Link to the Russia Report

[Sheepy]

I believe it. There are probably scores of Russians with snow on their boots in some dimly lit dacha outside Moscow dedicated to the overthrow of Western Civilisation and the flooding of the Free World with cut price Ladas. The Russians interfere in our affairs and we interfere with theirs.

The real question is so what? Has anyone here changed their opinions as a result of interacting with other posters? If they have it has been as the result of a very carefully post. And politicians and media types don't produce careful arguments. They just hammer away at other politicians and media types because that is what they like to do, not because it is in any way effective.

Well it seems that it is an admittance that the Russians are a damn site better at spreading disinformation, misinformation and creating mass confusion than the government.

[Borchester]

I believe it. There are probably scores of Russians with snow on their boots in some dimly lit dacha outside Moscow dedicated to the overthrow of Western Civilisation and the flooding of the Free World with cut price Ladas. The Russians interfere in our affairs and we interfere with theirs.

The real question is so what? Has anyone here changed their opinions as a result of interacting with other posters? If they have it has been as the result of a very carefully post. And politicians and media types don't produce careful arguments. They just hammer away at other politicians and media types because that is what they like to do, not because it is in any way effective.

[Thomas]

Mileage?
Strange comment — if posts were miles some people here would need new shoes every three days...

As opposed to that particular poster who will never wear out his shoes driving past threads and lobbing hand grenades in from the comfort of his car window.

The russian bogey man story appears to be a particular interest of yours along with metropolitan police behaviour and the victimhood bleating of BLM .

In all the years you have delighted the various forums i have been on with your delicate postings , i have yet to see any proof of this alleged russian meddling in democracy . The sum evidence appears to be "the russians meddled in our affairs because we said so" , or as javert likes to insinuate ," the voters are too stupid to understand complex politics , so therefore the russians must have directed them to do the wrong thing when they get democracy(brexit) wrong".

Talk about conspiracy theorists?

I mean this post is hilarious.

to understand that social media has few restraints and limited access to sources of real information? If so, what reforms in electoral law do you suggest will counter trolls, paid for and useful stooges of China and Russia (and probably several more), and the easily-influenced plain demented retailers of fake info?
**Perhaps there could be a public information programme explaining that much online information from sources claiming to be free, independent and possessing special inside info is no more reliable than promises from phone and internet scams — plenty appear to be taken in by these...

What do you mean limited sources of real information?

What does "real information" mean in your world.? Unbiased accounts( no laughing at the back please) from government sources which would never br wrong or intentionally deceitfull?

The whole media frenzy ( obviously the real information , not the fantasy world of social media or other internet platforms) over the publication of the russian report which gave us the "proof " of russian meddling into yookay politcs was as my link pointed out....

That's all of it. The whole thing. The total evidence of "Russian meddling" is a single paragraph, so redacted that it doesn't make any sense, based on a single example of something that had allegedly happened AFTER the referendum, and which was in any event supposedly intended for a Russian domestic audience, not voters in Scotland.

The meaning of the phrase "credible open source commentary" is explained very well by Craig Murray here, but will already be familiar to Wings readers under the name "The Some Arsehole Doctrine". All it means is "any old rubbish written by some clown that the UK government happens to want you to believe".

any old rubbish that some uk government clown wants you to believe , and the truthfull media , unlike the nasty social media outlets and their fakes new reported it as...




...and of course we had the evidence of the alleged "russin bot" you so famously slink around trying to ferret out on forums such as these( remember when you accussed me of being one?) was nothing more than some 60 odd year old englishman with an interest in politcs posting online.

So yes pat mileage indeed.

When you have any evidence of russian interference and mind control over those stupid white boy voters and blue rinse brigade for turning your political world upside down and voting brexit , or whatever else you can think of  , let me know.

You seem to be an avid believer in the mantra you were telling streetwalker the other day........"he who shouts loudest and longest no matter whatever old cac he is talking will get believed".

