Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 18

byebye Merkel ?

The way the acts of terror are made those past 2 years show a very well made structure of the organizations. They are timing multiple attacks in different cities together. Western Europe is basically at war without a front. We re fine in Eastern Europe nobody cares enough for us to organize an act of terror plus the media coverage wouldn't be fulfilling their purposes. The thing is Germany was still staying on the sides as there was no display of such violence up to now locally, things will change now.

Spitfiree
We're told that Russia is looking to expand and take back the old USSR/Russian Federation

meaning, Putin plans on taking back Ukraine and the Balkan countries . Are you worried about Russian expansion?
What are your thoughts on the Crimea take over?

On December 20 2016 06:37 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On December 20 2016 06:00 uiCk wrote:   On December 20 2016 04:08 Baalim wrote:   On December 16 2016 17:17 uiCk wrote: No matter what, if you think Russia or any other powerful state doesn't interfere and try to politically destabilize other nations, you live in denial. I dont think anyone doubts that Russia could or would be willing to do so, its simply that we dont know what happened, there isnt any evidence provided and we should take the unoficcial word of the fucking CIA? come on. Also I think its ridiculously hypocritical to complain of such a thing when the current administration spied their own citizens and even allies from NATO with the NSA and is currently persecuting Edward Snowden, so is the US against or for international hacking and espionage? From what I understood, it's not only the CIA , but all security agencies plus private ones. I mean , they got away with saying Iraq having WMDs, so this might be a "similar" scenario, although I don't see how this is a built up lie for any plan in particular. The cyber wars have been going hard for years now between nations, allies or not, and will keep going, no matter if public is aware of it or not, don't think it makes any difference. I also don't really see this complaing, that's odd way to look at this. Unless you are talking about Hillary and here band of supporters?   On December 18 2016 09:27 Loco wrote: 4th language? Holy fuck, you're an impressive bastard. Thanks, but not by choice actually its not even a official statement from the CIA, the ex-director came out and said it, the FBI also contradicted the CIA findings and 7 others intelligence agencies also refute the russian hack claims, and in the end all this doesnt matter if there is no evidence nor third party verification like Wikileaks offered to do (and nobody has shared any information with them). Also wikileaks shows emails saying that Podesta fell for an email phishing and thats how the hack happened, no Russians. You dont see how this could be a lie? The current administration has been very hostile towards Russia and negative public perception of Putin and Russia is clearly in their interests. I am not saying the Russians did it or not, but claiming they did because the ex-CIA director and people in the white house said so is retarded

Dunno, you going to have to source me, since I seem to only stumble upon statements like:

FBI director James Comey has signed on to a previously reported CIA assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin directly intervened in the US presidential election in aid of Donald Trump, according to an internal CIA memo obtained by the Associated Press and Washington Post. The report has also been endorsed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, giving it the unanimous support of US intelligence agencies.

The positions of Comey and Clapper were revealed in a message that CIA Director John Brennan sent to the agency’s workforce Friday. “Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” Brennan said, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message.

The verge/Washington post

The US government has been hostile towards Russia for a reason. They are overtaking land by FORCE, anti Russian sentiment has always been strong except the few oddballs like Trump and that guy who does business with Russia that has a top post under trump.

Again, I don't see the purpose of making this up

Also lol @ CIA using WikiLeaks for proofreading. That has to be a joke.

German intelligence claims it wasnt the russians, it was an internal thing: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/in...e-im-bundestag-vermutet-14579135.html

Julian Assange says they didnt get the information from Russia: http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/12/15...aks-our-source-not-russian-government


why the media takes the CIA reports at face value: https://www.thenation.com/article/why...he-cias-hacking-claims-at-face-value/

The Mop-up source for the hackings: https://theintercept.com/2014/09/04/f...rter-cleared-stories-cia-publication/

6 US intelligence vets oppose the CIA russia hack claims: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12...l-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You think the US is hostile towards Russia because they take land by force? are you fucking serious? do you think the US government truly gives two shits about Crimea? give me a break they obviously take that stance as a political move in the constant struggle for power.

If you dont see the gains for the current administration to paint Putin as a villain meddling with the US election I dont know what to say to you to be honest.


And obviously the CIA wont use wikileaks as proofreading, yet wikileaks offered and there isnt any evidence presented to the public about the CIA claims, so basically the CIA is saying "Russians did it, trust us", its not like they have sent the US to a 20 yeard war with Iraq on faulty information or something like that before right?.




The point is, you dont know if the Russians did it, neither do it, no evidence has been presented to us, and to trust the word of your government on such a subject is dumb.

On December 20 2016 18:45 sniderstyle wrote: Spitfiree We're told that Russia is looking to expand and take back the old USSR/Russian Federation meaning, Putin plans on taking back Ukraine and the Balkan countries . Are you worried about Russian expansion? What are your thoughts on the Crimea take over?

