Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Says North Korea 'Directly Responsible' For WannaCry Ransomware Attack (npr.org)

Posted by msmash on from the pointing-fingers dept.

The White House has publicly blamed North Korea for a ransomware attack in May that locked more than 300,000 computers in 150 countries. From a report: In an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, Homeland security adviser Tom Bossert writes that after careful investigation, Washington can say that Pyongyang is "directly responsible" for the WannaCry virus. Bossert called the attack in which victims received ransom demands to unlock their computers "cowardly, costly and careless." "The consequences and repercussions of WannaCry were beyond economic," he wrote. "The malicious software hit computers in the U.K.'s health-care sector particularly hard, compromising systems that perform critical work. These disruptions put lives at risk." More details here.

101 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Makes perfect sense, after it was recently reported the fearless leader was accumulating the crypto-currency...

    On the other hand, demonizing a political opponent is a sensible Machiavellian move.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where have you been the past year to think that "sensible" has anything to do with the current administration?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by bobbied · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Makes perfect sense, after it was recently reported the fearless leader was accumulating the crypto-currency...

      On the other hand, demonizing a political opponent is a sensible Machiavellian move.

      There's nothing sensible about poking the North Korean bear.

      That depends on why you are poking at it. If it's getting out of it's cage because the door is unlocked, it might be a good idea to poke a bit until the door can get locked.

      In the case of poking at DPRK, it must be understood that this bear is actively perusing weapons of mass destruction and the means to use them on the US mainland. Their propaganda is clearly threatening the USA and it's allies. They have, or will soon have the means to attack the USA mainland and are saying they will.

      So the problem here is that nobody can guarantee that DPRK won't do what they are threatening. We used to be able to just laugh it off because we KNEW they didn't have the means. Now they apparently have developed the means and continue to threaten to use it.

      What would you do? It's one thing for some obviously unarmed guy on the street to yell at law enforcement that he's going to shoot and kill them but quite another when an armed guy does the same thing. One gets arrested, the other gets shot.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by slshdtisctrldbysjws · · Score: 1

      the current administration

      What exactly have they done that another administration wouldn't have done?

      Honestly, you people blame the specific administration for the flaws in the system. Your attention span is far too low and you are far too susceptible to media influence.
      Instead of asserting your interests you blame and whine, enabling such administrations to come to power again because of all the people who get sick of your self-righteous, unjust, and unproductive whining and get especially sick of the people who take advantage of it to do worse.

      The problem isn't Trump, it's a culture of failure, it's a glut of material - people give up on their responsibilities too easily because they prefer to be distracted.
      Civic responsibility is of the utmost importance but most people draw the line at getting a job and barking and whining at the changes in the wind.

      The bulk of our society is doomed. We simply have to start over with people who haven't been corrupted and let the rest rot in the world of their own choosing.

      --
      My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
    4. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      US intelligence agencies are known to lie. They've lied since they were created. Never was there a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. After Iraq, you would expect people to know it, but it is worth repeating: "Do not trust the FBI/CIA/NSA. Look at the evidence and evaluate it for yourself."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by MindspanConsultants · · Score: 2

      This post couldn't be more American if it tried.

    6. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Thank You!

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by Baton+Rogue · · Score: 1

      the current administration

      What exactly have they done that another administration wouldn't have done?

      How many former presidents have openly insulted the North Korean leader?

    8. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by slshdtisctrldbysjws · · Score: 1

      ok and how does that effect you
      why is that significant to anything

      that's half of an open insult to be objective

      so that is the best example you can come up with? he engaged in insult with some one else who insulted him? that's why he's making your life difficult?

      --
      My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
    9. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by slshdtisctrldbysjws · · Score: 1

      Have you ever read ANYTHING by Machiavelli?

      it was reported

      and how do you know that's true? Can you even repeat the evidence or rationale from the report?

      --
      My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
    10. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by bobbied · · Score: 1

      But the crazy guy is pointing the weapon at you yelling he's going to shoot you sir... Are you going to sit there and wait for him to pull the trigger?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    11. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Well, the crazy sounding guy is pointing the weapon at you and yelling he's going to pull the trigger... Do you really think you are going to just stand there and find out for sure if he's bluffing or will you defend yourself? Tis your call..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Unemployment is down, especially with black people. GDP is doing great, in fact the economy is doing great and a lot of his promises have been kept. Look past your lying media. I mean it's so blatant that even a cave man can see through it lately. CNN won't even talk about their Don Junior fuckup recently it was so bad.

    13. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Unemployment means jack shit, allow me to buy and work slaves and I'll show you an unemployment rate of 0%.

      GDP is nice, but means little without knowing how that GDP is distributed. I'm sorry, but I don't see the big advantage of someone buying another ivory back scratcher when I can't even buy a decent meal.

      Look past your lying media. I mean it's so blatant that even a cave man can see through it lately.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Look past your lying media. If you're in a really blue place like New York, Ill, Cali, etc, sure. Things suck. Suck big time because you're reaping those really bad policies. South Chicago is where the Democratic policies are in place. They lead to a place like Venezuela.

      Go out to the red parts like Ohio, hell even some blue places like Maryland and you'll see housing starts and such. There are places in NY where the number of housing starts is ZERO. People are leaving. Did you know in Chicago that the murder rate and such is worse than Beirut and Baghdad?

      Pull your head out of the ground my friend.

