accusations by 1kiki

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

accusations

POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Monday, October 10, 2016 13:52
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1699
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, October 8, 2016 1:35 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

US accuses Russia of cyber attacks

Well ! This was certainly an interesting article. I’ve been following this particular topic ever since it came up, and I actually click on the links in the articles and go backwards to previous articles, then click on the links in those articles to go backward to previous articles … and so on … until I hit a dead end.

So in this article I looked very carefully for any evidence for the US claims, because, frankly, the US has a habit of making all sorts of claims without evidence – and US people have a history of believing those claims even if presented without evidence (such as Hussein’s WMDs – Assad gassing his own people … and so on). And then I went to the links found in the article and checked them out, and then to the links in the links …

Here’s what I found

What evidence is presented within the article proper that Russians are behind the cyberattacks?
"consistent with the methods and motivation of Russia-directed efforts"
“scope and sensitivity of these efforts”
Answer: no claimed specific intelligence

What evidence is presented in the linked article that supports the accusation that Russians are behind the cyberattacks?:
The link in the article is found here: “a hacker calling himself Guccifer 2.0 … (release of documents from the DNC)”
The evidence in the linked article that supports the accusation that Russians are behind the cyberattacks is this:
in the article analysis of the attack on the DNC by US security firm CrowdStrike
Attribution, the experts say, is always difficult. Translated, this means nobody knows who to blame.
Answer: the linked article doesn’t support the accusations of US officials that pinpoint Russia

What evidence is presented in the linked article that supports the accusation that Russians are behind the cyberattacks?:
The link in the article is found here: “At an early stage, MANY US officials linked the breach to Russia.”
The evidence in the linked article that supports the accusation that Russians are behind the cyberattacks is this:
Hacking tools allegedly developed by the US National Security Agency (NSA) were dumped online by a group calling itself Shadow Brokers (also linked to the NSA)
speculation a server operated by the NSA (was) hacked; or an insider decided to steal the data; but whether the same insider then went on to leak it is unanswered
Russia has been accused by US officials of being involved in the DNC leaks
Answer: the linked article doesn’t support the accusations of US officials that pinpoint Russia, in fact many alternate explanations are given

What evidence is presented in the linked article that supports the accusation that Russians are behind the cyberattacks?:
The link in the article is found here: “The leaked emails appeared to show” that that Democratic Party officials were biased against Bernie Sanders
The evidence in the linked article that supports the accusation that Russians are behind the cyberattacks is this:
US officials widely believe that the cyber attacks were committed by agents working for the Russian government.
Some fear that Russia may be trying to influence the presidential election.
The FBI said it was investigating the allegations and the extent of any hacking.
Answer: the linked article doesn’t support the accusations of US officials that pinpoint Russia

In the end none of the articles contained any evidence.

So, without further ado – the article

US accuses Russia of cyber attacks

US officials have formally accused Russia of cyberattacks against political organisations in order "to interfere with the US election".
Recent hacked emails are "consistent with the methods and motivation of Russia-directed efforts", the Department of Homeland Security said.
Data revealing discussions within the Democratic Party was hacked earlier this year.
Some states reported "probing" attempts made on "election-related" systems.
However, officials said those attempts could not be directly linked to the Russian government.
Russian officials told Interfax news agency the claims it was involved in the cyber attacks were "nonsense".
But a joint statement from the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security said high-ranking officials at the Kremlin were almost certainly involved in the successful attacks. "We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities," they said.
However, altering any actual ballots or election results would be "extremely difficult", they added, because of a decentralised system and multiple checks and balances.
A number of embarrassing emails have come to light during the 2016 election campaign.
In July, a hacker calling himself Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility for the release of documents from the Democratic Party. Gigabytes of files including emails and other documents that revealed the inner workings of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were taken.
At an early stage, many US officials linked the breach to Russia. At the time, Moscow denied any involvement and denounced the "poisonous anti-Russian" rhetoric from Washington.
The leaked emails appeared to show that that Democratic Party officials were biased against Bernie Sanders in his primary race against Mrs Clinton.
The hack led to the resignation of the party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and sparked protests at the national convention in Philadelphia.
Adam Schiff, a senior member of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, said he applauded the decision to publicly name Russia as the culprit. "All of us should be gravely concerned when a foreign power like Russia seeks to undermine our democratic institutions," he said. He called for co-operation with "our European allies" to develop a response.

end of original article

first linked article

Democrat hack: Who is Guccifer 2.0?

