Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Surprise! The ‘Russian Bounty’ Story - Turned Out To Be Fake News

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post

    I didn't realize that was the same person.
    Yeah, dude was a total creeper. Probably worse than I've seen since I've been here and I've been for awhile and have seen some stuff. I had surmised that either he was getting paid to troll, or he was just an outright loony toons.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ronson
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post

    Ah, that was before that weirdo (DivineOb) was using his LiconaFan alias.
    I didn't realize that was the same person.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Ah, that was before that weirdo (DivineOb) was using his LiconaFan alias.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    I'm trying to remember the trolls on here who were pushing it. I know Liconafan was pushing it HARD.
    Here's the original thread:

    https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...in-afghanistan

    Leave a comment:


  • kccd
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Surprise! The ‘Russian Bounty’ Story Hyped Up By Corrupt Media To Hurt Trump Turned Out To Be Fake News

    APRIL 15, 2021 By Jordan Davidson
    New reports show that U.S. intelligence had “low to moderate” confidence in a story peddled by leftists and their corrupt corporate media cronies last year. The anonymously sourced story claimed Russia offered members of the Taliban bounties in exchange for killing American soldiers.

    “The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019 and perhaps earlier,” a senior administration official said on Thursday.

    “U.S. intelligence community agencies have low to moderate confidence in this judgment in part because it relies on detainee reporting, and due to the challenging operating environment in Afghanistan, our conclusion is based on information and evidence of connections between criminal agents in Afghanistan and elements of the Russian government,” the official continued.

    Last summer, corporate media outlets ranging from the Washington Post and the New York Times to CNN and MSNBC treated the claim from unnamed intelligence sources as gospel truth and used it to fuel their anti-Trump narratives ahead of the 2020 election. These are the same media outlets that peddled false narratives about the debunked Russia collusion hoax.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-intelligence/

    Seems that the govt has been connecting the dots. They determined that Manafort, who ran Trump's first election campaign, directed Gates to provide sensitive polling data to a Russian spy, and there is now evidence that that spy passed that info to the Kremlin.

    It is not a hoax.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    Yes, I'm aware of that - but it doesn't mean they aren't truthfully assembling other sources into a story.
    Not the first time Juv has tried to smear a source instead of addressing the content. He's the king of the ad hominem fallacy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

    FYI.

    The Federalist is a 501c3 organization, funded by a small number of anonymous donors....
    Yes, I'm aware of that - but it doesn't mean they aren't truthfully assembling other sources into a story.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

    FYI.

    The Federalist is a 501c3 organization, funded by a small number of anonymous donors. It generates no meaningful revenue. Its donor list is generally protected, though foundation funding can be determined from their required 990 disclosures, and includes DonorsTrust (2019 records, PDF, p. 54)

    2021-04-16_16-13-20.jpg

    and the Ed Uihlein Foundation (2019 records, PDF, p. 12).

    2021-04-16_16-08-06.jpg

    It would appear that they lack sufficient credibility to support confidence in their charges of corruption. I'll leave it to others to judge any distinction between irony and the chutzpah of a privately-funded media outlet deflecting claims of corruption onto advertiser- and reader-supported media, and similarly, whether "low to moderate confidence" can justifiably be translated as false.

    My focus is on supporting public health measures in the current pandemic that has taken more lives in one year in the US than any military conflict in our history, and is fast approaching the final toll of our most costly conflict, the Civil War, numerically if not proportionately. As such, the Federalist attracts my attention as it has provided a consistent voice against public health measures directed toward reducing the toll of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    Thoughtful readers may wish to consider whether positions in clear opposition to science can honestly be cast as political.
    The story is supported by mainstream sources. The Federalist is just good at cataloging all the MSM networks that vehemently pushed the story on the flimsiest of evidence, in spite of the fact the story didn't even make logical sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied


    BBC:
    Source: Afghanistan war: US spies doubt reports of Russian 'bounties' for troops


    The White House has acknowledged there was little evidence that Russia had offered Taliban militants bounties to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan.

    A spokeswoman for President Joe Biden said the claim had "low to moderate confidence" from US spy chiefs.

    Russia has denied paying the bounties. In last year's US election, Mr Biden heavily criticised Donald Trump for not confronting Russia over the claim.

    It comes amid new sanctions on Russia and US plans to leave Afghanistan.


    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    [*bolding in original*]

    WSJ:
    Source: Intelligence Was Limited That Russia Offered Bounties on U.S. Troops, White House Says[/url


    Administration assigns ‘low to moderate’ confidence in intelligence behind explosive reports

    The Biden administration Thursday said it didn’t have solid intelligence that Russia had offered bounties to Afghan militants to kill U.S. troops, reports that last summer shook up U.S.-Russia relations, increased tensions between the U.S. and the Taliban during a troop drawdown and prompted bipartisan condemnation over the Trump administration’s inaction.

    On Thursday, the administration said U.S. intelligence had only "low to moderate confidence" in the reports of the alleged bounty program.

    The administration expressly declined to link the latest sanctions and expulsions of Russian diplomats undertaken Thursday to the bounty reports.

    But in listing the bounties as a point of tension with Russia alongside the SolarWinds hack of government and corporate computer systems and interference in elections -- actions U.S. intelligence attributes to Moscow -- the administration aimed to put Moscow on notice and to protect U.S. troops remaining in Afghanistan until the withdrawal is complete in September.


    Source

    © Copyright Original Source




    NBC:
    Source: Remember those Russian bounties for dead U.S. troops? Biden admin says the CIA intel is not conclusive


    The Biden administration made clear Thursday that the CIA has only "low to moderate confidence" in its intel on alleged Russian bounties for U.S. troops.

    While he was campaigning for president, Joe Biden treated as fact that U.S. intel agencies had determined Russia had paid the Taliban to kill Americans in Afghanistan.

