CIA Prepping For Possible Cyber Strike Against Russia (nbcnews.com) 352
Slashdot reader schwit1 reports that the Obama administration "is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election," according to U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to NBC News:
Current and former officials with direct knowledge of the situation say the CIA has been asked to deliver options to the White House for a wide-ranging "clandestine" cyber operation designed to harass and "embarrass" the Kremlin leadership. The sources did not elaborate on the exact measures the CIA was considering, but said the agency had already begun opening cyber doors, selecting targets and making other preparations for an operation. Former intelligence officers told NBC News that the agency had gathered reams of documents that could expose unsavory tactics by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Vice President Joe Biden told "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd on Friday that "we're sending a message" to Putin and that "it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact." When asked if the American public will know a message was sent, the vice president replied, "Hope not."
Not mounting a response would weaken U.S. credibility, one senior U.S. official said, while others said hundreds of millions of dollars has been allocated to the team mounting the attacks. Thursday US officials familiar with the investigation told CNN there was "mounting evidence" that Russia was supplying leaked emails to WikiLeaks, and last week in a conference call organized by the Clinton campaign, former Acting CIA Director Mike Morrell said it was "absolutely clear... WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2 are working with the Russians on this."
Vice President Joe Biden told "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd on Friday that "we're sending a message" to Putin and that "it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact." When asked if the American public will know a message was sent, the vice president replied, "Hope not."
Not mounting a response would weaken U.S. credibility, one senior U.S. official said, while others said hundreds of millions of dollars has been allocated to the team mounting the attacks. Thursday US officials familiar with the investigation told CNN there was "mounting evidence" that Russia was supplying leaked emails to WikiLeaks, and last week in a conference call organized by the Clinton campaign, former Acting CIA Director Mike Morrell said it was "absolutely clear... WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2 are working with the Russians on this."
For them theoretically hacking a private org? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
How do you know the allegations are completely unproven?
Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Russian hacks of the state election systems were not announced by "anonymous sources". They came directly from the FBI, as well as election officials in Arizona (red state) and Illinois (blue state). Oh, and Florida (red state).
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/... [cnn.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? (Score:4, Insightful)
No one wants to read links that lead to propaganda organizations writing articles about corrupt 3 letter organizations.
Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? (Score:4, Insightful)
WaPo, The Clinton News Network, and theguardian.com are not reliable sources of information when the DNC is involved any more than RT is trustworthy when Putin is in the news.
Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? (Score:4, Interesting)
"IP addresses listed" and near the end its " “not aware of any specific or credible cybersecurity threats relating to the upcoming general election systems,”"
CNN notes:
"We have seen no access into statewide registration database and no manipulation of that database." and "FBI investigators believe the the hacks and attempted intrusions of state election sites were carried out by hackers working for Russian intelligence."
The Guardian has
"in calling out what it says is Russian-directed hacking."
So its back to ip ranges a "calling out" and a 'believe"?
Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? (Score:5, Insightful)
Make up your mind. Is the US government an all-seeing intrusive eye that's hoovering up every bit of our data on the internet or are they unable to figure out that Russians are behind the hacks? It's unlikely that both conditions are true.
If Putin will kill a critic with polonium, imprison three young girls for making fun of him and enact legislation making being gay a crime, do you really doubt that he'd take the relatively low-cost step of trying to help out his pal and debtor Donald become president? Especially if he can gin up a new cold war to distract his subjects from the Russian economy which is in free fall?
Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? (Score:5, Funny)
So benevolent Putin put them in jail for their own good?
In Soviet Russia, sex-offender votes for you.
Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? (Score:4, Interesting)
You might as well start calling her "President Clinton", so you can get used to it. Call it aversion therapy.
http://projects.fivethirtyeigh... [fivethirtyeight.com]
And just so you can get the bad news from conservative sites, too:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c... [realclearpolitics.com]
https://electionbettingodds.co... [electionbettingodds.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Russian hacks of the state election systems were not announced by "anonymous sources". They came directly from the FBI, as well as election officials in Arizona (red state) and Illinois (blue state). Oh, and Florida (red state).