· 28 July 2016

A lone hacker calling themselves Guccifer 2.0 has claimed responsibility for a damaging hacking attack on the US Democratic Party.

In that attack, gigabytes of files including emails and other documents that revealed the inner workings of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were taken.

Technical evidence has now come to light suggesting Guccifer 2.0 has links with Russia, compounding theories that the hack was state-sponsored. (see below for the ‘technical evidence’. However, note that no ‘US officials’ made any claims.)

What's the evidence on both sides?

Who is Guccifer 2.0?

We do not know the identity of the real person behind this hacker alias. It is a pseudonym adopted by someone who claims responsibility for the recent hack attack on the DNC - the organisation that oversees the running of the US Democratic party.

Whoever is behind Guccifer 2.0 is not thought to be connected to the original Guccifer, who is currently in a US jail awaiting sentencing on hacking and fraud charges.

Guccifer 2.0 also claims to be Romanian and, via a blog, has said they have been working alone. Many people are sceptical about these claims and others made on that blog.

So who was Guccifer 1.0?

Guccifer was the alias adopted by Marcel Lehel Lazar who, from 2013 onwards, targeted high-profile Americans, many of them politicians, and sought to hack into their personal email and social media accounts.

In January 2014, Lazar was arrested in Romania on hacking offences and was given a four-year jail term. In March 2016, he was extradited to the US to face trial on a variety of hacking and fraud charges.

In May 2016, while in jail, he told Fox News that he had repeatedly broken into a private email server set up by Hillary Clinton that handled her electronic correspondence.

Ms Clinton has denied the server was hacked and the US State Department said it could find no evidence supporting Lazar's claim.

Lazar said the Guccifer name comes from simply combining the Italian fashion brand Gucci with the name the Bible gives to the devil, Lucifer, before he was cast out.

Why are many sceptical about the identity of Guccifer 2.0?

For three main reasons:

Detailed analysis of the attack on the DNC by US security firm CrowdStrike suggests the organisation was actually penetrated twice - both times by hacking groups, dubbed Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, known (claimed –kiki) to have links to the Russian state. These groups have (allegedly –kiki) successfully penetrated US federal organisations in other hack attacks. (I’ve traced all these claims back to CrowdStrike, reported in one place then repeated in another, and reported on being reported, etc – so this is a lot like the FOX News echo chamber. Here’s one source: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/2016/0615/Meet-Fancy-Bear-and-
Cozy-Bear-Russian-groups-blamed-for-DNC-hack –kiki)

§ Forensic examination of metadata in copies of documents distributed by Guccifer 2.0 suggest they were edited on a machine set up for a Russian language user. (Because, no one could possibly use a set-up for different language to misdirect any ID attempts? –kiki)

§ Technical information including IP addresses extracted from messages sent by Guccifer 2.0 to journalists show a link to the Russian cyber-underground - even though many of the conversations were routed through a French VPN firm. In the past, some of the same infrastructure was used to send junk spam on behalf of Russian crime groups. (A recent article has tracked this back to a server in Russia, operated by a lone guy who rents out server use, mostly for porn. Definitely NOT the Russian government. –kiki)

Has Guccifer 2.0 responded to these claims?

Yes. The person claiming to be the hacker has openly mocked the different analyses and repeated their assertion that they are Romanian and have no backing from the Russian state. However, in interviews with the media, Guccifer 2.0 did not seem to speak Romanian well.

A closer look at their responses using linguistic analysis tools suggested they were using a sentence structure heavily influenced by Russian rather than Romanian which draws its roots from Latin in the same was as the French and English languages.

Does this prove that Russia is involved?

