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.

 

[TaylorB]

Trump defenders’ defense to this story seems to be either that the article isn’t true, or that the intelligence community is making it up. But that’s not even the Trump admin’s defense, as noted by Ayo and others. They say they weren’t briefed on it— which implies that they don’t deny the story, or the intelligence.

So we’re already past the “deny the accuracy of the article” phase (recalling the weeks we spent debating whether NYT accurately stated that Bolton said Ukraine aid was linked to Biden investigations; then after Bolton confirmed the story on ABC, we moved onto the next phase “well Bolton is lying”). I believe that the administration was briefed on it in March, because they lie and obfuscate about everything, but even if they weren’t briefed then, they know now. Is it a big deal if we don’t respond? If it turns out they were briefed in March and didn’t do anything then, is that a big deal?

I don’t even know what’s appropriate here. But we all saw what happened with Trump and Putin in Helsinki; I’m not sure he’s even capable of standing up to Putin. The only world leaders he’s ever stood up to meaningfully are leaders of nations with whom we are traditionally aligned against Putin and Russia.

By the way, if it’s true that this was the I.C. assessment in March and that the admin really wasn’t briefed on it, isn’t that also a huge deal?

 

[Ayo]

this thread walks through various scenarios that might have happened here:

 

[Saintamaniac]

I discount what comes from unnamed intelligence sources in regards to Russia that have been shown to be habitual liars the past 3 years.

The man you are using mental gymnastics to defend is the biggest habitual liar in the world over the last 3 years. In fact, he may hold the record for the number of easily provable lies he's told. Donald J Trump is a walking clinical study in what a habitual liar actually looks like.

 

[SaintForLife]

It has been validated by the White House. The current argument is that neither Trump nor Pence knew, which most find improbable.

but even if that were true, he knows now and has said nothing. He has, instead, tweeted multiple times about a statue in Lafayette Park with a bunch of Most Wanted signs. He is condemning Americans for tearing down a statue but has said nothing against a despot who offered bounties on American soldiers.

He found out about this (allegedly) yesterday.

He's tweeted over 40 times since then, and said nothing. Not a peep.

I don’t find that a commensurate nor sensible response.

The tweet you posted said "alleged bounty Russian bounty intelligence." That doesn't sound like the White House validated it. They didn't confirm or deny anything about the reported intelligence.

 

[MT15]

A British official has confirmed that the intelligence was shared with them by the US because UK soldiers were also targeted. They also confirmed that there were soldiers killed which resulted in payments.

This actually happened, it’s pretty clear by now.

 

[SaintForLife]

I trust the intelligence agencies to give the sitting president the best information they have available. Denials such as the above only go to prove what a number of people here have been saying for a long time. And that is that trump supporters will find a way to defend his actions or lack thereof no matter what he does or says. I fully suspected a response like this. What gives me hope is that it took 2 pages before the excuses came out.

Why would anyone trust the CIA after their many intelligence failures and their massive propaganda operations?

Former CIA operations director John Stockwell explained how the CIA manipulates the US media. This video illustrates how you can't trust anything you hear from the CIA. Around 1:33 the video gets interesting. A few highlights are that disseminating propaganda is a major function of the CIA to influence people's minds and 400 journalists cooperated with the CIA during the Vietnam war perion

 

[SaintForLife]

The man you are using mental gymnastics to defend is the biggest habitual liar in the world over the last 3 years. In fact, he may hold the record for the number of easily provable lies he's told. Donald J Trump is a walking clinical study in what a habitual liar actually looks like.

Trump is a habitual liar, but we aren't basing Congressional investigations and Special prosecutors on Trump's lies.

 

[Ayo]

The tweet you posted said "alleged bounty Russian bounty intelligence." That doesn't sound like the White House validated it. They didn't confirm or deny anything about the reported intelligence.

The White House did not deny the receipt of the intelligence. They denied the President and Vice President received it

I'm not sure why you are acting like they are claiming they never received such intelligence

 

[SaintForLife]

The White House did not deny the receipt of the intelligence. They denied the President and Vice President received it

I'm not sure why you are acting like they are claiming they never received such intelligence

For arguments sake, let's say they did receive the intelligence. Do you think everything that the intelligence agencies state, specifically the CIA, are always credible?

 

[Ayo]

For arguments sake, let's say they did receive the intelligence.

"Let's say"? For something that has been acknowledged as true?

Does that sound like a sincere invitation to a discussion?

Pass.

 

[Ayo]

I think Trump was given a softball. Anybody could've figured out a way to handle it after he learned or heard of it (allegedly on Friday). Instead, he has his own little Tweet storm and played a round of golf.



It really was that easy and anyone can see any number of things he could have done instead. But he only cares about himself, so his tweet was about self-preservation, not about empathy. Not about our soldiers.

It's incredible he couldn't even fake his way through to even appearing concerned.

I also find it wild that anyone would want to be on Trump's side on this. I can't imagine trying to defend this.

 

[SaintForLife]

"Let's say"? For something that has been acknowledged as true?

Does that sound like a sincere invitation to a discussion?

Pass.

Nothing you have posted has shown that the White House acknowledged that they received the intelligence. It can be inferred that they received the intelligence, but there isn't anything definitive like you claim. I do remember that intelligence agency's use the phrase we neither confirm or deny quite often.

Using the fact that we disagree on something as a basis to avoid answering a question seems questionable. Once again, do you think everything that the intelligence agencies state, specifically the CIA, are always credible?

 

[Ayo]

Start Edit:

To add some context to my post here and the article below, I'll point out a couple of things.

First of all, the post was not intended to be a response to the post immediately preceding this. When I said I didn't really have much of an interest engaging in a back and forth, I meant it.

But I can understand how the order of posting suggests that it was intended as such.

Secondly, I thought that the article highlighted the history of these concerns, that they go back a number of months. This is important, because it comes from a series of different incidents and sources, not just a single incident here and source there. These concerns resulted from a number of different things.

E.g. the discovery of a large stockpile of cash as well as interrogations:

The crucial information that led the spies and commandos to focus on the bounties included the recovery of a large amount of American cash from a raid on a Taliban outpost that prompted suspicions. Interrogations of captured militants and criminals played a central role in making the intelligence community confident in its assessment that the Russians had offered and paid bounties in 2019, another official has said.

There are others listed in the article.

But another meaningful dimension, imo, is that this goes back months and means that the people currently issuing denials weren't in positions at the time these were first announced. And the State Dept has had trouble finding some of the documents. That means that the immediate claims of denial, from particular people, need to be contextualized with regard to a clearer timeline - i.e. "who knew what and when, and what positions did they occupy?"

This is one of the perils of a State Department that has a revolving door as its personnel entry.

End edit.

 

[SaintForLife]

Max Abrahms is an associate professor of Public Policy at Northeastern University, a terrorism expert and a fellow at the Quincy Institute. He provides an interesting perspective.

Bio | Max Abrahms

rulesforrebels.info

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[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

 

[Devildog]

I guess when Trump said he could shoot someone on a street in broad daylight and he'd still have supporters has turned out to be the only truthful things he's said in the last 4 years.

 

[MT15]

Trump can’t accomplish anything, much less withdraw troops from anywhere. All he is good for is watching cable tv news shows, tweeting and playing golf. He says stuff, and sometimes he signs stuff, but there is no follow through. Ever.

So there’s zero reason to think a broad conspiracy is in place to “stop“ him from getting out of Afghanistan. This leak of information is meant to damage Trump, not stop any peace talks, IMO. Trump’s weakness against Russia does put us in a disadvantaged state during the peace talks, though.

I think the career government people are so sick of him not listening to them, not taking anything seriously, not caring about anything but himself, that they want everyone to know how negligent he truly is.