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/... [cnn.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
Remember tho' - these Einsteins believe that the FBI is in on the Fix, cuz you know, they didn't put Grandma in a pantssuit in front of a firing squad.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be that same FBI that didn't think Hillary Clinton did do anything worth bringing charges over? That FBI?
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that we don't know the truth in this matter, beyond Vlad Putin's desire to fuck with the US and see Trump elected.
My argument was that the information about the Russian hacks was not coming from "anonymous sources", but from state and federal officials on both sides of the
Further (Score:5, Insightful)
The claim defies history and basic reasoning. Wikileaks gained notoriety by publishing a shit-ton of information from a US Soldier fed up with the system. The Guardian (now looks like a leftist rag) gained notoriety by publishing a shit-ton of information from a NSA contractor fed up with the system. Obama has jailed a record 31 Whistle blowers during his term so far, and wanted a 32nd in jail who fled to Russia. They also want Assange in jail or dead. Make it 33.
The DNC leak is thought to be attributed to the person killed in the Robbery where nothing was Stolen. We have countless people working in Federal law enforcement fed up with the system who are forced to leak information for fear of being jailed or worse. The damages from these dumps are not anti-America, they are anti-corrupt politician. Russian gains nothing from seeing Hillary lie, they probably laugh and think "just like us".
Write your Congress and Senate representatives and demand a halt to any action. It could be blowing smoke, but given the massive amount of visible corruption I'm not so sure. I sure as hell don't trust Obama or Clinton who have on numerous occasions stated that they want to censor web sites "they" find unfavorable. Consider that the US is currently bombing Yemen without any public inspection of policy and media refuses to talk about it. They are way too busy fabricating false victims to smear Trump to talk about the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The DNC leak is thought to be attributed to the person killed in the Robbery where nothing was Stolen.
Only by people who are desperately trying to deny Russia's role.
First he wasn't that important a figure, there's no reason to think he would have had access to all of the docs that were leaked.
Second a fatal mugging where nothing is stolen actually makes a lot of sense. Mugger comes up, victim decides to make a run for it, the mugger panics, shoots, and runs like hell because running away from a murder rap is more important than grabbing a wallet.
Third, he was conscious and breathing when he was found [snopes.com]. So y
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
Troll (Score:2)
I did not make a single mention of Hillary killing anyone. I eluded to a strange murder related to the DNC leaks to discredit the allegation that Russia is responsible.
Go take your medication and leave the sane people alone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because we've yet to be shown a single shred of evidence to back up the claim. Statements by 'anonymous government sources' don't count.
Perhaps you might tell us why this is the case? Seriously - you figeu=re intel is going to give us IP addresses, phone numbers and all? Or are you an alt.right person who wouldn't believe any evidence anyhow.
Here's your cohort where I confirm your alt.right street cred. http://www.chicagotribune.com/... [chicagotribune.com]
You might try for a position on old pussy grabber's staff, after he is elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? (Score:5, Insightful)
If no evidence is forthcoming, then your claim is baseless. We owe it to ourselves to demand proof before stirring the pudding. Especially after Iraq.
How soon we forget.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're claiming that evidence exists, then the burden of proof falls on you. If no evidence is forthcoming, then your claim is baseless. We owe it to ourselves to demand proof before stirring the pudding. Especially after Iraq. How soon we forget.
After all we all have the credentials to access that sort of thing. If Dubya were still in office would you accept his pronouncement as teh truth? Or how about Trump, the Candidate of the GOP - otherwise known as the Grab Our Pussy party?
