Well, Covid don't scare 'em no more and sharks with laser beams are so last century. Russians in space is all they got left. Well, that and weirdos with guns. Of course I'm betting the KC thing is gang related.
Бедная Лайка, как грустно.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 02-14-2024).]
I'm totally speculating here... but I doubt seriously that it has anything to do with Russia. CNN and left-leaning news seem to be constantly enamored with Russia... which is essentially a barely functioning "western" society that's basically broke, and has the remnants of a military left over from the 1970s and 1980s. They have a few things going for them, which is that they spend money on advanced technology in areas where they actually can compete on the world stage. That's hypersonics (allegedly) and cyber warfare. Beyond that... they are an irrelevant nation.
CNN has a really bad track record with their "sources," and I honestly don't trust them to have decent sources in the first place. For that matter, I doubt seriously that Russia wants to start a full-scale war with the United States... which makes the "gravity" of this threat totally non-existent (if it was Russia). I could be completely wrong, but I think this angle is totally nonsense.
What I do think it could be... is possibly one of two things:
- SCADA / ICS malware in power plants, energy sectory, and infrastructure. I suspect they've likely been told that the U.S. energy companies are compromised... either they've identified some instances of it, or they caught intelligence of people talking about it... and they're worried it could be leveraged to bring us to our knees. If you can cripple U.S. energy production, our economy dies quickly and we go into a panic state.
- Immigration / Terrorism ... possibly they got wind of a potential planned attack on the United States, and recognize that there's individuals who've crossed the border... and the intel select committee wants the information out to allow local police and lower clearanced DHS and FBI agents to action it.
Well, Covid don't scare 'em no more and sharks with laser beams are so last century. Russians in space is all they got left. Well, that and weirdos with guns. Of course I'm betting the KC thing is gang related.
Бедная Лайка, как грустно.
WELL IMMIGRANT GANGS AT LEAST not domestic gangs who live here must be those border jumping cop thumping 3rd world gangs right ?
Representative Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut and the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the issue was “serious” and [House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner] was right to focus on it. But he added that the threat was “not going to ruin your Thursday.”
How's this for openers?
quote
The United States has informed Congress and its allies in Europe of new intelligence about Russian nuclear capabilities that could pose an international threat, according to officials briefed on the matter.
Officials said that the new intelligence was serious—but that the capability was still under development, and Russia had not deployed it. Consequently, it did not pose an urgent threat to the United States, Ukraine or America’s European allies, they said. The information is highly classified, and officials said it could not be declassified without [compromising] its source.
A current and a former U.S. official said the new intelligence was related to Russia’s attempts to develop a space-based antisatellite nuclear weapon . . .
I think we need to open a new Russia investigation. Or reopen the old one.
These are excerpts from today's edition of the New York Times.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-14-2024).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: Thursday still looks good I think we need to open a new Russia investigation. Or reopen the old one.
These are excerpts from today's edition of the New York Times.
If this is really about Russia, and they're perceived ability to destroy our satellites, then this is a totally absurd action by the House Intelligence Committee. For what purpose do they need to declassify this? The intelligence community already knows everything the House Intelligence Committee knows about, and they can put re-direct funding from black budgets to fund various programs to counter such threats. Why the big theatrics?
I still cannot believe this has anything to do about Russia... because if it does, there is no benefit gained from this stunt, and I have to assume it's politics... possibly to hurt Biden (could care less), or to try to encourage funding for Ukraine by saying we need a big spending bill to counter a threat, and then include the Ukraine stuff in it.
Just over 5 minutes for a careful read, end to end.
The Russian capability is likely a nuclear powered satellite that Russia could use to destroy or interfere with U.S. satellites using non-nuclear projectiles or jamming signals.
The advantage of using "nuclear" to power this anti-satellite satellite is like the Energizer Bunny—it could keep on going and going and going. It wouldn't be dependent on the limitations of an onboard chemical fuel supply, or need to recharge with solar panels—which could be cumbersome.
It would be like a Russian "Pac-Man" in orbit, gobbling up U.S. satellites with the rapidity of—wait for it—a Pac-Man avatar in a Pac-Man style video game.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-15-2024).]
Just over 5 minutes for a careful read, end to end.
The Russian capability is likely a nuclear powered satellite that Russia could use to destroy or interfere with U.S. satellites using non-nuclear projectiles or jamming signals.
The advantage of using "nuclear" to power this anti-satellite satellite is like the Energizer Bunny—it could keep on going and going and going. It wouldn't be dependent on the limitations of an onboard chemical fuel supply, or need to recharge with solar panels—which could be cumbersome.
