Russia offered bounties to kill american troops. (2 Viewers)

[The moose]

Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says (Published 2020)

The Trump administration has been deliberating for months about what to do about a stunning intelligence assessment.

www.nytimes.com

An amazing read.

Trump was told about this in March. Then tries to get Russia back into the g8.

The timing is just plain horrible.

 

[MT15]

I wasn't the person who first brought up Crow in this thread. Why don't you stop trying to act like a moderator?

No, but you cavalierly dismissed him and won’t give a valid reason. And instead of getting huffy, just support your opinion with something other than a non sequitur.

 

[SaintForLife]

No, but you cavalierly dismissed him and won’t give a valid reason. And instead of getting huffy, just support your opinion with something other than a non sequitur.

Stop talking about Crow. He isn't the subject of this thread.

 

[brandon]

If any actual evidence is produced then I would have no problem with an investigation. Unnamed intelligence sources in articles don't count as proof.

I just want to point out that evidence and proof are not the same thing.

At a certain point, evidence may be overwhelming, perhaps even proving a case. But there can absolutely be evidence (circumstantial, for instance) that doesn’t fully prove a case.

There is absolutely evidence that what is alleged has occurred (witness statements, money transfers, etc). If this is not enough evidence to prove that the alleged event occurred, it is still absolutely enough evidence to open an investigation, which will lead to more evidence, which will prove whether or not the alleged offense occurred.

So let’s go ahead and have that investigation, right? What’s the downside to calling for an investigation?

 

[SaintForLife]

I just want to point out that evidence and proof are not the same thing.

At a certain point, evidence may be overwhelming, perhaps even proving a case. But there can absolutely be evidence (circumstantial, for instance) that doesn’t fully prove a case.

There is absolutely evidence that what is alleged has occurred (witness statements, money transfers, etc). If this is not enough evidence to prove that the alleged event occurred, it is still absolutely enough evidence to open an investigation, which will lead to more evidence, which will prove whether or not the alleged offense occurred.

So let’s go ahead and have that investigation, right? What’s the downside to calling for an investigation?

There has been no evidence produced to show what you claimed. An article mentioning witness statements or money transfers according to unnamed intelligence sources isn't evidence.

Are claims from unamed intelligence sources in news articles now the standard to call for investigations?

 

[brandon]

An article mentioning witness statements or money transfers according to unnamed intelligence sources isn't evidence.

Witness statements and money transfers are absolutely evidence.

Again, evidence is not necessarily proof, but these are examples are evidence.

 

[brandon]

Are claims from unamed intelligence sources in news articles now the standard to call for investigations?

Claims from unnamed intelligence sources corroborated by money transfer records are.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

If any actual evidence is produced then I would have no problem with an investigation. Unnamed intelligence sources in articles don't count as proof.

You don't want an investigation until there is proof, but the entire point of an investigation is to turn up proof.

1. American troops found a large amount of cash in a safe house.
2. High ranking enemy combatants said it was bounty money for killing US and allied troops.
3. Bank transactions were discovered that seem to corroborate this story.

Is that enough evidence to open an investigation in your eyes?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Stop talking about Crow. He isn't the subject of this thread.

His amendment is, though. It relates directly to the thread. You are the one who dismissed his amendment out of hand with zero reason to do so.

 

[SaintForLife]

Claims from unnamed intelligence sources corroborated by money transfer records are.

Did they leak the copies of the money transfer records or are we still just relying on the word of those unnamed intelligence officials?

 

[SaintForLife]

His amendment is, though. It relates directly to the thread. You are the one who dismissed his amendment out of hand with zero reason to do so.

I was sarcastically applying your own made up rules for the MCB.

I pointed out how parts of the amendment would help make our presence in Afghanistan very difficult to end. Also if Liz Cheney is involved, then it's probably not a good thing.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I was sarcastically applying your own made up rules for the MCB.

I pointed out how parts of the amendment would help make our presence in Afghanistan very difficult to end. Also if Liz Cheney is involved, then it's probably not a good thing.

You also pointed out there were parts of it you support, then found a way to dismiss those as well. You were the one who first shared the story mentioning the amendment, then refused to actually entertain discussions about it. In fact, the only comment you left when you shared it was "It's almost like there are US government officials that don't want us to leave Afghanistan."

You then responded to a comment about "the establishment" not letting Trump withdraw from the Middle East with a comment about the military industrial complex.

Do you (or @JimEverett for that matter) have any proof that this freshman congressman is part of some "establishment" or is working on behalf of the military industrial complex? I am particularly interested in how you came to this conclusion, given that his campaign website speaks of the need for a focus on diplomacy and OnTheIssues.org has him listed as being opposed to military intervention in the Middle East.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I was sarcastically applying your own made up rules for the MCB.

I pointed out how parts of the amendment would help make our presence in Afghanistan very difficult to end. Also if Liz Cheney is involved, then it's probably not a good thing.

I am aware. I was ignoring it because it isn't conducive to productive dialogue.

 

[bdb13]

Did they leak the copies of the money transfer records or are we still just relying on the word of those unnamed intelligence officials?

Without delving into this entire discussion, I'm just going to agree that unreleased money transfer records cited by unnamed sources used to help confirm information told by (other?) unnamed sources in an earlier article... doesn't really get you anywhere as proof on its own.

 

[SaintForLife]

I am aware. I was ignoring it because it isn't conducive to productive dialogue.

Do you think when you were trying to play moderator by telling me what I shouldn't post in a thread was conductive to productive dialogue?

 

[LA - L.A.]

Stop telling me what to post. My reference to Obama is totally relevant because it included the same arm sales that he rejected that all of sudden was important when Trump was president.

Do you have any evidence that the military aid that Obama rejected was the same as what Trump withheld and any evidence that Crow was not also critical of Obama rejecting the same military aid aid?

Not all military aid is the same.

If you don't have evidence that Crow is being inconsistent, then mentioning what Obama did is irrelevant.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Without delving into this entire discussion, I'm just going to agree that unreleased money transfer records cited by unnamed sources used to help confirm information told by (other?) unnamed sources in an earlier article... doesn't really get you anywhere as proof on its own.

As the numberless Brandon pointed out, proof and evidence aren't the same. The existence of the monetary transaction records is evidence that can be used to put together the puzzle and determine whether or not an investigation is warranted, the goal of which is to find out if there is any truth to this and whether there is proof of it (if it is true).

 

[SaintForLife]

You also pointed out there were parts of it you support, then found a way to dismiss those as well. You were the one who first shared the story mentioning the amendment, then refused to actually entertain discussions about it. In fact, the only comment you left when you shared it was "It's almost like there are US government officials that don't want us to leave Afghanistan."

You then responded to a comment about "the establishment" not letting Trump withdraw from the Middle East with a comment about the military industrial complex.

Do you (or @JimEverett for that matter) have any proof that this freshman congressman is part of some "establishment" or is working on behalf of the military industrial complex? I am particularly interested in how you came to this conclusion, given that his campaign website speaks of the need for a focus on diplomacy and OnTheIssues.org has him listed as being opposed to military intervention in the Middle East.

It's hard to take someone seriously when they are teaming up with Liz Cheney in regards to military engagements. The amendment was based off of flimsly reporting with the Russian bounties in addition to benchmarks that would be difficult to reach. I thought people on the left were against wars. I still haven't heard a legitimate reason why we should stay in Afghanistan.

If they had this intelligence 3 months ago about the bounties, why did they wait until now to leak it? You don't find it curious that it was leaked 2 days after there was a breakthrough in peace talks between with the Taliban? The ammendment by Liz Cheney adds to the suspicion that this was all done to try to prevent a withdrawal from Afghanistan.

 

[bdb13]

As the numberless Brandon pointed out, proof and evidence aren't the same. The existence of the monetary transaction records is evidence that can be used to put together the puzzle and determine whether or not an investigation is warranted, the goal of which is to find out if there is any truth to this and whether there is proof of it (if it is true).

Right, but it's only evidence if they're real (the monetary transaction records). That was really my point. We don't know if it even really exists.