Slashdot Mirror
President Obama Threatens Retaliatory Actions Against Russia Over Hacks (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the New York Times:
[President Obama] said he was weighing a mix of public and covert actions against the Russians in his last 34 days in office, actions that would increase "the costs for them." Mr. Obama said he was committed to sending the Kremlin a message that "we can do stuff to you," but without setting off an escalating cyberconflict... "Some of it we will do in a way that they will know, but not everybody will," he said...
[T]he president was clearly wrestling with what he said the hacking affair and the reaction to it revealed about the state of American politics. Citing a recent poll that showed more than a third of Trump voters saying they approved of Mr. Putin...the president appealed to Americans not to allow partisan hatred and feuds to blind them to manipulation by foreign powers. "Unless that changes," Mr. Obama said, "we're going to continue to be vulnerable to foreign influence because we've lost track of what it is that we're about and what we stand for."
President Obama pulled Putin aside at a September meeting of the G20 to discuss Russian hacking, according to the article, telling Putin "to cut it out, there were going to be serious consequences if he did not."
[T]he president was clearly wrestling with what he said the hacking affair and the reaction to it revealed about the state of American politics. Citing a recent poll that showed more than a third of Trump voters saying they approved of Mr. Putin...the president appealed to Americans not to allow partisan hatred and feuds to blind them to manipulation by foreign powers. "Unless that changes," Mr. Obama said, "we're going to continue to be vulnerable to foreign influence because we've lost track of what it is that we're about and what we stand for."
President Obama pulled Putin aside at a September meeting of the G20 to discuss Russian hacking, according to the article, telling Putin "to cut it out, there were going to be serious consequences if he did not."
You seem to be confusing two completely different email sets here. Are you confused, or are you just trying to be confusing?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The US has meddled in other countries' elections especially their allies, since at least WW2 (Greece, Italy for example), toppled by now probably dozens of governments in clandestine operations and in bloody coups on in middle and southern america alone. So how are they to accuse anyone of doing it?
It gets better. According to Hillary herself, the reason Russia is interfering with the US election is in retaliation for Hillary as Secretary of State interfering in the Russian election in an attempt to prevent Putin from being elected.
Really.
She flat-out admitted to trying to influence the Russian election, and then blamed her loss on Putin retaliating over her attempted manipulation of their election.
If that right there doesn't sum up both the amazing delusion of liberals and the cognitive dissonance they constantly live in, I don't know what does.
What a load of horse shit you're shoveling. The election wasn't stolen. Releasing the dirty secrets of the DNC and Hillary's top guy is not stealing an election. So far the only questionable voting numbers are coming from Detroit, where the votes counted from the machines far exceed the number of ballots, and Detroit was heavily Clinton. Wisconsin's recount ended up adding a hundred votes to Trump. Stop reading #fakenews
the worst foreign policy strategy every implemented by the US.
Because lying about the need to invade and occupy Iraq, destroying the one bulwark which might have existed to stop the spread of ISIS, had nothing to do with any of this, right? That was a fantastic foreign policy issue, right?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Well, I'm not bloody confused, and I think it's a reasonable assumption that Russia wanted to do what it could to prevent Clinton from winning the election, and at least initially has got what it wants; a president who is Russia-friendly and a Secretary of State with pretty deep ties to Russia. We can debate how much influence the Russians really did have, but I'd say the Wikileaks emails did Clinton tangible harm.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Iraq was about keeping the muslim world busy the traditional way. By restarting the war between its two largest factions. Let them kick the fight out of each other for a century or two. It worked for Christianity. (100 years war, between the catholics and protestants. Only those remote to the fight, Irish/British, missed the point, they got it themselves, eventually.)
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Tell me again how they "hacked the election"?
They... hacked some servers and released information which influenced voters. That's it. It doesn't require anything else.
I guess you're trying to claim that if they hadn't done it then someone else would have, given your comment about the security on the servers. First, this is a pretty ridiculous argument - "It's not a crime when I rob you because someone else was just going to do it anyway." Second, an SQLi vulnerability is not "pathetic 'security'" and this attitude is haughty. I see it here all the time from armchair sys admins on Slashdot: "I am perfect and no one would ever get into my giant organization of thousands of people. I run a tight ship and never have to compromise security for the sake of expedience or orders from above. No one ever steps out of line and nothing bad ever happens on my watch."
Bullshit.
Third, no one said anything about this being fake news. Where did you pull that out of? The issue at hand is not whether the news was real or fake, the issue is that a foreign power tried (and seems to have succeeded) in appointing a US president. Yes, all right, Russia didn't do it by themselves, the fake news and yadda yadda was all part of that. That isn't what we're talking about here.
Were you alive, then? Because it was a 14-month march to war.
Wow are you confused. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The Taliban in Afghanistan admitted to hosting and supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
I know we're living in a post factual world where empirical truth doesn't exist. But the fact is that the U.S. led a coaliton of forces against the Taliban in Afghanistan beginning on October 7, 2001. Less than one month after the September 11 attacks.
Close, but not quite. Iraq was not a direct result of or a response to 9/11. 9/11 laid the groundwork for Iraq, though, focusing more resources including political will, attention, and covert focus on Iraq. More importantly, it put the American People on a war footing psychologically, in a way they had not been for decades. Without that, the ground war in Iraq would probably have been a political non-starter.
Real lawyers write in C++