Comment by ethbr1 2 years ago https://archive.ph/20241007181947/https://www.wsj.com/politi...https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/30/us/politics/china-hack-tr... 5 comments ethbr1 Reply jampekka 2 years ago NYT would of course never back erroneous allegations by US officials on geopolitical matters like these. ethbr1 2 years ago What satisfiable criteria would you like in a source? bjourne 2 years ago Read the sources carefully. It all boils down to "US officials says so". It's different from the Podesta hack as forensic evidence were published linking Russian hackers to the attack. 2 replies →
jampekka 2 years ago NYT would of course never back erroneous allegations by US officials on geopolitical matters like these. ethbr1 2 years ago What satisfiable criteria would you like in a source? bjourne 2 years ago Read the sources carefully. It all boils down to "US officials says so". It's different from the Podesta hack as forensic evidence were published linking Russian hackers to the attack. 2 replies →
ethbr1 2 years ago What satisfiable criteria would you like in a source? bjourne 2 years ago Read the sources carefully. It all boils down to "US officials says so". It's different from the Podesta hack as forensic evidence were published linking Russian hackers to the attack. 2 replies →
bjourne 2 years ago Read the sources carefully. It all boils down to "US officials says so". It's different from the Podesta hack as forensic evidence were published linking Russian hackers to the attack. 2 replies →
NYT would of course never back erroneous allegations by US officials on geopolitical matters like these.
What satisfiable criteria would you like in a source?
Read the sources carefully. It all boils down to "US officials says so". It's different from the Podesta hack as forensic evidence were published linking Russian hackers to the attack.
2 replies →