The Russia Thread

[Jackstar]

https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/814564127230271489



"hapless" is a word that doesn't get enough play. Let's bring it back.

[Kidnostad3]

https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/814564127230271489



"hapless" is a word that doesn't get enough play. Let's bring it back.

Putin says he won't retaliate by throwing an equal number of Americans out of Russia until he see's what Trump does.  He's looking like the only adult in the room.

[Jackstar]

He's looking like the only adult in the room.

PLOT TWIST: they're both married to Melania

[Kidnostad3]

PLOT TWIST: they're both married to Melania

Wow!  Who knew?

[Jackstar]

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/

Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups.

"This ultimately seems like a very rushed report put together by multiple teams working different data sets and motivations," Robert M. Lee, CEO and Founder of the security company Dragos, wrote in a critique published Friday. "It is my opinion and speculation that there were some really good government analysts and operators contributing to this data and then report reviews, leadership approval processes, and sanitation processes stripped out most of the value and left behind a very confusing report trying to cover too much while saying too little."

HAPLESS APOLOGISTS ASSEMBLE

[21st Century Man]

Hannity interviews Assange inside Ecuadorian embassy... Developing...

HANNITY: Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?

ASSANGE: Yes. We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party... Obama is trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate President.... Developing...

http://drudgereport.com/

[Kidnostad3]

Hannity interviews Assange inside Ecuadorian embassy... Developing...

HANNITY: Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?

ASSANGE: Yes. We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party... Obama is trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate President.... Developing...

http://drudgereport.com/

Who are we to believe here?  On the one hand we have the intelligence community that has failed us on a number of occasions in recent times and the upper levels of which are known to have "baked" intelligence for political purposes.  On the other hand we have Assange who has been wrong about very little and whose stock in trade is the verity of his output. 

Until the spooks produce something that convinces me otherwise l'm believing Assange.

[Dr. MD MD]

Who are we to believe here?  On the one hand we have the intelligence community that has failed us on a number of occasions in recent times and the upper levels of which are known to have "baked" intelligence for political purposes.  On the other hand we have Assange who has been wrong about very little and whose stock in trade is the verity of his output. 

Until the spooks produce something that convinces me otherwise l'm believing Assange.

Wikileaks has never been wrong yet. The intelligence community has no moral boundaries and are always trying lie to us in one way or another. I think the choice is clear. 

[Kidnostad3]

Wikileaks has never been wrong yet. The intelligence community has no moral boundaries and are always trying lie to us in one way or another. I think the choice is clear. 

Yeah, there is the issue of their lying for a living isn't there.  Glad you reminded me.

[Uncle Duke]

Who are we to believe here?  On the one hand we have the intelligence community that has failed us on a number of occasions in recent times and the upper levels of which are known to have "baked" intelligence for political purposes.  On the other hand we have Assange who has been wrong about very little and whose stock in trade is the verity of his output. 

Until the spooks produce something that convinces me otherwise l'm believing Assange.

To be fair, the analysis of intel data is seldom interpreted the same way across the board. It's not uncommon for  capable analysts to look at the same data, yet draw very different conclusions.  It's the politicos who cherry pick the analyze to support their positions/policies far more than it is the spooks cooking the Intel for political purposes.  While the end results can be the same, I think you'll agree those are different situations.

I know you understand this, but I doubt many here realize just how inexact, yet decisive a science intel analysis can be.  WWII in the Pacific turned on the defeat of the Japanese at the Battle of Midway, but it could have as easily been a war ending defeat for the US.  The US victory was due in large part to intel that allowed the USN to martial their forces at Midway, but there were others who interpreted intel data to indicate Midway was a feint to misdirect US forces away from the real Japanese target, the Aleutian Islands. While a Japanese task force did attack the Aleutians, that attack was the feint for the Midway attack.  Had the US taken the bait and put all their eggs in the Aleutian basket, the Japanese would have taken Midway, cutting off and probably eventually invading Australia.  Without Oz, the US would have had no where to stage logistically to start the long push back across the Pacific to the Japanese home islands.

[Yorkshire pud]

To be fair, the analysis of intel data is seldom interpreted the same way across the board. It's not uncommon for  capable analysts to look at the same data, yet draw very different conclusions.  It's the politicos who cherry pick the analyze to support their positions/policies far more than it is the spooks cooking the Intel for political purposes.  While the end results can be the same, I think you'll agree those are different situations.

