GG Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Have you read the release? How is my reading of the release relate to you spinning wacked out conspiracy theories? The release only confirmed what many people were guessing were the tools at their disposals. Funny, how most of the analysis of the release is coming from conspiracy sites. But go ahead and tell us how we're the duped ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2017 Author Share Posted March 7, 2017 How is my reading of the release relate to you spinning wacked out conspiracy theories? The release only confirmed what many people were guessing were the tools at their disposals. Funny, how most of the analysis of the release is coming from conspiracy sites. But go ahead and tell us how we're the duped ones. Have you read them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Have you read them? I've read snippets. What's the big deal? CIA has the latest cyber tools that it can use. Isn't that what a spy agency supposed to do? Now, when Wikileaks releases documents showing that CIA has in fact killed US citizens to protect its standing, then it's a story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2017 Author Share Posted March 7, 2017 I've read snippets. What's the big deal? The big deal is you're exposing your bias. You inserted yourself into this topic, without doing the due diligence yourself, and proceeded to lie, twist and attack the messenger with your first posts while completely ignoring the content... which again you have not read. What's always doubted is your interpretation of the events. Funny... normally one has to know the basics of the subject before they can doubt any interpretation of the subject. But not you. You just dove right in blind because this (obviously) threatens your outdated and dangerous world view that you cherish. Had you read the release (of which I'm still going through myself), you'd understand I haven't offered an interpretation of the data. I just relayed some of its contents. Do better. Be smarter. Do your homework before making yourself look silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 The big deal is you're exposing your bias. You inserted yourself into this topic, without doing the due diligence yourself, and proceeded to lie, twist and attack the messenger with your first posts while completely ignoring the content... which again you have not read. Funny... normally one has to know the basics of the subject before they can doubt any interpretation of the subject. But not you. You just dove right in blind because this (obviously) threatens your outdated and dangerous world view that you cherish. Had you read the release (of which I'm still going through myself), you'd understand I haven't offered an interpretation of the data. I just relayed some of its contents. Do better. Be smarter. Do your homework before making yourself look silly. Again, my analysis of the leaked information is irrelevant to your suggestion that the CIA killed JFK Jr to help Hillary's run for Senate. Your words, not mine. Maybe one day you'll see the world clearly. I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2017 Author Share Posted March 7, 2017 Again, my analysis of the leaked information is irrelevant to your suggestion that the CIA killed JFK Jr to help Hillary's run for Senate. Your words, not mine. Maybe one day you'll see the world clearly. I hope. Only a fool comes into a conversation, having not read the material being discussed, and then tries to dismiss it as conspiracy. Only a liar, who's really terrified of upsetting his own world view, goes out of his way to twist the words and attack the messenger rather than reading the material himself first before forming their opinion. Only someone who lives in a bubble tries the defense: The CIA wouldn't kill the son of a god like president... when they shot said president in the !@#$ing head in public. Do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Only a fool comes into a conversation, having not read the material being discussed, and then tries to dismiss it as conspiracy. Only a liar, who's really terrified of upsetting his own world view, goes out of his way to twist the words and attack the messenger rather than reading the material himself first before forming their opinion. Only someone who lives in a bubble tries the defense: The CIA wouldn't kill the son of a god like president... when they shot said president in the !@#$ing head in public. Do better. Funny how you accuse everyone else of deflection, when it's an art practiced by you. Again, I wasn't commenting on the release, but commenting on YOUR wacked out take of what the release means. There was a saying on this site a while back that needs to be brought back. THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT, ARE NOT THE SAME. It wouldn't even take gatorman level intellect to think that your theories are wacked out. Please explain how CIA killed JFK when they thought he presented an existential risk to them, but haven't killed Assange, when he presents an existential risk to them? Yet, this same CIA has no problem killing JFK Jr for no other reason than to help Hillary run for Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2017 Author Share Posted March 7, 2017 Again, I wasn't commenting on the release, but commenting on YOUR wacked out take of what the release means. Which you were making without reading the material yourself... because you have an agenda. It's a clear agenda too. You're bad at hiding it. Please explain how CIA killed JFK when they thought he presented an existential risk to them, but haven't killed Assange, when he presents an existential risk to them? Yet, this same CIA has no problem killing JFK Jr for no other reason than to help Hillary run for Senate. This has been covered. And you're lying again. I never said they killed JFK Jr. just to let Hillary run. I never even said they killed JFK Jr. Lies are all you have got when you don't do the homework yourself I guess. Duck, Dodge, Dive -- anything to avoid looking reality in the eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Which you were making without reading the material yourself... because you have an agenda. It's a clear agenda too. You're bad at hiding it. This has been covered. And you're lying again. I never said they killed JFK Jr. just to let Hillary run. I never even said they killed JFK Jr. Lies are all you have got when you don't do the homework yourself I guess. Duck, Dodge, Dive -- anything to avoid looking reality in the eye. Either you're the 3rd most dense person on this site, or you're a troll. In this very thread, you posited that CIA killed