Dont wear your knees out pat .

A look at the paragraph's accompanying footnote reveals the "credible open source" commentator was Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council. For those in the fortunate position of being unfamiliar with his work, Nimmo is known for, among other things, falsely identifying a Syrian-Australian blogger and a British pensioner as Russian bots – so clearly someone whose expertise should be relied upon to determine the extent of Russian infiltration into Scottish politics.

Among the 'Russian Bots' identified for UK government by Ben Nimmo (Institute for Statecraft/ Bellingcat/ DFLabs & Atlantic Council) was Maram Susli. She raises serious questions about his methods, and, implicitly, motivations.

https://twitter.com/tim_hayward_/status/1072070981232062464?lang=en

https://youtu.be/nuWoLTV9StU


There he is there pat. The auld blue rinser russian bot that is terrifying you online . Looks a bit of a racist too into the bargain pat. 

[patman post]

Mileage?
Strange comment — if posts were miles some people here would need new shoes every three days...

[Thomas]

Christ are some still trying to get more mileage out of this story?

    This week saw publication of the long-awaited Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) report on alleged Russian interference in British affairs. Despite media hysteria, the report contained no new revelations, just all-too-familiar catastrophising about Moscow's ill-defined "disinformation" efforts and warnings of the undue influence rich Russians (most of whom are actually Kremlin opponents) have bought themselves.

    The most salient point for supporters of Scottish independence to consider was the allegation that Moscow's interference efforts extended to the 2014 indyref. As Wings pointed out earlier this week, however, the "evidence" to support this sensational claim amounted to nothing more than a heavily-redacted single paragraph, citing "credible open source commentary" as its sole source.

Quote (selected)



    A look at the paragraph's accompanying footnote reveals the "credible open source" commentator was Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council. For those in the fortunate position of being unfamiliar with his work, Nimmo is known for, among other things, falsely identifying a Syrian-Australian blogger and a British pensioner as Russian bots – so clearly someone whose expertise should be relied upon to determine the extent of Russian infiltration into Scottish politics.




Quote (selected)

    Among the 'Russian Bots' identified for UK government by Ben Nimmo (Institute for Statecraft/ Bellingcat/ DFLabs & Atlantic Council) was Maram Susli. She raises serious questions about his methods, and, implicitly, motivations.

https://pol-tics.com/index.php/topic,1471.msg32076.html#msg32076


i thought we did all this to death the other week ?

"Credible Open Source Reporting", the Intelligence Services and Scottish Independence 285
July 21, 2020  in Uncategorized by craig

I write as somebody who held Top Secret clearance for 21 years, with extensive daily use of Top Secret material that entire time, and the highest possible specific codeword clearance above Top Secret for 11 years. I personally conducted for the FCO the largest "action on" operation in GCHQ history. ("Action on" is the process of declassifying top secret material for, in my particular case, government to government use). I have also given evidence in person in a three hour appearance before Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee.

The BBC has all morning been trailing the imminent report by the Intelligence and Security Committee as showing Russian interference in the Scottish referendum campaign according to "credible open source reporting". It is hardly a surprise that Westminster has weaponised its report to attack not the British Establishment but Scottish Independence.

"Credible open source reporting" is a piece of formal security service intelligence assessment jargon. It is very important you know exactly what it means. It means material not from secret human intelligence or from communications intercept, but material which has been published, in the media or academia. Stuff that is as available to you or I as it is to the intelligence services. Not intelligence material at all. Nothing to do with the Intelligence and Security Committee.

The last high profile deployment of the "credible open source reporting" formulation was the dirty dossier on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction, where the PhD thesis of Ibrahim al-Marashi was the source for untrue claims about Iraqi WMD. Al-Marashi, now a Professor, states his work was distorted and altered to suit the agenda of the Iraq War.

