web analytics

Mute on the Bounty?

By 33230715130361 On June 29th, 2020

A developing story indicates that Intelligence Sources are pointing to Russian bounties being offered to the Taliban to attack US and UK soldiers. Even several Republican members of Congress are calling for clarification.

The President has indicated he was not briefed on this because the information was deemed not credible. Lets see. Im not surprised that this is something the Russians might have done. It is unclear hoe many people it may have been effected, or its real impact. Another strange day in the Trump Presidency.

61 Responses to “Mute on the Bounty?”

  1. I question the veracity of this.

    For starters, the Taliban did not need further motivation to kill our troops.

    And…the Russian military and the Taliban are the worst of enemies.

    Under Putin, Russia helped our military when we entered Afghanistan in 2001.

  2. Precisely why it needs to be verified. The enemy of my enemy is my friend could be a rationale for it.

  3. I don’t think that this would serve any Russian interests

    And the Russians tend to be very sober about such things

  4. Anonymously sourced, supposed intel leaks don’t cut it any longer. Too many fairy tales have been dressed up like that.

  5. Cui bono?

    Not Russia

  6. “Not Russia”

    Not necessarily. Afghanistan has been an expensive distraction for the west for nearly 20 years now. Thousands of coalition dead, and hundreds of billions of dollars. Keeping the west bogged down in Afghanistan will be a good result for Russia.

    And so this, if it is the case, would be more aimed not at killing US and UK soldiers, but killing the Afghan peace deal agreed in February.

  7. its all a bit murky, but newspapers should not publish stories like this unless they have cast iron evidence – not just anonymous leaks – that it has happened. Even if they cant reveal names they should have the evidence for their own veracity.

  8. Creating even more instability in a country that close to Russia’s sphere of influence would be incredibly unwise.

    And if true, and if verified ( I don’t know how it would be ) it would make US – Russian relations much worse than they are now, and they are very bad now.

    If true, this would be an act of stupidity on the part of Russia. And I don’t know Putin or Russia to be stupid.

  9. Clever punning title BTW Mahons 🙂

  10. “Creating even more instability in a country that close to Russia’s sphere of influence would be incredibly unwise.”

    Though Russia thrives on instability on their borders, and are the principle source of that instability (Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic countries etc…).

  11. Superb header Mahons.

    @John_Hudson
    We have confirmed the ⁦
    @nytimes
    ⁩ scoop: A Russian military spy unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition forces in Afghanistan.

    https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1276735865008656386

    Broken by NYT & ‘confirmed’ by Wapo? I’m sure Pat will verify it.

  12. But Russia has continuing imperial aspirations on the Baltics, Georgia, Ukraine.

    They control Ukranian and Georgian land now.

    A rising Taliban can infect the Muslim territories in Russian and near it.

    It should be the last thing that Russia wants

  13. “A rising Taliban can infect the Muslim territories in Russian and near it.”

    Unlikely truth be told. The Taliban are overwhelmingly Pashtun and are generally opposed by non-Pashtun Afghans. The neighbouring countries in Russia’s sphere of influence would be ethnically similar to the anti-Taliban groups in Afghanistan (the Tajiks, the Uzbeks etc…). It is unlikely that the Taliban would ever take hold of the Tajik people in Afghanistan, the Uzbek people in Afghanistan, the Turkmen people in Afghanistan, so it is even more unlikely that they would take hold in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan.

  14. The story is complete bullshit and obviously so. Apparently it was offered up by a kebab under interrogation. That’s it. No-one knows if he was lying or who he thought he was talking to. Even if the interrogation took place (a big if), POTUS is only briefed on known and verified facts. He isn’t briefed on rumours and maybes.

    That’s to ignore the pallets of cash which the Pentagon has been flying into Afghanistan for decades. The Russians don’t have enough spare cash to compete with that anyway.

  15. The story is complete bullshit

    It sounds like disinformation.

    I can see Russia doing a lot of bad things, but not this.

    Its been clear for some time that the US troops won’t be staying much longer.

    I would see the Russians as wanting to let this happen, and to take whatever bit of stability that they can.

  16. If this got all the way up to US intel you’d think there would be something to it . I am sure they get info heavily and cross check. They’re experts in the field . To go against them only serves Trump and his fantasies and the consistent undermining of US intel agencies throughout his tenure

  17. The story is real in terms of what has been reported, whether the intelligence is accurate is another issue.

  18. Told ya.

    @CBS_Herridge

    DEVELOPING: An intelligence official with direct knowledge tells CBS News there was an intel collection report and “NSA assesses Report does not match well established and verifiiable Taliban and Haqqani practices” + “lack sufficient reporting to corroborate any links.”

