Recent comments in /f/News

Rambler wrote

I mean, to be fair, they have undercover people in any large demonstration, group, rally, etc.

They were in CHAZ/CHOP, in Minneapolis, in Kenosha. They're in the smaller rallies and groups lead by people who are trying to start a movement. They're in militias, big and small. They're certainly going to be in normal large gatherings requiring high security as well, like a political rally. (Especially if any chatter online may indicate to something else being planned)

1

Wingless wrote

With all the police at that rally getting pummeled in courts and press, I imagine quite a few of them have become undercover after the fact.

The whole thing is ridiculous - they prosecute random people for going in a building like they were terrorists, while there's no prosecution about how the leadership sabotaged and abandoned the MPD officers - barely a word how it happened. The whole mob there is being used as whipping boys.

1

Wahaha wrote (edited )

That's pretty harsh for acting according to procedure. Guess there really is no such thing as justice. The dude that shot John Lennon is also still in prison, because there is no such thing as justice.

1

burnerben wrote

the more that comes out the more i agree with the first one. supposedly they are experienced in ransomware. but why use bitcoin when you could just use monero? why use a wallet that can be accessed by the fbi? the group is called "darkside" and has an onion site. (havent found it personally) but what the media has presented is that they are experienced. they arent just some hackers who found a vuln and were like "hey lets write some ransomware". seems really suspect to me. and there has been a big push for regulation around crypto.

2

burnerben wrote

what im getting from this is the fbi served a secret warrent to whoever held the wallet and are showing it off to scare away people who are considering carrying out ransomware attacks.

a lot of the whole colonial pipeline situation is confusing to me so maybe you guys can help me fix my retardedness.

  1. Why didnt they just use XMR?

  2. Why would they use a wallet hosted by some company?

maybe im asking all the right questions, maybe im retarded. probably the ladder.

2

Wingless wrote

People have this old fashioned myth that an image is an array of pixels on your screen. When it has been turned into a spy device that has five different kinds of hidden codes we know about, plus secret watermarks and crap we don't, from who knows how many pieces of hardware and software. Not to mention way more resolution, apparently, than is needed to read the label on a package of cheese.

For all that, we get pictures that you can't paste from one web browser window to another without them turning black and losing features. Because, like "phones", the thing they are supposed to do is such a low priority, behind so many spies in line, that they are gradually losing the ability to do it at all.

3

dontvisitmyintentions wrote

Stewart sent the image on EncroChat, an encrypted messaging service used exclusively by criminals that was infiltrated by police in a major operation last year.

This sounds like usual CNN distortion. All encrypted networks are exclusively-criminal, and any who don't toe the globalist line are extremists. It looked as if the BBC article doesn't indict the service itself, but the original story on its infiltration calls it a "crime chat network." From that story:

The system operated on customised Android phones and, according to its website, provided "worry-free secure communications".

Customers had access to features such as self-destructing messages that deleted from the recipient's device after a certain length of time.

Real criminal masterminds selling Androids with custom ROMs.


The moral of the story is: when you take a picture of your cheese, don't hold it in your palm with your fingers splayed out as if you're signalling to your agency handler to recall you from the field. Just my two pence.

2

abralelie OP wrote

A video for you too https://v2.incogtube.com/watch?v=t5UPnuSTRjA

This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. A minority of them are climatologists.

Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change

So, because 2-3% of climatologists doubt the findings, that gives them more weight in your opinion than the 97-98%? Climatology isn't a soft science like social sciences, you know?

1

takeheart wrote

I'm not against scientific method, I'm against scientific establishment. The cocksuckers who promote agendas for money and power, who suppress genuine research. Those will come up with whatever consensus necessary to saw off all the forests on earth or whatever else satan demands of them.

https://web.archive.org/web/20191115154603/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

/watch?v=lvpwAwvDxUU

1