No. Attribution, the experts say, is always difficult. Translated, this means nobody knows who to blame. One of the first lessons that any competent hacker or hacktivist learns is how to cover their tracks and how to use proxies, encryption and other techniques to obscure who they are and from where they are operating.

Could a 'lone wolf' hacker have done this?

Yes. It is entirely possible that an individual broke into an organisation and stole a lot of information. It happens all the time. Tools to carry out hacks and videos educating people about how to use them are easy to find online.

But as repeated breaches have shown, sometimes it does not take technical ability to get into a supposedly secure network - anyone stubborn enough to keep trying commonly used passwords might eventually succeed.

However, the DNC hack does not share some of the characteristics of other hacktivist attacks. Politically motivated hackers tend to release documents as soon as they get hold of them because they want to embarrass the target. By contrast, state-sponsored hackers are much more likely to lurk inside a network for months and slowly steal data over time.

Why would Russia do this if indeed it is behind the attacks?

Russia and China are both well known for running large-scale cyber-espionage operations. Information taken in these attacks is often used to help diplomatic and commercial negotiations and to further their own ends.

second linked article

Is Russia hacking the US election?

By Chris Baraniuk Technology reporter

· 18 August 2016

Huge leaks of data from US organisations have been attributed by some to Russia, so has the former Soviet state launched cyberwar on the US elections?

Hacking tools allegedly developed by the US National Security Agency (NSA) were dumped online by a group calling itself Shadow Brokers. It follows a string of recent leaks of data from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). There are also now suspicions that the Clinton Foundation, a charitable body, may have been targeted. (Reuters: Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the U.S. officials said the hackers used the same techniques Russian intelligence agencies or their proxies employed against the Democratic Party groups, which suggests that Russians also attacked the foundation.” ie – that since the ‘US officials’ ASSUMED the DNC hacks were by Russia, it was proof that the Clinton Foundation hacks were also by Russia. - kiki)

Is this part of a Russian campaign to damage the US and even influence the presidential election in November, or are things a little more complicated than that?

What is in the latest leak?

Analysis of the files released by Shadow Brokers has revealed a group of malware that can be used to hack US-made firewalls and routers. Indeed, the tech firms Cisco (link goes nowhere -kiki) and Fortinet have warned customers that there are some serious exploits in the dump that affect their products. Juniper Networks has also said it is reviewing the data to see if its devices are affected. There are fears that some of the exploits were "zero-day" vulnerabilities, meaning they had gone undetected.

The hacking tools are believed to belong to a group of malware developed by "The Equation Group" (suspected of being NSA- kiki), which was first revealed by cybersecurity firm Kaspersky in 2015. "On the basis of what we've looked at, we certainly believe that there's a connection to the Equation Group malware," said David Emm, Kaspersky's principal security researcher, told the BBC. "I've thought from the very beginning that it was real," added Mikko Hypponen at security company F-Secure. "The sheer amount of data would be very hard to fake."

How did the information get out?

For Mr Hypponen and many others, this is "the real mystery". No-one really knows how this information was acquired, though there has been speculation that a server operated by the NSA may have been hacked. Another theory, put forward (as an opinion on a personal blog –kiki) by former NSA employee David Aitel, is that an insider decided to steal the data. Whether the same insider then went on to leak it is yet another unanswered question.

Is this connected to other recent dumps?

In June, it was reported ("Both adversaries engage in extensive political and economic espionage for the benefit of the government of the Russian Federation and are believed to be closely linked to the Russian government's powerful and highly capable intelligence services," cyber security firm CrowdStrike said.” – well, if CrowdStrike says so, in some MANY publications, it MUST be true! -kiki) that a hacker going by the moniker of "Guccifer 2.0" had released a cache of DNC members' emails. The resulting fallout led to the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Then, earlier this month, Guccifer published another wave of allegedly hacked data, including the personal contact details of nearly 200 current and former members of Congress from the Democratic Party.

Russia has been accused by US officials (WHICH US officials, again? –kiki) of being involved in the DNC leaks; an accusation that Russia has vehemently denied.

