Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, November 17, 2017

In now-deleted social media images, the Russian Ministry of Defense used what is almost certainly a screenshot from a mobile game as part of its supposed evidence that the United States military was supporting ISIS troops in Syria. The posts, which went up on Facebook and Twitter Tuesday morning, included pictures that the text described as "irrefutable evidence" of "direct cooperation and support provided by the US-led coalition to the ISIS terrorists." But as Kings College research associate Elliot Higgins noted on Twitter one of those pictures matches precisely with images found in an online trailer for AC-130 Gunship Simulator: Special Ops Squadron, a little-known mobile game from Byte Conveyor Studios. A warning from that trailer that the video was "Development footage / This is a work in progress / All content subject to change" was only partially cropped out of the Ministry of Defense posts, helping highlight the original source.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The original tweet has since been deleted (archived here) and the Facebook post updated to remove the image from the game. Other images in the posts were seemingly taken from existing footage that the Iraqi Air Force posted of attacks against ISIS and remain up on Facebook.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Putin didn't do it.

Trump says so and he believes that he believes what he believes so he believes that he believes him.

#1 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-15 05:43 PM | Reply

This is the kind of amateur hour stuff that certain people want to credit with swinging the election.

#2 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-17 12:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is the kind of amateur hour stuff that certain people want to credit with swinging the election.

#2 | POSTED BY SULLY

This is the kind of amateur hour stuff that certain groups of voters fall for and refuse to believe its wrong.

You can fool some of the people all of the time and they are Republicans.

#3 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-17 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

"This is the kind of amateur hour stuff that certain people want to credit with swinging the election."

The Russians wouldn't have wasted the money doing what they did if they didn't think there was a benefit to them by doing so. Minimize the results all you want but it was part of a "team effort" which included various voter suppression techniques including Kris Kobach and Interstate Crosscheck. They didn't neet to swing that many voters to pull out a win in several swing states and thereby win in the Electoral College.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-17 12:56 PM | Reply

They wouldn't have posted this either if they didn't think it would convince people. Obviously, they are not very sophisticated when it comes to this stuff.

Blaming this garbage for Hillary losing states she didn't bother to try to win should embarrass you.

#5 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-17 01:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

The only people who are still talking about Hillary Clinton are republicans.

#6 | Posted by qcp at 2017-11-17 01:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Blaming this garbage for Hillary losing states she didn't bother to try to win should embarrass you.

#5 | POSTED BY SULLY

Your ignorance as to how elections work and the numbers behind them should embarrass you.

#7 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-17 01:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's a lie. I'm not a republican. Donna Brazile is not a republican. Etc etc etc

#8 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-17 01:29 PM | Reply

#7 name calling is not the same as making a point. You should be ashamed to flaunt your ignorance to that fact.

#9 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-17 01:30 PM | Reply

"Blaming this garbage for Hillary losing states she didn't bother to try to win should embarrass you."

Never mind the numbers of voters sidelined by Crosscheck. We should all do like you and pretend it isn't happening. George W. Bush agrees with you, he was an illigitimate President too.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-17 01:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Donna Brazile is not a republican. Etc etc etc"

I'd say she is a Brazilian.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-17 01:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Trump has been supporting ISIS via xenophobic speeches ever since his fat orange ass slumped down that gaudy staircase.

#12 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-17 01:54 PM | Reply

#5 | Posted by Sully

I will second Danni's Crosscheck. Democrats are not without blame but I witnessed Crosscheck results in action in Michigan.

#13 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-17 01:54 PM | Reply

Trump has been supporting ISIS via xenophobic speeches ever since his fat orange ass slumped down that gaudy staircase.

Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-17 01:54 PM | Reply

How do you know his ass is orange???

#14 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-17 01:55 PM | Reply

#10 - I didn't post about Crosscheck at all. You people would rather hint at stuff you know isn't true than respond to what I really said. A better idea would be not to address me at all if you don't care to comment on my actual opinion. You aren't required to address every opinion that isn't approved by the DNC. If you have nothing to say, leave it alone.

#15 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-17 01:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#10 - I didn't post about Crosscheck at all. You people would rather hint at stuff you know isn't true than respond to what I really said. A better idea would be not to address me at all if you don't care to comment on my actual opinion. You aren't required to address every opinion that isn't approved by the DNC. If you have nothing to say, leave it alone.
#15 | Posted by Sully

Here is a fact you won't admit. The American people have no idea as to the impacts of the efforts of the Russian attack beyond the minimum that is discussed publicly. The information Reality Winner released indicates that the American government has significant information regarding the attack beyond what is publicly known.

