Australia, UK accuse Russia of cyber attacks aimed at undermining Western democracies

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Zcustosmorum


"Sheeple"? I mean, come on? That is just so lame.

I was being nice so you should be grateful

The Western war machine and banking system need their 'enemies', hence the constant anti Russian rhetoric.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum


Thank you for being nice.

Do you not think that Russia has been a tad unfriendly recently? Using a nerve agent on English soil wasn't very nice, was it?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Zcustosmorum


Thank you for being nice.

Do you not think that Russia has been a tad unfriendly recently? Using a nerve agent on English soil wasn't very nice, was it?

Unproven, I've heard so many allegations aimed at Russia, constant stories with no evidence, and it all comes from people with obvious agendas, strangely enough, these are the same people who are part of a system which seems to have a track record of overthrowing governments around the world, and at the same time, seem to have military bases placed all around Russia's border.

You think that's nice?

a reply to: Zcustosmorum



You really think that the Salisbury attack was not Russia?

Do you not think that Russia might have a bit of an agenda of it's own?

a reply to: Zcustosmorum


Stories with no evidence? Where have you been - we have mountains of evidence, yet according to Putin those two GRU assassins were just innocent civilians come to see a cathedral spire (although they did not actually get round to that).

Do you actually believe this tosh?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Zcustosmorum



You really think that the Salisbury attack was not Russia?

Do you not think that Russia might have a bit of an agenda of it's own?

You're deflecting, reminds of the Tory party

I have no idea, as is typical with the crap from political sources here (think they learned it from the States), it's all talk and accusation with nothing in between. No doubt Russia has an agenda, no doubt corruption is global, but a democratic system requires a transparent government, if you think that applies to the UKUS or any number of other EU countries (especially those on Russia's borders getting US cash funneled into them), then you need your head examined

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Sorry for your sadness, but it angers me when sheeple here in ...

"Sheeple" is such a patronising term that is used (in my experience) by the blinkered. Anyway, in all of this, who are the sheeple?

1. Those who slavishly follow Russia Today and other Russian state-owned media outlets which are known propaganda pieces, and who change their stories at the behest of their masters.
2. Those who don't?

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Sorry for your sadness, but it angers me when sheeple here in ...

"Sheeple" is such a patronising term that is used (in my experience) by the blinkered. Anyway, in all of this, who are the sheeple?

1. Those who slavishly follow Russia Today and other Russian state-owned media outlets which are known propaganda pieces, and who change their stories at the behest of their masters.
2. Those who don't?

You've obviously learned nothing from history

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Zcustosmorum


Stories with no evidence? Where have you been - we have mountains of evidence, yet according to Putin those two GRU assassins were just innocent civilians come to see a cathedral spire (although they did not actually get round to that).

Do you actually believe this tosh?

Who gains more from this story? Why did Russia carry out this botched job?

a reply to: Zcustosmorum


I'm not deflecting, I just find it unbelievable that you can dismiss an attack on UK soil using a nerve agent by another country (Russia) as just a "story" with "no evidence" (actually, there is tons of it) and that apparently you lap up Russia's lies and propaganda. Then you refer to others as "sheeple"!

Pretty deeply ironic, that.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum


Why did Putin refer to Skripal the other day as "Scum" and a "Traitor"?

There's your motive. And there is plenty of evidence.

As for learning from history - Litvinenko - ring any bells?

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
You've obviously learned nothing from history

Oh, I don't know. I think history is littered with countries who act belligerently and antagonistically.

Who gains more from this story? Why did Russia carry out this botched job?

Well, Russia gains domestically because they can spin it anyway they like. That's why Putin controls media and tolerates no political opposition. The UK and other countries gain sod-all from having people assassinated on their soil, or by having institutions hacked. Ukraine clearly does not benefit, nor does Georgia.

Think it through.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Zcustosmorum


I'm not deflecting, I just find it unbelievable that you can dismiss an attack on UK soil using a nerve agent by another country (Russia) as just a "story" with "no evidence" (actually, there is tons of it) and that apparently you lap up Russia's lies and propaganda. Then you refer to others as "sheeple"!

Pretty deeply ironic, that.

