Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zin, Sep 1, 2016.
What the **** is wrong with this woman? Military response to hacked emails? She is full-on unhinged.
Worse than bush or Obama or even trump
Sounds like you are the one unhinged. You're overreacting to what the article says.
From your article ...
So it's once again a case where Democrats can never do the right thing. "The White House has often been accused of not having an adequate deterrence strategy," but when Clinton suggests a more aggressive deterrent you imagine her sending armies after email hackers.
"More aggressive deterrent" is one way to spin it. She said, "As president, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack,” the Democratic presidential nominee said. “We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses.".
Sorry, but no. You don't go starting world war III over some hacked emails; you don't even threaten to do it. First she said she was going to get rid of Assad, now she's contemplating military responses to cyber attacks. She is not a Democrat. She is a far-right neocon warmonger through and through, one who is rapidly going off the deep end.
Again. You overreact.
She's just trying to say they will be taken seriously.
Hillary plans to fight cyberattacks like any other attack? Oh, she waits hours and hours and does nothing while the cyber attack is happening until 4 people are dead. Nice plan.
Obama killed an American teenager with drone, and hasn’t been held accountable for it. Precedent set.
Killary: “A whistleblower gave docs to the New York Times — I am ordering a drone attack on NYT HQ.”
you forgot the part where the whistleblower gets charged for treason
She has a lot to hide, got to blow those ****ers up before they leak anymore of her stuff.
Pretty sure if she said she wouldn't treat cyberattacks the same as other attacks the OP (and the Amen chorus) would have the same hissy fit against Clinton.
...adding, not sure why a cyberattack isn't considered an attack on US people, property and assets. Why is a hostile state attack on say a US ship different from an attack on our computers?
“Why can’t we fire cruise missiles at Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, I just don’t get it?”
on a more serious note. what is your opinion of edward snowdens criticism of julian assange's approach to non-curation? also i read a new york times article saying how julian assange's decisions indirectly help russia. but he says that everyone knows russia is corrupt and is a declining power so thats I think that's why he isn't as focused on them?
i think assange is rough around the edges but definitely am on his side. i think perhaps being cooped up is starting to affect him mentally though so he might be more impulsive.
It's easier to stage a "robbery". Just got to make sure you don't forget to actually TAKE something.
--- Post Merged, Sep 1, 2016 ---
They already did. The DNC has already performed a comprehensive self investigation and they found they've done nothing wrong.
--- Post Merged, Sep 1, 2016 ---
After reading the article, I find it difficult to conclude that Assange is on the right track.
I’m not sure if I have seen those Snowden remarks, it sounds familiar but what exactly was it that he said? Yeah, spending years in a fairly confined space probably is causing Assange mental problems.
Derp derp de-derp-derp, derp derp. Pro-Hillary NYT is trying to deceive you: “Forget our history!”
I disagree. A lot of the article's "evidence" is Julian Assange not responding to certain things that could indirectly implicate Russia in bad behavior. I don't find that a convincing argument that he "helps" Russia or he is in the Russians pocket. In fact IIRC the article even mentions that Assange himself thinks that Russia is a declining power and it is implied that he's "focusing" on the US. Again he doesn't hack anything.
I can't find them now but I was referring to a Snowden tweet where he said something like "he appreciates wiki leaks but they should curate their info so things like SS numbers don't get released". Also the article did mention that Snowden seemed to be more critical of Russia than Assange himself.
Also I wouldn't go so far as to say mental problems, but I think it's just adversely affecting him psychologically. I think there is a subtle difference.
Ha! Oh my God, that's funny. The answer is never. The DNC corruption helped her so she won't address it.
According to this article, and perhaps many others, the average age of of a legionnaire is pushing seventy. Probably not the best place to push a serious, nuanced cyberwarfare doctrine.
Was he charged or sentenced for treason? The difference is fundamental.
I don't see what the problem is with treating cyberattacks the way she discusses it, because she is right. Anyone who bothers to keep up with msm tech news knows source code from various platforms has been freely given, not stolen via espionage, to other countries. No, I don't mean "Linux".
Apple has not given all its source code to China the way MS had, however.
One other thing, has she discussed economic warfare at all?
--- Post Merged, Sep 2, 2016 ---
Wow. If corporations are people too, maybe American citizens can individually benefit from the TPP as well. Count me in for being for it, then.
--- Post Merged, Sep 2, 2016 ---
I'll tell you the problem. If you consider a cyber-attack as any other attack (=military) it means that you consider it an attack on the land. An attack on the land requires military intervention, there is no way around it. You hit the US with a rocket, we go to war. Now, a cyber attack can be done without weapons, by anyone, at any time, without any warning. There are probably thousands of cyber attacks a day. Do we consider them attacks on the land? all of them?
What HRC's wording implies is that we're in a constant state of war, and in a siege. It's a very dangerous statement (she probably didn't mean it as it came out). Should we go to war because NK hacked Sony to find out that execs don't like Angelina Jolie that much?
This also messes up alliances. If Taiwan is cyber-attacked by China, should we go to war? And if Germany is cyber-attacked by Russia, should we invoke NATO article 5 on common defense?
The problem is that if you've watched any of the House hearings on cybersecurity, this isn't a Clinton thing, this is the way all the Neocons are regarding cyber attacks. They also consider simple things like email phishing of government departments to be "Attacks".
This is how the US is positioning itself. Hey we can do things like Stuxnet, but don't you dare trick an employee of ours into giving you their password, that means war.
I'm just amazed that you and zin can't see that a cyber attack requires it's own form of protection, defense, attack and retaliation. While you might take it as being literally the same as an attack on land, I'm sure that HRC isn't as rigidly minded, and is capable of dealing with the threat and how it will impact the U.S. and our allies in it's own unique way.
Oh, and the constant state of war has already been established with our Global War on Terrorism.
Listen to the hearings, these generals are purposely leaving the door open for a military attack in response to something like knocking a power plant offline.