    5:08 PM · Jun 29, 2020

    @CBS_Herridge

    The official said the inteligence collection report reached “low levels” NSC but did not go further, not briefed POTUS, or VP because it was deemed “uncorroborated” and “dissent intelligence community.” @CBSNews

    POTUS is briefed only on the most important and verified intel.

    This is a wedge issue. Someone put out this BS to jam it between Trump and the military and veterans in an election year.

    Come on, it’s the NYT for God’s sake.

  19. another unnamed source !

  20. Colm

    If you needed cast iron evidence, you’d have blank pages on things like this.

    You won’t get Russian generals to speak on it, and you could never believe anything that the Taliban says.

  21. pumping lies and rumors that have their origins from the maoist marxist newsroom of the NYTs

    I’m sure it’s all tied to the russian collusion they said happened for the last 4 years.

  22. I’m sure it’s all tied to the russian collusion they said happened for the last 4 years

    Two words Pat, Natalia Veselnitskaya.

  23. Who the woman who was working for Fusion GPS, who called Glenn Simpson before the meeting and after the meeting….. that Natalia Veselnitskaya ?

  24. You still haven’t linked to anything that the NYT said that was false on the matter.

    Ah well. If Fox says that they lied, they probably did. Because you can always trust them.

  25. No Pat, I mean the Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who Trump Jr & Jared met thinking they were going to get dirt to use on Hilary on the election. That Natalia Veselnitskaya.

  26. Look if you want to believe anything that comes out of a newsroom that had their boss fired for running an opinion that they disagreed with that’s fine Phantom. If you want to praise a paper that for four years told you that the President was a Russian Spy that’s fine also.

    Denying that they did these things just accents how badly you’re infected with TDS.

  27. I don’t know if you have read any of this thread but I have been highly skeptical of this report

    But you are critical of the New York Times besides appearing to have no idea what appears in their pages

  28. No Pat, I mean the Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who Trump Jr & Jared met thinking they were going to get dirt to use on Hilary on the election. That Natalia Veselnitskaya.

    Who set the meeting up at the instruction of Fusion GPS as part of the FBI attempt to frame the Trump Campaign.

    You’re beating a horse that was killed months ago….. oh but that’s right you don’t believe there was a frame taking place…… lol

  29. So the FBI pulled a gun on Jared and made him attend that meeting.

  30. I was going to ask you to verify that but it would only be another Flynnesque saga with Breitbart and the Duran etc political propaganda posing as news sites links.

    Regardless of what transpired, Donny Jr and Jared believed they were meeting a Russian lawyer to get dirt to use on the Beast in the election. That’scollusion.

  31. Trump publicly called for Russia to aid in his election.

    If that isn’t a request for collusion what is?

    You need to be a bit of an idiot to not think that there was collusion. The only remaining question is whether a crime was committed or not.

    PVR is very uninformed on this subject.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html

  32. “If you want to praise a paper that for four years told you that the President was a Russian Spy that’s fine also.”

    You have been asked for a single example, just one example, of where the New York Times lied. And you have been unable to find a single news story where they lied.

    That renders anything you say about the New York Times moot. You clearly believe your own bullshit on this one, but when asked to provide evidence on your bullshit you can’t. Because it’s bullshit.

  33. I look at the NYT pretty much every day.

    They never said that Trump was ” a Russian spy ”

    Why the need to constantly make stuff up, Allan?

  34. Phantom is citing a story written in the american pravda about a sarcastic comment…..

    You really need mental help……. But that’s the state of the anti-trumpers. They have nothing of substance, no crimes, no frauds, no impeachment, so they feed the infected sarcasm with no context…. he’s foaming at the mouth so bad from the syndrome he eats it up like candy. lol

  35. Phantom, on June 29th, 2020 at 10:41 PM Said:
    I look at the NYT pretty much every day.

    I can tell you parrot whatever spin they’re pushing each day……

    Phantom wipe your tie, the foam is dripping……

  36. “They have nothing of substance”

    Where is that lie from the New York Times? Or do you have nothing of substance?

  37. They have nothing of substance, no crimes, no frauds, no impeachment

    There’s certainly a fraud, and what Jared & Trump Jr believed was collusion.

    Can you state anywhere the NYT, Wapo or BBC have stated there was collusion?

  38. Congress has asked for information on this important matter and the administration should provide it. The NYT reporters appear to have several sources in both the intelligence agencies and the military. Trump’s denial of knowledge is troublesome because it not believable that his national security people would not inform him. And, it would be troublesome if they did not inform him because he is nominally commander-in-chief.

    I’m sure there will be more to this story.

  39. The New York Times never stated that Trump was a Russian spy. But perhaps one of the 800,000 people who attended the Tulsa Rally told you that.

  40. Where is that lie from the New York Times? Or do you have nothing of substance?

    On this particular issue, the NYT wrongly stated that the President was briefed about it.

  41. yes yes Nancy is gravely concerned…. we need hearings. To use her words today…..

    “What do the Russians have him, is it money, blackmail?”

    An intelligence leak from an unnamed source in the NYTs on a bit of intelligence not ever confirmed nor included in a briefing…… and then the speaker accusing Trump of working with Russia…..

    But Phantom doesn’t see this as the Democrats with the Aid of the NYTs pushing once again Russian Collusion…… lmao

  42. And, it would be troublesome if they did not inform him because he is nominally commander-in-chief.

    US intelligence agencies produce thousands, literally thousands, of reports every day. You expect POTUS to be briefed on every piece of unverified bullshit?

    Listen, he gets verified facts, only the most important verified facts. That obvs excludes NYT lies.

  43. Actually they said:

    The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said.

    So they said officials said Trump was briefed.

    A different official it would seem said Trump wasn’t briefed.

    So it certainly wasn’t a lie, and it may not have been wrong. Maybe the second official is wrong.

  44. They didn’t verify. If you can’t stand up a story with more than one independent source then you don’t have a story.

    But PVR knows the game they’re plating. It’s another Russia BS story in an election year. That’s the most important lens to look through, the election year lens. The Dems and their friends (including GOP never-Trumpers) are throwing everything at it, as soon as they can make it up.

  45. President also get briefed on intelligence of varying degrees of confirmation. He gets told the confirmation level.
    The President has denied being briefed or told. Let’s see.

  46. How do you know they didn’t verify?

  47. Plenty of Republicans in Congress are asking questions.

  48. I would think that there are a constant stream of rumors like this.

    The intel guys have the tough job of figuring out which ones may be true.

    Again, this doesn’t pass my gut check.

    And it’s conspiracy mania to think that this was made up by ” Dems ” to hurt Trump in an election. We have Pete and Pat, only need Allan now to get the blessing of the unholy trinity of endless conspiracy.

  49. I could see Iran doing this, but not the Russians, for reasons that Phantom has listed. It’s not in their interest to strengthen Muslim fighters in their neighborhood.

  50. Wiki tells me that about 15,000 Soviet troops died fighting the Afghan muhajadin, and many serious injuries.

    And now they’re going to given the Taliban bonuses to kill westerners who are already in the process of leaving?

    Like we say in Brooklyn, get the hall out of here!

    Does not pass any gut test.

  51. General Nicholson accused them of providing arms to the Taliban. Don’t underestimate Russia’s willingness to work at cross currents.

  52. I’m pretty sure the Americans spent a few years killing the Germans allied with the Russians, then a year or so later the Americans allied with the Germans to contain the Russians.

    International politics moves fast.

  53. I could see Iran doing this, but not the Russians, for reasons that Phantom has listed. It’s not in their interest to strengthen Muslim fighters in their neighborhood

    Charles, Iran is largely a Shia Muslim country and the Taliban are Pashtun extremist Sunnis who regard the Shia as heretics.

  54. Iran has aided the Hamas death cult.

    Russia’s position on militant Islam hasn’t changed that much. They’re still against it. They have suffered from it.

    Chechen ( Russian ) terrorists have fought alongside the Taliban. The Russian government would be exceptionally concerned about these Russian speaking persons coming back home.

    This charge sounds like a ” big lie ” by someone. Not that Putin is so wonderful, but that it makes no strategic sense at all.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/secret-battles-us-forces-chechen-terrorists/story?id=22580688

  55. Iran has aided the Hamas death cult

    Yes, and whereas Hamas has a large political / nationalist political element to its ideology the Taliban are fundamentally religious extremists.

  56. From the NYT:
    “American officials provided a written briefing in late February to President Trump laying out their conclusion that a Russian military intelligence unit offered and paid bounties to Taliban-linked militants to kill U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan, two officials familiar with the matter said.

    The investigation into the suspected Russian covert operation to incentivize such killings has focused in part on an April 2019 car bombing that killed three Marines as one such potential attack, according to multiple officials familiar with the matter.”

    It was in Trump’s February 27, 2010 briefing.

  57. I think that there’s a typo in the date of the briefing

  58. “I think that there’s a typo in the date of the briefing.” Thanks. It should be February 27, 2020. Four months ago and not a peep about it from the commander-in-chief.

  59. Another example of people believing what they want to believe – No.2367

  60. There is an indication that it was in Trump’s daily briefing (a written document) which he apparently doesn’t like to read. The Administration seems to be positioning themselves to say it wasn’t raised with him verbally. Perhaps. Let’s see.

  61. Every time he picks up the phone, he does damage to American alliances
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/politics/trump-phone-calls-national-security-concerns/index.html