Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The $100M ‘Business Club’ Crime Gang

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 31 posts

Re: The $100M ‘Business Club’ Crime Gang

#21

Post by colinbartlett »

sschueller wrote: post #12
colinbartlett wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just another reason I can't wait for iOS 9 content blockers. On Chrome desktop I use ShutUp to block all comments on the net except for whitelisted sites.

The problem with that is you may eventually end up in a bubble that matches your believes and reality.

Fair point, though I tend to find whitelisting sites with commenting systems that allow down voting of trolls and hate speech to be an effective way to expose myself to alternative viewpoints while shielding myself from the vitriol.

Re: The $100M ‘Business Club’ Crime Gang

#22

Post by rjbwork »

tiatia wrote: post #13
NicoJuicy wrote: post #2

The fascinating thing is, there's already Russian propaganda in that article's comments - called web brigades. They just mention that there is no conflict between Russia and Ukraine, although Russia send unofficial armed troups to Ukrain :p, because they didn't allowed the coupe of "obama's" administration. The problem is, America didn't send any troops to Ukrain, Russia did: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews…

"The problem is, America didn't send any troops to Ukrain, Russia did" Well, this is open to debate. Russia DID sent troops to Crimea but was legally and contractual allowed to do so. Counter question: Why are armed US soldiers flying to Ukraine? Dear Hunting? http://www.krone.at/Oesterreich/Bewaffnete_US-Soldaten_in_Wi...

I didn't realize it was legal to send troops into non-contiguous territory with the intention of annexation. Can you cite the law or contract that allows that? I've never heard this theory proposed before.

Re: The $100M ‘Business Club’ Crime Gang

#23

Post by ArkyBeagle »

meric wrote: post #9
NicoJuicy wrote: post #2

The fascinating thing is, there's already Russian propaganda in that article's comments - called web brigades. They just mention that there is no conflict between Russia and Ukraine, although Russia send unofficial armed troups to Ukrain :p, because they didn't allowed the coupe of "obama's" administration. The problem is, America didn't send any troops to Ukrain, Russia did: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews…

It isn't Obama's coup. It's Victoria Nuland and the Big Oil coup. Here's a video of Victoria Nuland of the Department of State claiming U.S. has spent $5 billion since 1991 to 'build democratic institutions' in Ukraine, at around 07:30. Take note of the sponsorship flags by Chevron and ExxonMobil in the background. Note how she uses the word 'invested'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=448 IMO that is ev…

Those "flags" just mean they sponsored whatever conference this is at. The video nor the other stuff doesn't say which conference it is.

It's funny how the US is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't in these cases. "Big oil" might or might not be even interested in how Ukraine/Russia works out, beyond the usual "can we do business there?" concerns. Isn't it simply that competitors to Russian control over Ukraine need partners offshore for oil operations?

I know people who have had to travel to Cote Ivorie to do work, and it's an uncomfortable thing to have to do. They have a number that can call if they need to be evacuated. Not that this has been executed, but it has come up in discussions with the customer there.

After all, we could just turn our backs and let Putin have whatever he wants.

When we look back historically at the 1953 Iran coup, that sure as heck was oil oriented, but it was the British government ultimately that requested CIA involvement. Nationalizing other people's oil assets has certain ... risks associated with it. This is at very least much more subtle than that.

Re: The $100M ‘Business Club’ Crime Gang

#24

Post by tiatia »

rjbwork wrote: post #22
tiatia wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem is, America didn't send any troops to Ukrain, Russia did" Well, this is open to debate. Russia DID sent troops to Crimea but was legally and contractual allowed to do so. Counter question: Why are armed US soldiers flying to Ukraine? Dear Hunting? http://www.krone.at/Oesterreich/Bewaffnete_US-Soldaten_in_Wi...

I didn't realize it was legal to send troops into non-contiguous territory with the intention of annexation. Can you cite the law or contract that allows that? I've never heard this theory proposed before.

Well, Russia had all the rights to have troops in Crimea (a former part of Russia by the way) based on contractual agreements with Ukraine - they rented military bases there. So what you exactly saying?

1. Russia EXCEEDED the amount of troops that it was allowed to have there? I never heard this claim before. 2. That the presence of the Russian troops changed the referendum in any kind? I never heard this too. In fact, this it is the reason why nobody requests a second ballot - the result would be the same. 3. That it is illegal to secede. Secession have happened before (think Yugoslavia, think Czechoslovakia), they will happen in the future.

Please clarify your point and cite laws that Russia broke.

Re: The $100M ‘Business Club’ Crime Gang

#25

Post by doomsells »

meric wrote: post #9
NicoJuicy wrote: post #2

The fascinating thing is, there's already Russian propaganda in that article's comments - called web brigades. They just mention that there is no conflict between Russia and Ukraine, although Russia send unofficial armed troups to Ukrain :p, because they didn't allowed the coupe of "obama's" administration. The problem is, America didn't send any troops to Ukrain, Russia did: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews…

It isn't Obama's coup. It's Victoria Nuland and the Big Oil coup. Here's a video of Victoria Nuland of the Department of State claiming U.S. has spent $5 billion since 1991 to 'build democratic institutions' in Ukraine, at around 07:30. Take note of the sponsorship flags by Chevron and ExxonMobil in the background. Note how she uses the word 'invested'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=448 IMO that is ev…

The US is vilified regardless of reality because they are so ridiculously dominant. Pretending that everyone is equally bad is only workable theoretically, in the real world bad systems die.

Re: The $100M ‘Business Club’ Crime Gang

#26

Post by EugeneOZ »

tiatia wrote: post #24
rjbwork wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't realize it was legal to send troops into non-contiguous territory with the intention of annexation. Can you cite the law or contract that allows that? I've never heard this theory proposed before.

Well, Russia had all the rights to have troops in Crimea (a former part of Russia by the way) based on contractual agreements with Ukraine - they rented military bases there. So what you exactly saying? 1. Russia EXCEEDED the amount of troops that it was allowed to have there? I never heard this claim before. 2. That the presence of the Russian troops changed the referendum in any kind? I never heard this too. In fac…

Are you and kidding? Soldiers occupied airports and military bases, that's how Crimea was annexed. Don't put that bullshit please.

Re: The $100M ‘Business Club’ Crime Gang

#27

Post by arca_vorago »

doomsells wrote: post #25
meric wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't Obama's coup. It's Victoria Nuland and the Big Oil coup. Here's a video of Victoria Nuland of the Department of State claiming U.S. has spent $5 billion since 1991 to 'build democratic institutions' in Ukraine, at around 07:30. Take note of the sponsorship flags by Chevron and ExxonMobil in the background. Note how she uses the word 'invested'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=448 IMO that is ev…

The US is vilified regardless of reality because they are so ridiculously dominant. Pretending that everyone is equally bad is only workable theoretically, in the real world bad systems die.

Thats the most bassavkeards logic ive heard in a while. So the us is only bilified because of their dominance, but "in reality" bad systems die? Thats such bullshit, and obviously not true across the spanse of history. Do people actually think before they type?

Re: The $100M ‘Business Club’ Crime Gang

#28

Post by arca_vorago »

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #23
meric wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't Obama's coup. It's Victoria Nuland and the Big Oil coup. Here's a video of Victoria Nuland of the Department of State claiming U.S. has spent $5 billion since 1991 to 'build democratic institutions' in Ukraine, at around 07:30. Take note of the sponsorship flags by Chevron and ExxonMobil in the background. Note how she uses the word 'invested'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=448 IMO that is ev…

Those "flags" just mean they sponsored whatever conference this is at. The video nor the other stuff doesn't say which conference it is. It's funny how the US is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't in these cases. "Big oil" might or might not be even interested in how Ukraine/Russia works out, beyond the usual "can we do business there?" concerns. Isn't it simply that competitors to Russian control over Ukrain…

Oh yeah, its because theyre "damned if they do damned if they dont" all right. Like pushing a color revolution so you can coopt the powrr base is just a "oopsie well we might as well because wed be viewed as damned anyway!" Sort of thing. Does HN really buy this obvious shill propaganda?

Re: The $100M ‘Business Club’ Crime Gang

#29

Post by ArkyBeagle »

arca_vorago wrote: post #28
ArkyBeagle wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those "flags" just mean they sponsored whatever conference this is at. The video nor the other stuff doesn't say which conference it is. It's funny how the US is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't in these cases. "Big oil" might or might not be even interested in how Ukraine/Russia works out, beyond the usual "can we do business there?" concerns. Isn't it simply that competitors to Russian control over Ukrain…

Oh yeah, its because theyre "damned if they do damned if they dont" all right. Like pushing a color revolution so you can coopt the powrr base is just a "oopsie well we might as well because wed be viewed as damned anyway!" Sort of thing. Does HN really buy this obvious shill propaganda?

I don't buy "shill propaganda" because I watch a couple of metric tons of CSPAN every year. The big companies just sponsor these things blindly. It's all rather bland. They do it sort of blindly - and it's not exactly Riefenstahl. It's very grey-corporate boring.

I just meant "damned if you do; damned of you don't" to bring up the odd position Americans find themselves in four generations against the natural grain of American isolationism. The infamous American provincialism is well-won.

Re: The $100M ‘Business Club’ Crime Gang

#30

Post by tiatia »

EugeneOZ wrote: post #26
tiatia wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Russia had all the rights to have troops in Crimea (a former part of Russia by the way) based on contractual agreements with Ukraine - they rented military bases there. So what you exactly saying? 1. Russia EXCEEDED the amount of troops that it was allowed to have there? I never heard this claim before. 2. That the presence of the Russian troops changed the referendum in any kind? I never heard this too. In fac…

Are you and kidding? Soldiers occupied airports and military bases, that's how Crimea was annexed. Don't put that bullshit please.

Which military bases were occupied? Seriously.
Post reply on HN