Why do you trust foreign intelligence agencies more than your own?

Why do you trust foreign intelligence agencies more than your own?

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/jasnonaz/with_replies
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because mine has a long history of lying to me.

and others don't?

Also, your wrong.

probably as much of a representation as veterans against trump

Looks like he's Anonymous to me.

Don't trust non of them. If information is classified secret for "public security" it's only damagin to politicians or the agencies. Keeping information from the public is wrong most of the times.

Not sure what you mean. Most veterams voted Trump.

?

You are extremely ignorant when it comes to classification of information.

>Not sure what you mean.

Is there a consensus at the CIA about Russia hacking the election?

Put me on the payroll and I'll tell you

It's like when your dad ass rapes you and gives you diabetic candy but the junkie nigger family down the street gives you fried chicken and a coca-cola

>do you trust people that spy on your constantly using PRISM

No.

They are all filled with pedos and pedo apologists like you and this jew scum. Pay no attention to fake news, look at Russia! His pedo friends dindu nuffin! [email protected]
twitter.com/jasnonaz/with_replies

Because I looked at the documents and proof they posted, I also fought in Iraqi freedom. I also looked at the character of the people bringing the evidence and the CIA being managed by radical leftists.

It's called bullshit.

CIA should be dismantled and rebranded for their traitorous shit. Honorable field agents who are not liberal extremists absorbed into FBI, or put into new agency.

/thread

Yes, hence the official stance.

You don't even know wtf PRISM is.

Also, look up USSID SP0018 before you ever comment on this subject again.

You must have been a grunt, supply, or air winger to have been this dense.

I was in the military too. Do you realize that the documents they released were declassified?

Do you understand what that means?

I don't trust intelligence agencies full stop

Why?
1: they're gov workers, which usually means they do a shit job
2: too invested in politics
3: break laws willy nilly

>You are extremely ignorant when it comes to classification of information.

For country such as Sweden (or any Nordic country for that matter) transparency is the best form of defense against hacking and foreign influence because that exposes corruption and uses truth to combat all the lies that are spread.

>transparency is the best form of defense

So why don't you just publish all your governmental and military information for everyone to access whenever they'd like?

That seem like a good idea to you?

We know our own single-honestly perpetrated the drug was and acts of terrorism and political assassinations for authoritarian regimes the world over. In essence, we don't trust them because they are untrustworthy.

have you seen their briefings on memes, meme magic, and memetic warfare?
>have multiple-hundred-billion dollar budget
>have frew-reign to operate independent of the laws of any governing body
>have unlimited potential for manpower and intelligence resources
>understanding of internet and memes is equivalent to a momscience blogger
they're retarded. they have fucked everything up they jave tried to do in the past 70 years. they're a disaster

PRISM is a spying tool.

Trigger words enable it.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

>trusting anyone

Rusbro beat me to it.

>drug wars
False.
>acts of terrorism and political assassinations for authoritarian regimes the world over.
You are so naive that you don't believe every nation on the planet that is able is doing the same thing. You are a child in this realm.

>they're retarded
Do you know how hard it is to get into these agencies? Do you honestly believe "they're retarded"?

>they have fucked everything up they jave tried to do in the past 70 years. they're a disaster
Yet the US remains the strongest and most informed nation the planet...

Yes but how does it work smart guy?

You ARE the fucking foreign intelligence agency, faggot, and on top of that you are ALL oathbreakers.

What oath am I breaking?

what did he mean by this?

We hate you because you lie

Do you actually know anything about this or do you just repost FB memes?

Genuine question.

You are
You're
You are absolutely retarded and should be shot

It's not that

It's just were don't trust you

Because the CIA is now just an arm of Israel. Cucks

...

What is this a reference to? Be specific and I'll give you an answer specific to a topic.

But, to give you a vague answer to a vague question that has no specifics attached to it, it's hard to take an agency seriously when they're bloated to the point that they need to be cut off from the system. A good example is the CIA dump thread that's on Sup Forums right now. People are freaking out over Project STARGATE. You know, the project in which the CIA wanted multimillion dollars attached to yearly appropriations bills to study ESP. What a fucking waste.

Specifically US accusations that Russia meddled in our election.

Don't know anything about STARGATE.

Are you referring to the collections of memos leaked by Buzzfeed and reported by CNN? Those memos do not come from any US intelligence agency.

Or are you referring to the allegation that Russia was behind the information given to Wikileaks? Assange has made it clear that Russia was not the source, although even he implied it's possible that Russia hacked Podesta and the DNC, which implies their security was weak. After all, the emails showed that Podesta's computer log in was a variation of the word password, so it wouldn't surprise me that in Podesta's case, many people could have infiltrated his accounts. I have no doubt numerous countries have attempted to infiltrate numerous accounts in the USA.

Also, I hate to break it to you, but handing over documents to Wikileaks doesn't exactly count as meddling with our election. Meddling with our election would be hacking voting machines, or ballot stuffing. The argument that disclosure on how the DNC operated was meddling with our election is the equivalent of the antagonist at the end of a Scooby-Doo episode claiming that they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids and that stupid dog.

>the collections of memos
No, what are those?

>Assange has made it clear that Russia was not the source, although even he implied it's possible that Russia hacked Podesta and the DNC
This seems a bit contradictory. Also, do you really think that Assange can be trusted more than the entire US intelligence community and government? Do you think Russia would pressure him to deny their involvement?

