and RT don't appear to give a shit at all.

This business of allowing oneself to accept the unacceptable by simply declaring ALL instances to be 'equally bad' because none are perfect is becoming very common, and it is insidious and dangerous, as well as being stupid and illogical.

Politicians ALL lie, so Trump is no worse than Clinton (even though she lies 5% of the time and he lies 95% of the time).
News media is ALL biased, so RT is no worse than the BBC (even though the BBC is only mildly biased, while RT is off the planet).

The Americans call this 'Moore-Coulter'; And it is a major factor in the acceptance of the unacceptable by the gullible.

Even if the BBC and CNN were totally unreliable, you should not delude yourself that their unreliability renders RT (or Fox, or anyone else) acceptable as news sources. If someone else is eating dog shit, that doesn't make it in any way reasonable for you to eat a cow pat.
Click to expand...

The information given so far is farcical and or unsupported. Did you ever watch the Monty Python show? A good sketch would be Putin wins the US election.
 
Jayjay said:
barbos said:
OK people. I knew that would happen but I had no choice because source was german paper, after all it was about "russian hackers" in Germany.
So the only place which reported it in English was RT and other russian "propaganda" sources. This kinda tells you how reliable western media is at ignoring anything which goes against their naratve. Germans went apeshit over their russian hackers only to determine that it was actually inside job. Reminds you of anything?
Click to expand...
I hadn't seen the original news about Russian hackers being responsible either. In fact I had no idea it happened. Maybe this simply isn't such big news outside Germany?
Click to expand...

The Russians and US always spy on each other, but there is on evidence of any Russian master plot to rig the elections. The Clinton Camp have to realize that the election is lost and they should prepare for the next one instead of spitting out the dummy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom