US Intelligence Now Pulls Back on Claim Russia Placed 'Bounties' on US Soldiers in Afghanistan

[366h34d]

There's a difference between saying that we don't really know how firm our information is and "this was a lie, there was never any evidence for them putting bounties on our troops".

Are you sure??? It seemed that the news was as true as the "earth is round" last year when the MSM reported it.

 

[calamity]

The story that Russia had put bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan was yet another big lie cooked up as part of the fake Russia narrative:

White House: Intel on Russian 'bounties' on US troops shaky

The White House said Thursday that the intelligence community does not have conclusive evidence that Russia encouraged the Taliban to attack US troops.

www.dailymail.co.uk

People on this forum have been quoting this fake lie about Russian bounties on US troops. It smelled fishy to me right from the start, and I challenged it.

Now that the Biden admin is looking to withdraw from Afghanistan, their fake lie needs to be rescinded, in order to facilitate their withdrawal. It's a completely Orwellian media.

You know collusion was proven. So, the only Big Lie is the Right Whine. It reads like it should. They cannot prove Bounty Gate like they did Collusion Gate.

 

[calamity]

There's a difference between saying that we don't really know how firm our information is and "this was a lie, there was never any evidence for them putting bounties on our troops".

This is likely too difficult of a concept for Right Whiners to handle.

 

[roguenuke]

Are you sure??? It seemed that the news was as true as the "earth is round" last year when the MSM reported it.

Really? Because I didn't see that. In fact, while there were certain people making that assumption too, I myself saw that these were just reports that such things were being investigated by our intelligence agencies.

 

[366h34d]

Really? Because I didn't see that. In fact, while there were certain people making that assumption too, I myself saw that these were just reports that such things were being investigated by our intelligence agencies.

Maybe you don't follow MSM enough, google is your friend.

Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says
American intelligence officials have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan — including targeting American troops — amid the peace talks to end the long-running war there, according to officials briefed on the matter.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/russia-afghanistan-bounties.html

Russian operation targeted coalition troops in Afghanistan, intelligence finds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...7548c1154_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_43

Russian bounties on American troops further strain Trump’s bond with veterans
“I don’t think he cares about troops at all,” said Shawn LeMond, a Navy veteran who served his country in the Middle East and then his state of North Carolina as a Republican legislator. “If he didn’t know about Russia, it’s because he didn’t do his damn homework. And that’s despicable.”
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...ops-further-strain-trumps-bond-with-veterans/

Outrage mounts over report Russia offered bounties to Afghanistan militants for killing US soldiers

Fierce response from top Democrats after US intelligence finding was reportedly briefed to Trump in March, but the White House has yet to act
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-militants-killing-us-soldiers-report-outrage

Reports say Russia offered bounty on US troops in Afghanistan. Here's what we know
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...s-troops-afghanistan-what-we-know/3277696001/


It even has its own wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_bounty_program

 

[roguenuke]

Maybe you don't follow MSM enough, google is your friend.

Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says
American intelligence officials have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan — including targeting American troops — amid the peace talks to end the long-running war there, according to officials briefed on the matter.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/russia-afghanistan-bounties.html

Russian operation targeted coalition troops in Afghanistan, intelligence finds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...7548c1154_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_43

Russian bounties on American troops further strain Trump’s bond with veterans
“I don’t think he cares about troops at all,” said Shawn LeMond, a Navy veteran who served his country in the Middle East and then his state of North Carolina as a Republican legislator. “If he didn’t know about Russia, it’s because he didn’t do his damn homework. And that’s despicable.”
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...ops-further-strain-trumps-bond-with-veterans/

Outrage mounts over report Russia offered bounties to Afghanistan militants for killing US soldiers

Fierce response from top Democrats after US intelligence finding was reportedly briefed to Trump in March, but the White House has yet to act
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-militants-killing-us-soldiers-report-outrage

Reports say Russia offered bounty on US troops in Afghanistan. Here's what we know
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...s-troops-afghanistan-what-we-know/3277696001/


It even has its own wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_bounty_program

From the military times article:

“There is no consensus on the intelligence yet, but as Fort Bragg’s congressman, I’m deeply troubled by the reports,” he said. “And if they are verified to be true, I believe there needs to be swift and severe consequences on Russia.”

From the Guardian article:

"Unnamed intelligence officials told the AP they are investigating attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2019 to see whether there is any evidence connecting them to the Russian bounties."

Several others I cannot read, even in a "private window".

Like I said, there were premature conclusions being drawn, but the majority of the articles stated that they were being investigated.

 

[eohrnberger]

The current administration is not disclaiming it.

Sure seems like it to me.

White House: Intel on Russian 'bounties' on US troops shaky

 

[eohrnberger]

Case in point.

See post above.

Just yet another instance Democrats and their media parrots were pushing a bogus BS political narrative to attack a Republican administration.
We should expect nothing but the same for every Republican administration and nothing but protecting Democrat administrations anymore.
Such is the political activism and bias from so called 'news' media.

 

[366h34d]

From the military times article:

“There is no consensus on the intelligence yet, but as Fort Bragg’s congressman, I’m deeply troubled by the reports,” he said. “And if they are verified to be true, I believe there needs to be swift and severe consequences on Russia.”

From the Guardian article:

"Unnamed intelligence officials told the AP they are investigating attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2019 to see whether there is any evidence connecting them to the Russian bounties."

Several others I cannot read, even in a "private window".

Like I said, there were premature conclusions being drawn, but the majority of the articles stated that they were being investigated.

yes, you are right. As I said, the msm pushed it as news already.

Timeline: What we know about the Russia bounties intelligence and Trump
...
June 26: The New York Times breaks the news about Russia’s bounties. It would soon be confirmed by The Post, the Associated Press and others.
...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ounties-us-troops-afghanistan-trump-response/

 

[Batcat]

dailymail is a crap source.



.

Well at this time in this nation you can still choose your favorite source of propaganda. CNN is an excellent choice for fake news.

Once this nation turns into a socialist workers paradise you will only have state approved news to listen to. State approved news is the TRUTH and you better not disagree with it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Daily Mail.

Please, if you're going to spew pro-Russian propaganda, find a source that doesn't blow your cover. Such as this one:

Top Pentagon officials say Russian bounty program not corroborated

Defense secretary says Russian bounty program was taken seriously but not corroborated by intelligence agencies.

abcnews.go.com

Esper and Milley did not say that there were no Russian bounties. They said that the jury is still out.

Next time that you're so eager to spew pro-Russian propaganda, at least get your story right.

Indeed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/vide...655de0-5b50-11e7-aa69-3964a7d55207_video.html

"The Fix's Callum Borchers explains why CNN retracted a story about a Trump campaign aide, leading to the resignation of three CNN employees."

The jury isn't out, CNN had to retract the story and fire the people who led it as fact. Like you are doing right now.

 

[Phys251]

Well at this time in this nation you can still choose your favorite source of propaganda. CNN is an excellent choice for fake news.

 

[roguenuke]

yes, you are right. As I said, the msm pushed it as news already.

A few did and retracted as necessary. I showed that several did clarify within the story that it was an investigation that was ongoing, not verified as absolute. It was news, even if still under investigation.

 

[cpwill]

Sure seems like it to me.

White House: Intel on Russian 'bounties' on US troops shaky

Again, respectfully, I think that may be because you are confusing the meaning of a low to mid confidence assessment. It means things like "we think this thing happened, but, only have a few sources of information saying it did".

Intelligence Community Directive 203

 

[eohrnberger]

Again, respectfully, I think that may be because you are confusing the meaning of a low to mid confidence assessment. It means things like "we think this thing happened, but, only have a few sources of information saying it did".

Intelligence Community Directive 203

The over all story arc is a familiar one.

• US intel agencies develops an assessment, rates is as mid confidence
• Others in US intel leak the assessment to the press
• The press contorts the assessment, skips reporting the detail that it's a low confidence assessment and uses it to attack a legitimately elected president
• President makes public statement that US intel isn't sure about it
• Press ignores this, and further press excoriation of president
• After it's all said and done, it 'magically' turns out to be a low confidence assessment after all

Everyone's happy?
Except the people were significantly manipulated and miss-lead by the press.
Since it benefits Democrats at the expense of Republicans, it doesn't matter. 'Political Narrative Uber Alles' and 'By All Means Necessary' after all.

This story arc, or similar story arcs, have so often been repeated that considering it a coincidence is no longer reasonable or possible.

We can see that the same type of story arc isn't occurring during the Biden administration. I'm guessing that with the onset of the next Republican presidency, they'll be resuming once again, regardless of the threat to destabilizing the nation and it's democracy, so, yeah, 'party before country', 'Political Narrative Uber Alles' and 'By All Means Necessary' after all.

 

[366h34d]

A few did and retracted as necessary. I showed that several did clarify within the story that it was an investigation that was ongoing, not verified as absolute. It was news, even if still under investigation.

Ya, that is their trick. Did their "retract news" is as big as their "fake" news? How many people who heard the story last year knows it is a Fake?

 

[eohrnberger]

Ya, that is their trick. Did their "retract news" is as big as their "fake" news? How many people who heard the story last year knows it is a Fake?

It's just the leftist 'news' version of "A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World Before the Truth Puts On its Shoes”, deployed especially against non-Democrat and non-liberal public figures.

The thing is that it is done with such utter consistency there's no credibility in attempts to whitewash it away as a coincidence or a mistake.

 

[cpwill]

The over all story arc is a familiar one.

• US intel agencies develops an assessment, rates is as mid confidence
• Others in US intel leak the assessment to the press
• The press contorts the assessment, skips reporting the detail that it's a low confidence assessment and uses it to attack a legitimately elected president
• President makes public statement that US intel isn't sure about it
• Press ignores this, and further press excoriation of president
• After it's all said and done, it 'magically' turns out to be a low confidence assessment after all

Everyone's happy?
Except the people were significantly manipulated and miss-lead by the press.
Since it benefits Democrats at the expense of Republicans, it doesn't matter. 'Political Narrative Uber Alles' and 'By All Means Necessary' after all.

This story arc, or similar story arcs, have so often been repeated that considering it a coincidence is no longer reasonable or possible.

We can see that the same type of story arc isn't occurring during the Biden administration. I'm guessing that with the onset of the next Republican presidency, they'll be resuming once again, regardless of the threat to destabilizing the nation and it's democracy, so, yeah, 'party before country', 'Political Narrative Uber Alles' and 'By All Means Necessary' after all.

Oh you'll get no defense from me of the way that political partisans and the press abuse intel. I've never been so tempted to break my oaths as I was when the Obama administration began lying about the attack in Benghazi.

But, all the press and folks now pretending that something has changed regarding what the IC is saying about Russian bounties, or that a low to mid confidence assessment doesn't mean they think something happened are part of that as well.

 

[eohrnberger]

Oh you'll get no defense from me of the way that political partisans and the press abuse intel. I've never been so tempted to break my oaths as I was when the Obama administration began lying about the attack in Benghazi.

Is it that the press is abusing intel? Or is that intel is abusing the press? I'm kinda thinking that it goes both ways, each getting something of what they want in each transaction.

But, all the press and folks now pretending that something has changed regarding what the IC is saying about Russian bounties, or that a low to mid confidence assessment doesn't mean they think something happened are part of that as well.

A retired bomb disposal tech was on the TV being interviewed about this (Joey Jones). He related that ISIS always had a price on bomb tech's heads because they were the ones that were disarming IEDs. So it would seem that bounties on US servicemen in theater by the opposition isn't an unusual practice

I mean when framed that way, doesn't seem like it wouldn't be an unusual or unexpected practice.

If so, then why all the fervor and fauxrage when first reported?

 

[cpwill]

Is it that the press is abusing intel? Or is that intel is abusing the press? I'm kinda thinking that it goes both ways, each getting something of what they want in each transaction.

Benghazi would be an example of partisans deliberately abusing intel. This thread is an example of partisans abusing intel through (now willfully, if they continue) ignorance.

A retired bomb disposal tech was on the TV being interviewed about this (Joey Jones). He related that ISIS always had a price on bomb tech's heads because they were the ones that were disarming IEDs. So it would seem that bounties on US servicemen in theater by the opposition isn't an unusual practice

I mean when framed that way, doesn't seem like it wouldn't be an unusual or unexpected practice.

He's certainly correct they always wanted to kill EOD guys. Bounties from other nation states, paid to terrorist organizations, isn't common; it's kind of noteworthy when another country with whom we are not at war is willing to pay money to kill our servicemembers.

 

[poweRob]

The story that Russia had put bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan was yet another big lie cooked up as part of the fake Russia narrative:

White House: Intel on Russian 'bounties' on US troops shaky

The White House said Thursday that the intelligence community does not have conclusive evidence that Russia encouraged the Taliban to attack US troops.

www.dailymail.co.uk

People on this forum have been quoting this fake lie about Russian bounties on US troops. It smelled fishy to me right from the start, and I challenged it.

Now that the Biden admin is looking to withdraw from Afghanistan, their fake lie needs to be rescinded, in order to facilitate their withdrawal. It's a completely Orwellian media.

So you are here to say that trump's intel lied to you while Biden's is telling you the truth. Interesting.

 

[eohrnberger]

Benghazi would be an example of partisans deliberately abusing intel. This thread is an example of partisans abusing intel through (now willfully, if they continue) ignorance.



He's certainly correct they always wanted to kill EOD guys. Bounties from other nation states, paid to terrorist organizations, isn't common; it's kind of noteworthy when another country with whom we are not at war is willing to pay money to kill our servicemembers.

Yeah, I can see that as being noteworthy and different.

So another nation gives money to terrorists so they can put a price on US service men, kinda how Hillary's DNC paid Perkins Coie to pay Fusion GPS for the Steel dossier fabrication.
Why?
To maintain a thin veil on plausible deniability for what the money was going to be used for <wink><wink>.

 

[cpwill]

Yeah, I can see that as being noteworthy and different.

So another nation gives money to terrorists so they can put a price on US service men, kinda how Hillary's DNC paid Perkins Coie to pay Fusion GPS for the Steel dossier fabrication.
Why?
To maintain a thin veil on plausible deniability for the source of the money.

You're creating an extra step - the bounty in this case was from the Russians, not TB Sr leaders.

They would give money to such an organization in order to encourage that organization to kill certain types of people - U.S. Servicemembers instead of Afghan Security Forces, for example - in order to cheaply encourage one of their foreign policy goals. In this case, a U.S. withdrawal.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Remember when Republicans believed 'better dead than red'.....

Now they're here daily defending and excusing Putin... Simply because of politics, they hate Democrats more than they hate Putin and his killer thugs.. My God, how the GOP has fallen.

 

[eohrnberger]

You're creating an extra step - the bounty in this case was from the Russians, not TB Sr leaders.

They would give money to such an organization in order to encourage that organization to kill certain types of people - U.S. Servicemembers instead of Afghan Security Forces, for example - in order to cheaply encourage one of their foreign policy goals. In this case, a U.S. withdrawal.

OK. Fair enough.

But then the present intel assessment of these bounties is now a low confidence, right?

Perhaps the most prudent policy going forward would be that intel shouldn't be shared or disclosed? Especially if it isn't at least med or high confidence?