All normal communication between US and Russia cut off

[the_human_being]

"Forensic evidence analyzed by several cybersecurity firms, CrowdStrike, Fidelis, and Mandiant (or FireEye), strongly indicates that two Russian Federation intelligence agencies infiltrated the DNC computer systems."
Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee

Strongly indicate. Could be. Might be. It is possible. You want to hang them and start WWIII on that?

Are you a dunce?
"Strongly indicates" is a much higher probability than "could be" or "it is possible"!
It's like the difference between a 95% chance and 1% chance.
If there was a 95% chance a hurricane would hit your house, would you sit in your rocking chair and dream "it could hit my house"?

Get real.

Show me anything that actually states that "strongly" equals 95%. You must see yourself as one of those highly educated Liberal idiots. Have you ever used a dictionary at all?

What kind of idiot equates "strongly indicates" with "it is possible"?
Twisting facts toward your preferred beliefs? LOL!

It should be easy enough even for an idiot like you to put up here for all to see where "strongly" equates to 95% as you claim.

 

[PK1]

"Forensic evidence analyzed by several cybersecurity firms, CrowdStrike, Fidelis, and Mandiant (or FireEye), strongly indicates that two Russian Federation intelligence agencies infiltrated the DNC computer systems."
Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee

Strongly indicate. Could be. Might be. It is possible. You want to hang them and start WWIII on that?

Are you a dunce?
"Strongly indicates" is a much higher probability than "could be" or "it is possible"!
It's like the difference between a 95% chance and 1% chance.
If there was a 95% chance a hurricane would hit your house, would you sit in your rocking chair and dream "it could hit my house"?

Get real.

Show me anything that actually states that "strongly" equals 95%. You must see yourself as one of those highly educated Liberal idiots. Have you ever used a dictionary at all?

What kind of idiot equates "strongly indicates" with "it is possible"?
Twisting facts toward your preferred beliefs? LOL!

It should be easy enough even for an idiot like you to put up here for all to see where "strongly" equates to 95% as you claim.

Did you read the material by the cybersecurity experts?
Obviously not, or you would not equate "strongly indicates" with "it is possible"!
Talk about "idiot". LOLROTF.

 

[Tehon]

America needs to get out of the business of helping.

You are showing a city constantly bombarded by Assad and Russian air forces to say something about Americans? Seriously?

Americans destabilized the region is the point. Assad would have contained the threat from ISIS had there not been outside help to ISIS. Syria's crisis was manufactured and Americans bear immense responsibility for it.

Highly speculative. There is no way to know how the civil war there would have developed without US/Russian involvement and Assad could have been toppled already.

It is not a civil war, nor was it ever, it is a US allied war on Syria and always has been. Russia is in no way implicated in the early development of the war.

It is not a stretch to believe the trained army of the sovereign State of Syria could have put down a local insurgency. A reasonable person ought to think it a given.

That is an ignorant comment. Please read up on the history of what happened in Syria:

Syrian Civil War - Wikipedia

Americans destabilized the region is the point. Assad would have contained the threat from ISIS had there not been outside help to ISIS. Syria's crisis was manufactured and Americans bear immense responsibility for it.

I thought the Syrian people who wanted freedom started the war along with the authoritarian Assad who did not want them to have much freedom.

That's only the way it looks on the surface to the casual observer.

That's the way it looks to the informed observer ...
"The Syrian war grew out of the unrest of the 2011 Arab Spring and escalated to armed conflict after President Bashar al-Assad's government violently repressed protests calling for his removal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the definitive source but it is serviceable I suppose. The USG was actively seeking regime change in Syria as far back as '06. The Arab uprisings themselves, which were no coincidence, were used by the USG as a springboard to achieving their aims. Al Qaeda in Iraq was actively fighting the Syrian government from the outset of the protests.


The Assad government opposed the U.S.'s2003 invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration undertook to destabilize the regime by increasing sectarian tensions, showcasing and publicising Syrian repression of radical Kurdish and Sunni groups and financing political dissidents.[152] Assad also opposed the Qatar-Turkey pipeline in 2009. A classified 2013 report by a joint U.S. army and intelligence group concluded that the overthrow of Assad would have drastic consequences; the opposition supported by the Obama administration was dominated byjihadist elements. According to Michael T. Flynn, the then-director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the report was ignored by the U.S. administration.[152]

 

[paulitician]

Western Globalist Elites want confrontation with Russia. They're very dangerous psychopaths. Putin has tried his best to inform Westerners on who the actual aggressor in the world is. But their Medias are tightly controlled by their Governments and Corporations. They're only receiving one side of the story. But Putin has tried to get through.

 

[AntonToo]

You are showing a city constantly bombarded by Assad and Russian air forces to say something about Americans? Seriously?