    Mr Marashi's student thesis, Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation, was not only plagiarised. It was also altered, as the British government and intelligence establishment sought to strengthen what in truth was uncertain evidence about Saddam's efforts to develop WMD.

The point of "open source reporting" is that it is published and we can all see it. We could have seen al-Marashi's PhD thesis. But Blair's Iraq Dossier did not give the name of the source. It did not say "according to the student Ibrahim al-Marashi". It said "Intelligence services say that credible open source reporting says...".

"Credible open source reporting" is a propaganda formulation designed to fool you and give a false imprimatur to any dubious piece of published work.

So the grand Intelligence and Security Committee will not say "According to the article in the Herald by the Russophobe nutter David Leask and the publicity seeking Jennifer Jones"... It will say "According to the intelligence services, credible open source reporting says..."

But actually it is absolutely no more than the former. Dressed up falsely as "intelligence".

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/07/credible-open-source-reporting-the-intelligence-services-and-scottish-independence/

That's all of it. The whole thing. The total evidence of "Russian meddling" is a single paragraph, so redacted that it doesn't make any sense, based on a single example of something that had allegedly happened AFTER the referendum, and which was in any event supposedly intended for a Russian domestic audience, not voters in Scotland.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/return-to-arsehole-mountain/

[patman post]

Our entire electoral process has been broken beyond repair by the rise of social media and the failure (shared with many other western countries) of electoral law to keep up with the modern world.  There's a reason why political funding and advertising was historically regulated in most western countries.  Social media has completely bypassed this.  The parties that are getting into power on this basis won't do anything about it I guess until they start losing.

That seems to suggest the electorate is too stupid and/or gullible** to understand that social media has few restraints and limited access to sources of real information? If so, what reforms in electoral law do you suggest will counter trolls, paid for and useful stooges of China and Russia (and probably several more), and the easily-influenced plain demented retailers of fake info?
**Perhaps there could be a public information programme explaining that much online information from sources claiming to be free, independent and possessing special inside info is no more reliable than promises from phone and internet scams — plenty appear to be taken in by these...

[Javert]

The report was a riveting read — although the flow was often annoyingly interrupted by the redactions. Despite the fact it contains little more than had been suspected for several years, it did present the observations and questions in one script. But questions still remain — why was the report sat on by No10 for so long; how much did the PM know; and was the failed attempt to install his own man as chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee a further ploy to delay or bury it...?

The wider question for me is to ponder the fact that our government's strategy is aligned so clearly with what Russia wants us to do, even though Russia is known by intelligence services throughout the world as wanting to destabilise and weaken other countries. 

Our entire electoral process has been broken beyond repair by the rise of social media and the failure (shared with many other western countries) of electoral law to keep up with the modern world.  There's a reason why political funding and advertising was historically regulated in most western countries.  Social media has completely bypassed this.  The parties that are getting into power on this basis won't do anything about it I guess until they start losing.

[papasmurf]

why was the report sat on by No10 for so long;

Why are all the other government commissioned reports being sat on. (Too long to list.) I suspect because they embarrass the government or worse.

[patman post]

The report was a riveting read — although the flow was often annoyingly interrupted by the redactions. Despite the fact it contains little more than had been suspected for several years, it did present the observations and questions in one script. But questions still remain — why was the report sat on by No10 for so long; how much did the PM know; and was the failed attempt to install his own man as chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee a further ploy to delay or bury it...?

[johnofgwent]

I suggest taking the time to read the document.

So. A few points

Paragraph 12 Bullet Point 3: A clear attempt to up the ante on Britain's already maximum security prison status. These people will not be satisfied until we outdo china on surveillance of the citizen.

Paragraph 12 Bullet Point 4: Clear hogwash given Putin's ability to use polonium and chemical weapons on the streets of london and salisbury with impunity.

Paragraph 14: A clear case of no shit, sherlock, jesus christ what exactly are we paying gchq for, my grand-daughter could figure this out. Putin is ex fucking KGB and there is not a single russian "entrepreneur" who was not previously a mob boss.