I know you understand this, but I doubt many here realize just how inexact, yet decisive a science intel analysis can be.  WWII in the Pacific turned on the defeat of the Japanese at the Battle of Midway, but it could have as easily been a war ending defeat for the US.  The US victory was due in large part to intel that allowed the USN to martial their forces at Midway, but there were others who interpreted intel data to indicate Midway was a feint to misdirect US forces away from the real Japanese target, the Aleutian Islands. While a Japanese task force did attack the Aleutians, that attack was the feint for the Midway attack.  Had the US taken the bait and put all their eggs in the Aleutian basket, the Japanese would have taken Midway, cutting off and probably eventually invading Australia.  Without Oz, the US would have had no where to stage logistically to start the long push back across the Pacific to the Japanese home islands.

I won't post it again, but there's a BBC Panarama episode about an Iraqi informer who wasn't. His motives were simply to get asylum in Germany. His story is significant because it was he who generated the story of Iraqs wmd and chemical weapon capability. After about two years trying to verify him, the German, UK, French intelligence and later CIA spooks said he was a fantasist at best. The CIA told the Bush administration (interview with former head of CIA on the programme) the guy was bullshitting. Bush's people ignored them and went ahead and trotted out the story that made the ball roll for GW 2.

[Kidnostad3]

To be fair, the analysis of intel data is seldom interpreted the same way across the board. It's not uncommon for  capable analysts to look at the same data, yet draw very different conclusions.  It's the politicos who cherry pick the analyze to support their positions/policies far more than it is the spooks cooking the Intel for political purposes.  While the end results can be the same, I think you'll agree those are different situations.

I know you understand this, but I doubt many here realize just how inexact, yet decisive a science intel analysis can be.  WWII in the Pacific turned on the defeat of the Japanese at the Battle of Midway, but it could have as easily been a war ending defeat for the US.  The US victory was due in large part to intel that allowed the USN to martial their forces at Midway, but there were others who interpreted intel data to indicate Midway was a feint to misdirect US forces away from the real Japanese target, the Aleutian Islands. While a Japanese task force did attack the Aleutians, that attack was the feint for the Midway attack.  Had the US taken the bait and put all their eggs in the Aleutian basket, the Japanese would have taken Midway, cutting off and probably eventually invading Australia.  Without Oz, the US would have had no where to stage logistically to start the long push back across the Pacific to the Japanese home islands.

I think I was being fair.  You will note that my criticism was aimed mainly at The "upper levels" of the intelligence community.   The rank and file, while not all genuises, are generally capable and well intentioned and have done much that is laudable, especially the whistle blowers who made us aware that their anslyses were being baked at levels above them. (I am not talking here about Snowden who I see as a traitor.)  In addition, I don't' think you would argue that the use of lies and deception is not a part of their tradecraft.

[Juan]

I won't post it again, but there's a BBC Panarama episode about an Iraqi informer who wasn't. His motives were simply to get asylum in Germany. His story is significant because it was he who generated the story of Iraqs wmd and chemical weapon capability. After about two years trying to verify him, the German, UK, French intelligence and later CIA spooks said he was a fantasist at best. The CIA told the Bush administration (interview with former head of CIA on the programme) the guy was bullshitting. Bush's people ignored them and went ahead and trotted out the story that made the ball roll for GW 2.

We had stories here on him - I think on 60-Minutes.

[Jackstar]

Photo is purported to be of actual WMD parts that were confiscated before/during the first Gulf war.

Now, I'm the first to admit, an artillery gun is not the first thing I think of when I hear "weapon of mass destruction," but that's because I am largely ignorant of military matters, as are the vast majority of the populace.

Neverthless: there were WMDs in Iraq. That doesn't make Colin Powell any less of a fucking Got-damned liar, though.

[albrecht]

Photo is purported to be of actual WMD parts that were confiscated before/during the first Gulf war.

Now, I'm the first to admit, an artillery gun is not the first thing I think of when I hear "weapon of mass destruction," but that's because I am largely ignorant of military matters, as are the vast majority of the populace.

Neverthless: there were WMDs in Iraq. That doesn't make Colin Powell any less of a fucking Got-damned liar, though.

The Canadian-born Gerald Bull who cooperated with Saddam on "Project Babylon" to build a supergun, after all the work for Canada and us, and who was mysteriously assassinated by parties unknown  in Brussels would make a good movie, he led an interesting life.

[Jackstar]

assassinated by parties unknown 

Hard to imagine that one was anyone besides Kissinger.

[albrecht]

Hard to imagine that one was anyone besides Kissinger.

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

[Kidnostad3]

Photo is purported to be of actual WMD parts that were confiscated before/during the first Gulf war.

Now, I'm the first to admit, an artillery gun is not the first thing I think of when I hear "weapon of mass destruction," but that's because I am largely ignorant of military matters, as are the vast majority of the populace.

Neverthless: there were WMDs in Iraq. That doesn't make Colin Powell any less of a fucking Got-damned liar, though.