It would be like a Russian "Pac-Man" in orbit, gobbling up U.S. satellites with the rapidity of—wait for it—a Pac-Man avatar in a Pac-Man style video game.
This is hardly a reason to scream to Biden to declassify. What exactly is / would be the purpose of making this public?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: This is hardly a reason to scream to Biden to declassify. What exactly is / would be the purpose of making this public?
From the article in Slate that I just posted:
quote
The panic over Russia’s alleged advances—whether justified or not—erupted on Wednesday, when Rep. Mike Turner, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, released a statement warning of a “national security threat” related to a “destabilizing foreign military capability.” National security adviser Jake Sullivan appeared before cameras soon after, saying he was puzzled by this reaction, as intelligence officials were about to brief the “Gang of 8”—the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, as well as the majority and minority leaders in the two chambers, who are privy to the most highly classified matters—the next day.
Thursday morning, after the briefing, Turner issued a follow-on statement, saying he has made information on the threat available to all members of Congress and urged President Joe Biden to declassify it, so the public and allies can discuss its implications.
The White House is reluctant to declassify everything about it, saying that would reveal “sources and methods” about how the intel was obtained. This suggests the information came from communications intercepts of Russian military officials or their design bureaus—not from data about an actual test.
It is unclear, then, why Turner released his hair-on-fire statement when he did. Some speculate that he might have wanted to sound a high-decibel alarm about the Russians in order to prod the House into approving the Senate-passed bill on military aid to Ukraine. (Turner is an avid supporter of the bill.) Others say the intel came from a U.S. surveillance program that is about to expire; publicizing it might save the program, which Turner also very much supports. Or it might be simply that there is new, alarming information.
Whether by coincidence or not, the news came less than a week after Russia launched a Soyuz-2-1v rocket with a classified military payload onboard.
Mike Turner, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, is a Republican and represents Ohio's 10th congressional district.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-15-2024).]
Mike Turner, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, is a Republican and represents Ohio's 10th congressional district.
Son of a ***** ...
"It is unclear, then, why Turner released his hair-on-fire statement when he did. Some speculate that he might have wanted to sound a high-decibel alarm about the Russians in order to prod the House into approving the Senate-passed bill on military aid to Ukraine."
There you go. I'm honestly getting really tired of this war. Why are we funding it? What exactly is the point of NATO, UN, or the European Union. This is literally in their back yard. They should be funding this almost entirely.
We've spent $113 billion dollars thus far on the Ukraine war. That is he entire budget of NASA over the span of the entire 15 years. Completely ****ing ridiculous... and I mean that with every emphasis on the word ****ing. Imagine what we could have built and flown into space for $113 billion? If I had any say... I'd say it's time for Europe to take his one and see it through to the end. They're welcome for the 60%+ or more that we've funded of this stupid war.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 02-17-2024).]
It is dangerous to play loose with intelligence info like this, but zi think it is pretty clear why they did it at this time.
There are a certain portion of US citizens that are falling in love with Russia right now. They see Russia as harmless. They idolize Putin as "the type of strong leader we need'. They are even claiming that it would be better to live in Moscow than 'any city in the United States". They even want Ukraine to fall as punishment for cooperating with the corrupt Bidens.
Poland and some of the other NATO countries in Europe have provided refuge for many times more Ukrainians than the United States.
A lot of the funding for that comes out of the European countries' own "pockets" and not from the United States.
Tampa has taken more than enough attractive blond women. But what does taking refugees have anything to do with it? Europe needs to get off their ass, and if they honestly care about Russia re-taking Eastern Europe... then they need to do something about it. Why does it automatically have to be the U.S.'s problem? I'm starting to get more FDR about this than TDR. Show me why I should care, and why I should help. I'm very much over it.
quote
Originally posted by BingB:
It is dangerous to play loose with intelligence info like this, but zi think it is pretty clear why they did it at this time.
There are a certain portion of US citizens that are falling in love with Russia right now. They see Russia as harmless. They idolize Putin as "the type of strong leader we need'. They are even claiming that it would be better to live in Moscow than 'any city in the United States". They even want Ukraine to fall as punishment for cooperating with the corrupt Bidens.
