CIA says "High Confidence" that Putin involved with Hacking

[barbos]

Speaking of russian hackers. Poland claimed APT28 APT29 were involved in attacks on their banks in January. Again russian words in code, etc.
The only problem is, these "russian" hackers used google-translate to put these words in, wrong spellings, wrong conjugations....

So if polish could not spot fake russian then what are the chances that CIA/FBI could?

http://baesystemsai.blogspot.ru/2017/02/lazarus-false-flag-malware.html

 

[KeepTalking]

So if polish could not spot fake russian then what are the chances that CIA/FBI could?

Considerably higher. Why do you imagine that Polish bankers can hold a candle to the intelligence apparatus of one of the world's superpowers?

 

[barbos]

So if polish could not spot fake russian then what are the chances that CIA/FBI could?

Considerably higher. Why do you imagine that Polish bankers can hold a candle to the intelligence apparatus of one of the world's superpowers?

Russian language was pretty mandatory in Soviet Poland schools, so yes, older generation in Poland can hold a candle to intelligence apparatus of one of the world's superpowers, who by the way did not even look at these supposed hacked servers.

 

[KeepTalking]

Considerably higher. Why do you imagine that Polish bankers can hold a candle to the intelligence apparatus of one of the world's superpowers?

Russian language was pretty mandatory in Soviet Poland schools, so yes, older generation in Poland can hold a candle to intelligence apparatus of one of the world's superpowers, who by the way did not even look at these supposed hacked servers.

You don't think US intelligence agencies have native Russian speakers working for them? How naive.

I'm not sure why you think US intelligence agencies would care about Polish bank servers, or why those agencies not looking at those servers is evidence that they would not have spotted the fake Russian language associated with the hacks. Perhaps you can throw another non sequitur or two into the discussion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Perhaps you can throw another non sequitur or two into the discussion.

Superscript!!!

 

[barbos]

Russian language was pretty mandatory in Soviet Poland schools, so yes, older generation in Poland can hold a candle to intelligence apparatus of one of the world's superpowers, who by the way did not even look at these supposed hacked servers.

You don't think US intelligence agencies have native Russian speakers working for them? How naive.

I am sure they have, but since they did not even look it's irrelevant. Also makes me wonder where these native russian speakers were during "Peregruzka" button debacle.

I'm not sure why you think US intelligence agencies would care about Polish bank servers, or why those agencies not looking at those servers is evidence that they would not have spotted the fake Russian language associated with the hacks. Perhaps you can throw another non sequitur or two into the discussion.

How is that non sequitur? How the fuck is that non-sequitur?

 

[KeepTalking]

You don't think US intelligence agencies have native Russian speakers working for them? How naive.

I am sure they have, but since they did not even look it's irrelevant. Also makes me wonder where these native russian speakers were during "Peregruzka" button debacle.

I'm not sure why you think US intelligence agencies would care about Polish bank servers, or why those agencies not looking at those servers is evidence that they would not have spotted the fake Russian language associated with the hacks. Perhaps you can throw another non sequitur or two into the discussion.

How is that non sequitur? How the fuck is that non-sequitur?

To paraphrase what you have been saying: US intelligence agencies have not looked at the Polish bank servers, therefore US intelligence agencies are unable to spot fake Russian language used in malware.

That, barbos, is a non sequitur.

 

[barbos]

I am sure they have, but since they did not even look it's irrelevant. Also makes me wonder where these native russian speakers were during "Peregruzka" button debacle.

I'm not sure why you think US intelligence agencies would care about Polish bank servers, or why those agencies not looking at those servers is evidence that they would not have spotted the fake Russian language associated with the hacks. Perhaps you can throw another non sequitur or two into the discussion.

How is that non sequitur? How the fuck is that non-sequitur?

To paraphrase what you have been saying: US intelligence agencies have not looked at the Polish bank servers, therefore US intelligence agencies are unable to spot fake Russian language used in malware.

We have no evidence they would have spotted it. polish did not.

That, barbos, is a non sequitur.

Yes, you are a master of non sequituring.

 

[KeepTalking]

I am sure they have, but since they did not even look it's irrelevant. Also makes me wonder where these native russian speakers were during "Peregruzka" button debacle.

I'm not sure why you think US intelligence agencies would care about Polish bank servers, or why those agencies not looking at those servers is evidence that they would not have spotted the fake Russian language associated with the hacks. Perhaps you can throw another non sequitur or two into the discussion.

How is that non sequitur? How the fuck is that non-sequitur?

To paraphrase what you have been saying: US intelligence agencies have not looked at the Polish bank servers, therefore US intelligence agencies are unable to spot fake Russian language used in malware.

We have no evidence they would have spotted it.

We have no evidence they would not have spotted it. Thus your concluding that they would not have spotted it is a non sequitur to the initial observation that they never looked at the Polish bank servers.

polish did not.

But this tells us nothing about whether anyone else would have spotted it. So, concluding that the US intelligence agencies would not have spotted it because Polish bankers did not spot it is a non sequitur.

That, barbos, is a non sequitur.

Yes, you are a master of non sequituring.

At this point, I can only guess that you do not know the meaning of the term 'non sequitur'. Please allow me to educate you on that matter:

non se·qui·tur
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

 

[Elixir]

WTF?

Barbos, it is unlikely that anyone has ever written a coherent, meaningful sentence that included the sequence of words "evidence they would have".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

WTF?

Barbos, it is unlikely that anyone has ever written a coherent, meaningful sentence that included the sequence of words "evidence they would have".

It makes sense in the case of a frame--discussing how someone would react to the situation.

 

[Malintent]

WTF?

Barbos, it is unlikely that anyone has ever written a coherent, meaningful sentence that included the sequence of words "evidence they would have".

"The servers contain some evidence they would have to decrypt to be able to read"
"This is not evidence! They would have to be complete fools to accept it as such"
"The coroner has collected evidence they would have not lived much longer anyway"
"The courts denied the motion to allow the evidence they would have presented.
"This is evidence they would have if I didn't steal it from them"

I can do this all.day.

 

[barbos]

WTF?

Barbos, it is unlikely that anyone has ever written a coherent, meaningful sentence that included the sequence of words "evidence they would have".

So, I guess you can't comprehend plain english, what makes you think FBI understand rushian hacker variant of russian?

 

[barbos]

WTF?

Barbos, it is unlikely that anyone has ever written a coherent, meaningful sentence that included the sequence of words "evidence they would have".

It makes sense in the case of a frame--discussing how someone would react to the situation.

Yes, thank you, person who speaks English at sufficient level.