Russia offered bounties to kill american troops. (1 Viewer)

[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.

 

[SaintForLife]

Even the left's favorite Republican Colin Powell called the story out for what it was.

 

[Ayo]

He didn’t say it was “botched”. That’s editorializing on Mate’s part (not exactly a font of objectivism, either, so it’s not surprising). If what Powell said was as damning as he suggests then the editorializing on his part wouldn’t be needed.

So what we have is Mate exaggerating what was actually said while he shows outrage over media exaggeration.

The lack of self-awareness isn’t surprising either. Hypocrisy is simply the way his business is done these days.

 

[SaintForLife]

Yet another source, thats not unnamed, that's saying the bounty story isn't true or backed up by evidence. I'm sure the Russiagaters will still cling to this story and will fall for the next Russian bombshell.

 

[SaintForLife]

If you are against unnecessary foreign military engagements and wars, Max Abrahms is a good follow on Twitter.

 

[SaintForLife]

He didn’t say it was “botched”. That’s editorializing on Mate’s part (not exactly a font of objectivism, either, so it’s not surprising). If what Powell said was as damning as he suggests then the editorializing on his part wouldn’t be needed.

So what we have is Mate exaggerating what was actually said while he shows outrage over media exaggeration.

The lack of self-awareness isn’t surprising either. Hypocrisy is simply the way his business is done these days.

What we also have here is you avoiding talking about what Powell said and focusing on something that has little to do with the overall point of my post. That is something you do well and quite often.

 

[brandon]

What we also have here is you avoiding talking about what Powell said and focusing on something that has little to do with the overall point of my post. That is something you do well and quite often.

Hey SFL,

It looks like you were right about this. I’d say you’ve provided ample evidence to support your argument. Unless something else turns up, it looks like these claims were overblown.

Thanks for keeping us liberals honest.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

This is a bit of a Rorschach test type story. There's not nearly enough information to reach a reasonable conclusion on whether this was an example of Trumpian malfeasance or not.

 

[SaintForLife]

This is a bit of a Rorschach test type story. There's not nearly enough information to reach a reasonable conclusion on whether this was an example of Trumpian malfeasance or not.

Since the military and intelligence leaders have said there isn't any evidence that corroborates the claim then I think we should assume it's not true. If there was conflicting evidence then I think your statement would be true.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Since the military and intelligence leaders have said there isn't any evidence that corroborates the claim then I think we should assume it's not true. If there was conflicting evidence then I think your statement would be true.

So, any responsible person wouldn't cite any corroborating evidence even if there was some. I also haven't seen anyone making a definitive statement about there not being anything to corroborate the story. Gen. McKenzie said that it wasn't proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, but it was worrisome, and that is normal in battlefield intelligence.

But that's also besides the point. There are lots of moving parts when it comes to this sort of intelligence. This could be 100% true, and Trump could still have legitimate policy reasons for not pursuing overt actions against Russia (and if he approved covert action then we would not know it).

Now, Trump's response to this does not exactly fill me with confidence, but that is part of the Rorschach test.

 

[MT15]

Ah, but I don’t think there is zero evidence, correct? And I am not following this closely, but I think the on the record statements at first indicated there was some evidence, and there was some dispute about how conclusive it was, until everyone tightened up the official messaging. Especially after Trump came out and called it a hoax then everyone sort of fell in line “officially”. Knowing this particular administration’s record on transparency, I will reserve judgement.

 

[Ayo]

What we also have here is you avoiding talking about what Powell said and focusing on something that has little to do with the overall point of my post. That is something you do well and quite often.

What are other examples? Because I have no idea what you are talking about.

I didn't disagree with Powell. And I don't mind being proven wrong. In fact, if we are talking about soldier's lives, I'm happy to be wrong. I'm not sure what you want me to say re: Powell? Am I supposed to contradict him? I don't get it.

And I said that I felt it warranted an investigation based on the data gathered and amount - I didn't come to a conclusion one way or the other of it actually happening. I thought it more likely than not, but I wasn't 'hysterical' myself, so there wasn't much entrenchment on my part. (As a general rule, I *try* not to convict without feeling really confident, and that's not all that often)

Moreover, when I speculated, I said that was the case and admitted I had "no real evidence." And I included a tweet with a list of a bunch of different possibilities that might have explained what happened here: https://madaboutpolitics.com/thread...ies-to-kill-american-troops.76425/post-111750 from a "President's Brief Guy" and it included a number of them that weren't negligent or nefarious.

So, I don't believe myself to have been as convinced/invested as you seem to think.

But your posts struck me as a 'gotcha!' and "aha told ya so!" more than it had to do with the safety of the lives of our soldiers, and that's why I posted as I did - we can't be critical of media exaggeration as a matter of principle and then turn around and cite a deliberately exaggerated claim.

And I stand by my primary point that he had an opportunity to address it, even if only rhetorically, and didn't.

I don't think he really cares about the soldiers - only so far as they are a pawn in his political campaign. And I think the news about Shelby that just came out solidifies that even further. I'd like to see a Commander in Chief show more actual concern for the troops and follow it up with more than rhetoric.

 

[FullMonte]

Yet another source, thats not unnamed, that's saying the bounty story isn't true or backed up by evidence. I'm sure the Russiagaters will still cling to this story and will fall for the next Russian bombshell.

See? There you go again. "that's saying the bounty story isn't true or backed up by evidence."

Please point to somewhere in the article that anyone says the story isn't true (I'll save you the trouble....it doesn't). A few quotes from the article:

"If it is bounties, I am outraged, just like every one of us in uniform is." (Why would someone who is saying the story isn't true be saying if there are bounties, he'll be outraged? If the story isn't true, then there aren't any bounties, right?)

You also say that the source is saying it's not backed up by evidence...

The article also quotes the CENTCOM Commander who said "The intel case wasn't proved to me--it wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law -- and you know that's off true in battlefield intelligence." (If there was no evidence, why would he say "it wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law"? Wouldn't he have said "it wasn't backed up by evidence"?)

See, for some reason, you see someone say "it wasn't corroborated by intelligence workers," and you read that as "there was no evidence," when the truth is it means that there was evidence, but there wasn't enough evidence to say it's 100% true.

 

[barbar]

See? There you go again. "that's saying the bounty story isn't true or backed up by evidence."

Please point to somewhere in the article that anyone says the story isn't true (I'll save you the trouble....it doesn't). A few quotes from the article:

"If it is bounties, I am outraged, just like every one of us in uniform is." (Why would someone who is saying the story isn't true be saying if there are bounties, he'll be outraged? If the story isn't true, then there aren't any bounties, right?)

You also say that the source is saying it's not backed up by evidence...

The article also quotes the CENTCOM Commander who said "The intel case wasn't proved to me--it wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law -- and you know that's off true in battlefield intelligence." (If there was no evidence, why would he say "it wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law"? Wouldn't he have said "it wasn't backed up by evidence"?)

See, for some reason, you see someone say "it wasn't corroborated by intelligence workers," and you read that as "there was no evidence," when the truth is it means that there was evidence, but there wasn't enough evidence to say it's 100% true.

It's almost as if the world doesn't exist in simple black and white, but requires nuance and critical thought to see all the shades of grey in the middle.

 

[SaintForLife]

See? There you go again. "that's saying the bounty story isn't true or backed up by evidence."

Please point to somewhere in the article that anyone says the story isn't true (I'll save you the trouble....it doesn't). A few quotes from the article:

"If it is bounties, I am outraged, just like every one of us in uniform is." (Why would someone who is saying the story isn't true be saying if there are bounties, he'll be outraged? If the story isn't true, then there aren't any bounties, right?)

You also say that the source is saying it's not backed up by evidence...

The article also quotes the CENTCOM Commander who said "The intel case wasn't proved to me--it wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law -- and you know that's off true in battlefield intelligence." (If there was no evidence, why would he say "it wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law"? Wouldn't he have said "it wasn't backed up by evidence"?)

See, for some reason, you see someone say "it wasn't corroborated by intelligence workers," and you read that as "there was no evidence," when the truth is it means that there was evidence, but there wasn't enough evidence to say it's 100% true.

There have been multiple people in the government that said there wasn't any evidence that corroborated the bountry report. Colin Powell even said it wasn't like what the media was hyping. Speaking of the media, what happended to the wall to wall coverage of the story? It's almost like it disappeared. I look forward to the next Russia bombshell story that eventually fizzles out after closer examination.

 

[FullMonte]

There have been multiple people in the government that said there wasn't any evidence that corroborated the bountry report. Colin Powell even said it wasn't like what the media was hyping.

See...that's what I'm talking about. "Colin Powell even said it wasn't what the media was hyping." That's accurate...but, he didn't say the story was false, he didn't say the story wasn't backed by evidence. He said that we still don't know what the truth is.

Why do you continue to try and spin this as some media driven fake story?

Here are the undeniable facts:
--There was a report that Russia was offering bounties to the Taliban for killing americans.
--This was supported by some evidence (bank transfers, statements by detainees, piles of cash found, etc)
--That evidence is not ironclad evidence
--The administration claims that the intelligence community didn't consider it credible enough to brief this president
--The House Intelligence Committee was briefed on this intelligence back in February of this year
--To date, the president has not made any comment condemning the story, or that if it is determined to be true, Russia will pay for it.
--However, the president has condemned the intelligence community, the media, etc for reporting

 

[SaintForLife]

See...that's what I'm talking about. "Colin Powell even said it wasn't what the media was hyping." That's accurate...but, he didn't say the story was false, he didn't say the story wasn't backed by evidence. He said that we still don't know what the truth is.

Why do you continue to try and spin this as some media driven fake story?

Here are the undeniable facts:
--There was a report that Russia was offering bounties to the Taliban for killing americans.
--This was supported by some evidence (bank transfers, statements by detainees, piles of cash found, etc)
--That evidence is not ironclad evidence
--The administration claims that the intelligence community didn't consider it credible enough to brief this president
--The House Intelligence Committee was briefed on this intelligence back in February of this year
--To date, the president has not made any comment condemning the story, or that if it is determined to be true, Russia will pay for it.
--However, the president has condemned the intelligence community, the media, etc for reporting

Those aren't undeniable facts. The supposed evidence that you claim in undeniable was only a claim from unnamed intelligence sources. Those same sources could have leaked copies of the wire transfers, statements by the detainees or pictures of the cash, but they didn't.

The biggest whopper is that report of the bounties was based on interviews from the Taliban and criminals. Yeah that's it. Its laughable that people really think that terrorists and criminals are credible sources.

If they were briefed in February and this was to believed why did those unnamed intelligence sources wait until right after there was a major break in the peace talks between the Taliban and Afghan government to leak it?

 

[MT15]

SFL, this was put in the PDB. It’s not nothing or it wouldn’t have been there. They don’t just put random stuff in there. Honestly, you’re bordering on conspiracy theory crap by claiming that the media is making this stuff up.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Those aren't undeniable facts. The supposed evidence that you claim in undeniable was only a claim from unnamed intelligence sources. Those same sources could have leaked copies of the wire transfers, statements by the detainees or pictures of the cash, but they didn't.

Are you claiming that the unnamed intelligence sources leaked a story that they know to be fabricated, perhaps even fabricated it themselves?

The biggest whopper is that report of the bounties was based on interviews from the Taliban and criminals. Yeah that's it. Its laughable that people really think that terrorists and criminals are credible sources.

If they were briefed in February and this was to believed why did those unnamed intelligence sources wait until right after there was a major break in the peace talks between the Taliban and Afghan government to leak it?

The Taliban- those same criminals and terrorists- denied the story. Why do you find this credible if it is so laughable to believe them?