>many people could have infiltrated his accounts
Correct, as you said the security was lax. Do you wonder why so many people accuse Russia of doing this and no one else? This includes civilian contractors and companies, not just federally controlled entities.

>handing over documents to Wikileaks doesn't exactly count as meddling with our election
Why do you think they would have released these documents? Do you truly believe they simply wanted to expose the DNC? Perhaps they had an ulterior motive? I can tell you this; once Russia gained access to this information they reviewed it and determined what the best course of action would be for Russia. Not USA.

The establishment are the purveyors of cultural marxism which is my enemy. Other intelligence agencies seek to prevent and destroy the spread of cultural marxism. That simple.

>Other intelligence agencies seek to prevent and destroy the spread of cultural marxism
Which ones?

>No, what are those?
There's no way you somehow missed the leaks which supposedly linked Trump to Russia. None of those memos came from a US intelligence agency. They also have no evidence behind them.

>This seems a bit contradictory
It's not contradictory at all. Imagine that I have an email account and 10 unrelated people compromise it. However, only one of those people leaks the information online. More specifically, in this case, it's possible multiple people had access to Podesta's emails and the DNC emails. However, even if a Russian actor was one of the individuals who gained access to the emails, that doesn't necessarily mean they are the ones who handed the information to Wikileaks. Remember, according to Assange, the source is not a Russian state actor.

>Do you wonder why so many people accuse Russia of doing this and no one else?
No, I don't, actually. If they have reason to believe Russia infiltrated the accounts, which I do believe that Russia is capable of, especially if the security was as lax as it's implied, of course that's the narrative they'll run with. It sounds much better than the truth, which is, "Well, so many people gained access that we can't really be sure who, exactly, handed the information to Wikileaks..."

>Do you truly believe they simply wanted to expose the DNC?
I think I'm finally starting to understand where people like you are coming from. This is some new way to take a stand against victim shaming, isn't it? The Democratic Party were not the victims here. The victims were the American people.

like who?

>None of those memos came from a US intelligence agency. They also have no evidence behind them.
Then why bring them up? I agree, they're baseless and stupid.

>according to Assange
This is what it boils down to then; do you believe Assange+Russia or the US? Out curiosity why?

>It sounds much better than the truth, which is, "Well, so many people gained access
How do you know this is true?

>I think I'm finally starting to understand where people like you are coming from.
I'm not a Democrat nor have I ever been. This is a bipartisan issue.

>Then why bring them up? I agree, they're baseless and stupid.
Because I was asking, specifically, what you were referencing. Both instances made waves across the MSM. You made a very vague statement (>Specifically US accusations that Russia meddled in our election) and I needed to know, specifically, which narrative you were going to run with.

>do you believe Assange+Russia or the US?
Why are you coupling Assange with Russia? You're already trying to muddle the argument with the terms you're attempting to set. In case it's not clear, I don't agree with the way you want to frame this discussion. Wikileaks and Russia are separate entities. The claims they make are separate from the claims that the Kremlin makes. Unless you're attempting to argue that Wikileaks has always been a Russian organization from the get-go. Is that what you're trying to argue? Because, you're starting to imply that with the coupling. If that's not your claim, then admit that Russia and Wikileaks are two separate entities.

With that out of the way, Assange, as the public face of Wikileaks, has no reason to lie about this. His track record is much better than the track record of intelligence agencies, both domestic and foreign. In fact, Russia has already lied when they claimed they've never attempted blackmail. Intelligence agencies lie and deceive. A literal translation of Proverbs 24:6 makes a bit of sense here. "Deceit is essential in warfare."

>How do you know this is true?
It's a logical assumption that I can make based on the information I'm provided with. If Podesta's security was as lax as it appears, it seems very likely that multiple people infiltrated his emails specifically.

Because ours does not have the interest of the American people in mind

>I'm not a Democrat nor have I ever been. This is a bipartisan issue.
Then you, of all people, should understand that intelligence agencies have a poor track record worldwide. Moreover, domestic operations, such as the mainstream media, have a much louder voice when it comes to influencing an election, and in the case of the Wikileaks information, it was made pretty obvious that the DNC was trying to influence the election in ways that shouldn't be considered ethical, as they had media collusion on their side. The media should be here to report the news, not give us a slanted, biased drip of propaganda.

Because I've worked with them.

Certainly, Russia is one of the countries that acts in its own interests. There's no denying that.

But Hillary Clinton seemed intent on going to war in the Middle East where she planned no-fly zones that may very well have caught Russian planes, she looked to be one of the instigators of Maidan and did not think through the consequences, she probably wants to go to war in the South China Sea, again without contemplating the consequences, and was likely to top it all off with a nice big H-bomb cherry landed on the latest Kim Jong-lunatic.

I'm not interested in that foreign policy. Too many body bags and too much ground to control.

Someday, somehow, we Americans really do need to think about some sort of actually defensible perimeter that doesn't requre dozens of US armadas to keep it together.

We can accuse Russia because we do not do much business with Russia.

Our European allies do, though, and I wonder what they think behind closed doors.

RETARDED FAGGOT OP BTFO HOLY SHIT!!!!!
Saged, hidden, reported to RIDF.

It may be possible to concoct statements relating to the reliability of "Mr Steele's" sources, and there may be information relating to whether or not those sources would be in a position to know what they allegedly told Mr. Steele. Of course, none of that would be released to the general public.

The CIA is as transparent as a brick wall.

Why does the CIA Shill for the whore in the pic?