| > 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. |
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.