    15. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, since you like GDPs so much... Here is a graphic of GDP per capita and state. Let's ignore DC for a moment and take a look at the real states.

      Well.... yeah. Aside of Alaska, which is kinda a special case with lots of oil and few people to split the GDP between, I'd have to say that from top to bottom I can't help but notice a certain ... how should I put it, "red-shift".

      But I'm sure you can explain this.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      A GDP chart, from 2015. Really? That's nice... Since you can't see me, I have a really annoyed look on my face. I have to wonder if you're just an idiot, trolling or just plain clueless with that chart. Probably trolling. Here's a clue, it's useless to what we're discussing. Unless you believe Trump somehow had something to do with the GDP at least two years before he was even elected president (since you appear to be math challenged, it's a 2015 chart, meaning it's from at least the previous year and Trump was elected in 2016, became Pres in 2017, so that's at least two years).

      Since I'm sure a guy like you can't believe anything unless it's from the NY Times or WashPo, Here you go with a real article:
      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      However any comparison to Obummer or anyone else for that matter is really premature. Yet I know they can't stand waiting. A footnote to the Obama administration is they changed how they figured the GDP so he wouldn't look so bad. Something a lot of people missed.

      So you're hung up on GDP? How about black people back to work - https://data.bls.gov/timeserie... . So much for him being a racist. Is there a measure that is your favorite? Don't go looking for one, it's likely a fools errand. I don't think you'll find one.

      Given the tax restructure rates just passed today, the largest in 30 years, this will be like rocket fuel for the economy. Money should return to the states, people will work again. America will be great again. If we had Hillary, we'd be headed for Venezuela. Where they're eating their zoo animals to survive now. Socialism never works, wherever it's tried. So only really stupid people support it over Capitalism. Might not be perfect, however it's the best man has come up with.

    17. Re:Kim's securing Bitcoin to subvert embargoes by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not everything in the US politics is about Trump, and the GOP ain't Trump alone. Actually, an increasingly large portion of it wishes he wasn't.

      What this is about is states and their state governments.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. I would like to believe that. by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    However, the White House isn't a trustworthy source.
    With a president with record low approval ratings, trying to make a bad enemy for us to unite against, does make political sense.

    While there are some other groups involved, so it may be actual, but in this day in age Citing the White House is like Citing a You Tube comment.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:I would like to believe that. by ne7minder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And therein lies the problem with electing a known lying conman POTUS.

    2. Re:I would like to believe that. by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >in this day in age Citing the White House is like Citing a You Tube comment.

      Considering Trump spewed Birther conspiracies prior to being POTUS and more or less his first official act in office was to have Spicer deliver bald-faced lies about crowd sizes... yeah.

      I'm continually surprised that the press even bothers to attend White House press briefings, since there's nothing newsworthy about reporting the lies any longer (which is sad in and of itself). Any real reporting would require sources from outside that room.

    3. Re:I would like to believe that. by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 1

      Citing the White House is like Citing a You Tube comment.

      Or worse, a tweet...

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    4. Re:I would like to believe that. by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Multiple groups have pointed to NoKo including Microsoft.

      The only change here is USA publicly stating that they accept this as the official line.

      Do you get your news from anywhere else?

    5. Re: I would like to believe that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      And therein lies the problem with electing a known lying conman POTUS.

      We've been doing it for decades. Why stop now?

    6. Re:I would like to believe that. by hey! · · Score: 1

      There was already evidence pointing toward North Korea, and other more credible sources have come to that conclusion. And as big a deal as WannaCry was for affected businesses and IT people, it's hard to see how this has much political impact for the White House.

      Given North Korea's proven nuclear activities as well as criminal activities like counterfeiting, drugs, terrorism, slavery, and nuclear technology transfer, falsely adding WannaCry to the list would be gilding the lily.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:I would like to believe that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I only believe unsubstantiated rumors when they are anti-Trump because anything negative said about Trump is automatically true.

      When the White House cites facts produced by the exact same intelligence agencies that allegedly uncovered his TREASON WITH PUTIN then I clearly can't trust those intelligence agencies unless they say something that's anti-Trump. That goes double when Trump cites statements made by the intelligence agencies before he was even elected.

    8. Re:I would like to believe that. by houghi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We are living in strange times when we call The White House "Not trustworthy".

      I think I am going to re-read Snow Crash again, but this time more for the social enviroment.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:I would like to believe that. by bobbied · · Score: 2

      With a president with record low approval ratings.

      And why do you suppose his ratings are so bad?

      Where I'm not going to claim that Trump hasn't contributed to his approval ratings, I am going to point out that a lot of this is a product of a lot of negative press coverage, much of which doesn't seem to be warranted when you look back on it.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    10. Re:I would like to believe that. by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >in this day in age Citing the White House is like Citing a You Tube comment.

      Considering Trump spewed Birther conspiracies prior to being POTUS and more or less his first official act in office was to have Spicer deliver bald-faced lies about crowd sizes... yeah.

      I'm continually surprised that the press even bothers to attend White House press briefings, since there's nothing newsworthy about reporting the lies any longer (which is sad in and of itself). Any real reporting would require sources from outside that room.

      They cannot help themselves... They are cats and Trump is running the red laser pointer around the press room and from his Twitter account.

      Besides.. Actual REPORTING requires that you do investigative WORK and it's easier to get ratings other ways...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    11. Re:I would like to believe that. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wasn't Wannacry based on stolen NSA exploits?

      So are they saying that NK stole US cyber weapons, or did they just buy them on the dark web like anyone else can?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:I would like to believe that. by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? The guy's twitter rant habit is 75% responsible for the negative press coverage. Self inflicted.

      The other 25% is when he opens his mouth.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    13. Re:I would like to believe that. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Which is why we need someone nobodies ever heard of.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    14. Re:I would like to believe that. by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As if he's never been misquoted or inaccurately covered by the press. They've never reported "fake news" (tm) about him? Oh but they have....

      You and the press may not like his style, but that doesn't make it right to just make stuff up or for using anonymous sources which you haven't verified to vilify a guy you don't like. The press has NOT remained impartial here. Sure, Trump pushes their buttons and makes them angry on purpose, but that doesn't give them license to toss their journalistic standards and "get even" with Trump like they obviously choose to do. Journalists should NEVER react to this kind of thing, should never let their personal bias rule their reporting, but they have.

      I'm not excusing Trump's part of this, but it takes two and the press seems to be all to willing, right or wrong, to take on Trump by any means at their disposal, including stooping to immoral and unethical journalistic practices, lying about Trump and either inventing stories or using unreliable sources without accountability. They have given over to profits over truth and getting even over objectivity.

      Both sides have issues here...Not just Trump.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    15. Re: I would like to believe that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So what percent did it fall under when they reported his koi feeding gaff (fake), the September 4th Wikileaks gaff (fake), the Russian Collusion that has zero evidence (fake), the two scoops of ice cream outrage (fake), the 100k national guardsman deployed to the border (fake), removing the bust of MLK gaff (fake), and literally hundreds of other examples, daily, over and over?

      Don't bother responding. I win.

    16. Re:I would like to believe that. by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >Both sides have issues here

      Yeah, I hear Trump used that argument once in support of violent racists... so I guess it's not surprising to see it used in defence of Trump.

      The thing is, not every disagreement has perfectly balanced sides to be considered. Both sides have issues, but the scales are touching bottom on Trump's side.

    17. Re:I would like to believe that. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      We are living in strange times when we call The White House "Not trustworthy".

      The only thing strange about it is that people have woken up to it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:I would like to believe that. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I think the phrase "hoist with his own petard" is applicable in this case.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    19. Re:I would like to believe that. by bobbied · · Score: 2

      A wise debater doesn't go on the attack using an argument that can be used on his position. Two wrongs don't make a right and claiming that your side's wrong is somehow more right than the other isn't a winning strategy,

      I get that it's your OPINION that Trump's faults have more weight, but I do not agree that your opinion is correct or that your struggle to justify the continued bashing of our president is valid.

      EVERYBODY needs to grow up and stop with the petty partisan snipping. It takes two, and if the press chose to take the high road, ignore the provocations and refuse to report on them, this would all come to an abrupt halt and Trump would stop responding and all this would go away.

      But, as it stands, the press won't stop it's unfair treatment of Trump... I'm left to ask why? Is it because they cannot help themselves? Maybe, but I think it's more because it makes ratings which sells advertising which makes the huge media companies money.

      So Trump is fighting for his reputation, and the Media is making money bashing him.... Who's more justified?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    20. Re:I would like to believe that. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Are you referring to the birther stuff Hillary's man put out there in the first place? https://www.washingtontimes.co...

  3. Why believe them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is absolutely no reason to believe this. It might be true, it might just be propaganda. That was true when Obama was President, and Bush, and Clinton and .... it may be even more true now with an additional layer of uncertainty introduced by the current President's tendency to just make stuff up on his own when it fits his message.

  4. An act of war by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    This isn't an act of a friendly government

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:An act of war by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From a North Korean perspective, they're still at war but in a ceasefire, surrounded by enemies, and under siege. Given that perspective, this is a perfectly legitimate action and not even particularly provocative.

      Now, that perspective comes from a bunch of batshit craziness leading to current circumstances, but with that caveat it's perfectly rational.

    2. Re:An act of war by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Everybody abandoned the cease fire agreement decades ago. Both sides have officially said it doesn't apply anymore.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:An act of war by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      This isn't an act of a friendly government

      Obviously...

      I don't know if it is intentional but it is a nice little fallacy that you have here. "not an act of a friendly government" sounds like "the act of a hostile government" but it may actually just mean that it is not from a government at all.

    4. Re:An act of war by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Even if we're sure it came from hackers in North Korea, the only circumstantial evidence we have that it came from the government is that it was done using computers, which I suspect the average North Korean is too poor to buy. But that is only circumstantial evidence, and does not include, say, Chinese hackers putting a VPN back door in targeting computers sold to the North Korean Military.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  5. North Korea and NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    WannaCry is based on EternalBlue which traces back to the NSA so I thing we need to give them credit was well.

    1. Re:North Korea and NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I guess 733t hacking skillz from a nation with 30 websites go hand in hand with 733t golfing skills from a nation with one golf course. It's lucky the US has a history of being totally squeeky clean about these things, or someone might accuse them of a false flag operation.

    2. Re:North Korea and NSA by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

      THIS!

      The BSA developed a cyber weapon it never should have had (it primarily targets civilians) and then managed to mis-place it like a kindergartner's mittens and then it fell into an enemy's hands and got used against us. Why is there not a pair of smoking boots where the NSA used to be standing?

    3. Re:North Korea and NSA by jofas · · Score: 1

      "Misplaced". An organization which is, in essence the child of an 80-yr old covert international group whose budgets are largely opaque to reporting bodies of its own governement "misplaced" a number of tool into the hands of the most outspoken and publicly known leak group. Does that scan?

    4. Re:North Korea and NSA by sjames · · Score: 1

      In the sense that they made Barney Fife look like a super-genius version of Robocop, yes. They "mis-placed" it and it eventually found it's way to at least one leak group and to N. Korea.

      People have gotten into a lot more trouble for much more understandable leaks of much less important stuff with far smaller consequences.

  6. So, this is how it ends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    World War 3 - started by script kiddies

    1. Re:So, this is how it ends by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      And an Annoying Orange.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:So, this is how it ends by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      ... not with a bang but a tilde !

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
  7. I'm skeptical... by mark-t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When someone says that they have sufficient evidence to give all reasonable cause to believe something, and then don't even bother to say what that evidence actually is, I think there's a sufficient basis to believe that they don't really know what they are talking about, and are only trying to make themselves sound much smarter than they actually are for figuring it out.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:I'm skeptical... by jrumney · · Score: 2

      Or they have the evidence, but don't want to reveal what that evidence is until they have finished checking to make sure it can't be traced back to whoever planted it.

    2. Re:I'm skeptical... by jofas · · Score: 1

      Spin. The word you are looking for is spin. And the current administration isn't particularly good at it, which is why it comes off as incompetence (because it is).

    3. Re:I'm skeptical... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      When someone says that they have sufficient evidence to give all reasonable cause to believe something, and then don't even bother to say what that evidence actually is, I think there's a sufficient basis to believe that they don't really know what they are talking about, and are only trying to make themselves sound much smarter than they actually are for figuring it out.

      Another possibility is that they are right about their claims but aren't so obtuse as to reveal how they obtained the information so that they can keep using the techniques without the bad guys learning how they did it and blocking them. It's almost like their ability to keep getting intelligence is more important to them than the opinions of random people making posts on internet forums. But, you never know . . .

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  8. Re:People should use a secure OS like OpenBSD by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but Theo was once rude to someone on email or something.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  9. They did something worst! by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 2

    They are also responsible of about 99% of Slashdot posts.

  10. Trump WAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Trump is going to try to start a war. That is my prediction anyways. It is a well-known secret that War is good for approval ratings. First Trump will start to build up a threat. NK is doing this bad thing. Iran is doing that bad thing. It doesn't matter who it is. He just needs to scare people. Then he can save them by sending in bombers. And he can use CNN to cover the destruction which everyone loves to watch because it's like good-ole war movie but real life which is even cooler. Most leaders would not deliberately drive the country into a war knowing that there will be a huge cost in life. But I think we all sense that Trump is exactly that guy. He'll say, "we have to be smart ... have to get tough ... can't be weak ...". It's all going to be "tremendous" I'm sure. He would do just about anything to get any kind of affirmation whatsoever. He'll probably declare it in a tweet the cheap son-of-a-b**ch.

    1. Re:Trump WAR by bobbied · · Score: 2, Informative

      Shesh.. So you understand Trump then?

      Look, the issue with NK has been brewing for decades. Their rhetoric has been consistent both internally and externally for decades. They have claimed the US was the aggressor (we where not) and that they won the war (they didn't, it was a stalemate because China put troops into the war). They have since claimed that they will eventually restart the war and this time drive the USA away.

      Until recently, all this was just saber rattling and everybody knew it. NK had a huge standing army and conventional arms coming out their ears which was basically defensive, but everybody knew they had little offensive ability. However, over the last few years this has changed. NK has nuclear weapons and obviously has tested a number of successful devices, the last few may have been boosted (fusion) devices. They are currently testing ICBM delivery systems and have demonstrated the capability to reach the USA mainland a number of times. If they don't already have the ability to toss a nuclear device on an ICBM and hit us, they are obviously close.

      So, we have to now take them seriously. It's like a crazy guy on the street who is obviously unarmed yelling at the cops that he's going to shoot and kill them verses a guy who has a gun doing the same thing. One get's arrested, the other get's shot.

      Trump understands all this and where I don't think he wants war (see is campaign stump speeches about the Iraq war for more information) he seems to understand that kicking the NK can further down the road is folly. Right now he's trying UN sanctions (though the press doesn't talk about this) and working with China and Russia with varying success to make sure the sanctions have teeth. If NK doesn't bend, eventually the military option *might* be used, but it's obviously not the president's first choice.

      So I don't think you are being fair with Trump here. If he was as you say, this whole thing would be over, most of Korea would be a smoking crater and a bunch of people would have died already. If he was just looking for an excuse, Kim has given him multiple chances since he took office. Yet, here we sit, watching the new UN sanctions take hold instead of being in a shooting war.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Trump WAR by KidSock · · Score: 1

      You are gullible beyond belief. You said, "see campaign stump speeches for more information"? You must be joking. Trump is a narcissistic reality TV show personality who is a master at manipulating public opinion. You have taken the bait hook-line-and-sinker my friend. Trump is going to try to start a war by scaring people so that they rally around him to do something (war). Just watch. They are going to start to build up rhetoric about threats from NK or Iran or wherever and use the whole thing to scare people into being his followers. How ironic it is that Kim Jong Un does precisely the same thing.

    3. Re:Trump WAR by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Ah.. Sorry there to trigger you..

      So I assume that you have been actually looking into Trump's Anti "Iraq war" stance during the campaign and just choosing to dismiss *everything* he said because it flies in the face of your closely held personal (or dare I say partisan political) views about who Trump is. To you, he was obviously lying, yet there is no real fact that you can point to on this specific point about Trump's stance on foreign wars.

      Far be it from me to burst your bubble with a bit of truth about Trump.. Enjoy your delusions, just know they are not to your credit.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Trump WAR by spitzak · · Score: 1

      NK's nukes are obviously not offensive weapons. Yes they may be able to nuke a city but that would not put them in any better position even if the rest of the world did absolutely nothing about it. The nukes and missiles are defensive, Kim thinks the threat of him using it will prevent an attack (including things like sanctions) from the west.

      Oddly enough the armies you say are defensive *could* be used offensively, he has the capability to occupy some small portion of south Korea and not be forced back out because the west decides that the necessary death and destruction to do so is not worth it.

    5. Re:Trump WAR by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Obviously not offensive?

      Are you not paying attention? NK's nukes exist and they are conducting extensive ICBM testing... Are you saying they cannot put a nuke on their ICBM and lob it towards the USA? REALLY? It's OBVIOUS that the NK's idea is to put a nuke on an ICBM and that they are working towards that goal, if they haven't already achieved the necessary ability. And you are calling their Nukes only defensive?

      You are nuts if you truly don't think the DPRK isn't trying to have an offensive nuclear capability and are at least really close to having a nuclear armed ICBM if they don't already have it.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Trump WAR by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Why the hell do you think I said the nukes "don't exist"? Obviously they do. All I said is that they are not "offensive weapons". Offensive weapons are weapons designed to win a fight.

      They are completely insane, yes, but I don't think even they think that launching a nuke will somehow allow them to win a fight (it would require them to accurately target nukes to hit enough task forces and military bases so that we could not retaliate with overwhelming force). The dangerous and insane thing in their minds is that they see it as "we will kill a lot of you before we lose so you will remember us" if a war breaks out. The less insane thing is that they think this deters attacks on them (including economic sanctions), which (whether or not it really works) means they think of them as defensive weapons.

      The odd thing is that the army, which the gp described as "defensive", is far more usable as an offensive weapon. They could invade a good deal of south Korea and if they are really lucky the allies might stop fighting before taking all of the terrain back, in which case they actually did gain something, so the army is an offensive weapon.

    7. Re:Trump WAR by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I think you need a dictionary.. Offensive weapons are designed for attack. ICBM's are the epitome of an offensive weapon, nuclear versions more so. Why do you need to launch a nuclear device 9,000 miles away to defend yourself? Now if we where discussing mortar shells or something a whole lot shorter range you *might* have had a point, but we are discussing nuclear tipped ICBM's...

      The main threat to NK sits within shelling range of the DMZ. They don't need these missiles to defend themselves if attacked, they need artillery and an effective air force to control the sky. Where I think they have the fist, they cannot afford the second. Their empty rice pots are cooked (normally I'd say Goose but they don't have any food) and they know it. The ICBM isn't going to change anything really, but it might kill a pile of people in the USA if they are crazy enough to use it.

      Personally, I don't think we should give them the chance to use it.... But hey, you can feel free to advocate we take that chance.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Trump WAR by spitzak · · Score: 1

      I see what you are getting at. The certainly are not defensive weapons either (if NK had the ability to take out a carrier task force with a nuke then they could be defensive, but I don't think anybody thinks they have any chance of doing that, and even NK's propaganda implies that the nukes are for destroying cities). I was defining "offensive weapon" as "useful for winning a conflict", rather than the definition you are using of "not defensive". In reality the nukes are neither offensive or defensive, which is the real indication that the NK is totally insane, since they spent a lot of their meager resources on this.

      Possibly some in NK think of them as defensive in the form of "they will make the other countries treat us better", though that is obviously not true. Another argument is that they prevent an attack but since they have not been attacked when they did not have nukes this does not make sense either. I really feel that the real purpose of them in their minds is "it makes you notice us" and "it gets you all bothered". Some of the more scary parts of the NK probably think of it as "when we go down we will cause a lot of death so you will remember us".

      I don't like the fact that you think I disagree with you about the threat. The Trump administration is doing as good a job on this as I think is possible (though I think all previous administrations have done just about as good a job as possible too). Nobody attacked before, but now chances of a war with China have greatly reduced now, so the problems left are the expense and the fear of millions of refugees. So it may very well be logical to do it.

    9. Re:Trump WAR by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't think Kim is insane. I think he's quite sane, but it all looks crazy to the outside observer because we don't understand what's going on inside the country and how the Kim's have held power for three generations now.

      Where I don't think Kim is foolish enough to think he's going to win an open conflict, I don't think he can afford to let any of his countrymen think that he doesn't fully believe he can win. NK is a mash up of totalitarian dictatorship and religious worship cult with Kim at the top. He only stays in power because people believe he is powerful, should that facade ever show any cracks, the gig would be up for him and the coup would be quick and bloody.

      So where I don't think he's stupid, I also believe him to be desperate. Desperation makes you more likely to make mistakes in judgment, to take chances you otherwise wouldn't. He's obviously not opposed to risking provocative actions and I don't have any idea where he'd stop. So far, the world hasn't done all that much even though NK has made multiple infiltrations of the south, attacked US military ships at sea and even shelled SK islands. I fear that all this might mislead Kim into pushing too far and this truing into a shooting war.

      Once the shooting starts, who knows what Kim will do.... I can see him going out in a blaze of glory, launching a nuke on the US mainland.

      If sanctions don't bring them to the point where they give up their nuclear weapons and missiles, eventually something is going to happen and the shooting will start....We seriously CAN NOT allow Kim to have an ICBM with a nuclear weapon, the risks re way to high.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  11. Consistency would be nice by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 1

    Presumably this information, which the Trump administration is claiming to be accurate, came from the same sources as the information proving Russia meddled in the election, which the Trump administration denies.

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
  12. More than USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    More or less than America bombing hospitals and weddings?

    1. Re:More than USA? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Weddings where high value targets are? I suppose, but only when legitimate targets are believed to be present. We don't just bomb any wedding we see out there, just because we like doing that.

      Hospitals? Not usually and in the one case I am aware of, the location of this hospital wasn't known nor was it properly marked and it was being used by forces which would be legitimate targets in any other location.

      Collateral damage is part of waging war and in urban settings it is most regrettable that it happens more often. If the combatants choose to fight in urban environments, that's where the conflict will be. However, if the goal is to prevail in the conflict, sometimes you have to pick the lessor of evils and risk collateral damage. The USA does it's best to prevent civilian damage, but if the other side picks the location we must fight, what choice do we have?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  13. who can you trust by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    what if some covert CIA did it from a foreign server somewhere just so they can blame the north koreans, i just dont trust the news media anymore, not the domestic news services, not foreign news services, they are all corrupt and divisive

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:who can you trust by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      http://www.wired.co.uk/article... (7 May 2017)
      "Wikileaks' latest batch of Vault 7 documents focuses on the CIA's anti-forensics tools"
      " ... creating malware to set their spoken language as being ... Korean,.. , CIA created malware could potentially be developed to appear as if it was emanating from another country. "

      All the people who find malware have to go is ip range, time of day, staging server and code litter. The code litter can now be just as fake as the ip, server, time of day.
      It just has to be that nation because "language"...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  14. The three questions to answer by Szeraax · · Score: 1

    Means, Motive, Opportunity.

    Means: They crawl and scour looking for new cyber-warfare and build on that. EternalBlue for example.
    Motive: They hate ukraine that was hit hardest (and said to have potentially originated from there).
    Opportunity: Lab testing suggested that they would be able to achieve the technical outcome (ransom) and make a quick couple bitcoin while the vulnerability wasn't patched.

    To me, 2 things don't add up: #1 A couple bitcoin? That's a terrible ROI. Maybe it was just a test of their packaging and to see how quickly organizations respond (organizational behavior test/analysis) #2 I don't know if NK knows where Ukraine even in. Do they? I would think there are others that have much greater reason to target Ukraine...

    1. Re:The three questions to answer by Szeraax · · Score: 1

      wow, is it morning yet? so many grammar errors to fix :( WTB editing or time-travel.

  15. Anyone else find it disturbing by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    that we're seeing more and more stories about how Iran and NK attacked us? We did the same thing to Iraq...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Anyone else find it disturbing by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Your "interesting" version of history omits a few details, such as Iraq invading and annexing Kuwait, invading Saudi Arabia and occupying the city Khafji, firing Scuds at Saudi Arabia and Israel, firing on US planes pretty much every day for years after the cease fire, repeated non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, hiding its VX nerve gas production, and on, and on, and on, ... so yes, it was "we" that "did it" to Iraq.

      Now, are you denying any bad actions by both North Korea and Iran? Really? You can't even credit North Korea with the official statements of its government threatening nuclear war against the United States? You can't credit them with their threats against Japan? That is JAPAN, the country with what is relatively a very small Self Defense Force that rarely and barely ventures outside the country?

      Does even the mere possibility that your views might be a bit .... "off" .... just not a good match for the facts of events . . .even occur to you?

      This shouldn't even be close. Do you think the Guardian is trying to "do it" to North Korea too?

      Revealed: the gas chamber horror of North Korea's gulag

      Maybe you've misread North Korea. This is not he socialist future you've been looking for . . .

      Trump misreads North Korea’s sacred dynasty at his peril

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  16. Trust by sjbe · · Score: 1

    We are living in strange times when we call The White House "Not trustworthy".

    The reason we have separation of power is precisely because we don't trust people with power as a fundamental principle in the US. We particularly should not trust people who lie as transparently and frequently and maliciously as Trump. Not trusting the White House should be routine. What makes the times strange is who is in charge of it at the moment.

  17. Not enough bad coverage by sjbe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Where I'm not going to claim that Trump hasn't contributed to his approval ratings, I am going to point out that a lot of this is a product of a lot of negative press coverage, much of which doesn't seem to be warranted when you look back on it.

    Trump hasn't gotten as much negative coverage as he deserves. The press frankly has been WAY too soft on him. The man is a carnival barker given actual power. He tells transparent and ridiculous lies with breathtaking frequency. He completely lacks the competence and dignity that the office of president requires. If you think the negative coverage of Trump isn't warranted I frankly question your sanity and/or integrity.

    1. Re:Not enough bad coverage by bobbied · · Score: 1

      You know, I've heard this claim that Trump blatantly lies all the time quite a bit. However, I've never really had anybody defend that position with actual quotes, taken in context about some topic that's actually material to the governing of the country. Also, many of Trump's supposed "lies" turned out to actually be true, like that "Tapped my wires" tweet which was widely condemned as a lie but was pretty much true looking back on what we know now.

      I get that he's abrasive and spouts off stuff of questionable sources at times, but I don't see him as the kind that just lies to hear himself speak, or lies for political advantage like some from the other side of the isle have in the past.

      Obama was pretty in your face about his lies about Obamacare, told for political advantage. His campaign also foisted a huge "it was a protest about a video" in Benghazi lie quite effectively during his second run. I dare say, these examples are worse than anything Trump has said.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  18. Re:war drums by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Where have you been the last decade...

    The war drums with NK have been steadily beating for two decades and only now you notice? Doesn't anybody pay attention anymore? We've been in an escalating verbal and sanctions conflict with NK since the cease fire was signed. More recently NK has been testing parts of weapon systems designed to deliver nuclear bombs to the mainland of the USA while continuing to threaten to do it.

    It's been pretty clear to those paying attention that NK was a problem that was only getting worse over time... I've heard the drums, why haven't you?

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  19. 28 Proofs N. Korea did not do it... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Are we really going to believe a nation that only has 28 websites, whose entire population has extremely limited access to the internet is going to be full of IT know-how to continuously plague the world?

    "Doctor Occam, you're needed in surgical."

    https://www.npr.org/sections/t...

    And before you start touting nukes and rockets. Realize that nuclear bombs and rockets are basically 80 year old WWII technology.

  20. "Cowardly" by slshdtisctrldbysjws · · Score: 1

    Cowardly

    Moralizing your failures, the strategy of champions.

    --
    My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
  21. I am deeply curious how... by maroberts · · Score: 1

    ...a country reputed to be in the Internet Stone Age produces some of the worlds most successful virus manufacturers?

    I'm having great difficulty swallowing the story that North Korea was responsible. Normally I accept the mainstream view, but in this case if someone put up a credible Conspiracy Theory I'd be quite likely to go for it.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  22. You can thank the United States by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    for the DPRK insistence on getting nukes. We pinky swore we wouldn't do anything bad to Saddam and Ghadhafi if they disarmed and look where it got them. We're currently fighting 7 wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Seria Niger, Libya and Somalia) without congressional approval . We're not a nation to be trusted. NK would be fools to disarm now. Thanks to our war mongering they've literally got nothing to lose. We destabilized the entry world so the GOP could win a few elections, and the Dems went along with it because they didn't have the backbone to stand up.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You can thank the United States by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall that Sadam was fine until he either invaded another country to take their oil (Gulf War #1) OR chose to be uncooperative about harboring extremists within his country and then started talking about having chemical weapons... Sadam's issue was he was threatening those around him. Hindsight is 20/20 so looking back the Iraq war might have been unnecessary and the given reasons to starting it might have been less than accurate, but we cannot know what "would have been" had another course been selected. We can guess though, that the rise of ISIS would have been quicker and sooner.

      DPRK's issue is one of being a responsible world player, they don't want to play nice. They are threatening the US and it's allies in the region and if they'd just drop the pretense we would work with them like we have before. The problem is the Kim's know that they are no borrowed time, once their people know the truth, Kim will be history in short order. Kim's only recourse is to keep up appearances with his people by putting up a house of cards and hoping nobody calls his bluff.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  23. Really? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    You are surprised that The White House isn't trustworthy? I mean sure Trump takes it to next level shit, but pretty much all politicians that have been in that house have not been all that trustworthy... I mean there have been some pretty big ones in recent history. Bush, Nixon, Clinton, Regan, and I could probably list just about every single one of both political stripes. Maybe not Carter, he seems like a decent fellow, but then again I don't know a lot about him either.

  24. Re:Fanboi or clueless? by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

    You missed this comparison of the lies of Trump and the lies of Obama :-)

      https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/opinion/sunday/trump-lies-obama-who-is-worse.html

  25. Re:Bitcoin is North Korea's Money Maker by Baton+Rogue · · Score: 1

    Trump gave them wanna laugh.

    How did Trump help NK leverage Bitcoin?

  26. Re:Fanboi or clueless? by bobbied · · Score: 2, Insightful

    NYT, politifact and Washington post articles? Nope.. You won't accept my Fox News reference for similar reasons...

    How about picking your favorite lie and let's discuss it...

    1. What did he actually say? (Including the context of the statement)

    2. What is the truth of the matter and is this actually provable?

    3. Has anybody corrected the statement, Trump or someone in his administration?

    Remember, a LIE is when you are leading someone to believe something you KNOW is false. It's about what you know to be true and what your intent is.

    So "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" was a lie, as was "It will save a family of 4 $2,400/year", and "your taxes will not go up to pay for this" because Obama KNEW these where not true, but said them any way to sell the public something. Also "Bengasi was a riot over a video" was a lie told by the administration told to protect votes, full knowing the truth was entirely different, but nobody would be able to prove it until after the election.

    So.. Just so you are not surprised.. If you do happen to find something to complain about here, I'm going to jump into a "are you sure this isn't a double standard" argument... Still care to play this game?

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  27. Re:Fanboi or clueless? by bobbied · · Score: 1

    I just looked and they sure cherry pick Obama's lies yet went full on parse every jot and tittle for Trump. They omitted my favorite four Obama lies completely so for my money they are surely biased... But this is the NYT, paragon of the corrupt media bias, so I'm not surprised.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  28. And I seem to recall by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Bush Sr had the good sense to get us the hell out of that quagmire and leave Saddam in charge because as bad as he was the instability would be worse. Every google the numbers on the amount of civilian casualties we caused in Iraq. It's tens of thousands; and those are just the ones we're willing to admit to. Then there's the $7 Trillion dollar price tag for the war (plus $3 trillion for Afghanistan that we only fought so an oil company could get it's pipeline and America could sate it's blood lust after 9/11).

    Anyway nice straw man. What Saddam did after the Gulf War has nothing to do with our unprovoked invasion. DPRK can't play nice because we don't play nice. Kim got the message loud and clear: Get nukes or get taken out. It's not a bluff. It's literally the only option he has left. The only option we, the American people, left him when we elected a president in dire need of a good war to get his poll numbers up.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:And I seem to recall by bobbied · · Score: 1

      And you are just peachy with Kim's totalitarian dictatorship and how his people suffer because he "wont' play nice" with others?

      I don't get the liberal mind sometimes. First it's all "#saveourgirls" twitter campaigns because we "care" about the kidnapping of young women half a world away, but when you look at the likes of the Kim dynasty it's all the USA's fault for being the aggressor? It's like you have selective memory and double standards to uphold. Historically the USA was NOT the aggressor in Korea. Yea maybe we where the interloper, but we where supporting our allies from the advancing Russian and Chinese tide and had mutual defense agreements AND the blessing of the UN for our involvement. It was the North that started all this and the North that continues to be aggressive, going so far as to capture the Pueblo on the open seas and stage a number of infiltrations into South Korea over the years. We've not done any of that kind of stuff. Yea, we remain in force on the DMZ border and watch, but we are not shelling their islands or shooting at their ships in international waters.

      So I think you are skewing history, taking out the parts that don't support your pet theory. You are doing the very thing you accuse others of doing with your revisionist history and soft peddling the oppression of the North Korean People in the deceptively named DRPK which is a "democracy" with but one name on the ballot and a republic where a dictator makes the decisions.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  29. Re:Fanboi or clueless? by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

    Please post your favorite four Obama lies. Thanks.

  30. Re:Fanboi or clueless? by bobbied · · Score: 1

    "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. period." I liked my plan, but I couldn't keep it because it was illegal under the new law and the one I got now is more expensive, higher deductible and higher out of pocket...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  31. Re:Fanboi or clueless? by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

    The fourth "Obama lie" in that NY Times article, under the "First Year" subheading, was exactly that:

    JUNE 11, 2009.“No matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan.” (Some people had to switch plans as a result of the Affordable Care Act)

    So you're not surprised that the NY Times, " paragon of the corrupt media bias" omitted the very statement that it featured prominently and your "favorite four Obama lies" are ""If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. period."? Did you happen to visit the wrong website instead of the nytimes.com link I posted? Did you forget to post your three other favorite Obama lies?

  32. Liar or crazy? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    NYT, politifact and Washington post articles? Nope.. You won't accept my Fox News reference for similar reasons...

    Facts don't depend on whether you like who brings them to your attention.

    How about picking your favorite lie and let's discuss it...

    Nope. Go do the research fanboi. I've provided you countless examples of verified and checked statements. Do with them what you will.

    Remember, a LIE is when you are leading someone to believe something you KNOW is false. It's about what you know to be true and what your intent is.

    If Trump doesn't know he is lying then if anything that means he is delusional which is possibly worse. So which is it? Is he a liar or is he crazy?

    1. Re:Liar or crazy? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      NYT, politifact and Washington post articles? Nope.. You won't accept my Fox News reference for similar reasons...

      Facts don't depend on whether you like who brings them to your attention.

      Yea, but the articles being referenced where highly selective in their choice of facts and come from obviously partisan editorial view points. You know you'd make the partisan claim if I quoted an opinion piece from Fox.

      Then you refuse to pick just ONE of the lies you think Trump is guilty of....What's wrong? Do you not have a specific example or you realize that you cannot defend it? I'm seeing a pattern here.. A very partisan pattern. Make an outlandish claim about your opponent, repeat it often and eventually some will believe your lie.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  33. Talk to me when we overthrow the Saudis by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    They're just as bad if not worse than Kim. At least he's got the excuse of a poor country and dangerous neighbors.

    You're argument is all over the place and filled to the brim with right wing talking points, Straw men, non sequiturs and just plain meanness. I know you're trolling, at least I hope you are. Because the alternative is that you're getting paid to spew that stuff by right wing propagandists trying to get us into war.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Talk to me when we overthrow the Saudis by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The Saudis as bad as DPRK? Who's trolling here?

      The Saudis have their human rights issues, to be sure, but they generally are not out threatening the world with nuclear destruction or violating UN anti-proliferation rules for WMDs... Nor are their citizens generally starving because their dictator leader refuses to play relatively nice with the rest of the world. And one BIG thing is the Saudis don't act under the pretense that a state of war exists between it and the USA. They are not threatening us with anything but possibly squeezing the world's oil supply...

      Actually, I figure Venezuela and Cuba are more of a thorn in the US's side and carries more risk for US's interests than the Saudis...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101