Yet another one of your specious rants.  Also present was a significant volume of the precursors for various lethal chemical agents as well a number of binary projectile warheads that were ready to go.   What was missing, or course, were things like yellow cake uranium, centrifuges or components thereof, heavy water, etc. which they never actually had or had gotten rid of.  Colin Powel despite initialy having serious doubts about the presence of, or potential for manufacture of nuclear weapons was persuaded by intelligence reports that turned out to be exaggerated or just plain bullshit.  Many including a  majority in Congress were also persuaded.  Not everything is a diabolical conspiracy.  Sometimes it's just a fuckup, but, we've had this conversation before haven't we.

[Jackstar]

Not everything is a diabolical conspiracy.  Sometimes it's just a fuckup, but, we've had this conversation before haven't we.

Nice straw man! Are you still beating your captain?

[Kidnostad3]

Nice straw man! Are you still beating your captain?

You don't really understand what a strawman is do you Jackstar?

[Jackstar]

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

Take Jonathan Moyle, a not very bright, gung-ho Queen and country man. Young Moyle, while at University at Aberystwyth, was a Special Branch snitch who thought it his patriotic duty to tell the local SB who was smoking dope. On graduating he became an agent for - well, MI6 probably, though who knows? Moyle ended up being murdered in Chile. According to the book about him, Moyle wasn't very subtle as an intelligence asset and was poking around the Chilean arms dealer Cardoen - one of Mark Thatcher's friends - while Cardoen was doing a big helicopter deal with the Iraqis. This was in the run-up to the American attack on Iraq. Moyle ended up dead in a wardrobe in Chile and what does the local FCO guy do? Tells the media that Moyle was the victim of an auto-erotic accident: strangled himself while having a wank.

Q: What do you tell a secret agent with two black eyes? A: Nothing, you already told him twice.

[Jackstar]

You don't really understand what a strawman is do you Jackstar?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX9TDQcCyVE

[albrecht]

Q: What do you tell a secret agent with two black eyes? A: Nothing, you already told him twice.

Come on. They can't come up with stuff better than this? Even with Dr.Kelly they explained the amount of (lack of) blood because his '"significantly narrowed"due to pain-killers and heart disease his arteries before cutting himself and fortunate "suicide." But locking yourself into a gym-bag?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/13/mi6-spy-dead-bag-locked-himself-gareth-williams
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams

[Uncle Duke]

I think I was being fair.  You will note that my criticism was aimed mainly at The "upper levels" of the intelligence community.   The rank and file, while not all genuises, are generally capable and well intentioned and have done much that is laudable, especially the whistle blowers who made us aware that their anslyses were being baked at levels above them. (I am not talking here about Snowden who I see as a traitor.)  In addition, I don't' think you would argue that the use of lies and deception is not a part of their tradecraft.

OK, I think we're saying the same thing, especially after reading your initial response to Jack.  By "upper levels" you mean I think primarily political appointees who make sure the intel they send up their chain supports the policy of their superiors.  And yes, some times even the best and brightest just fuck up.  Analysis of intel data is a crap shot, you make the best decision you can with incomplete, fragmented, or even fraudulent information from any number of sources and act accordingly.  In the example I gave previously, had the Aleutians been the actual target of the Japanese, the west coast of Canada and the US would have been wide open with what was left of the US fleet essentially defending Australia.

[Kidnostad3]

OK, I think we're saying the same thing, especially after reading your initial response to Jack.  By "upper levels" you mean I think primarily political appointees who make sure the intel they send up their chain supports the policy of their superiors.  And yes, some times even the best and brightest just fuck up.  Analysis of intel data is a crap shot, you make the best decision you can with incomplete, fragmented, or even fraudulent information from any number of sources and act accordingly.  In the example I gave previously, had the Aleutians been the actual target of the Japanese, the west coast of Canada and the US would have been wide open with what was left of the US fleet essentially defending Australia.

Fair enough.

[Uncle Duke]

The Canadian-born Gerald Bull who cooperated with Saddam on "Project Babylon" to build a supergun, after all the work for Canada and us, and who was mysteriously assassinated by parties unknown  in Brussels would make a good movie, he led an interesting life.

I don't know if the source of Bull's assassination is known for sure now (25+ years later), but at the time there was a long list of nations who would have benefited from his death.  Clearly Israel and Iran were obvious suspects, but I remember reading a few years after his death the US, Canada, UK, South Africa, Taiwan, and even a couple South American countries among others could have been responsible or at least co-conspirators. Can't remember if the source I read was a book or a magazine, but it broke down the list of nations and explained why each country would have wanted him dead.  South Africa and Taiwan I remember had to do with what he knew relative to the alleged nuclear cooperation between the two nations (and Israel?) that resulted in the mysterious nuclear explosion in the South Atlantic in the late 70s/early 80s.  Apparently Bull was the ultimate gun for hire, and he worked with/for a number of customers without much concern for their leanings or political standing.

[albrecht]

I don't know if the source of Bull's assassination is known for sure now (25+ years later), but at the time there was a long list of nations who would have benefited from his death.  Clearly Israel and Iran were obvious suspects, but I remember reading a few years after his death the US, Canada, UK, South Africa, Taiwan, and even a couple South American countries among others could have been responsible or at least co-conspirators. Can't remember if the source I read was a book or a magazine, but it broke down the list of nations and explained why each country would have wanted him dead.  South Africa and Taiwan I remember had to do with what he knew relative to the alleged nuclear cooperation between the two nations (and Israel?) that resulted in the mysterious nuclear explosion in the South Atlantic in the late 70s/early 80s.  Apparently Bull was the ultimate gun for hire, and he worked with/for a number of customers without much concern for their leanings or political standing.

Apparently he had $20K in his pocket when whoever 'got him' got him, so robbery was not a motive.
I've always wondered though if he was an ultimate 'gun for hire' or more like a 'mad scientist' obsessed ideas/project and as long as funding came in he didn't care where from as long as he could continue his designs and improvements? Like a mad scientist, sort of, maybe not thinking of the consequences or what his inventions will be used for? Or was it just all about money?
ps: any links to the alleged nuclear explosion in the South Atlantic?

[Uncle Duke]

Apparently he had $20K in his pocket when whoever 'got him' got him, so robbery was not a motive.
I've always wondered though if he was an ultimate 'gun for hire' or more like a 'mad scientist' obsessed ideas/project and as long as funding came in he didn't care where from as long as he could continue his designs and improvements? Like a mad scientist, sort of, maybe not thinking of the consequences or what his inventions will be used for? Or was it just all about money?
ps: any links to the alleged nuclear explosion in the South Atlantic?

https://books.google.com/books?id=DtiJVtJBzvcC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=nuclear+explosion+south+africa+taiwan&source=bl&ots=bOuAT8XpGT&sig=JFzxEuaVaY1jq1z1R-0s_HJ-dFE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXisOuxKfRAhVK7YMKHcyqBy0Q6AEIJDAJ

This is what I came up with in a quick search, looks like a good start for details.

[albrecht]

https://books.google.com/books?id=DtiJVtJBzvcC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=nuclear+explosion+south+africa+taiwan&source=bl&ots=bOuAT8XpGT&sig=JFzxEuaVaY1jq1z1R-0s_HJ-dFE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXisOuxKfRAhVK7YMKHcyqBy0Q6AEIJDAJ

This is what I came up with in a quick search, looks like a good start for details.

Interesting. Might need to check out that book. Wouter Basson also fascinates me. These scientists that can get into such stuff is scary. And I'm sure we, and many other people, are looking into things like this (genetic bioweapons, a better bomb, bioengineered stuff, etc). We, and likely others, will claim for "defense" or "public good," and often it is, but....but I find interesting the motivation of doctors/scientists to do horrible things, or potentially risk horrible things, just for the "FIRST" or due to an obsession or advancement of science/medicine but at what costs (to subjects or to the world.) Setting off the first "nuke?" Messing with a virus? Bringing "back" a long-dead bacteria or killer flu? Experimenting, brutally, on people? Like we "gained" knowledge from the Jap and NAZI "test" data and experiments but at such a horrific cost, and the ethics of using that information for good later? How can educated people go so wrong or get obsessed? Who/how is the decision made in the potential cost versus benefit and risk analysis done? Or the moral/ethical test (if any?)

[Uncle Duke]

Interesting. Might need to check out that book. Wouter Basson also fascinates me. These scientists that can get into such stuff is scary. And I'm sure we, and many other people, are looking into things like this (genetic bioweapons, a better bomb, bioengineered stuff, etc). We, and likely others, will claim for "defense" or "public good," and often it is, but....but I find interesting the motivation of doctors/scientists to do horrible things, or potentially risk horrible things, just for the "FIRST" or due to an obsession or advancement of science/medicine but at what costs (to subjects or to the world.) Setting off the first "nuke?" Messing with a virus? Bringing "back" a long-dead bacteria or killer flu? Experimenting, brutally, on people? Like we "gained" knowledge from the Jap and NAZI "test" data and experiments but at such a horrific cost, and the ethics of using that information for good later? How can educated people go so wrong or get obsessed? Who/how is the decision made in the potential cost versus benefit and risk analysis done? Or the moral/ethical test (if any?)

I remember now when the incident occurred, I was just starting my final year of engineering school.  There was much speculation as to the source of the flash, but it fell by the wayside in the news cycle a few weeks later when the US allowed the Shah into the US, leading to the hostage crisis in November.  I didn't put two and two together until years later reading the book or article about Bull's death and then researching (totally independent of Bull) the operations of the RhAF and SAAF air forces during their guerrilla wars.