Democrats have literally ADORED Russia for the past 50+ years. From Hanoi Jane to Bernie Sanders honeymooning in the 80s, to Jen Psaki getting custom sickle and hammer gear... they only stopped their love affair with Communist Russia because they think Putin likes Trump. Which is completely insane. Given the opportunity, they would love that kind of power over here. I'm sorry... some of the stuff you say is just out there. Most of the nonsense stuff you see that's passed around Democrat circles that you think is from Republicans, is literally Russian propaganda from the Internet Research Agency.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 02-18-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Why does it automatically have to be the U.S.'s problem? I'm starting to get more FDR about this than TDR. Show me why I should care, and why I should help. I'm very much over it.
Todd, I am not happy with the aid, being mainly unaccountable for. I think it is a worthy "investment", for freedom. I would be against it but the Ukranians are expending the guts and blood. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Hitler was the last person who kept om taking country after country. It took our blood, guts, and treasure, plus the American populace such as Rosie the Riveter and our factories to totally tool up and change production to military capabilities.
Democrats have literally ADORED Russia for the past 50+ years. From Hanoi Jane to Bernie Sanders honeymooning in the 80s, to Jen Psaki getting custom sickle and hammer gear... they only stopped their love affair with Communist Russia because they think Putin likes Trump.
This release did not happen 50 years ago. We are dealing with what is happening today. So what is your point?
Why does it automatically have to be the U.S.'s problem?
Well if I remember the Republicans' comments from when Putin annexed Crimea while Obama was in office it would be the end of the world if the United sates appeared weak on the world stage. It would open the floodgates for tyrannical leaders all across the globe to act aggressively.
The data [shows] that total European aid has long overtaken U.S. aid—not only in terms of commitments, but also in terms of specific aid allocations sent to Ukraine. In addition, the approval of the EU's Ukraine Support Facility guarantees further financial assistance.
However, the gap between EU commitments and allocations remains very large (€144 billion committed vs. €77 billion allocated). To fully replace U.S. military assistance in 2024, Europe would have to double its current level and pace of arms assistance. These are results from the latest Ukraine Support Tracker update, which now covers aid through January 15, 2024.
This release did not happen 50 years ago. We are dealing with what is happening today. So what is your point?
quote
Originally posted by BingB: Well if I remember the Republicans' comments from when Putin annexed Crimea while Obama was in office it would be the end of the world if the United sates appeared weak on the world stage. It would open the floodgates for tyrannical leaders all across the globe to act aggressively.
Yeah, it's funny isn't it. I noticed the same thing... Russia seems to only attack when we the U.S. has weak presidents. The main point I was trying to make though, is that Europe needs to be footing the bill here.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Yeah, it's funny isn't it. I noticed the same thing... Russia seems to only attack when we the U.S. has weak presidents. The main point I was trying to make though, is that Europe needs to be footing the bill here.
The United States has the same stake in Ukraine as all the other NATO and EU countries.
It's just as important to the United States as it is to any of the 27 nations of the European Union.
To say otherwise is to fall in line with Putin and Russia's agenda, in which the United States devolves from a global power, downwards to the level of just a regional power like Russia.
Is that really what you want?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-18-2024).]
The United States has the same stake in Ukraine as all the other NATO and EU countries.
It's just as important to the United States as it is to any of the 27 nations of the European Union.
To say otherwise is to fall in line with Putin and Russia's agenda, in which the United States devolves from a global power, downwards to the level of just a regional power like Russia.
Is that really what you want?
Here's what I want.
I want NATO, EU, and the UN to all start footing the bill for this war. I want them to go all out and take back all the original land that belonged to Ukraine, including Crimea. I want Putin to get ousted, and I want Russia to elect a "President" in a democratically run country. I want Russia to become a capitalist country, and slowly become an ally, like Europe, et-all, and not constantly try to relive their communist past.
The United States has 35 trillion dollars in debt. We now pay more in debt interest (as of last week), than everything else on our budget combined. We are effectively at the point where we're going to literally fail / collapse in 19 years. If we had almost no debt, or we had our debt under control... I'd say, no problem. But at this point, we can no longer continue to be the one that funds everything in the world. Yes, I know there are links that show Europe has footed the bill by 40%. Remember, we went over that and it doesn't consider the FULL 113 billion dollars we've given to Ukraine in everything from straight cash, food, weapons, etc. GO back like 10 pages on here... we already hashed this out. We've given the overwhelming vast majority of the money to Ukraine. We need to stop, and this needs to be Europe's fight at this point because we simply CANNOT afford it. I mean that. We need to cut our budget in half... slash literally everything... otherwise this country will go bankrupt, which means it collapses. Part of me believes that's actually the intent.
Yeah, it's funny isn't it. I noticed the same thing... Russia seems to only attack when we the U.S. has weak presidents.