Either way, President Obama has already said that Russian involvement would not have a significant impact (“However, blaming Putin's intelligence services on any hacks would pressure Obama's administration to divulge its evidence, which relies on classified sources and methods, U.S. intelligence officials said on Monday.”) on his diplomatic relationship with the Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Is this an attempt to derail the presidential election?

Despite Obama's public comments that his relationship with Putin would not be strained, the hacks come at a particularly sensitive time. With an election in November, some have speculated that the leaks are an attempt to somehow influence the result of the vote. (Though what could possibly be gained from it is hard to publicly surmise. –kiki)

"I think it's more likely that if this is indeed the Russian state, then what they want to do is simply cast doubts on the validity of the electoral process," said Nigel Inkster at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

Conversely, in February Mr Putin warned that "foes abroad" might try to influence Russia's September elections. It is worth remembering that, in July, Russia announced that about 20 Russian government organisations had been targeted by spyware, though it stopped short of attributing the infiltration to any specific state or actor.

Analysis: Gordon Corera, security correspondent

Cyberspying is an inherently murky world. The nature of cyberspace makes it easy to hide your tracks and obscure your identity. And there is a difference between traditional espionage - stealing information secretly - and releasing information publicly - something more akin to information warfare.

Stealing information is age-old but so is the release of information to undermine your opponent. During the Cold War, the USA and USSR both engaged in what were often called "influence operations" or "political warfare" - spreading information or disinformation or propaganda about individuals or political parties or ideas. Cyberspace only offers a new way of doing this. So is there some kind of cyber-information battle going on between Washington and Moscow now? Perhaps. But, if so, it may be hard to prove and both sides may be happy - as in the past - for this to be fought without the information war ever being formally acknowledged.

Can Obama comment?

The US President has not yet made a public statement promising retribution for the apparent hack of an American intelligence agency.

And some believe he can't.

Mr Obama recently clarified how the United States would respond to a cyber attack, Mr Inkster noted.

"These set out criteria for determining how serious an incident is and, by extension, what retaliatory measures would be justified," he told the BBC.

"So to say this is an incident of a certain level of importance and we're confident the Russian state did it - that puts the United States in a position of, 'Well, what are you going to do about it?'"

Are members of the public at risk?

According to Mr Hypponen, the exploits released in the dump of hacking tools are not likely to implicate members of the public.

"There's a bit of an impact to companies using routers and firewalls," he noted, but end users would probably not have to take any action.

third linked article

Clinton campaign 'hacked' along with other Democratic groups

· 29 July 2016

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has been hacked as part of a larger cyber attack against Democratic Party institutions, US media report.

The latest hack follows two data breaches involving the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

US officials widely believe that the cyber attacks were committed by agents working for the Russian government.

Some fear that Russia may be trying to influence the presidential election.

The Russian government has denied involvement and denounced the "poisonous anti-Russian" rhetoric coming out of Washington.

The Clinton campaign said on Friday that an analytics data program, which it shared with other entities, had been accessed by hackers.

But, said her press secretary Nick Merrill, there was "no evidence that our internal systems have been compromised".

The FBI said it was investigating the allegations and the extent of any hacking.

Hacked emails from Democratic National Committee were leaked last week on the eve of the party's convention.

The emails showed Democratic Party officials were biased against Bernie Sanders in his primary race against Mrs Clinton.

The hack led to the resignation of the party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and sparked protests at the convention in Philadelphia .

In addition to the attack on the Clinton campaign, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), was also found to have been compromised.

The DCCC works to raise money for Democratic congressional candidates. They said in a statement early on Friday that they have hired cyber security firm CrowdStrike to help with the investigation.

Hackers may have been able to access the Democrats' political strategy documents as well as opposition research conducted against Republican candidates.

"We have taken and are continuing to take steps to enhance the security of our network," the DCCC said. "We are cooperating with federal law enforcement with respect to their ongoing investigation."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 8, 2016 5:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Whoever it was that attempted to break into voter registries and other aspects of the voting and vote-counting systems did the USA population tremendous favor. By causing the national and local officials to put a laser focus on cyber security, they made it much more difficult for anyone (like Hillary, ahem!) to steal the vote.

There is some indication that Hillary may have, in fact, stolen the primary election. Snopes, a favorite fact-checking website, provides some credence to the research:

Quote:
That social media share described the document as "a fantastic research piece put together by a couple of college students, Rodolfo Cortes Barragan & Axel Geijsel." That document (properly termed a "paper," not a "study," as the latter term implies some form of professional vetting) concluded with the statement that the data examined by its author "suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election" and that "this fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders"

Analysis: ?The [data] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. [voting patterns with and without a paper trail] States without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton than states with paper trails. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations, including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time.

http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exi
t-poll-discrepancies/

This is very similar to the issues that were raised in the 2000 Supreme Court selection of GWB, and the 2004 so-called "election" of GWB.

The former (2000) was centered on the "hanging chad" vote count in Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia Counties. In 2001, after the partial recount was stopped by the Supreme Court selecting GWB as President, a consortium of newspapers did a FULL STATEWIDE recount. They re-examined the vote count based on full punchouts, three corners detached, two corners, one corner, and a dimple and found the results didn't change based on how the hanging chads were counted, or not counted. What absolutely and positively threw the vote count to GORE (NOT BUSH) was a recount of the votes that were counted ELECTRONICALLY. The original vote mysteriously subtracted 16,000 votes from Gore and added 2,000 votes to Bush ... no small difference in an outcome determined by less than 1,000 votes. As demonstrated by the interest group Black Box Voting, there are all kinds of ways to electronically manipulate the vote count, and this problem is especially acute with systems which do not maintain and independent PAPER COUNT which allows the electronic vote to be audited.

The Democratic Party, for whatever reason, did not take the issue seriously and in 2004...

Evidence of a massive, six-state electronic vote manipulation was surfaced by university professors of statistics and mathematics who were examining the discrepancies between exit polls and vote counts.

Have you ever spoken to a statistician? I have. It's like listening to a weather forecaster: impossible for them to be definitive about almost anything, they will always talk probabilities.

In THIS particular case, however, the statisticians who worked on the study, with full knowledge of the historic error rates of both vote counts AND exit polls, noted the following

The unexpectedly large discrepancy between exit polls and vote counts only occurred in states where there was a significant amount of touchscreen electronic voting

The statistically significant differences only occurred in six "battleground" states. In other states, the exit polls were as accurate as usual

They produced a "swing" in the votes by as much as 9% - unheard-of in the history of exit polling

IF this were random error, the swing would have occurred in both directions, but in this case they always swung towards Bush.

The authors of the paper, academic statisticians who are almost never definitive about anything, had not problems calling this a case of FRAUD.

Quote:
In New Mexico in 2004 Kerry lost all precincts equipped with touchscreen machines, irrespective of income levels, ethnicity, and past voting patterns. The only thing that consistently correlated with his defeat in those precincts was the presence of the touchscreen machine itself. In Florida Bush registered inexplicably sharp jumps in his vote (compared to 2000) in counties that used touchscreen machines, including counties that had shown record increases in Democratic voter registration.

Quote:
According to Steven F. Freeman, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in research methodology, the odds against all three of those shifts occurring in concert are one in 660,000. ''As much as we can say in sound science that something is impossible,'' he says, ''it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote count in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error.'' (See The Tale of the Exit Polls)

Given that electronic vote-counting fraud may have happened in 2000, 2004, and in the Dem primary in 2016, any attempted hacking by a perceived hostile interest group will (hopefully) make ANY vote hacking less likely.

--------------
It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 8, 2016 9:06 AM

THGRRI

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
US accuses Russia of cyber attacks

Well ! This was certainly an interesting article. I’ve been following this particular topic ever since it came up, and I actually click on the links in the articles and go backwards to previous articles, then click on the links in those articles to go backward to previous articles … and so on … until I hit a dead end.

Of course you did comrade...

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 8, 2016 9:16 AM

THGRRI

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Whoever it was that attempted to break into voter registries and other aspects of the voting and vote-counting systems did the USA population tremendous favor.

