CIA Prepping For Possible Cyber Strike Against Russia

Mchart said:
You do not live in the reality that most other normal people are carrying about in. 'Common' is just the point, and being a dimwit means you are incapable of recognizing that normal people work for the government. When you grow up, move out, and communicate with real people you'll realize how idiotic you sound right now.
Click to expand...

Corrupt is the new normal?
 
lcpiper said:
What kind of "people" make up the NSA ?

I am just curious if you know.
Click to expand...

Reminds me when I used to work on RAF Molesworth and the local anti-nuke hippies would protest yearly. Well, one day the base commander said screw it and invited them on base and also gave them shovels. He told them since they thought there were secret sub-levels and secret buried nukes that they could dig wherever they wanted.

They spent all day, were allowed to tour every facility including areas normally off limits, but still thought we had hidden nukes.

The point of my story is that people like the individual you quoted, even if shown the very unimpressive reality of the IC, would still think stuff is being hidden because it doesn't fit their outstanding tale of a conspiracy.
 
Mchart said:
The point of my story is that people like the individual you quoted, even if shown the very unimpressive reality of the IC, would still think stuff is being hidden because it doesn't fit their outstanding tale of a conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Your anecdotal story has absolutely nothing to do with me, at all. So stop pretending that it does. You're an unfunny joke.
 
CreatedTheMultiverse said:
People that protect us from foreign and domestic problems. Your question was stupid if you want the truth.
Click to expand...

His question wasn't stupid; Although his question was obviously rhetorical.

Your response however shows you fundamentally don't understand the mission set of the NSA.
 
My apologies; As a petty man I would still like to know the answer to icpiper's question.

What type of people are doing the work at the NSA of releasing Democratic party secrets to throw the election? Are these contractors being operated by a single officer or just some random enlisted fucks?
 
CreatedTheMultiverse said:
People that protect us from foreign and domestic problems. Your question was stupid if you want the truth.
Click to expand...

Foreign and domestic problems ?

The NSA is part of the DoD, the DoD can't normally be used for "domestic problems", (posse comitatus). The NSA is an Intelligence gathering organization that collects foreign intelligence and provides that as support to the Military.

Now I had a purpose for asking my question, I wanted to know if you knew that much of the NSA is actually staffed by Active Duty soldiers, sailors, and airmen in uniform.

Now I saw your post where you said;
My take: People in the NSA DO NOT want Hillary Clinton elected into the presidency. They just can't tell we the people it on mainstream media. She has gotten a lot of covert people killed throughout her corrupted career.
Click to expand...

And I was trying to see if you really understood what you were talking about. First off, although HRC may have indeed gotten some "covert people killed", the NSA doesn't really do covert operations very much. The CIA does, not so much the NSA. It's doesn't mean you are incorrect in your statement, only that I am not sure that the covert part of your post was intended to be attributed toward the NSA or not.

I can tell you that HRC is not popular with the Military. She has a very bad reputation with how she treated service members who worked in the White House communications room. She treated them like personal serfs and that is not how professionals like to be treated. She talked down to them like they were ignorant slaves and it got around. Just like John Kerry, She has that same elitist belief that the military is made up of kids who aren't smart enough or good enough to make it in college. It's cause the idea of enlisting to her is simply something that no one with any intelligence would ever do. She's a fool, an elitist fool.

But military people aren't afraid to talk bad about her. Like me, for the most part, it's a culture thing. It's our job to serve and so it usually feels like it's not our place to get involved in politics. The politicians are supposed to be the ones directing the military so trying to influence that isn't our place. We vote, for sure, it's a responsibility thing that we vote. We also are not allowed to talk with the media much. Sometimes we can get away with it, but the military is big on making soldiers understand that they can't put themselves in a position to "speak for the military". There is a public affairs office for that.

So there is an Active Duty part of the NSA, then there is the contractor element, like Ed Snowden, most of whom are retired military so more of the same again. Lastly you have the actual NSA government service employees and although they are civilians, they still are DoD employees.

So this is where I was going with my question. Maybe if you take the time to read this you won't think it's so stupid any more. I was actually trying to make it a polite question but I don't think you took it that way.
 