#16 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-11-17 02:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Re #16 - other than your use of the word "attack" I think you're right.

But I have a reasonable opinion as to how effective laughably bad propaganda works. I have a reasonable opinion as to whether Hillary's lack of effort in these states, her divisive reliance on identity politics and her lack of message were a bigger factor than amateurish Facebook news. The claims that Russian Facebook posts are definitely what swung the election are based on partisanship more than reason.

#17 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-17 02:31 PM | Reply

- The claims that Russian Facebook posts are definitely what swung the election are based on partisanship

...or ignorance.

Corky has proven it was a fluke EC aberration.

The fb ads were just 4tha lolz. - L33t Hxx0rz

#18 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-17 02:39 PM | Reply

The Russians are late to the party. This video made the rounds on social media quite a bit, virtually all by right wingers cheering on the killing. Was kind of funny to link them to the video game.

#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-17 02:40 PM | Reply

"The claims that Russian Facebook posts are definitely what swung the election are based on partisanship more than reason."

Just as claiming that the Russian ads, that they paid for, didn't have any effect at all. I say that voter suppression was the biggest culprit and that it is being increased as we post right now. Republicans have consistenly only won when they use various tactics to suppress the votes of minorities going all the way back to 2000. The Russian ad could only have helped any Republicans in those races but I wouldn't claim that it was really a major factor.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-17 03:05 PM | Reply

"But I have a reasonable opinion as to how effective laughably bad propaganda works."

Do tell.
How well did "Lock Her Up" work?
How well did "Benghazi" work?
How well did "But Her Emails" work?

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-17 03:19 PM | Reply

"But I have a reasonable opinion as to how effective laughably bad propaganda works."

Bad propaganda works on people inclined to believe it. For example, "I won't touch Medicare or Medicaid" worked like a charm on folks who wanted to trust and vote for Trump.

#22 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-17 03:22 PM | Reply

Snoofy, if you have something to say I suggest you just say it. I've never agreed to play "20 Inane Questions" with you before and today is not the day I do.

#23 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-17 03:26 PM | Reply

How about this propaganda? Think it worked:

Real Hacked Files Include Faked Clinton Campaign ‘Corruption'

A devastating hack on the Bradley Foundation is real. That $156 million check to Hillary Clinton, not so much.

Hackers breached an American nonprofit and shared thousands of its files online. They also snuck in a doctored email that -- falsely -- makes it appear that the organization illegally gave Hillary Clinton's campaign $156 million in July.

www.vocativ.com

#24 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-17 03:27 PM | Reply

Who would have thought anyone would believe this crap:

Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal

Inside the web of conspiracy theorists, Russian operatives, Trump campaigners and Twitter bots who manufactured the 'news' that Hillary Clinton ran a pizza-restaurant child-sex ring

and yet:

The revelations overcame Edgar Maddison Welch like a hallucinatory fever. On December 1st, 2016, the father of two from Salisbury, North Carolina, a man whose pastimes included playing Pictionary with his family, tried to persuade two friends to join a rescue mission. Alex Jones, the Info-Wars host, was reporting that Hillary Clinton was sexually abusing children in satanic rituals a few hundred miles north, in the basement of a Washington, D.C., pizza restaurant.

www.rollingstone.com

#25 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-17 03:32 PM | Reply

"Snoofy, if you have something to say I suggest you just say it."

You said you have a reasonable understanding of the impact of propaganda.

I'm asking you, what's the impact? Especially from a management perspective, can you quantify or measure the imoactm

You in fact are the one with something to say here.

Thanks for reading and understanding.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-17 03:37 PM | Reply

For example Sully.
Comet Pizza was bad propaganda.
Did you guess the result would be a guy takes it upon himself to "investigate" and shoot the ceiling?

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-17 03:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Re #20 - if that is really a major problem, I would hope it gets more attention than this other silliness.

#28 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-17 04:04 PM | Reply

#26 - but you are conflating bad Russian Facebook stuff with actual issues like Hillary's illegal email server.

Even "Benghazi" was a real issue. She was deceptive but it was stupid to focus on the he said-she said aftermath. The egregious lies that were told in order to get us involved over there in the first place and the horrible results should have been the issue. But the GOP couldn't do that because they did much worse in lying us into Iraq.

I don't know how you could honestly believe that this stuff was bad Russian propaganda.

#29 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-17 04:16 PM | Reply

#27 - I don't know how an example covering one sick person is relevant given the context but maybe you can pull it off...

Just kidding

You cant

#30 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-17 04:21 PM | Reply

Re #16 - other than your use of the word "attack" I think you're right.
But I have a reasonable opinion as to how effective laughably bad propaganda works. I have a reasonable opinion as to whether Hillary's lack of effort in these states, her divisive reliance on identity politics and her lack of message were a bigger factor than amateurish Facebook news. The claims that Russian Facebook posts are definitely what swung the election are based on partisanship more than reason.
#17 | Posted by Sully

And the propaganda in the Germany in the 1930s was laughable as was the propaganda in the south about Lincoln in the late 1850s and early 1860s.

#31 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-11-17 04:22 PM | Reply

#27 - I don't know how an example covering one sick person is relevant given the context but maybe you can pull it off...
Just kidding
You cant
#30 | Posted by Sully

you clearly don't understand how propaganda works.

#32 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-11-17 04:25 PM | Reply

#32 - you're clearly suggesting that you know something I don't without backing it up bc you are full of it.

When will you cretins learn that this bluff gets called every time? I already called out this weak ass tactic after another fool tried it with #7.

If I missed something you would be able to say what it is. I didn't. You can't. Nobody is fooled.

#33 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-17 04:35 PM | Reply

"I don't know how an example covering one sick person is relevant given the context"

You said you "have a reasonable opinion as to how effective laughably bad propaganda works."

Now it looks like you kinda don't have that.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-17 04:38 PM | Reply

"you're clearly suggesting that you know something I don't"

Sully I think you're claiming to know something you don't.

You don't really know the impact of propaganda.

If you knew, you'd be able to quantify it.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-17 04:41 PM | Reply

"I have a reasonable opinion as to whether Hillary's lack of effort in these states, her divisive reliance on identity politics and her lack of message were a bigger factor than amateurish Facebook news."

When you can quantify all those things I'll believe you.

You can't do it.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-17 04:48 PM | Reply

#34 - same dumb bluff different idiot

#37 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-17 04:54 PM | Reply

- You can't do it.

The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class
To many white Trump voters, the problem wasn't her economic stance, but the larger vision -- a multi-ethnic social democracy -- that it was a part of.

www.theatlantic.com

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-17 04:58 PM | Reply

You don't really know the impact of propaganda.

If you knew, you'd be able to quantify it.

If you think that is quantifiable, you're probably a social "science" major.

#39 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-17 04:59 PM | Reply

#36 you are literally quoting a post where I am acknowledging that what I believe is an opinion and voicing agreement with truth re: that this can't be quantified.

You might be retarded

#40 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-17 05:00 PM | Reply

Yes Sully. Your opinion.

It's not defensible, or at best you haven't tried to defend how you came up with it.

Nor will you.

So, why should you place any stock in an opinion when you won't even say how you came up with it?

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-17 05:08 PM | Reply

#32 - you're clearly suggesting that you know something I don't without backing it up bc you are full of it.
When will you cretins learn that this bluff gets called every time? I already called out this weak ass tactic after another fool tried it with #7.
If I missed something you would be able to say what it is. I didn't. You can't. Nobody is fooled.
#33 | Posted by Sully

Every time a person quotes something false and then proceeds to vote against their own best interests-propaganda works.

The simple fact that people continue to defend Trump despite ALL of the lies and failures to live up to his campaign promises-propaganda works.

For example, the extremely primitive calls to "Lock Her Up" and promises to go after Clinton for criminal activities. Certainly that motivated many to vote for Trump. How is that going for you?-Propaganda works.

#42 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-11-17 05:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The impact of specific propaganda is NOT quantifiable. That is the point. The Russian propaganda was designed to sow discord and doubt. Propaganda plays on bias and intertwines with policy, message and procedure. It is impossible to root out a specific cause and effect. Again, that is the point of propaganda-to reframe the argument to your benefit. In this case to Russia's benefit. It is silly to take out one issue of the 2016 presidential campaign as paramount. Russia attacked us in a broad effort coordinated (IMO) with the Trump campaign. Combine that with voter suppression, the unreported additional attacks on voting (i.e. indicated by what Reality Winner released) and you come up with an indisputable major attack against our democracy.

#43 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-11-17 05:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think a fake photograph like this one, micro-targeted to female voters in swing states could very well be effective, especially if no one knew the women had received the propaganda but the women themselves and they didn't know enough to check on its validity:

Joe Biden Groped Stephanie Carter During Government Ceremony?

A photograph purportedly showing Vice President Joe Biden groping the wife of former Defense Secretary Ash Carter is fake and originated on a "satire" site.

www.snopes.com

#44 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-17 05:26 PM | Reply

"The Russian propaganda was designed to sow discord and doubt."