Americans destabilized the region is the point. Assad would have contained the threat from ISIS had there not been outside help to ISIS. Syria's crisis was manufactured and Americans bear immense responsibility for it.

Highly speculative. There is no way to know how the civil war there would have developed without US/Russian involvement and Assad could have been toppled already.

It is not a civil war, nor was it ever, it is a US allied war on Syria and always has been. Russia is in no way implicated in the early development of the war.

It is not a stretch to believe the trained army of the sovereign State of Syria could have put down a local insurgency. A reasonable person ought to think it a given.

That is an ignorant comment. Please read up on the history of what happened in Syria:

Syrian Civil War - Wikipedia

Americans destabilized the region is the point. Assad would have contained the threat from ISIS had there not been outside help to ISIS. Syria's crisis was manufactured and Americans bear immense responsibility for it.

I thought the Syrian people who wanted freedom started the war along with the authoritarian Assad who did not want them to have much freedom.

That's only the way it looks on the surface to the casual observer.

That's the way it looks to the informed observer ...
"The Syrian war grew out of the unrest of the 2011 Arab Spring and escalated to armed conflict after President Bashar al-Assad's government violently repressed protests calling for his removal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the definitive source but it is serviceable I suppose. The USG was actively seeking regime change in Syria as far back as '06. The Arab uprisings themselves, which were no coincidence, were used by the USG as a springboard to achieving their aims. Al Qaeda in Iraq was actively fighting the Syrian government from the outset of the protests.


The Assad government opposed the U.S.'s2003 invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration undertook to destabilize the regime by increasing sectarian tensions, showcasing and publicising Syrian repression of radical Kurdish and Sunni groups and financing political dissidents.[152] Assad also opposed the Qatar-Turkey pipeline in 2009. A classified 2013 report by a joint U.S. army and intelligence group concluded that the overthrow of Assad would have drastic consequences; the opposition supported by the Obama administration was dominated byjihadist elements. According to Michael T. Flynn, the then-director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the report was ignored by the U.S. administration.[152]

Read the part where Americans started materially aiding the opposition only after Russia started bombing them. Assad was on the ropes before Russia jumped in for the rescue.

 

[paulitician]

Americans destabilized the region is the point. Assad would have contained the threat from ISIS had there not been outside help to ISIS. Syria's crisis was manufactured and Americans bear immense responsibility for it.

Highly speculative. There is no way to know how the civil war there would have developed without US/Russian involvement and Assad could have been toppled already.

It is not a civil war, nor was it ever, it is a US allied war on Syria and always has been. Russia is in no way implicated in the early development of the war.

It is not a stretch to believe the trained army of the sovereign State of Syria could have put down a local insurgency. A reasonable person ought to think it a given.

That is an ignorant comment. Please read up on the history of what happened in Syria:

Syrian Civil War - Wikipedia

Americans destabilized the region is the point. Assad would have contained the threat from ISIS had there not been outside help to ISIS. Syria's crisis was manufactured and Americans bear immense responsibility for it.

I thought the Syrian people who wanted freedom started the war along with the authoritarian Assad who did not want them to have much freedom.

That's only the way it looks on the surface to the casual observer.

That's the way it looks to the informed observer ...
"The Syrian war grew out of the unrest of the 2011 Arab Spring and escalated to armed conflict after President Bashar al-Assad's government violently repressed protests calling for his removal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the definitive source but it is serviceable I suppose. The USG was actively seeking regime change in Syria as far back as '06. The Arab uprisings themselves, which were no coincidence, were used by the USG as a springboard to achieving their aims. Al Qaeda in Iraq was actively fighting the Syrian government from the outset of the protests.


The Assad government opposed the U.S.'s2003 invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration undertook to destabilize the regime by increasing sectarian tensions, showcasing and publicising Syrian repression of radical Kurdish and Sunni groups and financing political dissidents.[152] Assad also opposed the Qatar-Turkey pipeline in 2009. A classified 2013 report by a joint U.S. army and intelligence group concluded that the overthrow of Assad would have drastic consequences; the opposition supported by the Obama administration was dominated byjihadist elements. According to Michael T. Flynn, the then-director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the report was ignored by the U.S. administration.[152]

Read the part where Americans started materially aiding the opposition only after Russia started bombing them. Assad was on the ropes before Russia jumped in for the rescue.

None of our business. We have no right intervening in Syria's Civil War. Syria has never been a threat to the US. 'Regime Change' is wrong, and illegal. US/Western leaders should be tried for crimes against humanity.

 

[AntonToo]

None of our business. We have no right intervening in Syria's Civil War.

But Russia does?

 

[Norman]

Hillary Clinton will have to start war with russia now that she believes it's completely proven that they have committed cyber crime against the USA.

 

[PK1]

Putin has tried his best to inform Westerners on who the actual aggressor in the world is.

