American 'Vigilante Hacker' Defaces Russian Ministry's Website (ksat.com) 210
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes CNN Money:
An American vigilante hacker -- who calls himself "The Jester" -- has defaced the website of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in retaliation for attacks on American targets... "Comrades! We interrupt regular scheduled Russian Foreign Affairs Website programming to bring you the following important message," he wrote. "Knock it off. You may be able to push around nations around you, but this is America. Nobody is impressed."
In early 2015, CNN Money profiled The Jester as "the vigilante who hacks jihadists," noting he's a former U.S. soldier who now "single-handedly taken down dozens of websites that, he deems, support jihadist propaganda and recruitment efforts. He stopped counting at 179." That article argues that "the fact that he hasn't yet been hunted down and arrested says a lot about federal prosecutors and the FBI. Several cybersecurity experts see it as tacit approval."
"In an exclusive interview with CNNMoney this weekend, Jester said he chose to attack Russia out of frustration for the massive DNS cyberattack that knocked out a portion of the internet in the United States on Friday... 'I'm not gonna sit around watching these f----rs laughing at us.'"
In early 2015, CNN Money profiled The Jester as "the vigilante who hacks jihadists," noting he's a former U.S. soldier who now "single-handedly taken down dozens of websites that, he deems, support jihadist propaganda and recruitment efforts. He stopped counting at 179." That article argues that "the fact that he hasn't yet been hunted down and arrested says a lot about federal prosecutors and the FBI. Several cybersecurity experts see it as tacit approval."
"In an exclusive interview with CNNMoney this weekend, Jester said he chose to attack Russia out of frustration for the massive DNS cyberattack that knocked out a portion of the internet in the United States on Friday... 'I'm not gonna sit around watching these f----rs laughing at us.'"
YEEE-HAW! (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean: Russian's federation policy *is* pretty disgusting. Nobody likes Putin. But still: how stupid is this Jester. (S)he should be taking down IoT manufacturer's websites instead, because we *know* those are involved somehow, and Russia... pfeh. Could be, could not be.
If that's all the "free world" can muster, we're doomed. Ugh.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody likes Putin.
Except of course for all the people who like Putin [washingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Everybody likes Putin so much his party gets 99.5% votes with 99.4% turnout in a republic whose population got expelled then mercifully let to return twice, and has been at a civil war with Russia until 2000 when it was brutally pacified, and some insurgency is smoldering to this day.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody likes Putin so much his party gets 99.5% votes with 99.4% turnout in a republic whose population got expelled then mercifully let to return twice, and has been at a civil war with Russia until 2000 when it was brutally pacified, and some insurgency is smoldering to this day.
Well at least it was not 99.5% of the 160% voter turnout like in the last Russian election.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Jester" sounds like a petulant little child. He claims that nobody is impressed and goes on and on about how little he cares about what some Russians allegedly did, but then he throws a temper tantrum and "hacks" into a web site (oh noes, a WEB SITE! that'll show em!) using script kiddie tools that someone else created.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a Major Kong reference?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Ain't nobody ever got the Go code yet. And old Ripper wouldn't be giving us plan R unless them Russkies had already clobbered Washington and a lot of other towns' internet with a sneak attack.
Re: (Score:2)
...how stupid is this Jester? (S)he should be taking down IoT manufacturer's websites instead, because we *know* those are involved...
Right. There's no evidence it has anything to do with Russia. What is certain is that these companies - Qualcomm, Broadcom, Marvell, et al - knowingly put out insecure, and un-securable devices. Or rather, made the parts for manufacturers, who knowingly put out insecure, and un-securable devices. Incidentally, the person who published Mirai seems to be, at least, a fan of Japanese culture, if not Japanese herself. But, it's not known who launched the attack at this point.
That said, if you want to give the R
Re: (Score:2)
No bullshit? How can you say that? He - totally straight-faced - says things like there are no Russian troops in Ukraine. How is that not bullshit? You should be happy that Western leaders aren't so "straightforward". If Obama acted like that we'd currently be having a war with Russia.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There's a certain kind of conservative, and even some Libertarians, who seem to have an unhealthy admiration for autocrats, at least when they believe said autocrats would remake society in a way they approve of. I imagine there are people on the Left of similar temperament, but in general, I find this "strong man" fetishism to be a right wing/Libertarian phenomena. I once had a very hard right social conservative telling me how what the West needs is a few Francisco Francos to set things right, and in gene
Re: (Score:2)
I could see wingnuts of any flavor loving a strongman, but what self-respecting libertarian would admire someone who would curtail individual liberty?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say your claims are true. I'm not the one claiming that Obama is "no bullshit".
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have some kind of proof of that accusation? There are pictures of the Russian troops and equipment in Ukraine, it should be trivial to get ahold of pictures of the US special forces you claim are in Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
You have an interesting memory there.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially interesting considering Putin himself admitted that there were troops in Ukraine before the elections that he had been denying:
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Compared to western leaders, he's pretty sane and is no bullshit. If you're crying about clandestine operations, the west is far more guilty *cough*clintonfoundation*cough*. That and the west blames Russia for all the problems when its their policy that is enslaving the poor.
You are so right! Putin makes Obama look like a raving lunatic. Mr. Putin always looks quite dignified, especially posing bare-chested on a horse. And that crooked Clinton Foundation! How are they allowed to get away with selling access to the Clintons, then using that money for black-bag operations like buying AIDS medicine, or books, (books!), for poor people? Lock her up, I say! What if all politicians gave access to big donors, and instead of using the money to fund their campaigns, used it help people?
Re: (Score:2)
"Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score:2)
The FBI will probably investigate these hacks as soon as the victims come forward and cooperate with the investigations.
Which, considering that they are violating various US laws themselves, doesn't seem very likely.
It's lousy pro-jihadist/pro-Russian propaganda to suggest that the FBI should investigate various random crimes, by someone of only self-described nationality, targeting non-US people using servers in unknown jurisdictions, when there's no clear nexus to US jurisdiction.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score:4, Insightful)
A disinclination to prosecute people just because they don't happen to agree with your politics *is* impartial and non-partisan. This is not a bug, but rather, a feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the stuff that's come out from leaked emails including stuff like Hillary knowingly ordering the destruction of data even after demands for the data under law? [zerohedge.com] You can take the link as you want, it does have backlinks to all of the previous leaked emails, previous statements and so on. That means she/they was lying, ignored official requirements, or simply believe they're so big they can avoid prosecution. So that leaves us with: Either the FBI is incompetent, turned a blind eye, or someone wa
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the stuff that's come out from leaked emails including stuff like Hillary knowingly ordering the destruction of data even after demands for the data under law? [zerohedge.com] You can take the link as you want, it does have backlinks to all of the previous leaked emails, previous statements and so on. That means she/they was lying, ignored official requirements, or simply believe they're so big they can avoid prosecution.
You might want to have a closer look at your source (and the actual evidence your source is using).
In Dec 2014, after delivering the first batch of emails to the FBI, Clinton decided to change the retention policy to 60-days (which would nuke all the old emails), but the sysadmin didn't actually do it.
In early March 2014 the House Committee issues a subpoena, in late March 2014 the sysadmin realized he hadn't carried out the request from back in December.
What Clinton and her team have maintained is that the
Re: (Score:2)
Again your interpretation is contradicted by the first sentence of your source!
Read that again. Arranged the donation in 2014, this was started in 2013. I know, it's so out there...especially in context. Also re-read the first source, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt where you missed the important part.
Re: (Score:2)
Again your interpretation is contradicted by the first sentence of your source!
Read that again. Arranged the donation in 2014, this was started in 2013. I know, it's so out there...especially in context. Also re-read the first source, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt where you missed the important part.
Her term as Secretary of State ended in 2012.
Re: (Score:1)
ZeroHedge and DailyCaller are not reliable sources for anything.
So actual documents, actual statements, and actual sources aren't reliable? Nice media bubble you're living in. I bet mediamatters is good though.
Re: (Score:2)
Cherry picked and quote mined parts of vast document dumps are not reliable.
So, someone saying that directly in the context of the email is quote mining and not reliable. Bet you didn't even check the emails in context did you? Nope. I bet you didn't, good on you!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I tend to get my news from sources outside the US.
I don't even get CNN where I live. (Don't really miss it much, either.)
Re: (Score:1)
As long as nobody in the 'Mainstream Media' says it happened, it didn't happen. No matter what evidence might exist.
In Russia in the 1950's, as long as it wasn't published in Pravda, it didn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
The persecution complex Trump's supporters exhibit ought to keep him business for years.
Re: (Score:2)
The Mindless One is not a member of any US political party. You should really step out of your bubble more often.
Re: "Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score:4, Insightful)
Martha Stewart went to federal prison for much less than Hillary Clinton and her cronies did, and with much less firm evidence against Stewart. Clinton benefited from a grotesque double standard that you have to be mindless not to see.
Re: (Score:1)
There's people sitting in leavenworth for doing less then what she did.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So remind me again what she did that differs from what Powell did when he ran his private email server? Or what the RNC did when they ran a large portion of the White House email traffic on their servers and conveniently forgot to make any backups?
22 million of emails from the Bush area are still missing. [newsweek.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Colin Powell used a private email account (not server) only for things that the State Department didn't have a functional email server for. Hillary Clinton avoided using the State Department's perfectly functional system.
Colin Powell only used it for unclassified communications. Hillary Clinton used her email server to receive and send up to TOP SECRET communications.
Colin Powell did not hire personal staff to the State Department basically for the purposes of supporting his private email account. Hillar
Re: "Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score:4, Interesting)
Unsurprisingly, the Republican National Committee operated an email server for White House staff to use for partisan communications and purposes.
So we are supposed to believe that the VP office did not produce emails for days on end during some of the most critical time stretches of the Iraq war?
Who has been lead around on the nose exactly?
The number of classified emails that went through Hillary's server are BTW 22. Most of them were not classified at the time, the once that were didn't have the classification in the header, they were only marked in the body.
http://www.politico.com/story/... [politico.com]
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/... [factcheck.org]
Re: "Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score:2)
You do highlight more relevant distinctions between Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton, though:
Colin Powell did not forward information marked classified. Hillary Clinton did.
Colin Powell did not direct underlings to remove classification information from hard copies before sending it over non-secure networks. Hillary Clinton did.
In fact, Hillary Clinton forwarded the "marked classified but not in the header" email a year after she told her subordinate to handle information in just that manner. Of course,
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I'd be surprised if he didn't since this is anything but a rare occurrence. [nytimes.com] And of course we have no idea what has been discussed in these 22 million missing emails from the Bush area.
Re: (Score:2)
That article doesn't suggest that either "forwarding information marked classified" or "direct[ing] underlings to remove classification" blocks/markings is at all common. Why is your reading comprehension so awful? Did you get dropped on your head as a baby?
Meanwhile, your overactive imagination is making you hear voices about what was on an email server that was required by federal law to exist and be used for specific purposes, and you're ignoring that Hillary Clinton got caught lying about what was in
Re: (Score:2)
The point was that oftentimes classified info is sent over unsecured channels. And it happens to the best of them, to quote from the article:
A spokesman at the C.I.A., Ryan Trapani, said in a statement that Mr. Brennan had believed that the information he sent in the email was unclassified.
"When operating in a position like he was at the White House, officials often have to make spot judgments about whether information is classified or not," he wrote.
"In most cases, the determinations are correct, but in so
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, how this totally legal and required RNC operated email system only became known when "the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas."
To quote the wikipedia article on the matter. [wikipedia.org]
Totally not government business.
Obviously, I cannot attest to how I was handled as a baby (since I was a baby) but your cognitive functions are clearly impaired by neurodegenerative partisanitis.
Re: (Score:2)
The number of classified emails that went through Hillary's server are BTW 22. Most of them were not classified at the time, the once that were didn't have the classification in the header, they were only marked in the body.
Really? Really? Whether or not markings were on the communications, THEY WERE STILL CLASSIFIED and THEY STILL WENT THROUGH HER SERVER.
At a minimum, she should be held accountable under the "attractive nuisance" laws. No, I take that back. At a minimum, she should be held accountable for having classified email on an unclassified server. Even if she didn't send a single fucking email and only received them, she knew what she was doing was illegal and wrong.
Go ahead and keep explaining why classified emails a
Re: (Score:2)
If you were to apply that standard across the board to everybody in the federal government, the apparatus would grind to a screeching halt. Clearly, you have no idea how byzantine wide-spread and at times contradictory classifications get applied.
There is a reason prosecutors look for criminal intend. It was careless. Hillary admitted as much. End of story. When has your candidate last admitted a mistake?
Anyhow, it's clear you are deep in the rabbit hole and drank heartily from the conspiracy firehose.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad that the Republican director of the FBI is so ignorant of the law. If only he would listen to anonymous trolls on the interweb.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you calling James Comey a liar?
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press... [fbi.gov]
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.
This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.
With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”
Re: (Score:3)
I answered on point to things you raised. If anybody hijacked the thread, is was you with your original comment lambasting Hillary.
Anyhow, unsurprising that it didn't take long for you to show your true colors.
Re: "Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score:2)
Aw, the ignorant little spouter of off-topic and factually wrong talking points doesn't like being identified as such. Guess what: Slashdot isn't a safe space, and you're going to get called on false equivalencies and falsehoods. Go away and come back when you know how any of the relevant laws work.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you care to prove that none of Powell's private email was classified? Neither Powell nor Clinton intended to have classified information on their private accounts, and while we know classified material ended up on Clinton's I don't think there's been a similar search of Powell's email.
Re: "Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score:2)
Would you care to prove that HRC tried to avoid using her private email server for classified communications? Evidence suggests she didn't. Powell had and used an email account on the classified State Department network ("high side"); Clinton did not. The NYTimes reports that a search of Powell's emails was done, and only uncovered two emails, sent to Powell but someone else, that were upgraded to confidential or secret after the fact -- unlike emails that Clinton sent containing information that was cla
Re: (Score:2)
Considering Powell actually turned over his emails as official records as required by law, I think by now we would know if any of them were classified, wouldn't we?
Re: (Score:3)
No, what's being said is that this is a manufactured scandal
Re: (Score:2)
And does that hold true for Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton was negligent with classified material. That did not result in a criminal prosecution in other cases I know of (one guy agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, but didn't have to follow through). Clinton was treated as anyone else would have been.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: The FBI didn't buy into my conspiracy theory, therefore the problem is with the FBI.
Re: (Score:2)
. Their shiny reputation is somewhat tarnished. I doubt they'll ever be trusted again to be impartial and nonpartisan.
The FBI had a shiny reputation? Where do you live?
Re: (Score:3)
Eh, come on. I do agree with you in that the FBI doesn't really have anything to go on; it's not like Russia is going to turn over server logs, and Russia hasn't shown any interest in stopping their own hackers. Still, I heavily disagree with your justification; you're essentially using Putin's very same justifications, but of course you act upset in return. He's posting very pro-US messages, he appears to be doing so in English, and there are rumors connecting him as a former soldier no less. That obvious
Re: "Tacit approval"? My nose! (Score:2)
My justification for the FBI not investigating these attacks is only that the there's no obvious US jurisdiction, and none of the victims seem likely to ask the FBI to investigate while providing information that could establish US jurisdiction. Why do you disagree strongly with that?
The rest of your beef seems to be that I have different standards for thinking the FBI should formally investigate a computer crime from other people have for attributing nationalities to the perpetrators of computer crimes.
Re: (Score:1)
"when there's no clear nexus to US jurisdiction"
That has never stopped them in the past. This time, the targets of the hacks are "the bad guys" so who cares, right?
What an idiot (Score:2)
Heh, haven't heard that name in a while. (Score:2, Interesting)
I used to follow some of what The Jester wrote. There are a number of people out there who think he's overrated, more brag than anything else. Still, I saw some pretty clever things out of him. For example, at one point he was going after some other hacking collective (I don't recall which one), and he announced a successful attack against them and posted a list of all of their names and real IP addresses. Only, the list wasn't real. Instead, anyone who tried to download the list had their connection log
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, you can't type a thorn! Yet you can type an eth, (Ð, ð). What's up with that?
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Will he be extradited? (Score:4, Informative)
No. The US does not have an extradition treaty with Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Is Russia going to press charges? That is a first step for extradition. Also, as others mentioned, an extradition treaty is a nice first step, but Russia doesn't want that, as then the US could extradite the people hacking from Russia.
SubjectIsSubject (Score:2)
Lost (Score:1)
Dude is fucking lost in the sea of propaganda! He will attack ANYTHING that his TV says is against America. Its sad really.
Funny, but meh (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, Putin is probably miffed this has been done and is looking for payback, but when one is spending millions of dollars every year to pay people (not to mention their vodka allotment) to do your bidding, and providing them the equipment to do so, one person isn't going to make a difference.
Had he instead posted pictures of the unmarked graves [livejournal.com] of Russian soldiers who have died during the invasion of Ukraine [uatoday.tv], that would have been different and had a greater impact. Not that Putin cares about the over 2,000 soldiers who have so far died during the invasion, including colonels [uatoday.tv] within the Russian military [uatoday.tv] who are working to support the invasion, but it would have been a nice touch to rub Putin's nose into how badly Russia miscalculated and is suffering [uatoday.tv] because of Putin's ego.
Re:Funny, but meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Russia ... pays ... [for] ...online ... propaganda... One person from the U.S., doing this on his own without government backing...
Do you mean the government of the United States does not allocate money to promote actively its policies online? It would be interesting to know if there is such an expense in the US budget and, if still yes, to compare it with Russia's spending in this domain.
I looked at Wikipedia article on the US budget 2016, but I could not find detailed expenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Funny, but meh (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.foxnews.com/politic... [foxnews.com]
http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]
Russian efforts are small potatoes compared to that.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much the same, but with a politically correct description.
Re: (Score:2)
Putting some advertising on TV is not the same thing as buildings filled with people on computers posting under anonymous or assumed accounts spreading propaganda.
Re:Funny, but meh (Score:4, Insightful)
one person from the U.S., doing this on his own without government backing
Sounds like the US should arrest him and extradite him. After all we'd requested the same from foreign governments.
Re: (Score:2)
Who has filed an extradition request? Did he commit crimes in countries we've got mutual extradition treaties with?
Re: (Score:2)
Pffft as if this has ever stopped the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but I'd rather not expect the world to live down to CIA standards.
Re:Funny, but meh (Score:5, Interesting)
How about the Arizona Republic, then, whose publisher and staff are receiving death threats because it endorsed Clinton [azcentral.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a troll.
Not impressed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Defacing a website that they put up is just as impressive as painting a building with graffiti. When they start leaking documents that embarrass Russia's politicians, then and only then will you have people's attention.
obligatory (Score:2)
Gorbachev Sings Tractors: Turnip! Buttocks!
State Sponsored vs Rogue Agent? (Score:5, Insightful)
So when a Russian, allegedly, does it to the DNC it's because Putin.
When an American does it to Russia it's "Oh, look at that vigilante that we don't condone at all".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So when a Russian, allegedly, does it to the DNC it's because Putin.
When an American does it to Russia it's "Oh, look at that vigilante that we don't condone at all".
Exactly. Unless this "vigilante" is arrested and extradite to Russia, by the same logic that Putin was responsible for the DNC hack, it should be implied that Obama and the USA Government are responsible for this act.
The title should read "US hacked Russian Ministry's Website".
Re: (Score:2)
How do you get that conclusion, or am I simply not on the right drugs?
The actions of US nationals are not per se US government actions, and the same is true of Russia. The CIA claims that the DNC hack was a Russian government attack, and they may well be right. Unless Jester is working for the US government, he's a private party.
Since the US apparently doesn't have an extradition treaty with Russia, they wouldn't extradite him anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dear. Do people actually think like you?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My Russian friends tell me they know nothing of such a tradition for marking Den' Rabotnikov Reklamy (the Day of the Advertising Workers). (No, I'm not making that up [rusevents.info].)
And I somehow doubt that the 60th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution is being celebrated with much fanfare in Russia, either.
Nice try, though. Quite inventive.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't count on it. People in Russia are just as lazy and arrogant as Americans, and twice as drunk.
That's why Russia has an economy about the same size as Spain's.
When we try to put forward Putin as some sort of brilliant super-leader, let's not forget that it was guys like him who got his country bogged down in Afghanistan and allowed his country to get head-faked into flushing their economy down the toilet tryi
Re: (Score:2)
If the world had to choose between electing Putin or H. Clinton as supreme world leader, it would be a tossup. We here in the US see all of Putin's bad press, they in Russia see all of Clinton/Obama's bad press. They are all essentially the same class of plutocrats.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Despite what you've been led to believe by Alex Jones, Hillary Clinton does not murder her critics by putting polonium in their food.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
you're right. her critics usually end up committing suicide by shooting themselves in the back of the head. sometimes twice.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope she made him suffer before he died.
Re: (Score:2)
People in Russia are just as lazy and arrogant as Americans, and twice as drunk.
Alcohol consumption in Russian Federation is 15.1 liters per year per capita, and it is 9.2 liters in the United States. It is not twice, but 67%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It is a lot, but still not twice. And there is also a factor of Mormons too, and some other factors. There are several millions of Mormons in the USA who do not consume alcohol at all.
Another figure is beer consumption per capita. Here the US is well ahead of Russia, probably, due to a warmer climate: https://en.wikipedia.or [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And there are 10 million Muslims in Russia who do not consume alcohol at all, as long as we're nitpicking.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not 67%, it's 67% more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You give Ronnie far too much credit. Economy being in the toilet was certainly not a reason for the USSR breaking up - after all, North Korea is still around. Easing pressure on nationalists in the late 1980ies was - ethnic conflicts destroyed the union.
And as for being bogged down in Afghanistan, USA has been failing to pacify Afghanistan for over a decade and that with the help of several European countries and without a third party arming the Taliban with modern weapons and funding them.
Re: (Score:2)
> This guy isn't a friend to American democracy. He's just appalled at Trump for selling out to the commies.
What a beautifully twisted propaganda narrative you have there.
It's like you're posting from 1985? The only commies these days are in the Democratic party and they are out in the open.
Re: Huh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm sure he'll blow to Putin, thus ensuring 'good relations'. He'll also assure that Japan and South Korea become nuclear powers in fairly short order, dismantle NATO, and plunge the rest of the planet into dark and dangerous times.