Sorry SIG but this is about Russian hackers so I am not going to repost your subjective rant. And 1kiki's rant wow. Does she really expect us to read that shit past the first few lines. As if her research would uncover anything. No, our government called the Russians out on their hacking; simple.

SIG I am reposting only your refusal to back the United States by suggesting you don't know who the hacker was. Our government has called Russia out on not just this but war crimes in Syria as well.

Now the push back on Russia begins

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 9, 2016 12:13 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Thanks for the bump THUGGR!

As always, an idiot.

As always, useful.

In any case, I'm sure no one, except someone as tedious as I am, actually reads through entire articles, and then clicks on every link going backwards. But I find it useful, because I always want to see what, exactly, am I being sold. What DO they expect me to believe? And how low exactly do they rate my intelligence according to the 'swill' rating of what they present?

And also, having gone through multiple 'sources' over a long time, it makes my claims REALLY hard to refute. In this case, having read through MANY articles (this being but one example) and having tracked back through EVERY active link, I can state with confidence that there is - literally - no government evidence publicly available to back up its claims about Russian hacking.

But WAIT! there's more! More than that, I get to observe how gullible the overwhelming majority of people are, and how very, VERY little it takes to turn the attention of the slobbering masses in the direction of choice.

I think you all are god awful imbecilic for believing ANYthing the government says. And you do it with such imbecilic gusto, too!

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 9, 2016 8:39 AM

THGRRI

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Thanks for the bump THUGGR!

As always, an idiot.

As always, useful.

In any case, I'm sure no one, except someone as tedious as I am, actually reads through entire articles, and then clicks on every link going backwards. But I find it useful, because I always want to see what, exactly, am I being sold. What DO they expect me to believe? And how low exactly do they rate my intelligence according to the 'swill' rating of what they present?

And also, having gone through multiple 'sources' over a long time, it makes my claims REALLY hard to refute. In this case, having read through MANY articles (this being but one example) and having tracked back through EVERY active link, I can state with confidence that there is - literally - no government evidence publicly available to back up its claims about Russian hacking.

But WAIT! there's more! More than that, I get to observe how gullible the overwhelming majority of people are, and how very, VERY little it takes to turn the attention of the slobbering masses in the direction of choice.

I think you all are god awful imbecilic for believing ANYthing the government says. And you do it with such imbecilic gusto, too!

Chances are, you've encountered a narcissist. You know, that someone who somehow manages to revert every topic of conversation back to herself. Easy to see from this latest post you do think very highly of yourself.

Yep 1kiki the troll who posts in these threads can tell from newspapaer articles past and present that Russia is not the hacker. And further that my government is misleading me. Sounds more like something the Russian government would do. Don't you agree comrade?

And thanks to you and SIG for creating many threads for us to discuss this. It's obvious that once a thread has many posts showing you and SIG to be liars and asses, you run from that thread and create a new one. Not to worry, we can start again comrade.

United States government accuses Russian government of hacking the DNC and Syrian war crimes. There ya go 1kiki; lets begin.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 9, 2016 10:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Chances are, you've encountered a narcissist. You know, that someone who somehow manages to revert every topic of conversation back to herself. Easy to see from this latest post you do think very highly of yourself.

No, son, it's just that we think very little of people like you.

"Don't confuse your ignorance for my intelligence"

Here's the sad, pathetic part that is you: KIKI just gave you a procedure by which YOU can elevate yourself from the mass of reactive, emotional sheeple in which you seem to belong. It's simple. Look for EVIDENCE. Not allegations, not accusations, but EVIDENCE. If there is no evidence, you can eliminate the accusation at first glance.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 9, 2016 1:25 PM

THGRRI

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Chances are, you've encountered a narcissist. You know, that someone who somehow manages to revert every topic of conversation back to herself. Easy to see from this latest post you do think very highly of yourself.

No, son, it's just that we think very little of people like you.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 9, 2016 7:10 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Yep 1kiki the troll who posts in these threads can tell from newspapaer articles past and present that Russia is not the hacker.

Strange, that's not what I posted. I'd almost think the person who posted that has such a poor grasp on English that they can't understand it at even the simplest level.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE