[azangru]

> As you are a Russian, please provide me access to the GRU's classified intelligence and I'll happily enlighten you on what you want to know.

This is wrong (I mean not morally wrong, but rhetorically, or logically wrong) on so many levels that I don't even know how to begin. I guess I'll just leave it at that.

I totally agree with your point about intelligence being kept secret. Sadly, this is indeed the case. I do not invite US secret services to reveal their sources. I am only saying that if they choose to keep evidence secret, it is not reasonable then to expect people to believe them. In absence of evidence, there is no way of knowing whether you are being told truth, or deliberate lie, or anything in between. Like someone else in the comment above said, this is essentially a matter of trust. And frankly, secret services do not deserve our blind trust (no-one does, but especially not them, because misinformation is, by definition, part of their trade).

Let me be clear: I am not here to defend Russia, or Putin (I am sick and tired of our ossified, unchangeable government, but I prefer not to think about them too much; they are disgusting, like many other politicians, perhaps much more so). I am only trying to defend reason, and critical thinking, and the importance of making valid arguments.

[fweespeech]

> Let me be clear: I am not here to defend Russia, or Putin (I am sick and tired of our ossified, unchangeable government, but I prefer not to think about them too much; they are disgusting, like many other politicians, perhaps much more so). I am only trying to defend reason, and critical thinking, and the importance of making valid arguments.

And yet, the only time you demand proof is related to Russia and your account was inactive for over a month before that. You protest and deflect far too much for me to believe you are genuine.

Sorry.

> I totally agree with your point about intelligence being kept secret. Sadly, this is indeed the case. I do not invite US secret services to reveal their sources. I am only saying that if they choose to keep evidence secret, it is not reasonable then to expect people to believe them. In absence of evidence, there is no way of knowing whether you are being told truth, or deliberate lie, or anything in between. Like someone else in the comment above said, this is essentially a matter of trust. And frankly, secret services do not deserve our blind trust (no-one does, but especially not them, because misinformation is, by definition, part of their trade).

It isn't blind trust. Russia has an established pattern of behavior of such meddling in countries like Georgia, Ukraine, etc. as well.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/hacking-in-america/timeline...

> May 2014: Three days before Ukraine’s presidential election, a Russia-based hacking group, took down the country’s election commission in an overnight attack. Even a back-up system was taken down, but Ukrainian computer experts were able to restore the system before election day. Ukrainian police say they arrested hackers who were trying to rig the results. The attack was aimed at creating chaos and hurting the nationalist candidate while helping the pro-Russian candidate. Russia’s preferred candidate lost.

> May 2015: German investigators discovered hackers had penetrated the computer network of the German Bundestag, the most significant hack in German history. The BfV, German’s domestic intelligence service, later said Russia was behind the attack and that they were seeking information not just on the workings of the Bundestag, but German leaders and NATO, among others. Security experts said hackers were trying to penetrate the computers of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic party.

> December 2016: Earlier this month, BfV head Hans-Georg Maasen warned "There is growing evidence of attempts to influence the federal election next year," referring to German parliamentary elections likely to take place in September 2017. Maasen specifically cited Russia as the source of the attacks, adding, "We expect a further increase in cyber attacks in the run-up to the elections." Experts believe the Russians are trying to damage incumbent Chancellor Merkel, who supported sanctions against Putin’s personal associates after Russia annexed Crimea.

Are you saying the entire Western world is engaged in a conspiracy to blame Russia for cyber attacks against multiple countries, some of which include elections?

Because, either this conspiracy exists or the fact that Ukraine, Germany, US, etc. all come to the same conclusion is based on actual evidence.

[sloppycee]

Depending on how the intelligence services determined it was Russia behind the attacks, it might not be very hard for a single country to masquerade as Russia to achieve their own political goals. It doesn't need to be a multi-nation conspiracy.

Taking the tinfoil off, Russia is probably behind the attacks but espionage is all about using misinformation; so who knows. Without the methodology behind how they've determined Russia was behind those attacks, we can never know.

[fweespeech]

> Depending on how the intelligence services determined it was Russia behind the attacks, it might not be very hard for a single country to masquerade as Russia to achieve their own political goals. It doesn't need to be a multi-nation conspiracy.

> Taking the tinfoil off, Russia is probably behind the attacks but espionage is all about using misinformation; so who knows. Without the methodology behind how they've determined Russia was behind those attacks, we can never know.

What would be the purpose in launching a cyberattack against Ukraine followed by essentially an invasion by another nation?

Who would benefit from Trump's election with nation-state like capability? Russia.

Who wouldn't benefit? Literally everyone else.

But sure, give me an alternative narrative that makes any kind of sense under your theory. I suspect you'll go with the China/TPP angle since its anything else. The problem with that is Clinton was also willing to drop the TPP. There isn't any other nation state with anything resembling a motive AND the capability.

EDIT due to rate limits:

> Do you know what the Russian defense was? It was the "who would benefit" argument.

Whatboutism. Thank you.

I'm well aware of what their defense was.

That doesn't change the fact this isn't one incident but a 10+ year pattern of behavior.

EDIT again:

> I have no political leanings, I'm neither American or Russian. Your biases are showing, w.r.t your hatred of Trump and your unfounded claim/assumption that Russia would benefit from a Trump presidency.

> Why does it matter so much who leaked the emails, rather than the content of them? If the DNC has nothing to hide...

1) That wasn't the only thing I mentioned. A list of war-like acts by a foreign nation isn't a partisan issue. (i.e. interfering with domestic elections is a war-like act)

2) Rather than meeting a challenge you know is impossible to meet (because there isn't an alternative villain that meets the scenario you propose) you chose to focus on attacking me. Cute but ultimately irrelevant.

3) Thank you for admitting the best defense you could compose was "WELL YOU ARE A DEMONRAT!" which is odd for a "Canadian". Good day.

4) As for the benefits, Trump wants to be friendly with Putin, keep NATO at arm's length, drop sanctions, etc. Its absurd to argue you he isn't a pro-Russian president.

[azangru]

> Who would benefit...

Remember the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over the Eastern Ukraine in 2014?

Do you know what the Russian defense was? It was the "who would benefit" argument. Who would benefit from shooting down that plane, they asked? Why, the Ukrainians, of course — they would show the rest of the world what vicious monsters the pro-Russian separatists and their Russian overlords are. Who wouldn't benefit? Why, Russia of course! Don't you see, they said, what an outrageous provocation that is?

Well, as the time went by, it became almost certain that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile launcher, probably manned by a Russian crew, that had crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border some time before.

Incidentally, for that particular case we have a pretty convincing body of evidence. I encourage everyone to look at that particular incident and at the investigation that followed as an example of arguing a case.

[azangru]

> Do you know what the Russian defense was? It was the "who would benefit" argument.

> Whatboutism. Thank you.

I am sorry, but this is not a whataboutism (a logical fallacy so widespread that it is treated at length in Wikipedia). It is an illustration of the weakness of the _cui bono_ argument.

[sloppycee]

I have no political leanings, I'm neither American or Russian. Your biases are showing, w.r.t your hatred of Trump and your unfounded claim/assumption that Russia would benefit from a Trump presidency.

The irony is that if a Chelsea Manning/Edward Snowden character leaked the DNC emails people would be praising them for exposing the shitshow that was going on behind the scenes.

It kind of takes the heat off of the Dems, it wasn't them who were tampering with the election (which they were); it was the Russians!

Why does it matter so much who leaked the emails, rather than the content of them? If the DNC has nothing to hide...

[azangru]

> And yet, the only time you demand proof is related to Russia and your account was inactive for over a month before that. You protest and deflect far too much for me to believe you are genuine.

> Sorry.

It's funny. We don't know each other; yet you actually had enough interest in me as a person (not in my words related to this particular discussion) to examine my commenting history at Hacker News and to come to a conclusion. Which is based on circumstantial evidence (my commenting history). And which — whatever opinion you may have formed of me — is most likely wrong.

As a programmer (not a very experienced one), I've been reading Hacker News for quite some time. I have always found discussions here interesting and instructive, unlike on any other internet forum that I know of. I have never had a reason to jump in and leave a comment until I saw someone's criticism of someone else's example of functional programming, which sounded to me laughably wrong. This is when I decided to actually register and leave a comment to that person. I just couldn't resist.

And then, a day later, I saw a very similar discussion about Russia hacking the U.S. elections. I had been following the analysis of this story in the U.S. media since the story broke out. I have been annoyed by how easily this story got woven into the mainstream narrative; how easily the stories about DNC hacks, Podesta emails, and Wikileaks became to be regarded as acts of aggression of one country against another. I was dumbstruck by how easily political motivations of making Russia (which is not a lamb, by any standard) into a scapegoat get overlooked (believe you me, our media has a very similar tendency of blaming various events, including the Ukranian revolution of 2014, on the U.S.). That's why when I saw a comment of an intelligent human being that expressed an idea that so much irked me, I left mine. That people see it as evidence of my hidden motives, is both sad and amusing at the same time.

I am not qualified to talk about Georgia, or Ukraine, or Germany. I am not following their news. I do not follow Russian news, for that matter, either (they are depressing and sickening). I am not saying that Russia is innocent of anything, and that the whole world is in conspiracy against it. I simply do not know. I am only focusing here on the recent story regarding the U.S. elections, and on the quality of arguments surrounding it.

P.S.: > And yet, the only time you demand proof...

I was not even demanding proof :-) I was merely pointing out that the document you quoted cannot be regarded as such.