Russia offered bounties to kill american troops. (4 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.

 

[FullMonte]

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.

Again...you are misrepresenting something to make it sound like it's false. You are saying those aren't undeniable facts. Ok, so which of these are you saying is not undeniable?

Are you saying that there was not a report that Russia was offering bounties?
Are you saying that there was not evidence in the form of bank transfers, statements by detainees, or piles of cash found?
Are you saying that the administration did not claim that Trump wasn't briefed because the intelligence community didn't find it credible?
Are you saying that the House Intelligence Community wasn't briefed in February?
Are you saying that the president HAS condemned Russia and threatened them if it turns out to be true?

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.

I'm sure they found Osama Bin Laden without using information obtained from detainees. I'm sure the police have never solved cases with information they got from criminals.

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?

Who knows? If i had to guess I'd say it's because those sources believed that something was being done about the intelligence information (either further efforts to confirm it, or some behind the scenes efforts to do something about it), and when the finally saw that nothing was being done they felt that they had to get the information out.

 

[SaintForLife]

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



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

I'm saying that I'm not believing any report that was strictly based off of interviews from captured terrorists and criminals unless we actually see some physical evidence.

The fact that you also try to use their public denial as the story as a way to discredit what I'm claiming is almost too silly to respond to. I don't believe what the Taliban or criminals say without any physical evidence in any situation.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I'm saying that I'm not believing any report that was strictly based off of interviews from captured terrorists and criminals unless we actually see some physical evidence.

The fact that you also try to use their public denial as the story as a way to discredit what I'm claiming is almost too silly to respond to. I don't believe what the Taliban or criminals say without any physical evidence in any situation.

The Taliban has offered zero evidence to exonerate themselves in the face of these allegations. Does this lack of evidence mean you refuse to believe their denials?

 

[insidejob]

Well, this changes things a little.

 

[efil4]

Well, this changes things a little.

I can understand Pompeo trying to protect intelligence, but when your CoC calls it a hoax, its incumbent that you set the record straight.

 

[TaylorB]

I can understand Pompeo trying to protect intelligence, but when your CoC calls it a hoax, its incumbent that you set the record straight.

The thing is, even if Pompeo implied to Lavrov that there would be consequences from Russia trying to harm our troops in Afghanistan, Trump has apparently declared himself to be forever barred from taking any action, or even mentioning it to Putin, because the intelligence "never made it to [his] desk," as Trump pointed out to Jonathan Swan in this grotesque attempt to explain himself:

Exclusive: Trump never raised Russia's Taliban bounties with Putin

"I have never discussed it with him."

www.axios.com

It makes no difference whether Russia is actually physically endangering troops or waging cyber-war; it's abundantly clear to Putin that Trump won't stand up to him until he's undermined by a bipartisan legislature, his military commanders, or by his own intelligence -- and he has already been undermined by all three with respect to Russia. How effective could Pompeo's warnings possibly be considering who's at the helm?

The fact that the intelligence has not been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt has never precluded Trump from offering reassurance to the American people that it's an issue he cares about and wants to get to the bottom of. Politically, it was an opportunity to demonstrate that he's not subservient to Putin. But he's done what we all knew he would do -- deny, deflect, dissemble.

 

[SaintForLife]

Add this one to the list of supposed bombshells that quickly fizzled out. What ever happened to the Post Office controversy?

 

[Lapaz]

Add this one to the list of supposed bombshells that quickly fizzled out. What ever happened to the Post Office controversy?

Are you satisfied with that uncertainty? So 1 general isn't satisfied with the evidence to "a level of certainty", and you're crowing about it fizzling out without further investigation? Intel is rarely if ever certain, and his statement indicates that there is evidence. More evidence to increase certainty one way or the other usually doesn't get revealed without investigations. The outrage on this wasn't that it definitely existed. The outrage was that Trump didn't get outraged over the possibility that it might exist. Also, the intel this general is privy to is probably incomplete, since much of the evidence would come from outside of his area of responsibility.
This type of threat is the type of threat that should never fizzle. The evidence should either indicate that the program does not exist with a high degree of confidence, or it should be investigated further. Evidence that it is inconclusive should not cause an investigation that would protect American lives to fizzle.

 

[SaintForLife]

Are you satisfied with that uncertainty? So 1 general isn't satisfied with the evidence to "a level of certainty", and you're crowing about it fizzling out without further investigation? Intel is rarely if ever certain, and his statement indicates that there is evidence. More evidence to increase certainty one way or the other usually doesn't get revealed without investigations. The outrage on this wasn't that it definitely existed. The outrage was that Trump didn't get outraged over the possibility that it might exist. Also, the intel this general is privy to is probably incomplete, since much of the evidence would come from outside of his area of responsibility.
This type of threat is the type of threat that should never fizzle. The evidence should either indicate that the program does not exist with a high degree of confidence, or it should be investigated further. Evidence that it is inconclusive should not cause an investigation that would protect American lives to fizzle.

It sounds like you still believe it was true. They did investigate it and didn't find any evidence. Remember the report was only based on interviews from Taliban and criminals.

 

[TaylorB]

It sounds like you still believe it was true. They did investigate it and didn't find any evidence. Remember the report was only based on interviews from Taliban and criminals.

It is not true to say they "didn't find any evidence." They did find evidence. There were wire transfers from the GRU to Taliban-linked accounts, Taliban documents referencing the arrangement, had Afghan sources describing it, US soldier deaths attributable to Taliban attacks in that region and in that time frame, and a possible motive of retaliation for the US arming Ukrainians in Donbass. All of those things are evidence. And as far as I know, all those things are still true.

The article does not dispute those pieces of evidence, but rather highlights that there's a dispute within certain elements of the military and IC about whether there is sufficient evidence connecting the dots for us to take military action in response, and states that the efforts to plug in the gaps in intelligence are ongoing. I am fine with that. We should be careful before taking action against the 2nd most powerful military in the world. We've known for some time that the evidence was not conclusive -- otherwise the public would be demanding retaliatory action.

For now, all we're demanding is that Trump give some sort of indication that he gives a damn about this information -- which, even without a solid piece of connective tissue, is a bizarre series of facts that requires investigation-- and is committed to getting to the bottom of the story and holding Russia accountable, if appropriate. Instead, we've just gotten the same routine we always get from Trump when it comes to Putin, which does little to inspire confidence that he's interested in protecting the "suckers and losers" currently deployed overseas.

 

[brandon]

It sounds like you still believe it was true. They did investigate it and didn't find any evidence. Remember the report was only based on interviews from Taliban and criminals.

How many times do I have to tell you the difference between evidence and proof?

 

[SaintForLife]

It is not true to say they "didn't find any evidence." They did find evidence. There were wire transfers from the GRU to Taliban-linked accounts, Taliban documents referencing the arrangement, had Afghan sources describing it, US soldier deaths attributable to Taliban attacks in that region and in that time frame, and a possible motive of retaliation for the US arming Ukrainians in Donbass. All of those things are evidence. And as far as I know, all those things are still true.

The article does not dispute those pieces of evidence, but rather highlights that there's a dispute within certain elements of the military and IC about whether there is sufficient evidence connecting the dots for us to take military action in response, and states that the efforts to plug in the gaps in intelligence are ongoing. I am fine with that. We should be careful before taking action against the 2nd most powerful military in the world. We've known for some time that the evidence was not conclusive -- otherwise the public would be demanding retaliatory action.

For now, all we're demanding is that Trump give some sort of indication that he gives a damn about this information -- which, even without a solid piece of connective tissue, is a bizarre series of facts that requires investigation-- and is committed to getting to the bottom of the story and holding Russia accountable, if appropriate. Instead, we've just gotten the same routine we always get from Trump when it comes to Putin, which does little to inspire confidence that he's interested in protecting the "suckers and losers" currently deployed overseas.

If all those things you listed above like the wire transfers were true then the military would have been able to confirm that it happened. Since the story doesn't appear to be true then it's unlikely those things even existed. If they did exist why couldn't those same anonymous sources leak them?

Are you seriously complaining about Trump not criticzing Russia publicly when the military can't even comfirm they accusation is true?

 

[MT15]

When an assumption is made, even if it makes sense to you, that doesn’t make it true. I feel like we are struggling with that concept in this thread.

 

[TaylorB]

If all those things you listed above like the wire transfers were true then the military would have been able to confirm that it happened. Since the story doesn't appear to be true then it's unlikely those things even existed.

SFL, the article doesn't say those things didn't happen, it just says there was not *conclusive* proof of "cause and effect linkage" between the payments and the US casualties. I mean, this is from the article *you* cited discussing the wire transfers:

I don't see where the article disputes any of those evidentiary puzzle pieces like the wire transfers. That would be a much bigger deal than a story about the military not wanting to retaliate for things we don't have more conclusive proof of.

Are you seriously complaining about Trump not criticzing Russia publicly when the military can't even comfirm they accusation is true?

No, I'm not. That was your obligatory mischaracterization. I said Trump should act like he gives a damn about the information and demonstrate a commitment to holding Russia accountable, if appropriate.

 

[not2rich]

SFL has a long history of demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt for any allegations that may hurt his tribe. For anything else, not so much. Team above country.

 

[SaintForLife]

SFL, the article doesn't say those things didn't happen, it just says there was not *conclusive* proof of "cause and effect linkage" between the payments and the US casualties. I mean, this is from the article *you* cited discussing the wire transfers:

I don't see where the article disputes any of those evidentiary puzzle pieces like the wire transfers. That would be a much bigger deal than a story about the military not wanting to retaliate for things we don't have more conclusive proof of.


No, I'm not. That was your obligatory mischaracterization. I said Trump should act like he gives a damn about the information and demonstrate a commitment to holding Russia accountable, if appropriate.

The amount of semantic games you guys play to try to keep alive these stories even after they fizzle out never ends.

The part you highlighted about the wire transfers is simply repeated from the original articles. Wouldn't you think that if the CIA had shown that evidence to the military that it would have helped proved that the story was true? Or maybe the CIA never produced that evidence to the military or those transfers had nothing to do with the supposed bounties. The CIA lies all the time, but it's good to know that the left believes everything that comes out of our intelligence agencies. It's funny how that only happened once Trump was elected.

I said Trump should act like he gives a damn about the information and demonstrate a commitment to holding Russia accountable, if appropriate.

If appropriate? According to the military it's not appropriate.

 

[LA - L.A.]

... to keep alive these stories even after they fizzle out never ends.

No story ever fizzles out as long as someone keeps dragging it back up in an attempt to deny it.

 

[SaintForLife]

No story ever fizzles out as long as someone keeps dragging it back up in an attempt to deny it.

Was NBC News dragging it back up in an attempt to deny it when they ran the article that I posted?