That same nerve agent available just down the road in Salisbury at Porton Down? You still haven't answered my questions, what was the reason? Skripal had been in the UK since 2011 and only now, Russia apparently decides to send a couple of incompetent agents to try and kill him? Sounds like a story from a bad comic strip

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Zcustosmorum


Why did Putin refer to Skripal the other day as "Scum" and a "Traitor"?

There's your motive. And there is plenty of evidence.

As for learning from history - Litvinenko - ring any bells?

That's obviously what Putin thinks of him, he did betray his country after all. If I say I think you're an idiot, is that motive to want to kill you?

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
You've obviously learned nothing from history

Oh, I don't know. I think history is littered with countries who act belligerently and antagonistically.

Who gains more from this story? Why did Russia carry out this botched job?

Well, Russia gains domestically because they can spin it anyway they like. That's why Putin controls media and tolerates no political opposition. The UK and other countries gain sod-all from having people assassinated on their soil, or by having institutions hacked. Ukraine clearly does not benefit, nor does Georgia.

Think it through.

Take your own advice, we clearly live in different worlds. Evidentially, when was the last time you visited Russia?

well holland at the list of occusers too….breaking news here television programms interrupted also…
with full details laptop's cellphones..till taxi tickets too..
wats going on here...far to much publisity for an CLUMSY operated hack attempt by the GRU...
are the russians on the brink to share info that would ruin the western credibility ?

a reply to: villagesmithie

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum You still haven't answered my questions, what was the reason? Skripal had been in the UK since 2011 and only now, Russia apparently decides to send a couple of incompetent agents to try and kill him? Sounds like a story from a bad comic strip

That is something only the Russian's know, but we know that the Russians have killed political opponents and critics previously. Why they made a hash of it? You cannot legislate against incompetence, but then maybe the Russians don't care because that's how they are acting.

However, this thread's about Russian-state supported cyber crime.

a reply to: purplemer

Russia is great

a reply to: Zcustosmorum


Not the Porton thing again. You think Theresa May ordered it then? And that doesn't sound like a bad comic strip plot?

You are not Putin who is in charge of a country and in charge of the GRU who have the ability and means to carry out assassinations. Like they have done before.

You have your motive but as for timing, who knows? I am not privy to such machinations.

You are still ignoring the very clear evidence that points towards Russia. Why is that?

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum You still haven't answered my questions, what was the reason? Skripal had been in the UK since 2011 and only now, Russia apparently decides to send a couple of incompetent agents to try and kill him? Sounds like a story from a bad comic strip

That is something only the Russian's know, but we know that the Russians have killed political opponents and critics previously. Why they made a hash of it? You cannot legislate against incompetence, but then maybe the Russians don't care because that's how they are acting.

However, this thread's about Russian-state supported cyber crime.

You've never been to Russia, have you?

And this thread is about alleged Russian-state supported cyber crime, which from the article itself:

"While Australia was not significantly impacted, this activity affected the ability of the public in other parts of the world to go about their daily lives,"

Additionally:

The GRU, Britain said, was almost certainly behind

"Almost certainly?", you should refer back to my quote on typical Western narrative, all talk and no facts, and in the words of the other anti-Russia guy, "that's so lame" .

a reply to: Zcustosmorum


I have never been to Russia. So what? I have never been to the US, either, but I do know a bit about America. Am I not allowed to have an opinion on anything to do with the US?

I am not an "anti-Russia" guy - I am more of a patriotic Brit, which you will probably sneer at.

What do you mean "no facts" - there are plenty of them but once again you choose to ignore them. Suggest you read up on the Litvinenko Public Inquiry - plenty of facts for you there.

Anyway, back to the hacking thing. Russia had a motive to hack the anti doping agency - hang on, no of course, you probably thought the Russian athletes were all clean and that was all a Western smear. No?

a reply to: oldcarpy

I have never been to Russia. So what? I have never been to the US, either, but I do know a bit about America. Am I not allowed to have an opinion on anything to do with the US?

I never asked you if you'd been to Russia

I am more of a patriotic Brit, which you will probably sneer at.

You got it

Anyway, back to the hacking thing. Russia had a motive to hack the anti doping agency - hang on, no of course, you probably thought the Russian athletes were all clean and that was all a Western smear. No?

Why are you asking me? You're the one who confuses accusations with evidence

And from the White House

tumbleweed...

Where's the serial twitterer when you need him?