Last edited:
I think most of the last 10 or so posts are just part of a misunderstood question.
 
lcpiper said:
The NSA is part of the DoD, the DoD can't normally be used for "domestic problems"
Click to expand...
First, the Clinton's and their foundation are global (the illegal server(s) that Hillary and Obama were using were being used globally as well). Second, I will never believe for even one second that the NSA doesn't spy inside the USA on its own citizens, as we already know that they actively collect data from inside the USA. So I'm not buying yours or their bullshit and never will. They're basically flat out lying to the public because it's technically unconstitutional. So I'll save you some time. Please don't try and tell me this again like it makes any sense, it doesn't, and it never will. It's an absolute lie through and through. In reality it's already a fact that they spy on US citizens when they want to/the need arises. So I'll stick with believing William Binney and Edward Snowden on this matter. As it seems like not so common sense to me.
And I was trying to see if you really understood what you were talking about. First off, although HRC may have indeed gotten some "covert people killed", the NSA doesn't really do covert operations very much. The CIA does, not so much the NSA. It's doesn't mean you are incorrect in your statement, only that I am not sure that the covert part of your post was intended to be attributed toward the NSA or not.
Click to expand...
You aren't even making any sense. It's like you honestly think that they're not all sharing the access to the information that the NSA collects. The NSA doesn't have to be doing anything 'covert' for the Clinton's corruption and getting people killed to matter to everyone else paying attention in high places.
Under current rules for data gathered under a parallel program — the no-warrant surveillance program governed by the FISA Amendments Act — N.S.A. and C.I.A. officials may search for Americans’ information only if their purpose is to find foreign intelligence, but F.B.I. agents may conduct such a search for intelligence or law enforcement purposes. Some lawmakers have proposed requiring the government to obtain a warrant before conducting such a search. Source
Click to expand...
This
She has that same elitist belief that the military is made up of kids who aren't smart enough or good enough to make it in college. It's cause the idea of enlisting to her is simply something that no one with any intelligence would ever do. She's a fool, an elitist fool.
Click to expand...
Yet Hillary Clinton claims that she once tried to join the Marines.
So this is where I was going with my question. Maybe if you take the time to read this you won't think it's so stupid any more. I was actually trying to make it a polite question but I don't think you took it that way.
Click to expand...
I read it and I still don't think your point even matters. It's honestly an irrelevant point. The NSA not having active covert agents means absolutely nothing in regards to what I was talking about. Data collections and information exchanges hands every single day in the USA. That's precisely what a government does.

Most Damaging WikiLeaks

Trump-2016!
 
Last edited:
lcpiper said:
What kind of "people" make up the NSA ?

I am just curious if you know.
Click to expand...

I large number of people that are given highly compartmentalized jobs that in itself probably seem innocuous, but combined together give a very small number of people (insert conspiracy theories about unnamed people who then control those people) great power globally. "Most confidential or higher intelligence is just regular information organized/filtered better"
 
lilbabycat said:
I large number of people that are given highly compartmentalized jobs that in itself probably seem innocuous, but combined together give a very small number of people (insert conspiracy theories about unnamed people who then control those people) great power globally. "Most confidential or higher intelligence is just regular information organized/filtered better"
Click to expand...

Umm, the different levels of classification denote the amount of damage that can occur if the information becomes known to adversaries. If it could cause really serious damage, it's top secret, if the damage would be far less sever, it's confidential, etc. Typically things are not classified because of what the information is, but instead, how it was obtained. Therefor, if information is obtained from open sources like the internet, than it is rarely deemed a highly classified item. If it is gained from an inside source, say a government cabinet member in some foreign country, the information from that source would be protected with a much higher classification level.

Compartmentalization is not done to keep the little guys from understanding what's being done with the information they collect, in fact, reality is exactly the opposite, these people are empowered and usually know how the info is collected, how it is being processed, and how it is being used, cradle to grave. Instead, compartmentalization usually occurs along differing disciplines. A SIGINT collector will not have access to other collection disciplines like photo recon or spies. But at the analyst level, the products from these disciplines are fused and come together so that they can be used to confirm and deny the accuracy of each.

Find someone else to quote.
 
CreatedTheMultiverse said:
................ Second, I will never believe for even one second that the NSA doesn't spy inside the USA on its own citizens, as we already know that they actively collect data from inside the USA. So I'm not buying yours or their bullshit and never will....................
Click to expand...

