CIA says "High Confidence" that Putin involved with Hacking

[barbos]

I don't hate him, or think Putin is different from other strongmen, not especially distinctive as dictators go, beyond being more capable than most. At the same time, I don't buy into the Putin is good meme I see floating around the left.

I did not say you did. I said people who claim their hate for Putin get automatic and unquestionable credit in the West.

But I think US policy towards Russia needs to be more balanced.

You think?

Allowing Estonia into NATO and sending trrops and weapons there while simultaneously lifting sanctions isn't a coherent policy.

coherent is not the same thing as balanced.

I doubt Trump has much idea of what he's doing.

Can't disagree here, but Clinton is not that much better.

Who did he murder?

Do some research. I'm not here to type essays for you.

I already did, I am just interested in what you are going to pick.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I did not say you did. I said people who claim their hate for Putin get automatic and unquestionable credit in the West.

Kasparov has more going for him than hatred of Putin.

But you never said who you consider credible.

Allowing Estonia into NATO and sending trrops and weapons there while simultaneously lifting sanctions isn't a coherent policy.

coherent is not the same thing as balanced.

I don't know what you're trying to say. Lifting sanctions is an encouragement or appeasement. Allowing border states into NATO is provocation. Contradictory ergo incoherent.

Can't disagree here, but Clinton is not that much better.

Not much could be a crucial difference.

 

[barbos]

Kasparov has more going for him than hatred of Putin.

You know nothing about him.
He is an asshole.

But you never said who you consider credible.

Among Putin's opponents I consider Yavlinsky to be credible.

Allowing Estonia into NATO and sending trrops and weapons there while simultaneously lifting sanctions isn't a coherent policy.

coherent is not the same thing as balanced.

I don't know what you're trying to say. Lifting sanctions is an encouragement or appeasement. Allowing border states into NATO is provocation. Contradictory ergo incoherent.

it is incoherent but not "unbalanced"

Can't disagree here, but Clinton is not that much better.

Not much could be a crucial difference.

Well, knowing what she is doing could be much worse.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I don't hate him, or think Putin is different from other strongmen, not especially distinctive as dictators go, beyond being more capable than most. At the same time, I don't buy into the Putin is good meme I see floating around the left.

But I think US policy towards Russia needs to be more balanced. Allowing Estonia into NATO and sending trrops and weapons there while simultaneously lifting sanctions isn't a coherent policy.

I doubt Trump has much idea of what he's doing.

Who did he murder?

Do some research. I'm not here to type essays for you.

Who did he murder (vs what he was accused of murder).

 

[Horatio Parker]

Asshole or not isn't the point.

So there is one person you consider credible.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Asshole or not isn't the point.

So there is one person you consider credible.

This is even more reason the US secret services and Military should cooperate with Russias over the Middle East mess.

 

[barbos]

Asshole or not isn't the point.

What is the point?

So there is one person you consider credible.

There are lot of people I consider credible, just not many among politicians.

 

[repoman]

 

[whichphilosophy]

I would agree with Hitchins as far as I have read some of these things. I would be interested how the CIA has been instrumental in preventing terrorist attacks. I am sure it has but would like to see any evidence or even statements.

 

[Elixir]

I am sure it has

You're sure? Where's your evidence? Seems like whenever an intel agency claims something you want to believe you simply swallow it whole. But the same agency says something you don't want to believe and you reject it outright, claiming a need for extraordinary evidence.
Hypocrisy, much?

 

[whichphilosophy]

I am sure it has

You're sure? Where's your evidence? Seems like whenever an intel agency claims something you want to believe you simply swallow it whole. But the same agency says something you don't want to believe and you reject it outright, claiming a need for extraordinary evidence.
Hypocrisy, much?

Now you got your panties in a twist again. If it was verbal I would say watch my lips so let me repeat.
I am sure it has but would like to see any evidence or even statements.

In other words, while I am sure this is the case I would like to see evidence.

Or while in my opinion I would like to see the evidence. What my task is, would be to start reading about the CIA again to see what is written in relation to this.

However the CIA is currently soiling itself.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I am sure it has

You're sure? Where's your evidence? Seems like whenever an intel agency claims something you want to believe you simply swallow it whole. But the same agency says something you don't want to believe and you reject it outright, claiming a need for extraordinary evidence.
Hypocrisy, much?

I think you read this in a hurry

This is what I said
I would agree with Hitchins as far as I have read some of these things. I would be interested how the CIA has been instrumental in preventing terrorist attacks. I am sure it has but would like to see any evidence or even statements.

The context refers to I am sure the CIA has been instrumental in preventing terrorist attacks as many have been averted but would like to see more (evidence) on this.

 

[Elixir]

"I am sure the CIA has been instrumental in preventing terrorist attacks as many have been averted"

...like I said... You swallow what you want to believe and reject anything that defies your a priori conclusions.
Hypocrite.

 

[whichphilosophy]

"I am sure the CIA has been instrumental in preventing terrorist attacks as many have been averted"

...like I said... You swallow what you want to believe and reject anything that defies your a priori conclusions.
Hypocrite.

Again context for this second part where asking for more evidence cannot be a conclusion.

I am sure the CIA has been instrumental in preventing terrorist attacks as many have been averted but would like to see more (evidence) on this.

 

[Elixir]

...like I said... You swallow what you want to believe and reject anything that defies your a priori conclusions.
Hypocrite.

Again context for this second part where asking for more evidence cannot be a conclusion.

you are sure, but haven't reached a conclusion ... I see.
Weasel words, worthy of a trump chump.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Again context for this second part where asking for more evidence cannot be a conclusion.

you are sure, but haven't reached a conclusion ... I see.
Weasel words, worthy of a trump chump.

This is a self evident statement.

The CIA should apply this which you will find in police work and the courts.

 

[Elixir]

you are sure, but haven't reached a conclusion ... I see.
Weasel words, worthy of a trump chump.

This is a self evident statement.

On this side of the pond it's a self-contained contradiction.

ETA: Imagine this... you leave the house in a car with your spouse. A couple of blocks from the house he/she asks "Are you sure you closed the garage door?".
"Yes" you reply.
"You're sure?"
"I'm SURE!"

When you get home the garage door is wide open. A brief inspection shown no sign of anyone having been there, so your spouse turns to you and accuses "You said you were SURE you closed this door!"
You respond "Yes, I said I was sure, but I never said I had reached that conclusion!"

Wouldn't flush there, and won't flush here - this isn't "police work or the courts".

 

[Horatio Parker]

What is the point?

That he's correct about Putin.

 

[barbos]

What is the point?

That he's correct about Putin.

West fixation with Putin is getting ridiculous. Putin this, Putin that.

 

[Horatio Parker]

That he's correct about Putin.

West fixation with Putin is getting ridiculous. Putin this, Putin that.

Don't want an answer, don't ask a question.