Balkans have the main place of geopolitical clashes since their existence. Rome, Byzantia, Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire etc... If the propaganda means by physically changing borders, then thats absurd to say the least. The only reason Russia took Crimea is because they lacked a place to build their fleet, which has been on going since day 1 of the invasion by the way. Since WW2 the only thing Russia wanted is for NATO to not expand in a way that threatens Russia, NATO has constantly been giving promises to not do so and has repeatedly broken those promises. Don't get me wrong, I think both sides are wrong.

If the propaganda means by political influence, then they've been about 150 years late. My country follows the interests of Russia,EU,Turkey and the USA on different levels. The moment Russia took Crimea, USA imported all kinds of military gear including tanks and anti air missles and put them on the northern side of the Black Sea. The media here covered it as a standard drill. It wasn't.

When coup attempt happend in Turkey, they arrested a bunch of people here and instantly deported them to Turkey going against any internal or international law that our country has, without any proof of any sort. The level of absurdness is so high its not even possible to describe in words, you have to feel it.

Russia's influence here however has been on the downhill for quite some time now. We elected a supposedly "pro-russian" president. Even the western media covered it as Russia establishing its roots again. What they failed to cover was that the guy was the only other alternative as the 2nd most favorable candidate was a braindead communistic piece of shit woman. Even if she did not have a long history of a communist, I'd still prefer to elect a high schooler over her. Literally, I'm not even exaggerating, she s that fucking dumb. Also the supposed "pro-russian" candidate has 2 military specializations in Maxwell, Alabama, which from my understanding is one of the most prestige military academies in the world. Anyway our president doesn't even have any power. His main role is diplomatic, he can only gain control in a state of war.

I think we're one of the safest places on the planet. Sure countries fight over us politically, but they wouldn't wage war here as we're no longer the periphery and terrorist organizations don't give a fuck about us to actually do a thing here. In a global media exposure way we're insignificant and that has its advantages.



@Baal

Don't get me wrong and I'm 100% with you here, but don't post fox news as a source defending this stand point. It's well known that they are behind Trump so their credibility is really low. I'm guessing there are alternative links about the same thing. It's a minor mistake, but just had to point it out.

@ Dude that said "bye bye Merkel? "

You don't realize how strong Merkel's positions are, do you? This act of terror just slightly brought up the question of whether or not there is the slight chance she could lose the vote for her 4th consequtive mandate.

On December 20 2016 20:33 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On December 20 2016 18:45 sniderstyle wrote: Spitfiree We're told that Russia is looking to expand and take back the old USSR/Russian Federation meaning, Putin plans on taking back Ukraine and the Balkan countries . Are you worried about Russian expansion? What are your thoughts on the Crimea take over? Balkans have the main place of geopolitical clashes since their existence. Rome, Byzantia, Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire etc... If the propaganda means by physically changing borders, then thats absurd to say the least. The only reason Russia took Crimea is because they lacked a place to build their fleet,

That's not exactly the full story. They probably feared that the new government post-Maidan wouldn't renew their lease for the naval base in Sevastopol, but the Russian navy was already operating a naval base there since forever.

Also, it's odd how most major media and maybe most people unfamiliar with Ukraine dance around the fact that Crimea has been voting in a supermajority to leave Ukraine almost bi-annually since 1991. The Ukrainian parliament would always make concessions short of full independence. The fact that Crimeans are 90%+ ethnically and culturally Russian is never really brought up as a talking point.

Politics aside, the vast majority of Crimeans are happier currently than they were under Ukraine, which makes the entire thing a lot more interesting and controversial I suppose.

Simple image to give people a better idea

its important that you mention the missile shield that US put in the border of Russia, the US have done shit like that for decades, in the Kennedy administration they nearly caused an apocalyptic nuclear war because of it, the world can thank Khrushchev for having the sense of backing down to the absolutely irresponsible and maniacal US actions.

History writers and movies paint russia as these bellicose stubborn overly-manly state, however they have had the prudence and ate all the shit the United States irresponsibly has given them, to be honest I am surprised by how much they can take and not go apeshit, if the roles were opposed I am certain the US would have started a war.


And before some idiot thinks I am some pro-russia communist or US hater, I lean economically hard to the right, and despise anything resembling socialism and I am aware that Putin is a very dangerous and corrupt man.

On December 20 2016 20:32 Baalim wrote: German intelligence claims it wasnt the russians, it was an internal thing: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/in...e-im-bundestag-vermutet-14579135.html Julian Assange says they didnt get the information from Russia: http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/12/15...aks-our-source-not-russian-government why the media takes the CIA reports at face value: https://www.thenation.com/article/why...he-cias-hacking-claims-at-face-value/ The Mop-up source for the hackings: https://theintercept.com/2014/09/04/f...rter-cleared-stories-cia-publication/ 6 US intelligence vets oppose the CIA russia hack claims: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12...l-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You think the US is hostile towards Russia because they take land by force? are you fucking serious? do you think the US government truly gives two shits about Crimea? give me a break they obviously take that stance as a political move in the constant struggle for power. If you dont see the gains for the current administration to paint Putin as a villain meddling with the US election I dont know what to say to you to be honest. And obviously the CIA wont use wikileaks as proofreading, yet wikileaks offered and there isnt any evidence presented to the public about the CIA claims, so basically the CIA is saying "Russians did it, trust us", its not like they have sent the US to a 20 yeard war with Iraq on faulty information or something like that before right?. The point is, you dont know if the Russians did it, neither do it, no evidence has been presented to us, and to trust the word of your government on such a subject is dumb.

well you did mentioned that it was ex CIA and that FBI was contradicting the findings. which still remains false, despite your sources. am not interested in specific hacks, more so, as stated clearly before, is that russia is disrupting political processes for chaos and whatever plan putin has in his deranged mind.

what exactly is the gain here by the US gov? im stupid, educate me. i understand that iraq war had direct benefits for given individuals, corporations and army in general. they had to sell a war.
are you suggesting the US is preparing some kind of physical war with russia? (they dont need to sell a cyberwar, since thats been happening for long time and will only escalate further, due to advancements in tech) why would they need to go against a nation that they have avoided direct conflict with for past 70 years? there are tons of places the army can use to continue growing its military complex.

and you have a wierd fixation with trust. i have no idea what that has to do with anything. its not like im quoting random opinions, i try to look for data within the media to make my own opinion. most of the sources you linked seem to be heavly opinionated, and had hard time finding anything substantial that i wasnt already aware of. im capable of changing my view on things, trust has little to do with my reasoning. feels like you have a general mistrust, which i would change for skepticism IMO, since trust and mistrust are relatively the same thing.

Found this:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-an-e...ed-into-an-indisputable-truth/5563458
Feels like your stance is common. Common between conspiracy theorists that is.

On December 20 2016 21:49 uiCk wrote: well you did mentioned that it was ex CIA and that FBI was contradicting the findings. which still remains false, despite your sources. am not interested in specific hacks, more so, as stated clearly before, is that russia is disrupting political processes for chaos and whatever plan putin has in his deranged mind.

It is not false, the FBI initially refuted the ex-director of the CIA claiming Russia hacks, now they changed their story -This is where you ask for my sources, and then say "despise your sources" when I give them -

So you are not interested in the Podesta hacks?, that is the whole issue here, if what worries you is Russian espionage then you are right, there is obviously espionage going on, probably dwarfed by the NSA, and the biggest distrupter of political processes is the US, it has been their MO in the middle east for 30 years.

what exactly is the gain here by the US gov? im stupid, educate me. i understand that iraq war had direct benefits for given individuals, corporations and army in general. they had to sell a war. are you suggesting the US is preparing some kind of physical war with russia? (they dont need to sell a cyberwar, since thats been happening for long time and will only escalate further, due to advancements in tech) why would they need to go against a nation that they have avoided direct conflict with for past 70 years? there are tons of places the army can use to continue growing its military complex.

No I dont think they are pursuing actual war, that is silly, they have been pursuing control of the Balcans and the middle east since the end of the cold war, thats the reason why the US armed the Muhadjeens in Afghanistan and why they are arming Islamists in Syria now and Russia is bombing the shit out of them, it has nothing to do with the military industrial complex, its a geopolitical play.

and you have a wierd fixation with trust. i have no idea what that has to do with anything. its not like im quoting random opinions, i try to look for data within the media to make my own opinion. most of the sources you linked seem to be heavly opinionated, and had hard time finding anything substantial that i wasnt already aware of. im capable of changing my view on things, trust has little to do with my reasoning. feels like you have a general mistrust, which i would change for skepticism IMO, since trust and mistrust are relatively the same thing.

Of course I mistrust government, everyone should, and when the CIA tells me X happened, withholding the evidence and that happens to help their political position when there are sources contradicting I think the smart position would be skepticism.

Found this: http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-an-e...ed-into-an-indisputable-truth/5563458 Feels like your stance is common. Common between conspiracy theorists that is.

because If I dont take the CIA's word on something and I claim that "I DONT KNOW" I am an conspiracy theorist

CIA should not be trusted until proven otherwise anyway. I don't see a single reason to trust an institution that has a history of fabricating evidence, using propaganda and changing regimes and thats only the obvious stuff the masses get to see. One could only wonder about the shit they are doing on a daily basis.

Skepticism =/= mistrust, which was point I tried to make mistrust comes from a position of "they always lie" , while skepticism is more about rationally defining things , despite prior "trust" or "mistrust".

I'm not calling you a conspiracy theorist, I'm just linking your stance to conspiracy theories mindframe, as in, rationalizing a given situation with mistrust and basically forming your opinion on set idea (gov lies). And given where you live, mistrust in gouvernement is understandable.

Also no I'm not interested in debating any given hack , given our info on specifics is close to nill, and all this chatter was because you refuted me with a false claim: that the intelligence community is not unanimously behind the allegations, which they are.

Again, how does this 'lie" benefit the gov or some players? What's the purpose? (Besides geopolitical games that are going to be played out no matter what)

Agreed with Baal, do not trust the CIA. Bunch of liars, they will do whatever it takes to complete their adgenda. Look at Iraq they didn't have wmd but CIA bullshit to invade that country.

#t=34.962047

On December 20 2016 23:32 uiCk wrote: Again, how does this 'lie" benefit the gov or some players? What's the purpose? (Besides geopolitical games that are going to be played out no matter what)

What do you mean besides geopolitical games? You try to make it look as if this is something super minor, while its everything that matters in foreign policy. The purposes of such lie are obvious. First you spread propaganda through the nation, you make Russia look like an enemy. That unites people, meanwhile it also undermines Trump's authority as he acknowledges Russia as a possible ally and we know which political party runs those organizations now. It's the last struggling attempt of democrats to retain control of any sort.

Meanwhile Russia has been expanding their actions in the Middle East, now considering the US is the one that arms the terrorists against Assad and people are sick and tired of their country constantly bringing " Freedom" to other nations, the USA needs a really strong propaganda to justify any potential action they might take in the region.

It doesnt matter how many organizations are unanimous about Russia influencing the elections, if none of them give solid proof. Cmon thats how governments have been getting away with stuff. The normal follow up isnt " Why would they lie ", the normal follow up is give us evidence or fuck off. There are thousands of reasons for people in power to lie to its population.

There is a reason why people like me and Baal are skeptical to that extent. It's not like I woke up one day and decided to not trust any governments. Almost any foreign decision the USA makes is in a way to put themselves ahead in some sort of way geopolitically

Q: Mr. President, your comments about the truck attack in Berlin being against Christians, do you think that this might…;A: Say it again?; Q: The attack in Berlin being an attack against Christians? A: Who said that? Q: I believe you said it in a press release.

On December 21 2016 09:56 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On December 20 2016 23:32 uiCk wrote: Again, how does this 'lie" benefit the gov or some players? What's the purpose? (Besides geopolitical games that are going to be played out no matter what) What do you mean besides geopolitical games? You try to make it look as if this is something super minor, while its everything that matters in foreign policy. The purposes of such lie are obvious. First you spread propaganda through the nation, you make Russia look like an enemy. That unites people, meanwhile it also undermines Trump's authority as he acknowledges Russia as a possible ally and we know which political party runs those organizations now. It's the last struggling attempt of democrats to retain control of any sort. Meanwhile Russia has been expanding their actions in the Middle East, now considering the US is the one that arms the terrorists against Assad and people are sick and tired of their country constantly bringing " Freedom" to other nations, the USA needs a really strong propaganda to justify any potential action they might take in the region. It doesnt matter how many organizations are unanimous about Russia influencing the elections, if none of them give solid proof. Cmon thats how governments have been getting away with stuff. The normal follow up isnt " Why would they lie ", the normal follow up is give us evidence or fuck off. There are thousands of reasons for people in power to lie to its population. There is a reason why people like me and Baal are skeptical to that extent. It's not like I woke up one day and decided to not trust any governments. Almost any foreign decision the USA makes is in a way to put themselves ahead in some sort of way geopolitically

I see you've been played hard. "Political parties" are run by the ones in power ($$$), not the other way around. It's kinda cute you think your being skeptical.

.... How is this relevant in any way ? And you do realize things are not THAT simple... right?

Why the fuck is this front page of the big black cock news service?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38395185

Guy is a fake youtube clickbait faggot last week he 'travelled in his suitcase to a different country'. Meanwhile they are blaming the terrorist attack on the fucking truck itself.


People get thrown of planes for being loud and obnoxious all the time. Fuck this gay earth.

On December 21 2016 23:12 Spitfiree wrote: .... How is this relevant in any way ? And you do realize things are not THAT simple... right?

You mean as simple as the Democratic party controlling the CIA, NSA and FBI, right?


And yes it is that simple, wealth and welathy people control Policy and use Political parties to control policy. It's always been like that and always will be like that, until the masses control the wealth.