Do you believe that context and scope are important when it comes to understanding something fully?

Can you conceive the entire picture, the whole elephant ?

Can you imagine that the "active collection of data within the US"(your comment paraphrased just a little), is a tiny tiny part of what the NSA does globally? The data collected might be large in volume, but what it represents "effectively" as an item of activity within the whole, is minute. I'm not saying that it's revelation wasn't important to you and I. I'm saying that in a tool box full of thousands of tools, it's just another wrench.

And it has nothing at all to do with HRC and her email server and the State Department other than DoD people like to laugh and alternatively cry at how fucked up and liberally clueless the people in State are.
 
I love that you guys think that what President we have will actually make a difference, as if big business and Congress don't run the show. Presidents don't have much say in a whole lot
 
Bdonedge said:
I love that you guys think that what President we have will actually make a difference, as if big business and Congress don't run the show. Presidents don't have much say in a whole lot
Click to expand...
They can make a big difference... I am thinking US companies can be politely asked to pay more taxes, or the protective veil of our military can be removed, I think by order of the president alone.
I think that could make a big difference... not going to happen of course.
 
Uvaman2 said:
They can make a big difference... I am thinking US companies can be politely asked to pay more taxes, or the protective veil of our military can be removed, I think by order of the president alone.
I think that could make a big difference... not going to happen of course.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to remember an instance, some time in my career, where I felt like I was protecting a business somewhere.


It's not coming to me.


Let's see, there was 6 years in South Korea where I felt like I was protecting South Korea. Four years at Fort Benning in the 197th Inf BDE (Heavy) that was the heavy armored unit assigned to the Rapid Deployment Force and we never actually deployed. Then two years at Ft Hood as part of III Corps where the corps deployed for Desert Storm to chase Iraq out of Kuwait. Yes, I am sure that these things all had some potential impact on American business but I can't say I ever felt like I was protecting some US company somewhere.
 
lcpiper said:
I'm trying to remember an instance, some time in my career, where I felt like I was protecting a business somewhere.


It's not coming to me.


Let's see, there was 6 years in South Korea where I felt like I was protecting South Korea. Four years at Fort Benning in the 197th Inf BDE (Heavy) that was the heavy armored unit assigned to the Rapid Deployment Force and we never actually deployed. Then two years at Ft Hood as part of III Corps where the corps deployed for Desert Storm to chase Iraq out of Kuwait. Yes, I am sure that these things all had some potential impact on American business but I can't say I ever felt like I was protecting some US company somewhere.
Click to expand...

That's why they put so much effort into to training you to believe in the cause.

If you knew you were actually working for JP Morgan and Exxon you probably would have quit.
 
swimming pool said:
That's why they put so much effort into to training you to believe in the cause.

If you knew you were actually working for JP Morgan and Exxon you probably would have quit.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I really don't want to sound rude, but what do you know of it?

I had 3 years of college before I joined, I was 23 not 18.

Do you know "what the cause" was in 1981?

I'm just wondering here if it was before you were even born.
 
lilbabycat said:
If you don't want answers, don't ask questions. Mr. Know-it-all NSA Contractor
Click to expand...

I have never ever been an NSA contractor.

But as an Army Military Intelligence soldier I did do SIGINT Collection which was in many ways governed by the NSA because ALL SIGINT collection is governed by the NSA for the most part. That was dictated by Executive Order 12333 signed by Ronald Reagan.

But I wasn't a contractor.

All I was trying to get across is that your source is bad or taken out of context to a degree that it is wrong without that context.

But you don't really want to have an understanding do you, you just want to have your beliefs, correct or otherwise.
 
And i'm arguing that you're one of the "large number of people that are given highly compartmentalized jobs that in itself probably seems innocuous", as others have very alluded. Great you had an intelligence job, great you and others had access to some really important stuff; but to what ends they were used, I doubt you have any real clue. And now you post here very proudly of your service, talking down upon us because "we don't know how things work". I argue your individual knowledge and experience is preventing you from seeing the forest for the trees as it were.

My "source" is just a made up quote that describes what most intelligence really is. Slices of information that combined together form a picture.
 
lilbabycat said:
I argue your individual knowledge and experience is preventing you from seeing the forest for the trees as it were.
Click to expand...

If you think a tree is a bag of hammers, why should I expect you to be able to accurately describe a forest?
 
lilbabycat said:
And i'm arguing that you're one of the "large number of people that are given highly compartmentalized jobs that in itself probably seems innocuous", as others have very alluded. Great you had an intelligence job, great you and others had access to some really important stuff; but to what ends they were used, I doubt you have any real clue. And now you post here very proudly of your service, talking down upon us because "we don't know how things work". I argue your individual knowledge and experience is preventing you from seeing the forest for the trees as it were.

My "source" is just a made up quote that describes what most intelligence really is. Slices of information that combined together form a picture.
Click to expand...

No, you really don't know how things work. You aren't even aware of the authorities provided to the NSA, and who/what is even allowed to conduct a MISO campaign like you describe. You'll probably have to google what MISO even means.
 
Last edited:
CreatedTheMultiverse said:
Click to expand...


My key problem with this is that Trump says all these great things about bolstering the military in a number of ways in one breath - But in another will say he basically wants to close all overseas bases which basically means shutting three theatre combatant commands. You can't possibly justify increased spending/manpower for things like 'more ships because' and 'more marines because' when you've decided to shut down three combatant commands. The shit he says in that video is so laughably unrealistic, and most military members know better.
 
Last edited:
worlds_smallest_violin2.jpg
 
Mchart said:
No, you really don't know how things work. You aren't even aware of the authorities provided to the NSA, and who/what is even allowed to conduct a MISO campaign like you describe. You'll probably have to google what MISO even means.
Click to expand...

I very much do, I'm speaking very generally while others are apparently speaking extremely specifically. I didn't join the thread till the question was "What kind of people make up the NSA" was asked. Not anything about their day to day work, nor did I mention anything remotely related to a MISO which seems like you're throwing shit at the wall with terminology.

I'll say again, the people who work at the NSA or as intelligence are largely people with highly compartmentalized jobs that have no idea what their end goals really are. This is a broad statement and should be taken as such.

A more extreme example of this (that isn't specifically NSA but is still "secret agency" type crap): Bob the programmer writes code to change the spin speeds of centrifuges, but I doubt he knew he was doing it to affect the Iranian nuclear program through Stuxnet. The worm itself was probably written by another coder who had no idea of its target, packaged and propagated by others who had no idea what its end game was.

Is it so difficult to understand the individual jobs within the NSA don't operate similarly? Just because some contractor has access to certain information doesn't mean he knows what the work he's doing related to it is being used for. Sure, you might have some guy spying on a state side terrorist and the goal is pretty obvious (catch him or his cell leader or whatever), but its not always that simple.

But sure, wave me off as talking about a bag of hammers because i'm not spewing acronyms or my military service history around to sound smart/experienced. :blackalien:
 
lilbabycat said:
And i'm arguing that you're one of the "large number of people that are given highly compartmentalized jobs that in itself probably seems innocuous", as others have very alluded..................
Click to expand...


Let's see if this holds any water.

Maybe something like what you claim exists. I say maybe cause I have never seen it, but anything is possible, I'd be a fool to say otherwise. But it is far from this "large number of people that are given highly compartmentalized jobs that in itself probably seems innocuous". This thinking is just wrong and it's born of ignorance.


EDIT: Cutting out unneeded info.
 
Last edited:
lilbabycat said:
My "source" is just a made up quote that describes what most intelligence really is. Slices of information that combined together form a picture.
Click to expand...

I think I see the problem better. Your source isn't wrong in that statement, your understanding of what he is saying is the problem.

I'll give you an example.

A plane flies overhead taking pictures, that is a source, it's also a discipline, it's Imagery Intelligence.
The picture is three command vehicles under camouflage with more antennaes then an average vehicle should have, hence command vehicles.

A radio interceptor hears them talking, we've heard them before and know which unit they belong to, the location matches the photos above.

Three days before, a guy in a cafe saw the vehicles from that unit being loaded onto a train. He is disgruntled with his government and passed that info on to his "handler", (a Hollywood term but it still fits).

Now these different disciplines are separated and compartmentalized because frankly the photo guys and the radio guys and the spy handler guys just don't need to know what the others are doing. But they all know the others are out there and what they are doing. I said before I worked as an analyst. All this information is brought together and correlated and fused into products because that's what analysts do, they build the big pictures from the small details. But the guys out there collecting know this even if they have never done it themselves.

A private collects and reports under guidance of a team sergeant, other sergeants do analysis and briefings building the picture. But this is a team effort and it's a natural progression from new guy to experienced manager and producer.

So I hope you are understanding that what your "source" said isn't incorrect, you just don't know enough about it to have a clear understanding of what he really meant by it.
 
lilbabycat said:
A more extreme example of this (that isn't specifically NSA but is still "secret agency" type crap): Bob the programmer writes code to change the spin speeds of centrifuges, but I doubt he knew he was doing it to affect the Iranian nuclear program through Stuxnet. The worm itself was probably written by another coder who had no idea of its target, packaged and propagated by others who had no idea what its end game was...................:blackalien:
Click to expand...

Let me put a different spin on it for you and this is just a scenario.

Bob the programmer writes attack code, sometimes it's to change the spin speeds on centrifuges, sometimes it's to corrupt and disable a network switch, other times it's to make a cell phone transmit data to an intercept facility.
Bob's code becomes part of many different attack packages all developed for use in situations that were identified and selected years before a true operation was identified for their deployment.

In other works, we already look for ways to mess with our enemies even before we know who tomorrow's enemies will be. No Bob has no need to know what Sam is doing or how Sam is going to use Bob's code. Sam doesn't need to know exactly what Bob's code is going to do. But Bob does what he does five days a week, 8 hours a day, he writes attack code. Bob does his job as is needed and although he knows that there is a Bob writing special attack software, he doesn't know Bob personally or by name.

But just because Bob doesn't know Sam it doesn't mean Bob doesn't know what that his code is attack code. Now if Bob wrote code that controls centrifuge speed and Jerry modifies that code and turns it into attack code, that's a different story. that isn't Bob secretly and cluelessly developing code for evil purposes, that's the attack code guys modifying existing code. But the guy that is writing attack code knows what he is doing and it isn't his job to know when , why, or how his code will be sued and that's just smart business.
 
lilbabycat said:
So you agree with me, great. :coffee:
Click to expand...

Well, I went to a lot of effort trying to help you understand it all better.

I'm not sure if you appreciate that, as it seems that you feel like you are being talked down to. It's not my intent to talk down to you or belittle you.

I caught on to what was going on and why when you explained your "source". I think I'll cut the fat from the books I wrote to get rid of what wasn't needed.
 
Last edited:
Mchart said:
My key problem with this is that Trump says all these great things about bolstering the military in a number of ways in one breath - But in another will say he basically wants to close all overseas bases which basically means shutting three theatre combatant commands. You can't possibly justify increased spending/manpower for things like 'more ships because' and 'more marines because' when you've decided to shut down three combatant commands. The shit he says in that video is so laughably unrealistic, and most military members know better.
Click to expand...


I don't get that from the clip.

He is correct that our Military has been greatly weakened over the last 15 years because the military has been misused for the last 15 years. The moment the big shots decided to try and use our military to hold the Afghani's and Iraqi's hands and train their cops and play cops ourselves, we were taking a bad road to a bad place. Those things are not what a military is for. These extended missions were a misuse of our forces. The military remodeled itself around what the administrations over those years asked them to do. But in doing so they have lost much of their ability to perform their true primary missions. They no longer have the correct equipment or they no longer know how to properly use it. They have literally forgotten how to fight a serious stand up conventional war.

Switching back isn't free. Training costs money, re-equipping costs money. And I take this as a good sign. It sounds to me like Trump understands and shares this view. It sounds to me like he will bring the boys and girls back home, that we will go back to maintaining our major military bases in a few places in Europe and East Asia and that we will let go of this ridiculous crusade to try and remake the Middle East in our image.

We need to sharpen our sword and our shield and make sure that countries like China and Russia understand that a stand up fight against our military isn't something they can win. We do these things right and we won't have to fight those wars and that is why you do these things. Walk softly and carry a big stick. Win by not having to fight, not by taking the other kid's lunch money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top