JFK Jr. How else are we supposed to view these posts? Your own words, in this very thread. as well as JFK Jr who was the front runner for a senate seat before his plane crashed allowing Hillary to run unimpossed... JFK Jr.'s crash was anything but routine, the timing was always suspicious and now there's evidence that there might have been more at play than just pilot error. If you're not suggesting that CIA killed Jr, why are you even bringing it up in a thread about CIA doing really really bad stuff? Yet, everyone else is the liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2017 Author Share Posted March 7, 2017 In this very thread, you posited that CIA killed JFK Jr. How else are we supposed to view these posts? Your own words, in this very thread. When JFK Jr. died, there was a massive controversy about the accident. It was speculated back then that he was taken out so that Hillary could run unopposed. These documents released today show the CIA has the capability to do exactly that. I did not, and am not saying definitively they did, just that these documents should make people think back to that incident as it opens up a new avenue of investigation. You continually misconstrue what's said to the extreme because you admittedly haven't done your homework on the issue being discussed. Most people when they haven't read the material or studied what's being discussed remain quiet, not GG. You like to dive right in and make it clear to anyone paying attention that it's more important in your world to maintain your illusions and biases than it is to read primary source material for yourself. Do better. If you're not suggesting that CIA killed Jr, why are you even bringing it up in a thread about CIA doing really really bad stuff? This thread is 14 pages long covering a wide range of (changing) topics and discussion. The main subject is the ongoing war between factions of the Deep State -- something you admit you do not believe exists. That you're unable to keep up in the thread isn't surprising. But it is funny. Yet, everyone else is the liar. So far in this thread, it's just you that is doing the lying. But it's just because you're uncomfortable with subjects that point out how badly you've had the wool pulled over your eyes for years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 This is quit the fight going on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Wikileaks may have just blown the Russian hacking story out of the water with it's release of the CIA's cyber warfare kit, including a program called UMBRAGE: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_2621753.html ...Which is a library of attack techniques and programs stolen "from the wild" (i.e. other state actors and hackers). Considering the only "evidence" proffered so far that points to the Russians has been the origin of the servers involved and their IP addresses, I've maintained for weeks it's possible that those markers were not authentic, considering the first thing any state agency run cyber outfit would do is protect the provenance of their attack. Now Umbrage makes it clear not only is CIA capable of pulling that trick off, they excel in it and design their cyber operations around exactly that. Said another way, all the evidence offered to support the Russian conclusion so far falls under the scope of Umbrage - meaning the evidence is no longer (and never was) indicative of who the attackers actually were. Buckle up, this is gonna get bumpier still... (more) https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/839117937042735104/photo/1 They have a program called "Philosoraptor." I want one. I want a dinosaur that disembowels communist governments by refuting Marx with Plato's Republic. I want one, I want one, I want one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 They have a program called "Philosoraptor." I want one. I want a dinosaur that disembowels communist governments by refuting Marx with Plato's Republic. I want one, I want one, I want one! Does the program have a tail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2017 Author Share Posted March 7, 2017 Does the program have a tail? This is why, despite however you feel about me, I have never had any hard feelings against you and still don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 When JFK Jr. died, there was a massive controversy about the accident. It was speculated back then that he was taken out so that Hillary could run unopposed. These documents released today show the CIA has the capability to do exactly that. I did not, and am not saying definitively they did, just that these documents should make people think back to that incident as it opens up a new avenue of investigation. You continually misconstrue what's said to the extreme because you admittedly haven't done your homework on the issue being discussed. Most people when they haven't read the material or studied what's being discussed remain quiet, not GG. You like to dive right in and make it clear to anyone paying attention that it's more important in your world to maintain your illusions and biases than it is to read primary source material for yourself. Do better. This thread is 14 pages long covering a wide range of (changing) topics and discussion. The main subject is the ongoing war between factions of the Deep State -- something you admit you do not believe exists. That you're unable to keep up in the thread isn't surprising. But it is funny. So far in this thread, it's just you that is doing the lying. But it's just because you're uncomfortable with subjects that point out how badly you've had the wool pulled over your eyes for years now. I wonder who else was a master of implying an inference? Since you insist on revisiting the genesis of this thread, you should take stock of how utterly wrong your prognostications have been, and this has been a wonderful exercise of fearmongering. But, what the passage of time is proving is that you've been had by whoever is providing the information to you. Maybe they've been had and have no choice but to double down on the conspiracy. You blame everyone else for holding biases, yet you can't see the contradictions in your theories? Have you ever tried to analyze why these stories started popping up well over a year ago? At that point, Trump was widely seen as a joke with less than a zero chance to win the Presidency. Then who in this Deep State of your was afraid of Hillary Clinton? (The same Deep State that killed JFK Jr to help Hillary a decade prior?) Why did your world suddenly adopt the premise that Hillary would bring the neocons back? What's the motivation? All of this predated Trump and he was a non-event? Who would be threatened at the Deep State if Hillary or any of the GOP candidates became President? If the Deep State truly controlled the Presidency, who were they worried about in January 2016 that would assail their power? The obvious answer is that there was no war in the Deep State, but there was a beginning of Obama's allies planting the seeds to make it difficult for Hillary to undo his "great" legacy. There's no love lost between the two, and no matter who was going to win the White House was going to blow up Obama's horrific foreign policy. It just happened that the Obama lackeys got a wonderful gift with the Trump win, and it will now take longer to clean out the garbage because Trump can't get people confirmed fast enough. This is all you're witnessing - a long overdue clean up of the last 8 years of failure. As to the Wikileaks crap, I view it as yelling fire in a crowded theater. Releasing the tools, without releasing any information of how the tools may have been used illegally is at the very least, reckless. The CIA was doing its job. Color me impressed if Wikileaks proves that it was CIA that killed JFK Jr. Otherwise, they're just peddling in the release of classified information and should be dealt with according to the laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Wow, lol!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Wow, lol!! [This is an automated response.] Shut up, you dumb !@#$ing monkey. Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 [This is an automated response.] Shut up, you dumb !@#$ing monkey. Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.7. Ha ha, it's fun watching GG expose himself for the fool he is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2017 Author Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) I wonder who else was a master of implying an inference? Since you insist on revisiting the genesis of this thread, you should take stock of how utterly wrong your prognostications have been, and this has been a wonderful exercise of fearmongering. Examples? So far I think this thread has been pretty spot on. The OP called for an escalation in the deep state war almost a month before "Deep State" was in every publication's headlines. We've seen CIA get routed, State Department lifers get reassigned, and now more dirty secrets being exposed and ambassadors are dropping like flies. But keep telling yourself this is just a fictional thread. It's working great for you so far. But, what the passage of time is proving is that you've been had by whoever is providing the information to you. Maybe they've been had and have no choice but to double down on the conspiracy. Says the guy who not only doesn't believe the Deep State exists, but goes out of his way to lie and twist my words to point of inanity just to make himself feel better about proudly calling himself a neocon. You blame everyone else for holding biases, yet you can't see the contradictions in your theories? Nope. I blame you for your obvious bias. Which you've demonstrated repeatedly today... have you read the source material yet? Or would you like to keep arguing a topic you admit you don't have the background to argue? Have you ever tried to analyze why these stories started popping up well over a year ago? At that point, Trump was widely seen as a joke with less than a zero chance to win the Presidency. As I've said since the beginning, this narrative predates Trump's candidacy by three years... so, you're proving again you don't know what you're talking about on this subject. You're blindly lashing out because it's uncomfortable to you, and rather than doing the work yourself, you are relying on your own preconcieved ideas and biases. That's a lousy way to have a discussion on a topic as controversial as this. Then who in this Deep State of your was afraid of Hillary Clinton? (The same Deep State that killed JFK Jr to help Hillary a decade prior?) Why did your world suddenly adopt the premise that Hillary would bring the neocons back? What's the motivation? All of this predated Trump and he was a non-event? Who would be threatened at the Deep State if Hillary or any of the GOP candidates became President? If the Deep State truly controlled the Presidency, who were they worried about in January 2016 that would assail their power? It helps to understand the subject, or at least read the topics presented, before making claims like this. You're treating the Deep State as if it's monolithic in structure. The entire premise of this thread hinges on that being false. Do better. The obvious answer is that there was no war in the Deep State, but there was a beginning of Obama's allies planting the seeds to make it difficult for Hillary to undo his "great" legacy. There's no love lost between the two, and no matter who was going to win the White House was going to blow up Obama's horrific foreign policy. It just happened that the Obama lackeys got a wonderful gift with the Trump win, and it will now take longer to clean out the garbage because Trump can't get people confirmed fast enough. This is all you're witnessing - a long overdue clean up of the last 8 years of failure. Again, I understand why you would reach that conclusion, especially considering you don't acknowledge the Deep State's existence. I just disagree. But I do so with evidence. You do so with nothing but lies and twisted words. As to the Wikileaks crap, I view it as yelling fire in a crowded theater. Releasing the tools, without releasing any information of how the tools may have been used illegally is at the very least, reckless. The CIA was doing its job. Color me impressed if Wikileaks proves that it was CIA that killed JFK Jr. Otherwise, they're just peddling in the release of classified information and should be dealt with according to the laws. The tools were not released. Again, it helps to read what you're arguing about before you argue about it. You just make yourself look foolish. As for the bolded, if you had read the documents in question you'd see they are evidence of precisely the opposite. The CIA has no charter to work domestically to the extent these files show. It's not their job. Edited March 7, 2017 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2017 Author Share Posted March 7, 2017 **************** Back on topic ******************** Proof that the USG is secretly paying to keep US software unsafe. That's reckless: https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/839168025517522944/photo/1 CIA developed vulnerabilities in US products and actively worked to keep the holes open... This is damning stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts