Hodad Posted March 26 Author Report Posted March 26 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Aristides said: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/atlantic-signal-yemen-1.7493625 Well that's worth a read. Jeebus. Hegseth has refused to say whether he posted classified information on Signal. He is travelling in the Indo-Pacific region and to date has only scoffed at questions, saying he did not reveal "war plans." Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday that it was up to Hegseth to determine whether the information he was posting was classified or not. What was revealed was jaw-dropping in its specificity, and includes the type of information that is kept under wraps to protect the operational security of a military strike. In the group chat, Hegseth posted: "1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)" "1345: 'Trigger Based' F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)" "1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)" "1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier 'Trigger Based' targets)" "1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts — also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched." "MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)" "We are currently clean on OPSEC" — that is, operational security. "Godspeed to our Warriors." Sure, he didn't share war plans, just the what, where, when and how. -- The only thing he didn't do was dox the pilots. Edited March 26 by Hodad 2 Quote
User Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 2 minutes ago, Hodad said: Sure, he didn't share war plans, just the what, where, when and how. -- The only thing he didn't do was dox the pilots. For what Hegseth knew, this was a closed chat. The fact that someone else inadvertently added someone else in is not on Hegseth nor was that him DOXing anyone. You guys will twist this story to no end. Quote
Aristides Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 18 minutes ago, User said: For what Hegseth knew, this was a closed chat. The fact that someone else inadvertently added someone else in is not on Hegseth nor was that him DOXing anyone. You guys will twist this story to no end. No one is saying they intended to do it but it just shows what a bunch of amateur incompetents these people are when it comes to security and their jobs in general. 3 Quote
Deluge Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Hodad said: Well that's worth a read. Jeebus. Hegseth has refused to say whether he posted classified information on Signal. He is travelling in the Indo-Pacific region and to date has only scoffed at questions, saying he did not reveal "war plans." Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday that it was up to Hegseth to determine whether the information he was posting was classified or not. What was revealed was jaw-dropping in its specificity, and includes the type of information that is kept under wraps to protect the operational security of a military strike. In the group chat, Hegseth posted: "1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)" "1345: 'Trigger Based' F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)" "1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)" "1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier 'Trigger Based' targets)" "1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts — also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched." "MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)" "We are currently clean on OPSEC" — that is, operational security. "Godspeed to our Warriors." Sure, he didn't share war plans, just the what, where, when and how. -- The only thing he didn't do was dox the pilots. Point out the where and when. All I see is bullet points talking about unknown a$$holes who look like they're about to have very bad days. If only you could just get the names and locations of the targets.... you could warn them of the imminent danger.... Edited March 26 by Deluge Quote
robosmith Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 1 hour ago, User said: For what Hegseth knew, this was a closed chat. The fact that someone else inadvertently added someone else in is not on Hegseth nor was that him DOXing anyone. You guys will twist this story to no end. And you will obtusely IGNORE that Signal is NOT approved for sensitive communications of any kind. So Hegseth demonstrated total INCOMPETENCE. 1 1 Quote
User Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 5 minutes ago, robosmith said: And you will obtusely IGNORE that Signal is NOT approved for sensitive communications of any kind. So Hegseth demonstrated total INCOMPETENCE. What do you base that on? Biden administration used Signal and this White House approved its use as well. The whole damn National Security team was on the chat. That was not Hegseth's doing. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 Not clowns, but lying clowns. 1 1 Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Hodad Posted March 26 Author Report Posted March 26 (edited) 3 hours ago, Aristides said: No one is saying they intended to do it but it just shows what a bunch of amateur incompetents these people are when it comes to security and their jobs in general. Adding the journalist was surely an accident, but choosing to have this kind of group chat--with top secret information--on an unapproved publicly available app is sheer incompetence. That, they all did knowingly. At this point it would be an upgrade if they were just using a private server. Edited March 26 by Hodad 1 1 Quote
User Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 22 minutes ago, Hodad said: Adding the journalist was surely an accident, but choosing to have this kind of group chat--with top secret information--on an unapproved publicly available app is sheer incompetence. That, they all did knowingly. At this point it would be an upgrade if they were just using a private server. There was no "top secret" information here, and this was an approved app for use. Biden even used it. Quote
robosmith Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 18 minutes ago, User said: There was no "top secret" information here, and this was an approved app for use. Biden even used it. It was NEVER approved for classified information. Esp NOT on personal phones. The Signal attack plan messages: What we do (and don't) ... AP News https://apnews.com › article › war-plans-hegseth-signal-... 20 hours ago — KNOWN: Signal is a publicly available app that provides encrypted communications, but it can be hacked. It is not approved for carrying classified information. On March 14, one day before 1 Quote
User Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 8 minutes ago, robosmith said: It was NEVER approved for classified information. Esp NOT on personal phones. OK... what was the "classified" information? Quote
User Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 Listen folks, not everything is classified, but that doesn't mean it is not sensitive. Trump and the administration talk in private about a great deal of things, planning, etc... not every discussion is classified, but it is certainly private and sensitive. Sure. There is a lot of deliberate dishonesty going on here to try to conflate these concepts. Yes, what Hegseth and the National Security team were discussing was sensitive and should not have been public information... but that doesn't make it classified. Hegseth did not send locations, targets, units, routes, sources, methods... it was just hey guess what, an F-18 will be dropping bombs at 2! Certianly not what they would discuss in public, but not classified information or "war plans" showing the full target package and details like folks are making out here. Quote
robosmith Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 29 minutes ago, User said: OK... what was the "classified" information? Impending military operations are ALWAYS CLASSIFIED. Because announcing them puts the soldiers lives in danger. Duh Quote
User Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 3 minutes ago, robosmith said: Impending military operations are ALWAYS CLASSIFIED. Because announcing them puts the soldiers lives in danger. Duh Nothing was announced. So... what is your point here? Quote
eyeball Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 21 hours ago, User said: That was not my assertion though. You need to read better. It seemed that way given your demand for names. OK, give us the names of all these people who saw and knew about his drunkenness. 21 hours ago, User said: Hegset did not corroborate anything, you have offered no argument to this effect. He most certainly did and I also provided you with a dictionary definition of the term corroborate to facilitate your understanding of the term and to corroborate my argument. 21 hours ago, User said: Robosmith has repeatedly lied and now he runs away like usual. In the meantime you're still here running around in circles like usual. 1 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
User Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 2 minutes ago, eyeball said: It seemed that way given your demand for names. Yeah, because he claimed there were 10 people. Who? Neither of you can back that up and you defend him. 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: He most certainly did and I also provided you with a dictionary definition of the term corroborate to facilitate your understanding of the term and to corroborate my argument. No, he didn't. Let me know when you can do more than just make the same baseless assertion. 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: In the meantime you're still here running around in circles like usual. Nope, that is you. As usual. Quote
eyeball Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 1 hour ago, User said: Yes, what Hegseth and the National Security team were discussing was sensitive and should not have been public information... but that doesn't make it classified. At this point the pretzels Trump's administration and partisan supporters are turning themselves into while denying, deflecting, and decrying it have made it a spectacle. 1 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
User Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 Just now, eyeball said: At this point the pretzels Trump's administration and partisan supporters are turning themselves into while denying, deflecting, and decrying it have made it a spectacle. That is your take... Quote
eyeball Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 6 minutes ago, User said: No, he didn't. Let me know when you can do more than just make the same baseless assertion. During his confirmation hearing, Hegseth acknowledged he was “not a perfect person”. He promised senators that he has stopped drinking and would not do so if confirmed as defense secretary. But he would not commit to resigning if he did drink on the job. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/24/pete-hegseth-what-we-know Here's the issue, it's not just me you're accusing of making a baseless assertion. In this case it's also the Guardian you're accusing. It's one thing to call me a liar but you're also calling the Guardian a liar and suspect it will be the same case no matter what source anyone puts before you. You can't even agree with a dictionary when it doesn't suit your...case. 2 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
User Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 6 minutes ago, eyeball said: Here's the issue, it's not just me you're accusing of making a baseless assertion. In this case it's also the Guardian you're accusing. No, its not. The Guardian did not make the assertion you did. 7 minutes ago, eyeball said: It's one thing to call me a liar but you're also calling the Guardian a liar and suspect it will be the same case no matter what source anyone puts before you. I did not call you a liar here... but your assertion is not true and you have offered no argument to support it. 7 minutes ago, eyeball said: You can't even agree with a dictionary when it doesn't suit your...case. The issue isn't with a dictionary definition. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 7 hours ago, Hodad said: Hegseth has refused to say whether he posted classified information on Signal. All you guys do is post lie after lie: 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
robosmith Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 28 minutes ago, eyeball said: During his confirmation hearing, Hegseth acknowledged he was “not a perfect person”. He promised senators that he has stopped drinking and would not do so if confirmed as defense secretary. But he would not commit to resigning if he did drink on the job. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/24/pete-hegseth-what-we-know Here's the issue, it's not just me you're accusing of making a baseless assertion. In this case it's also the Guardian you're accusing. It's one thing to call me a liar but you're also calling the Guardian a liar and suspect it will be the same case no matter what source anyone puts before you. You can't even agree with a dictionary when it doesn't suit your...case. ^This is why I have Luser on ignore. They can't acknowledge Hegseth is a drunkard no matter how many report seeing him falling down drunk. LMAO Quote
eyeball Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 7 minutes ago, User said: No, its not. The Guardian did not make the assertion you did The Guardian article clearly asserted that Hegseth was often drunk. I simply asserted they did so on the basis of what whistleblowers reported to the Guardian. The Guardian included in their article that Hegseth said he has stopped drinking. Do you think the Guardian is lying or misreporting something here? 11 minutes ago, User said: The issue isn't with a dictionary definition. Your issue is my use and understanding of it. Why? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
gatomontes99 Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 3 hours ago, Hodad said: Adding the journalist was surely an accident, but choosing to have this kind of group chat--with top secret information--on an unapproved publicly available app is sheer incompetence. That, they all did knowingly. At this point it would be an upgrade if they were just using a private server. Posting lies again? My gawd man, have some dignity. Here is the language from the Biden era memo that encouraged the use of Signal specifically. Quote https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2025-03/guidance-mobile-communications-best-practices.pdf Adopt a free messaging application for secure communications that guarantees end-to-end encryption, such as Signal or similar apps. My military friends are all talking about how they were ordered to use Signal after this memo came out. WhatsApp had been their previously favored app. 5 minutes ago, robosmith said: ^This is why I have Luser on ignore. They can't acknowledge Hegseth is a drunkard no matter how many report seeing him falling down drunk. LMAO You have everyone on ignore because you can't handle dissenting opinions. 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
User Posted March 26 Report Posted March 26 2 minutes ago, eyeball said: The Guardian article clearly asserted that Hegseth was often drunk. I simply asserted they did so on the basis of what whistleblowers reported to the Guardian. The Guardian included in their article that Hegseth said he has stopped drinking. Do you think the Guardian is lying or misreporting something here? What does that have to do with your assertion that Hegseth corroborated the accusations that he was drunk at work at Fox? I am well aware of the assertions... but that Guardian article did not outline 10 people making the accusations either, as Robosmith claimed and you defend. I think at this point, as in other threads, you are making baseless assertions and defending something that is not true and are going to obfuscate like you always do when called out for it. 4 minutes ago, eyeball said: Your issue is my use and understanding of it. Why? You claimed Hegseth did something he did not. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.