They never attacked the US while Biden or Obama was president, but they did execute a cyber attack against us when Trump was in office.
Based on Trumps responce to that it is pretty clear that the entire country of Ukraine would be under Russian control right now if Trump was President.
They never attacked the US while Biden or Obama was president, but they did execute a cyber attack against us when Trump was in office.
Based on Trumps responce to that it is pretty clear that the entire country of Ukraine would be under Russian control right now if Trump was President.
This is the absolute dumbest, most ill-informed, completely asinine comment I've ever... EVER, read on Pennocks. What you say is so utterly far from the truth, not even a misrepresentation of truth... but just so completely... COMPLETELY incorrect, that I can't even begin. You have me almost at the point where I'd go to jail and divulge classified information just to disprove how ****ing retarded this comment is (but I won't because I took an oath). Like... I don't even know where you get this **** from. It is so completely absurd and retarded, that I don't even know where to start. I almost need to do a Vulcan mind-meld to share with you how misinformed you are... how grossly misinformed you are.
Russia, China, Iran... they attack us almost daily. At any given time, they're in dozens of our critical infrastructure environments. I worked in offensive cyber through Obama's entire second term, all of Trump's first term, and the first year of Biden's presidency. Obama and Trump were hard on our adversaries... Biden... let me just say, there's a reason why I quit. Maybe I needed to give him more time, but after Afghanistan, I was done. But with Obama and Trump, they were both on our enemies in cyber day-1. Trump was RUTHLESS... I worked more hours in the four years I worked for Trump than all of my 5 years with Obama. To sit there and say Trump did nothing... it's not only completely, and utterly incorrect, it's actually insulting.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 02-19-2024).]
All of the US intelligence agencies agreed that Russia hacked the DNC and interfered with the 2016 election. Trump flat out said that Putin told him he didn't do it and he was believing Vlad over US intelligence.
All of the US intelligence agencies agreed that Russia hacked the DNC and interfered with the 2016 election. Trump flat out said that Putin told him he didn't do it and he was believing Vlad over US intelligence.
Did that offend you?
What's going on here is... you're deflecting. You've lost whatever absurd argument you were making (I can't even remember now), and keep trying to go down a path to any point... literally any point where you can say "ah hah!!!" Meanwhile, the original point is completely lost... I really have no idea what your point is.
The intelligence community is made up of nearly 100k people across all agencies through varying clearance levels. The intelligence community also has a lot of information at its disposal. Not all of what's obtained is released. Sometimes the very thing we want released, is not... because the powers that be don't want it so. Many times, it's weaponized... such as the Russian Dossier that was funded by Hillary through a shell organization, and jointly supported through FBI engagement. In other cases, it can be outright constitutional violations, like the abuse of the NSA's FISA 702 capability from the FBI to perform warrantless wiretapping. You might recall then Admiral Rogers, DIRNSA, went to Trump Towers to report to Trump (after he'd won the election), that in fact the Obama administration had been spying on him, and most of his family for the greater part of a year. All precipitated by the Russian "dossier." Unfortunately, these organizations become as corrupt as the administrations they support, and in many cases refuse to do the things they're required to do on ideological grounds.
Never the less... you're going on a tangent, and aren't asking real questions now. I'm not willing to continue to pursue your theoretics on a subject where you're totally ignorant, and I'm a living breathing expert on the topic. It puts me in an uncomfortable situation where I have to answer stupid questions where I may not be allowed to... because I am true to my oath, regardless of political ideology.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: What's going on here is... you're deflecting. You've lost whatever absurd argument you were making (I can't even remember now), and keep trying to go down a path to any point..
Sorry that you could not keep up, but I never veered from my original argument.
Trump trusted Putin over his own intelligence agencies. He praised the guy. He actually urged him to hack and release Clinton emails. Trump would not have done anything to stop him from invading Ukraine.
In fact he just re-iterated that point by "ENCOURAGING" Russia to attack other NATO countries.
You might recall then Admiral Rogers, DIRNSA, went to Trump Towers to report to Trump (after he'd won the election), that in fact the Obama administration had been spying on him, and most of his family for the greater part of a year. All precipitated by the Russian "dossier."
No. I don't recall that because it never happened. Got a link to your source for that claim?
BTW while I was trying to find some support for your story I came across this clip of Rogers complaining about how Trump sided with Putin and refused to condemn them for their cyber attacks.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You might recall then Admiral Rogers, DIRNSA, went to Trump Tower to report to Trump, after [Trump had] won the election, that... the Obama administration had been spying on [Trump] and most of [Trump's] family for the greater part of a year. All precipitated by the Russian "dossier."
Towards the end of March, 2017, in the early days of the Trump presidency, Admiral Rogers testified before Congress.
Rogers was appointed Director of the National Security Agency or DIRNSA a little over a year into Obama's first term as president, and continued in that capacity until the end of Obama's second term. He did not resign at the end of Obama's second term and was retained as DIRNSA by the newly elected President Trump.
Rogers denied a story that the NSA had asked its British counterpart, the GCHQ, to spy on Donald Trump during the national presidential election of 2016. Had that been true, it would have substantiated the claims that President Obama or other higher ups in the Obama administration had orchestrated the wiretapping of Trump Tower or some other kind of eavesdropping on Donald Trump. But Rogers denied it during his testimony before Congress.
This is a brief news report about it:
"Donald Trump wiretapping claims: NSA director [Mike Rogers] denies GCHQ was asked to spy on Trump Tower" Tom Batchelor for the U.S edition of the U.K. Independent; March 20, 2017. https://www.independent.co....-tower-a7639841.html
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-20-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: All of the US intelligence agencies agreed that Russia hacked the DNC and interfered with the 2016 election. Trump flat out said that Putin told him he didn't do it and he was believing Vlad over US intelligence.
Towards the end of March, 2017, in the early days of the Trump presidency, Admiral Rogers testified before Congress.
Rogers was appointed Director of the National Security Agency or DIRNSA a little over a year into Obama's first term as president, and continued in that capacity until the end of Obama's second term. He did not resign at the end of Obama's second term and was retained as DIRNSA by the newly elected President Trump.
Rogers denied a story that the NSA had asked its British counterpart, the GCHQ, to spy on Donald Trump during the national presidential election of 2016. Had that been true, it would have substantiated the claims that President Obama or other higher ups in the Obama administration had orchestrated the wiretapping of Trump Tower or some other kind of eavesdropping on Donald Trump. But Rogers denied it during his testimony before Congress.
Sorry Rinse, I wrote that very poorly. At no point did I mean to suggest that Admiral Rogers directed anyone to do any spying on Trump. Admiral Rogers is a true patriot, and he's a really, really good guy. As I said... Admiral Rodgers went to Trump Towers to ALERT Trump that he had been spied on ... by the FBI. There's a process (which you can look up), by which the FBI uses NSA technology under specific authorities. The FBI (via the DOJ) spied on Trump, his family, and his team members multiple times through a very long period of time before and up to his inaguration. This is NOT up for discussion, it's already proven and confirmed, and an FBI agent actually went to jail for falsifying a FISA document (twice) which led to the authorization of it.
As for the GCHQ stuff... I know NOTHING about this silliness of GCHQ spying on Trump in Trump Towers? That is completely fabricated... and I'd be really interested in how they (whoever made that up) think it would even work. The United States would NEVER allow a foreign country's spy agency access to U.S. infrastructure.
Anyway, when I said "All precipitated by the Russian dossier," I was referring to really just FBI, DOJ, and a few members of the CIA. How deep that goes, or whether it was a select few people that had "strings pulled" is the question.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 02-20-2024).]
The FBI (via the DOJ) spied on Trump, his family, and his team members multiple times through a very long period of time before and up to his inaguration. This is NOT up for discussion, it's already proven and confirmed, and an FBI agent actually went to jail for falsifying a FISA document (twice) which led to the authorization of it.
Some of Trumps campaign members were monitored due to allegations of collusion with Russia. But you said "Trump and his family". I don't think that ever happened. And it was not because of a "dossier". It was because of comments made by Trump campaign advisor George Papadopolus.
But I don't want to get lost picking at nits about little details. The big point I was making was that Trump chose to believe Vladimir Putin over the United States intelligence. And since you were in military intelligence I thought it would be interesting to get your opinion on that. Should the President of the United States believe the President of Russia over his own intelligence? Do you think that is proper?
Some of Trumps campaign members were monitored due to allegations of collusion with Russia. But you said "Trump and his family". I don't think that ever happened. And it was not because of a "dossier". It was because of comments made by Trump campaign advisor George Papadopolus.
But I don't want to get lost picking at nits about little details. The big point I was making was that Trump chose to believe Vladimir Putin over the United States intelligence. And since you were in military intelligence I thought it would be interesting to get your opinion on that. Should the President of the United States believe the President of Russia over his own intelligence? Do you think that is proper?
