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.

 

[efil4]

If these reports are true, it corroborates whatever human intelligence is behind the conclusion:

Suspicions of Russian Bounties Were Bolstered by Data on Financial Transfers (Published 2020)

Analysts have used other evidence to conclude that the transfers were most likely part of an effort to offer payments to Taliban-linked militants to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan.

www.nytimes.com

we have intercepts of communications as of yesterday.

Now we have financial transfers to corroborate the intercepts????

I will no longer entertain anyone that blindly dismisses this issue because "russia".

 

[zztop]

yes, he really said it

 

[Andrus]

Is there a difference between skepticism and intransigence?

Why, yes! There is a difference. See definitions below.

Of course, you knew that. The question is, why would you ask such a rhetorical question if not intended as a veiled insult or just being snide? C'mon guys! Work with me here!

skep·ti·cism
/ˈskeptəˌsizəm/

noun
noun: scepticism; noun: skepticism
1.
a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
"these claims were treated with skepticism"
h
Similar:
doubt


in·tran·si·gence
/inˈtransəjəns,inˈtranzəjəns/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: intransigence; noun: intransigency

refusal to change one's views or to agree about something.
"in the face of government intransigence, he resigned in disgust"

 

[insidejob]

yes, he really said it

So fake that he had to brief Congress on it in two separate briefings. One to his homies who he could tell the truth to and how they need to cover for him for the good of the nation and the second to lie to democrats.

 

[insidejob]

Work with me here!

I'm working with you and apologize for my posting a blind link about the Russian bounties. I thought I was following up on a post I'd previo0usly made, but decided not to post instead. Is posting a link in a situation like that with no explanation ok? (If I'd actually made the first post, of course.) Or do I include a disclaimer that this is following up on a prior post.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Interesting read, nothing we didn’t know or suspect

There is a “there’s a tweet for that” later in the article
===================

The White House appears to be homing in on a defense of last resort for President Trump when it comes to the Russia bounties controversy: He doesn’t read.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Monday claimed Trump hadn’t been briefed on the intelligence that Russia placed bounties on U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

But when pressed on whether the intel appeared in Trump’s written President’s Daily Brief, or PDB, she declined to directly respond.......

The first thing to note here is the semantic game the White House appears to be playing. They’re suggesting the President’s Daily Brief document doesn’t itself constitute a “briefing” — despite having “brief” in its name — but that a briefing must be done orally.......

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/30/2-things-that-seem-explain-trumps-ignorance-about-russias-bounties/

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Why, yes! There is a difference. See definitions below.

Of course, you knew that. The question is, why would you ask such a rhetorical question if not intended as a veiled insult or just being snide? C'mon guys! Work with me here!

skep·ti·cism
/ˈskeptəˌsizəm/

noun
noun: scepticism; noun: skepticism
1.
a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
"these claims were treated with skepticism"
h
Similar:
doubt


in·tran·si·gence
/inˈtransəjəns,inˈtranzəjəns/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: intransigence; noun: intransigency

refusal to change one's views or to agree about something.
"in the face of government intransigence, he resigned in disgust"

duly noted

 

[Lapaz]

yes, he really said it

Trump doesn't make it clear, I think intentionally, but the only thing that can be considered a hoax are the reports that he knew about it. He currently has plausible deniability on knowing about it, because we all know he doesn't like to read, so even if it was in the written intel briefing, there is a good chance he wouldn't have read it. He's muddying the waters, because some will believe that the whole thing is a hoax, but even McAnany confirmed that the bounty intel is not a hoax, since they are trying to corroborate it.

Someone asked earlier, aren't the Taliban already motivated to kill Americans? Have tensions eased such that Russia has to pay to motivate the Taliban to kill Americans, or is the money being offered to mercenaries?

 

[TaylorB]

we also need the president to come out with a firm commitment that we are going to do everything we can to assess the situation and respond, if warranted. We will see if that’s what happens.

Narrator: That ☝ is not what happened:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/white-house-does-not-plan-any-immediate-response-over-intelligence-reports-on-russian-bounties-targeting-us-troops/2020/07/01/7a5ee23c-bbb5-11ea-8cf5-9c1b8d7f84c6_story.html

He’s doubling down on this being a hoax. There will never be a level of confidence in the intel that he deems “actionable” when it comes to Russia.

 

[Andrus]

I'm working with you and apologize for my posting a blind link about the Russian bounties. I thought I was following up on a post I'd previo0usly made, but decided not to post instead. Is posting a link in a situation like that with no explanation ok? (If I'd actually made the first post, of course.) Or do I include a disclaimer that this is following up on a prior post.

No problem. To avoid having your post reported, I would say that you should comment/elaborate/add context on each instance. It's knit-picky, but it solves any potential issues.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Trump has shown he will not respond to this bountygate because a response would be an complete admission that this is not a hoax as he has said it is. So, even if 100% verifiable evidence comes out, Trump will not respond. What happens then? Could congress force a response in the form of sanctions with a veto proof majoirty (I would be quite surprised?

IMO, If we continue on this course and more evidence comes out concerning bountygate and trump refuses to do anything, I would need no further proof that trump has been bought and paid for by Putin. If trump loses this election, I would not be surprised if he left the country to avoid prosecution because there will be investigations and prosecutions. This will not be a Ford/Nixon ending.

 

[Lapaz]

Trump has shown he will not respond to this bountygate because a response would be an complete admission that this is not a hoax as he has said it is. So, even if 100% verifiable evidence comes out, Trump will not respond. What happens then? Could congress force a response in the form of sanctions with a veto proof majoirty (I would be quite surprised?

IMO, If we continue on this course and more evidence comes out concerning bountygate and trump refuses to do anything, I would need no further proof that trump has been bought and paid for by Putin. If trump loses this election, I would not be surprised if he left the country to avoid prosecution because there will be investigations and prosecutions. This will not be a Ford/Nixon ending.

This topic could hijack this thread, but I've been thinking the same thing about Trump leaving the country if he loses to avoid prosecution, and the most likely landing spot would be Russia. He might stick around until he exhausts all of his appeals and knows that he will lose. He'll also want to see if the next administration drops the charges, or if he becomes too much trouble to pursue due to his base wanting to continue to protect him. But once he's out of office, he'll be much less dangerous, so prosecutions may proceed, and I think there is a good chance that he'll flee, which would be the craziest thing ever. We would be able to freeze his assets in many places, but that's why he needs that tower in Russia. I imagine that he is moving a lot of his money to offshore accounts that we can't touch.

If the bounty evidence becomes obvious to his base, and congress overwhelmingly gets behind some actions, then I think Trump will do what he always does and lie his way out somehow. Then he'll claim that he was the toughest ever on Russia by pointing to those actions, and his base will swallow it. I wonder what that action will be? Will it be sanctions, which seems too meek? Will we put bounties on Russian soldiers, which makes us as bad as them? Will we take stronger action to push Russia out of Crimea? Whatever we do, I hope we get the international community behind us on it to make it more effective.

 

[SaintForLife]

I've previously talked about how the miltary industrial complex and many US politicians want perpetual war and we never learn our lesson. This is only speculation on my part, but I wonder if the recent reports about Russian bounties have anything to do with Trump wanting to pull out of Afghanistan.

This paragraph from the Washington Post article caught my eye:

News of the murky initiative comes as U.S. diplomats attempt to kindle political talks that could put an end to the country’s longest war, now in its 19th year.

Washington Post article:

Russian operation targeted coalition troops in Afghanistan, intelligence finds

A Russian military spy unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition forces in Afghanistan, including U.S. and British troops, in a striking escalation of the Kremlin’s hostility toward

www.richmond.com

Is it just a coincidence these questionable intelligence agency claims about Russia came just days after a breakthrough in peace talks?

Afghan government, Taliban agree to hold peace talks in Qatar - National | Globalnews.ca

The talks, known as the intra-Afghan dialog, will be the first high-level meeting between the two sides after years of fighting.

globalnews.ca

It's almost like there are US government officials that don't want us to leave Afghanistan.

 

[DaveXA]

It's almost like there are US government officials that don't want us to leave Afghanistan.

Politics...smh. I don't understand why we still have a presence there. It's been time to get out for a while now.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It's almost like there are US government officials that don't want us to leave Afghanistan.

From the article:

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) amendment, from Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), would require several certifications before the U.S. military can further draw down in Afghanistan.

...

Among the amendment’s requirements is an assessment of whether any “state actors have provided any incentives to the Taliban, their affiliates, or other foreign terrorist organizations for attacks against United States, coalition, or Afghan security forces or civilians in Afghanistan in the last two years, including the details of any attacks believed to have been connected with such incentives.”
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) framed the measure as particularly important in light of the revelations.

...

Crow’s amendment would block funding to dip below 8,000 troops and then again to below 4,000 troops unless the administration certifies that doing so would not compromise the U.S. counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan, not increase risk for U.S. personnel there, be done in consultation with allies, and is in the best interest of the United States.

It would also require an analysis on the effects of a drawdown on the threat from the Taliban, the status of human and civil rights, an inclusive Afghan peace process, the capacity of Afghan forces and the effect of malign actors on Afghan sovereignty.

I went ahead and cut the commentary and quotes to focus on the amendment itself. Do you have any issues with:

1. Investigating the claims made regarding bounties, and doing so with the help of our allies that are also impacted by the claim;
2. Ensuring that our troops are not put at risk during the drawdown period;
3. Analyzing the threat to human rights violations;
4. Working towards a sustained peace; and
5. Ensuring that bad actors are kept in check?

The first point is especially salient in light of the evidence being reported in the wake of the allegations, specifically the records indicating a monetary transfer that were mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

[SaintForLife]

From the article:



I went ahead and cut the commentary and quotes to focus on the amendment itself. Do you have any issues with:

1. Investigating the claims made regarding bounties, and doing so with the help of our allies that are also impacted by the claim;
2. Ensuring that our troops are not put at risk during the drawdown period;
3. Analyzing the threat to human rights violations;
4. Working towards a sustained peace; and
5. Ensuring that bad actors are kept in check?

The first point is especially salient in light of the evidence being reported in the wake of the allegations, specifically the records indicating a monetary transfer that were mentioned earlier in this thread.

Numbers 3, 4 and 5 could ensure an endless presence in Afghanistan. Let someone else worry about those 3 things. We've been there for almost 20 years. It's time to leave.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Numbers 3, 4 and 5 could ensure an endless presence in Afghanistan. Let someone else worry about those 3 things. We've been there for almost 20 years. It's time to leave.

How about 1 and 2? I once again reiterate that I am especially curious to know if you have a problem with the first point, which concerns the evidence that has come to light that seems to corroborate the bounty allegations.

 

[SaintForLife]

How about 1 and 2? I once again reiterate that I am especially curious to know if you have a problem with the first point, which concerns the evidence that has come to light that seems to corroborate the bounty allegations.

If it's true then of course I have a problem with 1. 2 is good. Which evidence has corroborated the bounty claims? Is it another unnamed intelligence source or do we have actual proof?