And that "aggressor" is Putin himself.
Putin is a savvy politician, i.e., he lies effectively to influence people who will give way. It's no secret Putin wants Russia to return to its powerful Soviet days.

"The Kremlin is banking that its recent doubling down on both its rhetoric and military action in Syria will deter the Obama administration from taking any policy decision that would remotely risk a wider conflagration."

What Reagan can teach us about handling Russia - CNN.com

 

[AntonToo]

Hillary Clinton will have start war with russia now that she believes it's completely proven that they have committed cyber crime against the USA.

LOL wtf is wrong with you Trumplets.

There actually is something between WWIII and doing nothing, even if such thinking is against the grain for your simplistic binary mindset.

 

[paulitician]

None of our business. We have no right intervening in Syria's Civil War.

But Russia does?

Russia is a longtime Syrian ally. 'Regime Change' is a crime. If the international court system had any credibility, it would charge the US/West and others with crimes against humanity.

US/Western and Saudi support for brutal terrorists like ISIS, has led to so many Syrians and Iraqis being horrifically slaughtered. Their leaders should be held accountable. Syria was never a threat to the US. We shouldn't have intervened.

 

[the_human_being]

Strongly indicate. Could be. Might be. It is possible. You want to hang them and start WWIII on that?

Are you a dunce?
"Strongly indicates" is a much higher probability than "could be" or "it is possible"!
It's like the difference between a 95% chance and 1% chance.
If there was a 95% chance a hurricane would hit your house, would you sit in your rocking chair and dream "it could hit my house"?

Get real.

Show me anything that actually states that "strongly" equals 95%. You must see yourself as one of those highly educated Liberal idiots. Have you ever used a dictionary at all?

What kind of idiot equates "strongly indicates" with "it is possible"?
Twisting facts toward your preferred beliefs? LOL!

It should be easy enough even for an idiot like you to put up here for all to see where "strongly" equates to 95% as you claim.

Did you read the material by the cybersecurity experts?
Obviously not, or you would not equate "strongly indicates" with "it is possible"!
Talk about "idiot". LOLROTF.

I take it you just outright LIED about your 95% figure. You simply pulled the figure out of your ass.

 

[paulitician]

Putin has tried his best to inform Westerners on who the actual aggressor in the world is.

And that "aggressor" is Putin himself.
Putin is a savvy politician, i.e., he lies effectively to influence people who will give way. It's no secret Putin wants Russia to return to its powerful Soviet days.

"The Kremlin is banking that its recent doubling down on both its rhetoric and military action in Syria will deter the Obama administration from taking any policy decision that would remotely risk a wider conflagration."

What Reagan can teach us about handling Russia - CNN.com

 

[Norman]

Hillary Clinton will have start war with russia now that she believes it's completely proven that they have committed cyber crime against the USA.

LOL wtf is wrong with you Trumplets.

There is actually is something between WWIII and doing nothing, even if such thinking is against the grain for your simplistic binary mindset.

I agree, but that's not her position:



"We will treat cyber attacks, just like any other attacks."

Glad to hear you don't agree with the witch!

 

[the_human_being]

None of our business. We have no right intervening in Syria's Civil War.

But Russia does?

Actually, Russia was invited in by the leader of the soverign nation of Syria. The United States was not invited in.

 

[PK1]

Hillary Clinton will have to start war with russia now that she believes it's completely proven that they have committed cyber crime against the USA.

Putin prefers Trump for a reason.

Clinton stands in direct defiance to Putin's vision, already partly in place, of a Russia with a sphere of influence that includes the former Soviet territory and, more loosely, Eastern Europe, alongside a weakened Europe, US and NATO.
In contrast to Trump, she has made countless comments over the years to suggest she would present a much tougher opponent to Putin's ambitions than Barack Obama has been, saying she thinks the United States must find ways to "confine, contain, and deter Russian aggression in Europe and beyond."
Why Putin fears a Clinton presidency (opinion) - CNN.com

 

[the_human_being]

Hillary Clinton will have start war with russia now that she believes it's completely proven that they have committed cyber crime against the USA.

LOL wtf is wrong with you Trumplets.

There actually is something between WWIII and doing nothing, even if such thinking is against the grain for your simplistic binary mindset.

Are you also opting for war with the FBI? The FBI dump yesterday was not hacked by the Russians or anyone else and it was very damning to Hillary Clinton.

 

[AntonToo]

Actually, Russia was invited in by the leader of the soverign nation of Syria. The United States was not invited in.

You gotta be fucking joking. Assad runs a repressive totalitarian regime and has no more legitimacy than his opposition, who BEGGED for American intervention.

 

[the_human_being]

Hillary Clinton will have to start war with russia now that she believes it's completely proven that they have committed cyber crime against the USA.

So has the FBI. Yesterday's FBI dump was very damning to Hillary Clinton. I guess the Clinton supporters will want to nuke the FBI.

 

[PK1]