I doubt that!

What I think is funny, is that Sully is so doubtful it was anything more than marginally effective.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-17 06:18 PM | Reply

"Never mind the numbers of voters sidelined by Crosscheck."

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic here. I think the whole Russian conspiracy is just counter propaganda to distract people from and get them to "never mind" things like voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc.

#46 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-11-18 01:25 PM | Reply

Wait, you know the number sidelined by CrossCheck?

Let's put it this way, if nobody lost their voting privilege via CrossCheck what's the point of the system?

Now that we've cleared that up, what are the false positive and false negative rates for CroasCheck?

As far as I can tell, that information is not available.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-18 01:33 PM | Reply

Do tell. How well did "Lock Her Up" work? How well did "Benghazi" work? How well did "But Her Emails" work?

Outside of people who were already inclined to vote against her no matter what? Probably not at all. They tried to use the Benghazi one against Obama in 2012 and failed.

How well did "people only criticize me because they're misogynistic deplorables" work?

#48 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-11-18 01:35 PM | Reply

"How well did "people only criticize me because they're misogynistic deplorables" work?"

Oh, did that work better or something?

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-18 02:32 PM | Reply

So if it turns out any of those comments were from Russian trolls, that would mean the propaganda was effective?

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-18 02:33 PM | Reply

If it turned out that one party trolled the other party into behaving like xenophobic McCarthyites, would that be even more effective?

#51 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-11-18 03:47 PM | Reply

I'll take that as a yes, and you can take my yes as a yes too.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-18 05:42 PM | Reply

I'm wondering which ones were the xenophobic McCarthyites, was it the Build The Wall guys or the other guys? Not that it matters.

I'd like to think the more educated you are the less effective propaganda is. But then I guess I'm guilty of being an elitist for not loving the poorly educated. Trollolol.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-18 05:48 PM | Reply

CrossCheck could be more effective than propaganda, Russian or otherwise.

But there's no reason not to use all the tools in the shed.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-18 05:50 PM | Reply

What you don't get is every time you invoked the Russia interference innuendo, in the eyes of many in the electorate you're inoculating the Trumpers against the xenophobia charge, and are continuing to do so. it allows them to make the case to the middle that you're just as much hypocrites or bigots, or at least can be very easily played or manipulated into behaving like ones.

Glad we agree that Mrs Clinton's own words had more of an effect than any political propaganda, Russian or otherwise, against her. Also very poor strategy in making decisions on who to listen to on her campaign. Also bad luck in timing in that people didn't want either another Clinton vs Bush or even another Clinton or a Bush. Numurous other reasons probably come into play before foreign influence even starts being a credible factor.

#55 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-11-19 09:29 AM | Reply

"What you don't get is every time you invoked the Russia interference innuendo, in the eyes of many in the electorate you're inoculating the Trumpers against the xenophobia charge"

I don't understand this sentence.

But I think you're saying, the Trump supported just don't want to believe the intelligence community about Russian meddling, so rather than think they've been duped, they think [fill in the blank].

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-19 01:54 PM | Reply

...the Trump supporters...

But again, I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

It kind of reminds me of when Ahmadinejad told the UN there is no oppression of gays in Iran because there are no gay people in Iran.

Trump voters seems to be saying there's no Russian meddling in our elections. Because it's suitable for their gestalt.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-19 01:57 PM | Reply

don't know how you could honestly believe that this stuff was bad Russian propaganda.

#29 | POSTED BY SULLY

The Russian attempts to meddle in our election process obviously had no effect. That's why we haven't been talking about it for a year. No effect at all.

#58 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-19 03:31 PM | Reply

"This is the kind of amateur hour stuff that certain people want to credit with swinging the election."

There's a broken ass canel under a huge pile of straw, and since nobody can say for sure which straw broke the camel's back, you've adopted the belief that maybe it died of natural causes.

Because ww're the ones with blinders and party affiliations, and you're "open minded."

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-19 06:53 PM | Reply

Sometime around 2008 I remember CNN got caught using a photo of a nuclear site in Iran in a story they ran about North Korea. Many people in non "western" countries went crazy over this. That's kind of what this story reminds me of.

#60 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-11-19 09:54 PM | Reply

To those who think propaganda on the internet had a significant impact on the election, what exactly do you propose be done about it? Should foreigners be banned from political speech in places that could reach Americans? Should the internet be censored?

Should the results of the last election be declared null and void because of it? Because that's how it's coming across.

#61 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-11-19 10:02 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort