Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

On the subject of computer intrusion and fat bearded men in white and black hat flavors...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38264992

Seems there's going to be an investigation, but we won't be shown the results due to protecting our agents in the field etc etc etc your votes are safe, TRUST US, WE'RE YOUR GOVERNMENT!

Yeah... they're thinking that Trump won't do anything to 'retaliate' Russia for their transgression, unless that proof is so strong.

Only reason why he's order it now imo.

Otherwise, why did he do that during the election?

Legacy of Ashes - A History of the CIA

It's a book I've mentioned before, but one I would recommend to American dakka members.

I return to this, becuase I read a funny story in the news about the CIA saying that Russia interferred in the US elections

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report

The CIA is so incompetent, has squandered so much tax payers' money over the years, that it amazes me that a lynch mob hasn't chased them out of the USA.

Honestly America, if they were to disappear tomorrow, I doubt if you would notice the difference and you would wonder where all that extra money came from...

If faced with a) choosing between keeping the CIA or b) throwing billions of dollars on a fire, I would choose option B, because at least burning money would provide heat!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The CIA is so incompetent, has squandered so much tax payers' money over the years, that it amazes me that a lynch mob hasn't chased them out of the USA.

Yes, that's one opinion and quite frankly, the incorrect one.

Trump has criticized FBI and CIA way more than he's criticized InfoWars on veracity of intel.

Trump Transition officials believe fake news re: PizzaGate, but doubt CIA on Russian hacking.

Hell of a four years coming up.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The CIA is so incompetent, has squandered so much tax payers' money over the years, that it amazes me that a lynch mob hasn't chased them out of the USA.

Yes, that's one opinion and quite frankly, the incorrect one.

How so? The CIA's track record of failure is as long as my arm, and my arm is two feet long!

Were it not for their supreme ability and talent to bury failure deeply, and keep prying eyes away, by constant use of the divine intervention card, aka 'National Security,' the CIA would have been run out of town long ago.

Their 'successes' include:

Confident belief in America winning the Vietnam War. Even when the US military withdrew, they still believed South Vietnam could win the day. I kid you not.

No Soviet Missiles in Cuba. I REPEAT. No Soviet Missiles in Cuba

After the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban people will rise up against Castro. I REPEAT the Cuban people will rise up against Castro...

China getting involved in the Korean war? Get the hell out of here!

Next you'll be telling us that the Soviet Union will invade Afghanistan and that the US embassy in Iran will be captured.

And the Shah of Iran is safe. Absolutely safe. Nothing to see here, move along...

CIA: Yes, I know our reputation is damaged, but we have proof that terrorists might be planning an attack in 2001...

Bush Administration: ever heard about the boy who cried wolf?

And the rest, tragically, is history

I could go on and on, but I can obviously only speak for myself, but If that's a track record of success, I'd hate to see what failure looked like...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
How so? The CIA's track record of failure is as long as my arm, and my arm is two feet long!

That you base on a book you read.

My uncle spent his entire post-Vietnam War career working for the Agency, retiring in early 2000 and then returning shortly after September 11. I trust his opinion of the mission he devoted his life to over the opinion of some British guy on a toy solider website.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:


Trump has criticized FBI and CIA way more than he's criticized InfoWars on veracity of intel.

Trump Transition officials believe fake news re: PizzaGate, but doubt CIA on Russian hacking.

Hell of a four years coming up.

I would say that it's pretty bizarre for the Office of the President-Elect to release a statement insulting one of the agencies he'll effectively be in charge of, but let's be real... this is Donald fething Trump we're talking about.

Bizarre has no real meaning anymore.

No disrespect was intended to your Uncle, but just because somebody said they did a good job, doesn't mean he was the norm. For all we know, he may have been the only competent person in the entire agency.

The book uses evidence from the CIA's own archives and interviews with former Presidents.

If the CIA, in their own words are saying they were gak, then I have no reason to doubt that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hand on heart, there are aspects of the book where you want to give the CIA the tiniest benefit of the doubt, then you start reading about the Iran-Contra affair.

Holy horsegak!!!!

Obviously we can't swear on dakka, but these people would struggle to find their own sexual organs with a searchlight, a map, GPS, and a 5 man search party!!!

Money from Iran-->South America-->Cocaine--> Los Angeles---> Crime Epidemic--->Reagan' taking action against drugs, with the irony being it all started just around the corner from Reagan's office

Incompetence? where the would you start?

Trump: "Hey guys, remember that time my party claimed that Iraq had WMDs to provide political justification to start the war they wanted? Yeah, let's just pretend the democrats did that so this election stuff can be more of the same."

Anyone remember certain OT posters complaining about how Clinton lied too much?

Just been reading that Clinton's losing campaign cost over a billion dollars

Who was running it for her? The CIA?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Just been reading that Clinton's losing campaign cost over a billion dollars

Who was running it for her? The CIA?

That's a hell of a number. Source?

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Just been reading that Clinton's losing campaign cost over a billion dollars

Who was running it for her? The CIA?

That's a hell of a number. Source?

It's the New York Post, so take it or leave it

IMO, there is no reason to doubt this number as presidential campaigns are pretty costly...

http://nypost.com/2016/12/09/hillary-clintons-losing-campaign-cost-a-record-1-2b/

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Just been reading that Clinton's losing campaign cost over a billion dollars

Who was running it for her? The CIA?

That's a hell of a number. Source?

It's the New York Post, so take it or leave it

IMO, there is no reason to doubt this number as presidential campaigns are pretty costly...

http://nypost.com/2016/12/09/hillary-clintons-losing-campaign-cost-a-record-1-2b/

"The figures include all spending by the campaigns, PACs and party committees."

This qualifier makes it more plausible.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
How so? The CIA's track record of failure is as long as my arm, and my arm is two feet long!

That you base on a book you read.

My uncle spent his entire post-Vietnam War career working for the Agency, retiring in early 2000 and then returning shortly after September 11. I trust his opinion of the mission he devoted his life to over the opinion of some British guy on a toy solider website.

I believe the Brit and his book over your uncle. The Brit at least has evidence to backed his statement and anybody with Google could come up with probably many more well cited sources, I have a different book for instance that displays CIA incompetence.

So as you support state sponsored terrorism you can ease up on your progressive high horse at this point.

 Peregrine wrote:
Trump: "Hey guys, remember that time my party claimed that Iraq had WMDs to provide political justification to start the war they wanted? Yeah, let's just pretend the democrats did that so this election stuff can be more of the same."

Anyone remember certain OT posters complaining about how Clinton lied too much?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.WEwZ_sKQyUl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/

Just to start from one quick google search. I could have linked more stories, but I only needed to prove my point. Hell, Yahoo ran a front page story when this broke, then filled the front page with Caitlyn Jenner news as well as every other celebrity wardrobe malfunction story possible to bury it as fast as they could. The rhetoric from the left is now "no NEW wmd's were found" since they were flat out wrong. Here's a question for you: are you any less dead when shot with a 2016 FN FAL than you are if shot by a 1940 M1 Garand? OR would it somehow be less damaging to be T-boned by a 57 Bel Air than it would a 2016 Challenger?

As an aside, it was well documented that massive convoys and flotillas of ships left Iraq for Syria and Yemen during the 30 days that the US sat in Kuwait waiting to be cleared to invade. Also kind of funny that Syria's military used Sarin on its own people. You know, a chemical weapon listed as a "weapon of mass destruction", and the same exact chemical weapon used extensively by Saddam Hussein. Real funny, that.

And here's another thought: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was charged with using a weapon of mass destruction for his use of pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon. I personally saw more powerful weapons than that when I was IN Iraq in 2007-2008. So either the left needs to drop the whole "no WMD" rhetoric, or we need to switch Tsarnaev's charge to vandalism.

tl;dr

We were wrong about Iraq.

Wow, that's what you got from that?

No, that's what I got from not reading a bunch of ramblings because we were wrong about Iraq.

Also kind of funny that Syria's military used Sarin on its own people. You know, a chemical weapon listed as a "weapon of mass destruction", and the same exact chemical weapon used extensively by Saddam Hussein. Real funny, that.

Is Saddam Hussein the person in human history to invent and create chemical weapons?

Is it beyond Syria to create and manufacture chemical weapons or even buy them from other nations?

Russia/Soviet Union has/had large stocks of chemical weapons and are a long time ally of Syria...

If memory serves, the United States has or had an extensive stock of chemical weapons tucked away...

 Peregrine wrote:
Trump: "Hey guys, remember that time my party claimed that Iraq had WMDs to provide political justification to start the war they wanted? Yeah, let's just pretend the democrats did that so this election stuff can be more of the same."

Anyone remember certain OT posters complaining about how Clinton lied too much?

Hey... I criticize Cheeto Jesus for this bull crap.

Glorious Orange Leader going after individuals citizens? Shocking and unexpected!

Interesting opinion piece about how Trump is taking a page from Reagan's playbook: appointing people to lead agencies in order to undermine those agencies. But, as Dr. Strange said, "next time steal the whole book, the warnings come after the spells." Because Trump apparently didn't read ahead to see how that worked out for Reagan.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/10/opinions/government-is-the-problem-jacobs/index.html

The attack on the CIA is the same old 'attack the messenger' nonsense Trump runs with everytime. People really should start feeling pretty silly for having fallen for it again.

Even if you have little respect for the CIA, it doesn't matter because the Russian hack is the consensus conclusion of a number of US agencies, including also the FBI. And even if you wanted to try an infowars style head in the sand thing and deny the conclusions of all those US agencies, you'd still be pissing in the wind. Because the analysis here is so clear a child could make the deductions - known Russian hackers attached to Russian intel services managed successful hacks of both Democrat and Republican sources. Only the Democrat hacks were released to the public.

If that isn't obvious enough for some, then prob nothing short of Putin admitting it would get them to admit the obvious.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I would say that it's pretty bizarre for the Office of the President-Elect to release a statement insulting one of the agencies he'll effectively be in charge of, but let's be real... this is Donald fething Trump we're talking about.

Bizarre has no real meaning anymore.

The part that really sums up the whole Trump disaster is his claim that he had an historic electoral college victory. Out of the 54 presidential elections, as a percentage of total available votes, Trump's win ranks 44th. It is one the smaller victories in history, making Trump's claim is totally false.

Its also totally meaningless, winning the most ev in history or the least doesn't change the winner, and certainly has nothing to do with the Russian hack. Yet he says it anyway because he just doesn't give a gak about reality.

And now people are talking waiting to see if this delusional liar might turn out okay as president. Wow.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No disrespect was intended to your Uncle, but just because somebody said they did a good job, doesn't mean he was the norm. For all we know, he may have been the only competent person in the entire agency.

The book uses evidence from the CIA's own archives and interviews with former Presidents.

If the CIA, in their own words are saying they were gak, then I have no reason to doubt that.

Here's about all I have to say on the subject of the CIA: having formerly worked within the MI community in the army, Intelligence gathering isn't a hard science. It's a bit like predicting the weather. The problematic difference here is that, unlike the weather, the intelligence community is charged also with action... In short, we have to react to the intelligence we receive.

This reply is primarily directed at Sebster, but were the Russians hacking into the US election?

More than likely. I don't doubt it.

However, it's the moral grandstanding that gets my goat.

because America has never spied on another nation, manipulated another nation's elections and has never embarked on a mass surveillance program. No, America is whiter than white, pure as the driven snow.

Of course nations spy on and hack into other nations' sensitive secrets, but it's the double standards that as always, makes me want to vomit.

Taking the moral high ground is dishonest in this situation IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No disrespect was intended to your Uncle, but just because somebody said they did a good job, doesn't mean he was the norm. For all we know, he may have been the only competent person in the entire agency.

The book uses evidence from the CIA's own archives and interviews with former Presidents.

If the CIA, in their own words are saying they were gak, then I have no reason to doubt that.

Here's about all I have to say on the subject of the CIA: having formerly worked within the MI community in the army, Intelligence gathering isn't a hard science. It's a bit like predicting the weather. The problematic difference here is that, unlike the weather, the intelligence community is charged also with action... In short, we have to react to the intelligence we receive.

Mistakes happen, human error happens - history is full of intelligence failures (Pearl Harbour, battle of the Bulge) but there should be a picture of the CIA emblem in the dictionary under incompetence. The Peter Principal was tailor made for the agency

"You did it too!" is not a particularly convincing argument.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
"You did it too!" is not a particularly convincing argument.

It's bloody true though.

Of course everybody spies on each other. But the point is to not get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

And the thing with the CIA is, you don't hear about the successes. That's often the whole purpose behind what they do: when they do it right, you don't know they did it.

 Just Tony wrote:

Just to start from one quick google search.

What has been found is chemical warheads that were abandoned as far back as the Iran Iraq war, degraded to the point where they were likely unusable in any conventional sense, and either stumbled upon by coalition troops in clean ups, or encountered when used as part of IEDs.

Using that to justify the original claim of a mass scale, still operational WMD program is sad.

As an aside, it was well documented that massive convoys and flotillas of ships left Iraq for Syria and Yemen during the 30 days that the US sat in Kuwait waiting to be cleared to invade.

It isn't 'documented'... that would require documents. It has been speculated about by people who know nothing of reguonal politics but just want to make up stories to avoid having to admit their guy in the whitehouse fethed up big time.

If you're actually curious - while Iraq and Syria have long historic and cultural connection and unification makes sense and has been a plausible future at some points, this didn't lead to close relations between regimes of each country. Quite opposite, as both Hussein and the Assad family saw each other as threats to their little empires. And we're talking bad relations as in assassination plots, Syria joining the coalition in gulf war 1, that kind of thing.

Speculating that Hussein might send his weapon stockpile to a hated rival is speculation based in absolute ignorance of the politics of the region.

Also kind of funny that Syria's military used Sarin on its own people. You know, a chemical weapon listed as a "weapon of mass destruction", and the same exact chemical weapon used extensively by Saddam Hussein. Real funny, that.

Syria has had their own sarin program since the 1980s, known to the international community, and developed with support from the Soviet Union.

Stop making gak up.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Of course everybody spies on each other. But the point is to not get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

And the thing with the CIA is, you don't hear about the successes. That's often the whole purpose behind what they do: when they do it right, you don't know they did it.

That.