    "I don't understand why this president is unwilling to take on Putin when he's actually paying bounties to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan," Biden said of President Trump, speaking to Kristen Welker of NBC News during the Oct. 22 presidential debate.

    Such a definitive statement was questionable even then. On Thursday, it became more clear that the truth of the matter is unresolved.

    Last fall, while Biden was a candidate, Pentagon officials told NBC News they could not substantiate that such bounties were paid.

    They still have not found any evidence, a senior defense official said Thursday. And the Biden administration also made clear in a fact sheet released Thursday that the CIA's intelligence on the matter is far from conclusive, acknowledging that analysts labeled it "low to moderate confidence."


    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    AP:
    Source: White House: Intel on Russian ‘bounties’ on US troops shaky


    The White House says that the intelligence community does not have conclusive evidence that Russian intelligence operatives encouraged the Taliban to attack American troops in Afghanistan.

    The assessment, revealed Thursday as the U.S. announced a host of new sanctions on the Russian government, undermines one of the sharpest attacks Joe Biden and other Democrats leveled against former President Donald Trump during the 2020 White House race. Biden repeatedly attacked Trump on the campaign trail for not standing up to Russian President Vladimir Putin despite his administration being aware of intelligence suggesting Russian agents were offering bounties to the Taliban.


    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Fox:
    Source: Media critics erupt after Russia bounty story fizzles: 'Nonsense from the beginning'


    Press, Democrats went wild on unverified story in 2020

    In yet another example of a dramatic mainstream media narrative imploding, the intelligence community has backed off reports that Russia placed bounties on the heads of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

    A senior Biden administration official said Thursday the intelligence community only had "low to moderate" confidence in the Russian bounty story, meaning it is unproven and possibly untrue, due to a reliance on "detainee reporting." The revelation came as the administration announced a new series of sanctions against Russia for a host of reasons, but the bounty story was not among them.


    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Axios:
    Source: Intel officials have "low to moderate" confidence in reports of Russian bounties on U.S. troops


    U.S. intelligence officials have "low to moderate confidence" in reports that surfaced last year that Russia had offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan, according to The Guardian.

    Why it matters: The news comes as the Biden administration unveiled a spate of sanctions against Russian officials and entities on Thursday. The bounty reports, however, were not a factor in the decision to pass sanctions.

    The big picture: According to administration officials, the "low to moderate" rating is due to the fact that the bounty reports originated from "detainee reporting and because of the difficult operating environment in Afghanistan," per the Guardian.

    The accompanying fact sheet the administration released regarding the sanctions notes that the administration is "responding" to the bounty reports, but that the issue will be dealt with through "diplomatic, military and intelligence channels."

    What they're saying: "The safety and well-being of U.S. military personnel, and that of our allies and partners, is an absolute priority of the United States," the fact sheet states.


    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    All the above continue at their respective hyperlinks except the last one which was short and pithy enough to include in its entirety.

    As the source I originally cited noted when they say that Intelligence officials have "low to moderate" confidence in the reports,

    Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven -- and possibly untrue.


    So these reports never arose to a level higher than a unsubstantiated rumor, it is a good thing that calmer, wiser heads prevailed and we didn't escalate tensions over a baseless claim.




    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    FYI.

    The Federalist is a 501c3 organization, funded by a small number of anonymous donors. It generates no meaningful revenue. Its donor list is generally protected, though foundation funding can be determined from their required 990 disclosures, and includes DonorsTrust (2019 records, PDF, p. 54)

    2021-04-16_16-13-20.jpg

    and the Ed Uihlein Foundation (2019 records, PDF, p. 12).

    2021-04-16_16-08-06.jpg

    It would appear that they lack sufficient credibility to support confidence in their charges of corruption. I'll leave it to others to judge any distinction between irony and the chutzpah of a privately-funded media outlet deflecting claims of corruption onto advertiser- and reader-supported media, and similarly, whether "low to moderate confidence" can justifiably be translated as false.

    My focus is on supporting public health measures in the current pandemic that has taken more lives in one year in the US than any military conflict in our history, and is fast approaching the final toll of our most costly conflict, the Civil War, numerically if not proportionately. As such, the Federalist attracts my attention as it has provided a consistent voice against public health measures directed toward reducing the toll of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    Thoughtful readers may wish to consider whether positions in clear opposition to science can honestly be cast as political.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ronson
    replied
    It never made much sense.

    1) Why place a bounty on the heads of Americans when they were already targets? How is money going to motivate people who are already motivated by philosophy?
    2) How would it benefit Russia if more Americans died? Keep us in Afghanistan longer? Make us leave earlier? Neither is a boon to Russia.
    3) Why engage in something that has little-to-no-gain, but massive risk to reputation and prestige on the world stage (if caught)?

    No, it never smelled right. It was just another "Russia Boogeyman" story by the MSM to put Trump in a bad spot.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    Yeah, there were several who were full-blown outraged that Trump would ignore such a diabolical [fake] plot.
    And that it was "Proof!" that he was in cahoots with the Rooskies and Putin.

    Even at the time it was clear this was nothing but a rumor but if Trump didn't escalate hostilities over it then he was a traitor who hated the troops.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    I'm trying to remember the trolls on here who were pushing it. I know Liconafan was pushing it HARD.
    Yeah, there were several who were full-blown outraged that Trump would ignore such a diabolical [fake] plot.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    I'm trying to remember the trolls on here who were pushing it. I know Liconafan was pushing it HARD.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    And now it has its very own thread.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
16 responses
137 views
0 likes
Last Post One Bad Pig  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
53 responses
364 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
112 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
197 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
84 responses
364 views
0 likes
Last Post JimL
by JimL
 
Working...
X