Good call! (Score:2)
NBC and Joe Biden are absolutely the worst type of Trolls. SJWs unite and take them down!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if they are proven..... really shitty behavior, some of it even criminal, was exposed that we as voters certainly have a right to know about. How dare they expose deep-rooted corruption! As far as I'm concerned, I'd stop short of thanking the Russians.
As far as Russia influencing the election.... exactly how many governments have we toppled and how many sovereign nations are there where we have tried to directly influence their local politics? This is pure hypocrisy. Personally, I say let's get the
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they are proven..... really shitty behavior, some of it even criminal, was exposed that we as voters certainly have a right to know about. How dare they expose deep-rooted corruption!
But how do you even know that supposedly-criminal behavior actually happened?
Oh, maybe because our government is launching a cyber war against Russia. This action is pretty much admitting all of it is true.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they are proven..... really shitty behavior, some of it even criminal, was exposed that we as voters certainly have a right to know about. How dare they expose deep-rooted corruption!
You figure a pogram would be good? Extraordinary rendition on every one of your political enemies, the rel thing, non if this wiimpy waterboarding. Beat 'em within an inch of their lives first, then take dying statements and all evil will be banished form the world if only we realize that th eends justify the means.
Dood! Here's a good question.
All of the shit coming out has been about those Demoncrats.
Given your anything is good, legal or not outlook, did you ever wonder why it's only the democrat
Re: (Score:2)
Trump does a good enough job on his own to prove he's unfit. Hillary is much more effective in the silencing criticism and in the suppressing evidence department.
Voting for either of those clowns is insane.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump does a good enough job on his own to prove he's unfit. Hillary is much more effective in the silencing criticism and in the suppressing evidence department.
Voting for either of those clowns is insane.
Yeah, she's killed 52 people now, not to mention th eones Bill had killed over his career.
Vote Cthlulu - why settle for the lesser of evils?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling people who want proof "trolls" is the oldest trick in the book. It's the sign of a completely unsupportable position.
We're talking about an act of war against a nuclear state that can actually attack us on our home soil if they so choose. If an American citizen doesn't want to see at least some evidence of WHY we're committing an act of war against that state, then they're an idiot.
And "The government said so" is not the same as proof. That's like saying "My favorite politician is honest!".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Calling people who want proof "trolls" is the oldest trick in the book. It's the sign of a completely unsupportable position.
Troll or not, not many people who disbelieve it will not accept any proof. Certainly the beneficiary of the hacks, Donald Trump, refused to believe na actual intel breifing on the subject. He says: "I don't think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?" During the second presidential debate he declared: "Maybe there is no
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary was trumpeting "But Russia!" the day of the leak, before any investigation could possibly have taken place.
To use your police analogy, sure, maybe Russia can benefit -- and that gives us motive. In police terms, that's enough to possibly get a search warrant (a bit thin, really), but not to arrest you or throw you in jail, let alone convict you of a criminal offense.
Right now it's going something like this:
Hillary: "Hey, Joe Bob can benefit from stealing my car, he must've done it!"
Me: "But where's your proof that Joe Bob actually stole your car?"
Hillary: "Joe Bob did it!"
Me: "Where was Joe Bob on the day your car was stolen?"
Hillary: "Joe Bob!"
Newspapers: "Joe Bob! Joe Bob! Joe Bob!"
Citizens: "Joe Bob! Joe Bob! Joe Bob!"
Meanwhile, Joe Bob is a few thousand miles away vacationing in Hawaii, where he's been this whole time, and Hillary's car is actually in her neighbor's garage, and they're letting people come look at it. They moved it there because she forgot to lock it, and they don't like her, so they want the public to see the deplorable state she's kept it in.
And to the other poster on this, yeah, this is not a partisan issue. This is a "someone is trying to put us on a collision course with Russia" issue. If they're going to do that, they damn well need to provide evidence that Russia is the bad actor here. Motive is not even remotely close to evidence. I've not seen anything that lends even the slightest bit of credibility to the claim.
That someone can, or might want to does not in any way mean that they did.
Don't vote for the Underwoods (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what you get when you elect people who see the federal government as their personal army. And yet that s nothing compared to what would happen under Clnton.
Yeah, let's all get our panties in a bunch over the buffoon and his crude behavior and lack of class, meanwhile the spawn of Satan is getting ready to go back to the White House to monetize the presidency again. Who cares if American lives are lost in the process, as long as it's not her princess she doesn't care. There's already a trail of corpses behind that couple that makes Gacy look like Mother Teresa.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Welcome to Slashdot, where unhinged ranting is modded insightful.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to Slashdot, where unhinged ranting is modded insightful.
Show me then a single word in lucm's post that is wrong. Trump is a crude buffoon but he's calling for avoiding wars while the Lying Bitch has already caused one or, stretching it a bit, two, without even being president yet. Yes, she rather than Obama. And there's far more damage than mere wars she's about to cause.
And, as someone who used to be a Satan worshipper (as a dumb teenager...), I strenuously object to naming the witch[1] a "spawn of Satan". In my country it's a crime to "insult religious fee
Re: (Score:2)
She's worse than Putin, she's Lennart Poettering level of badness.
Oh, come on now. I mean, I don't like her either, but nobody is that bad.
Re:You've outed yourself as a crazy Hillary-hater (Score:4, Insightful)
There are rational reasons for hating Clinton. The ties to Wall Street are the ones that matter for me. (Well, in addition to being a lizard person--I'm a mammal supremacist and speciest towards lizard people.)
Whether it's because of a deep-seeded hatred for women (did your mommy not hug you enough?), or just maybe the sight of a powerful woman is a trigger for your micro-phallyic self-loathing
Woah, there! You're dangerously close to asserting that anybody who dislikes Clinton a.) is male b.) suffers from a medical condition [wikipedia.org] (warning: penis!) c.) for some reason hates women because of that medical condition. A guy I knew who said he suffered from that would indicate that he was perfectly capable of pleasuring a woman in other ways. I forget why it even came up. Probably lots of alcohol.
What would you say to a woman who isn't voting for Clinton? Or is that unpossible in your mind? What about Stein voters? Are they also all sexually inadequate men? Are Stein voters sexists now too?
I was encouraged that the media did not go down the macho white knight rabbit hole you just went down. Does bigoted shit like that get you all the Hunnies? No? Yes? Good for you.
Protip: there's still a chance I might vote for Clinton. But please be my guest and fly off the handle and post something equally bigoted in response to this comment that will completely turn me off to the idea. Obviously I must be a Trump supporter. Because how dare I question the Lizard Queen?!
Disclaimer: No, I've never had a girlfriend. I made out with a girl once while drunk. I can confirm that I am not attracted to women no matter how much you want to pretend I am in your response. I have no problem getting boyfriends. Some of us don't view women as sexual objects or define our lives in terms of creeping on women and popping cherries. I know that's a radical concept to a white knight like you.
Re: (Score:2)
I really do think part of the House of Cards added items from Clintons in re-making the British show.
Please don't lead us into war! (Score:3, Insightful)
Word on the street is that it's a war started specifically to win the election, to whip up some patriotism for the ruling party.
Specifically, it's noted that if we actually wanted to do this, then we would not advertise it ahead of time [twitter.com] (scroll down a few entries).
We did a similar thing in Syria the last couple of days by announcing an attack, then filming the attack.
Obama you're a lame-duck president, you've done almost nothing in 8 years, and please don't get us into WWIII before you leave!. Please PLEASE
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Word on the street is that it's a war started specifically to win the election, to whip up some patriotism for the ruling party.
And by the street do you mean Fox News and Drudge Report?
Re: (Score:2)
Also: Are you unaware that it's not just "a private organization" that has been attacked? CBS just now reported that 32 states have asked to feds for help against attacks on their election infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Completely agree.
A democratic president using the CIA to attack speech and actions against his political party. You might not like it but our political leaders and political issues affect other nations around the world. They may not get to vote but I see no reason they shouldn't be able to sway voters. Especially with something like truth and exposing hypocrisy. Our CIA has been swaying foreign elections since it's creation.
Our political leaders are all for violating our privacy and constitutional rights ye
Re: (Score:2)
What I find interesting is none of the exposed information is claimed to be falsified.
Nonsense. The default position of the Clinton campaign is that none of these documents can be trusted to be authentic. That assertion hasn't survived contact with reality, however.
Re: (Score:2)
This is pure insanity.
This is pure show for the benefit of those drooling fools known as my fellow Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
my fellow Americans.
Excellent movie, IMHO.
Re:For them theoretically hacking a private org? (Score:5, Funny)
We're really escalating toward what could become war over completely unproven allegations that Russia hacked a...
Well on the bright side, a nuclear winter would offset global warming. Unless of course that's a Chinese hoax.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ""two or more connected tools/tactics to attack a specific target similar to the chess strategy"
Re: (Score:2)
But timezones match working hours, ip ranges and easy to discover code litter.
All of which are dead easy to fake if you're doing a false-flag operation, and should be at least obfuscated as a part of normal operational security.
Unless, of course, that's what they want you to think. (So clearly, I cannot choose the cup in front of you.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
There is zero proof that the Russian government hacked the DNC. Zippo.
What this is, is a president desperately trying to stay true to his promise to not put more boots on the ground. (Commendably). But also keep favor with the war-party heading into an election where the Democrats are traditionally unloved. (Not so commendably).
But... The war-party knows only too well that this is a trap: A back-door into starting the war they've been dreaming about for decades.
Re: (Score:3)
It's unproven until someone proves it, that's how it's unproven. Jeez! Think much?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"The FBI, and the election officials in Arizona (R), Illinois (D) and Florida (R) could all be lying!
It's not proven until Breitbart, SputnikINT and RT.com say it is."
Re: (Score:2)
So can you link me to the proof then, you bloodthirsty warmongering faggot?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
There is no proof that would satisfy you because it does not fit your agenda.
http://www.bbc.com/news/techno... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You don't say?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
we certainly believe
Now that is what I call evidence. They are pretty sure so it must be true. Glad we have that all cleared up. I don't have a horse in this race, but these arguments are ridiculous. If the government wants to release actual evidence they can, but until or unless they do there is no evidence. Just because the government claims something doesn't make it true. And they don't have to be lying. They could just be mistaken.
Re: (Score:2)
So can you link me to the proof then, you bloodthirsty warmongering faggot?
My my, are you the projecting guy who turns everything into something gay? You forgot to post as AC.
Now call me a faggot! That'd be hot!
Re: (Score:2)
They caught someone? They have an actual name? We know they got hacked, but do they actually know who did it? All I've heard is "sources say." As far as any proof we seem a little short on proof.
'
Re: (Score:2)
"The FBI, and the election officials in Arizona (R), Illinois (D) and Florida (R) could all be lying!
It's not proven until Breitbart, SputnikINT and RT.com say it is."
TRumpster already said it was a 400 pound guy sitting on his bed, or maybe didn't happen at all.
War under false pretenses (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. How is it unproven? Because you and other civilians haven't seen or read the evidence, you believe there is none? Or, it's it because certain news outlets and other propaganda deny such evidence? Anyway, I can see a clear case for avoiding any proactive action on our part but also see good cause to do so. It's a difficult decision to make that the average person can't contemplate due to our lack of insight and knowledge.
Let's not forget that the previous administration (Bush) took us to war under false pretenses [cbsnews.com].
If you're old enough to remember that era, recall that Bush and Cheney were all over the news saying that the evidence was real, and Tony Blair even came out and confirmed the evidence [independent.co.uk] of WMDs.
Everyone *else* in the world, including the UN inspectors, claimed that there were none.
Does anyone remember the Iraq war? It took 9 years and cost us $2 trillion, caused half a million civilian deaths, 4500 American serviceman deaths, and several hundred American amputees.
I think it's entirely reasonable that, before we go to war with a fukkin' nuclear power, that we be shown some of the evidence first.
Do you disagree?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone remember the Iraq war? It took 9 years and cost us $2 trillion, caused half a million civilian deaths, 4500 American serviceman deaths, and several hundred American amputees.
Don't be a gloomy Gus, negative one! Halliburton made out like a bandit on that one, so its all good.
I think it's entirely reasonable that, before we go to war with a fukkin' nuclear power, that we be shown some of the evidence first.
Do you disagree?
I don't declare anyone decalring war on anyone.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's not forget that the previous administration (Bush) took us to war under false pretenses [cbsnews.com].
If you're old enough to remember that era, recall that Bush and Cheney were all over the news saying that the evidence was real, and Tony Blair even came out and confirmed the evidence [independent.co.uk] of WMDs.
That's because the Bush administration treated the CIA as a lawyer instead of a scientist.
They should have been asking "tell us what you can discover about Iraq".
Instead they asked "give us the strongest case you can that shows Iraq has WMDs".
The understandably the CIA did exactly as requested, and created false evidence.
On the contrary, there's no huge political motivation to blame Russia, sure it's politically inconvenient for Trump, but lets be honest, no one is choosing who to vote for based on whether
I can't read that (Score:2)
jc... http://www.nytimes.com/interac... [nytimes.com]
I don't have access to that, it's paywalled.
Do you have a non-paywalled link? Or can you post the text?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe try this [google.com]. And sometimes NYT paywalls mobiles but tends to leave computers (or computer-looking user agents, anyway ;-) alone.
Re: (Score:2)
I just tried both the link, and googling for the same story. They are not paywalled. Here is the first section of the story.
The soldiers at the blast crater sensed something was wrong.
It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.
Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.
He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.
The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.
All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Sergeant Duling gave an order: “Get the hell out.”
Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret chapter of America’s long and bitter involvement in Iraq.
From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.
In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.
The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified.
Found a readbale link (Score:2)
Okay, I finally found a way around the NYT paywall (and I feel "dirty" for having done it the way I did... :-)
The article refers to old chemical weapons left over from previous (to the Iraq War of 2003-2011) decades.
The article makes it pretty clear that these were not the WMDs referred to by Bush to justify the war. Here's a quote from the article (emphasis mine):
All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
It was well known that Saddam Hussein had and used chemical weapons in previous decades, but Bush was pretty clear that Hussein was manufacturing
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh come on. Where have you been?
Re:Fuck it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot has pretty much been blocking any anti-clinton stories. Even when they are from neutral stories from people like Glenn Greenwald.
I have 3 submissions one from wsj and two from the intercept just die.
*Hillary wants "Manhattan-like project" for secure communications the government can read. https://theintercept.com/2016/... [theintercept.com]
*Glenn Greenwald writing about the cozy relationship with the press. https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]
*WSJ Story about the press burying clinton stories. https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]
All we get nonsense stories about the russians and Obama trying to start cold war 2.0 just to get Clinton in the White House. /. editors want.
Very obvious which candidate the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The best propaganda comes from somewhere other then the government. Consider the USA with its independent press (all owned by a select few). See sig for other ways that the USA has inverted the normal totalitarianism.
Re: (Score:3)
must be a new meaning for 'clandestine' (Score:5, Insightful)
since we're talking about it before it happens.
Re: (Score:3)
It's clandestine because someone is using a computer to do it. That's the definition now.
Re: (Score:2)
since we're talking about it before it happens.
Uh, dude, they said to not say anything to the Russians about it. I know I'm not going to tattle, are you?
Saber Rattling (Score:4, Insightful)
Strong leaders just go ahead and do that cyberstrike.
Weak leaders hint, mince and taunt, but never come to the table with force.
This is why the USA is losing prestige worldwide. We have become a wimpy bully instead of a strong, clear force.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
You just do it ... and make it look like the attack came from China.
Re: (Score:2)
Hold on, Tex. Often the threat alone can achieve the same goal as the attack, but with less lives and money. Read "Art of War". But, you have to know when to use what technique skillfully. "Always do X" is low-brow.
In this case the public doesn't have enough info to make a judgement about which technique is best.
I'm with Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
"is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia"
Usually the first step in covert actions is you don't tell anyone. Especially not the enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
there is a much more dangerous game being played.
THAT game is doomed to failure. It has been tried multiple times throughout history, it has never worked, and it will never work.
Cyber Strike (Score:2)
Distraction (Score:3)
This is typical of people acting irresponsible. The real blame here is the people responsible for securing the data in the original place. They are the ones at fault and are using the media to distract from the fact that they are the failures in the first place. Had they done their job, secured their data, they wouldn't be searching high and low for someone to blame.
If I leave $100 bill on a table in public and return to find it gone, I'm the one to blame. It's time the parties responsible for securing systems with worldwide access to stand up and admit their failures and to start doing their jobs.
Re:Distraction (Score:4, Insightful)
Why am I reading about this on slashdot? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, really. Not that this is news that doesn't matter, but why is NBC broadcasting that the CIA is planning a huge cyberattack? If this is a serious attack then shouldn't they wait until they carried out the operation before telling the world. They're giving a heads up to Russia by publishing this story, and I'm assuming that NBC got the greenlight to tell the world about this, because I can't imagine that they'd publish this story if that wasn't the case.
Re: (Score:3)
Once all this would have just been passed to a waiting international press.
Now its been pushed domestically.
"Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media" (18 March 2011)
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
or "British army creates team of Facebook warriors" (31 January 2015)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk... [theguardian.com]
So the past legal press protection
Another stupid CIA idea funded with your taxes (Score:3)
Recommend everyone who thinks this is a good idea should read Cyber War . In short summary, America probably has good offensive capabilities, but pretty much NO defenses and HIGH vulnerability. The Chinese are actually best positioned to fight and win any cyber war, and I wouldn't even be surprised if they are framing the Russians right now...
However, my main disappointment just now is with the state of Slashdot. No prior mention of "defense"? Where has all the insight gone?
Re: (Score:3)
Probably right on that.
Why would a Russian from Russian use Russian VPN to hack america?
And use codenames fancybear and cozybear.
More likely the real hackers purposely leading bread crumbs back to Russia.
Irony? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Hey, we're gonna attack Russia soon, but don't tell anyone, k?" *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*
Re: (Score:2)
Not just you.
Not sure this is a great move (Score:2, Insightful)
Putin is a former KGB agent with a mind trapped in a cold-war mentality where the west and the USA in particular are the greatest threat to Russia and out to get him.
I'm not sure it is such a good idea to fan the flames of his paranoia.
Clinton's way of dealing with embarrassing leaks (Score:2)
Blame Trump for her own lousy security.
Drone-kill Assange.
Start a cyber war with Russia.
Re:The Donald (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Embarrass the kremlin leadership? Shit, their job's already been done for them :P
This is a country where the dictator regularly posts simi-homoerotic shirtless pictures of himself. Go ahead and try to embarrass him. Just remember when the DOD tried to launch a online anti-IslamicState social media campaign they actually ended up encouraging more people to join.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia studied US actions in Serbia and will be able to absorb any induced issues.
Power grid, mass media. Turn off the lights and block the wider public from their favourite broadcasters.
Discontent will drive people to new faces and well developed US funded slogans.
The next step is to fund NGO's and groups to push local issues or create issues to sway elections and demand a change of government.
Another color revol