Paragraph 17: A clear admission that paranoia is very profitable if you are in business of taking UK Government money to set up multiple protection rackets.

Paragraph 18: A clear admission there is no accountability. Another no shit, sherlock statement.

Paragraph 23-24: An admission we are just as bad when it comes to fucking with another state's cyberspace, and that perhaps we should not believe everything the scum in whitehall tell us

Paragraph 27-29: A statement that russia is almost as expert int he Fake News business as A certain Mr Cummings

Paragraph 30: Perhaps the most important paragraph  in this whole waste of space: A frank admission that it is difficult to F@@@ with a paper and pencil voting system if the only weapons you have remain in cyberspace.

Paragraph 35: Perhaps it's all facebook's fault.

Paragraph 38: See para 35

Paragraph 40: when asked to comment on RT and Sputnik's pro brexit stance, MI5 supplied a mere six lines of text.  Translation: unlike the rest of the government at the time, MI5 actually chose to accept the view of the people.

(actually, that's what MI5 want you to think, they were all handed Russian Pensions long ago)

Paragraph 43: Those same social media platforms we criticise for being a source of fake news carried many stories about putin messing with the scotish referendum. Somehow we need to make it seem thsose were not fake news

Paragraph 44: The government doesn't give a F@@@ about finding out if Putin is trying to mess with the UK's election system

Paragraph 46: we's like to ramp up the public paranoia by spreading a few asteriskjs around suggesting there is indeed a conspiracy

Paragraph 47: we should have pushed the "it woz putin who made them vote leave" argument further. You didn't, so you let them get brexit done you utter fuckwits...

Paragraph 49-51: when will you buggers understand an oligarch is just a mob boss with a smile

Paragraph 52-56: Putin owns the CBI an the House of Lords already.

Paragraph 58-62: Putin views the UK as a legitimate target given our quaint habit of giving his critics asylum.

Paragraph 63-71: We're not being given enough money, says every single UK spy agency and spinoff

Paragraph 72-75: A spot of navel gazing and admission that hindsight is an exact science.

Paragraph 76 and 77 : see Para 63-71 above

And paragraphs 78 onwards can be replaced entirely with the foor word heading heading half way through them, "less talk, more action". leading to the less than believeable "justification" for the next round of legislation degigned to control the UK population, when what we should be doing is shooting more of the foreigners that seek to undermine our way of life. After all, that's what Putin would do.


Did I miss anything of importance ?

[Good old]

Suffice to say. Why wouldn't Putin, encourage the breakup of the UK major world and UN player? Why wouldn't he want to encourage the break up of an organisation as large as the EU, sat on its borders, starting with one of its main member states?
Interference in GEs if it happens , is just rocking our boat.

I suggest taking the time to read the document.

In most regards it suggests the same sentiment.

[papasmurf]

Suffice to say. Why wouldn't Putin, encourage the breakup of the UK major world and UN player? Why wouldn't he want to encourage the break up of an organisation as large as the EU, sat on its borders, starting with one of its main member states?
Interference in GEs if it happens , is just rocking our boat.

I suggest taking the time to read the document.

[Good old]

https://docs.google.com/a/independent.gov.uk/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=aW5kZXBlbmRlbnQuZ292LnVrfGlzY3xneDo1Y2RhMGEyN2Y3NjM0OWFl

Suffice to say. Why wouldn't Putin, encourage the breakup of the UK major world and UN player? Why wouldn't he want to encourage the break up of an organisation as large as the EU, sat on its borders, starting with one of its main member states?
Interference in GEs if it happens , is just rocking our boat.

[papasmurf]

https://docs.google.com/a/independent.gov.uk/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=aW5kZXBlbmRlbnQuZ292LnVrfGlzY3xneDo1Y2RhMGEyN2Y3NjM0OWFl