Jump to content
JimmyJames

Trump shits all over the troops again

Recommended Posts

Anastasis,

That article is a bunch of fluff. What is the General’s criteria? What evidence did they find? How hard did they look/how much resources did they commit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it. Support Our Troops.  He meant the Russian troops this entire time.  That makes sense actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

10 hours ago, Nivek said:

Anastasis,

That article is a bunch of fluff. What is the General’s criteria? What evidence did they find? How hard did they look/how much resources did they commit?

OK.  I mean its the theater commander on record, with access to all of the intelligence, saying that he would kick some Russian ass if it was true, but that he has not seen the dots connected into an actionable assessment.   

 

Many military officials have always been more skeptical, several senior officials said, in part because they had not seen all the intelligence the CIA had gathered. Unlike counterterrorism information, intelligence gathered about sensitive Russian government activities is often closely held, sometimes distributed only in paper form to a small number of senior officials in Washington. [*And the NYT of course*]

But after The New York Times reported on intelligence about an alleged bounty program, senior military officials have had a chance to examine all the intelligence, officials say.

...

Eight weeks later, McKenzie said, differing opinions persist about what conclusions the U.S. can draw from the information.

"People that are involved in it get very emotional about it," he said. "I can't afford to be emotional about it. I've got to step back and look at the totality of the picture."

If the Russians are trying to kill Americans in Afghanistan, he said, "I want to know, because I won't hesitate to take action if that's the case. I just haven't seen it. I just haven't seen it. There's a lot of conflicting information out there, but nothing was out there that I could grasp that connect together in a pattern that I would consider actionable."

...

Echoing comments in July by Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, McKenzie said that if he could establish that the Russians were offering payments to kill Americans, he would push to forcefully respond. But the intelligence is far from conclusive, he said.

"I found what they presented to me very concerning, very worrisome. I just couldn't see the final connection, so I sent my guys back and said, look, keep digging. So we have continued to dig and look because this involves potential threats to U.S. forces, it's open," he said, adding, "I just haven't seen anything that closes that gap yet."

 

Look man, it's not the first time that the NYT has been used to push politically motivated narratives. They know the drill, you should too. I wish that you would consider applying the same level of skepticism to anonymous CIA sources as you do the on the record comments of the CENTCOM commander. 

Edited by Anastasis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

  

OK.  I mean its the theater commander on record, with access to all of the intelligence, saying that he would kick some Russian ass if it was true, but that he has not seen the dots connected into an actionable assessment.   

 

Many military officials have always been more skeptical, several senior officials said, in part because they had not seen all the intelligence the CIA had gathered. Unlike counterterrorism information, intelligence gathered about sensitive Russian government activities is often closely held, sometimes distributed only in paper form to a small number of senior officials in Washington. [*And the NYT of course*]

But after The New York Times reported on intelligence about an alleged bounty program, senior military officials have had a chance to examine all the intelligence, officials say.

...

Eight weeks later, McKenzie said, differing opinions persist about what conclusions the U.S. can draw from the information.

"People that are involved in it get very emotional about it," he said. "I can't afford to be emotional about it. I've got to step back and look at the totality of the picture."

If the Russians are trying to kill Americans in Afghanistan, he said, "I want to know, because I won't hesitate to take action if that's the case. I just haven't seen it. I just haven't seen it. There's a lot of conflicting information out there, but nothing was out there that I could grasp that connect together in a pattern that I would consider actionable."

...

Echoing comments in July by Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, McKenzie said that if he could establish that the Russians were offering payments to kill Americans, he would push to forcefully respond. But the intelligence is far from conclusive, he said.

"I found what they presented to me very concerning, very worrisome. I just couldn't see the final connection, so I sent my guys back and said, look, keep digging. So we have continued to dig and look because this involves potential threats to U.S. forces, it's open," he said, adding, "I just haven't seen anything that closes that gap yet."

 

Look man, it's not the first time that the NYT has been used to push politically motivated narratives. They know the drill, you should too. I wish that you would consider applying the same level of skepticism to anonymous CIA sources as you do the on the record comments of the CENTCOM commander. 

The article was fluff and politically motivated.  We learned only the existence of an investigation, not the scope or the depth.  We don't know if it is a hamstrung, blinded investigation carried out by the jr level mail clerk or a $50+ million dollar investigation handled by top men (Top Men).

I appreciate the both sides in there.  You know it is not the same thing as a multiple CI comment/source confirmed by multiple journalists from multiple networks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nivek said:

You know it is not the same thing as a multiple CI comment/source confirmed by multiple journalists from multiple networks.  

Right, it's not.  It's the CENTCOM commander on the record and not a web of circular anonymous corroboration.

 

 

Edited by Anastasis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, Russian bounties. Just another anonymously sourced BS story that the CR furiously fapped to. 

EABEB385-32-A9-41-FD-9709-5-CFF77-A5-F24

Only to have actual sources come out and categorically deny the whole thing. This one managed to wrap up a few seemingly smart posters here and on Twitter though. #Sad

Edited by GRHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 Just another anonymously sourced BS story that the CR furiously fapped to.

A comprehensive accounting of these stories would be a long cat post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, ol dumbshit Ronald Reagan said it best, "trust but verify."  Which is still a far cry from Teh Donald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, ol dumbshit Ronald Reagan said it best, "trust but verify."  Which is still a far cry from Teh Donald.

Yes, our foreign policy has revolved around Russia, propaganda, and platitudes for a long, long time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Ah, Russian bounties. Just another anonymously sourced BS story that the CR furiously fapped to. 

EABEB385-32-A9-41-FD-9709-5-CFF77-A5-F24

Only to have actual sources come out and categorically deny the whole thing. This one managed to wrap up a few seemingly smart posters here and on Twitter though. #Sad

Who are the sources who categorically deny the whole thing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean I realize just like trump your natural instinct is to suck Putin’s dick at every opportunity, but I’m curious who has “categorically denied” the russian bounty story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I mean I realize just like trump your natural instinct is to suck Putin’s dick at every opportunity, but I’m curious who has “categorically denied” the russian bounty story?

It's really amazing how utterly low brow and basic the play is here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found what they presented to me very concerning, very worrisome. I just couldn't see the final connection, so I sent my guys back and said, look, keep digging.”

Gen. MarkMilley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 

Yup a categorical denial of the whole thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Yes, our foreign policy has revolved around Russia, propaganda, and platitudes for a long, long time. 

Well, the russians have been evil cocksuckers for a while now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

Who are the sources who categorically deny the whole thing? 

The folks with rubbed off spray tan all around their mouth and lips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

I found what they presented to me very concerning, very worrisome. I just couldn't see the final connection, so I sent my guys back and said, look, keep digging.”

Gen. MarkMilley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 

Yup a categorical denial of the whole thing!

That doesn’t seem like a denial. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

Who are the sources who categorically deny the whole thing? 

Vladimir Putin and Russian intelligence.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

That doesn’t seem like a denial. 

Of course it is!  It doesn’t get any more of a complete denial than that.  Its just like after 9/11, when we  started hearing that Bin Ladin might be involved with the attacks.  Sure, at first there was some worrisome and concerning intel, but not enough “to connect the final dot” or anything “actionable”.  That’s why we just attributed it all as liberal hoax based on “anonymous sources” and gave up the entire investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Ah, Russian bounties. Just another anonymously sourced BS story that the CR furiously fapped to. 

EABEB385-32-A9-41-FD-9709-5-CFF77-A5-F24

Only to have actual sources come out and categorically deny the whole thing. This one managed to wrap up a few seemingly smart posters here and on Twitter though. #Sad

LMAO, I'll have whatever you're having if you really think anything reputable that's come out is a categorical denial of the story. 

 

Oh wait....never mind, it's probably a tall glass of shriveled orange dick juice. I hear it's bad for the brain cells. 

Edited by totallynotabuttpirate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll take ‘All things Dotard‘ for $100 Alex   

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Brain worms. 

What is Dotard’s skull full of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Yes, our foreign policy has revolved around Russia, propaganda, and platitudes for a long, long time. 

I just mean the IC has a pretty mixed record on timely and accurate intel.  But that's the nature of the beast.  Some skepticism is warranted, outright dismissal ala Trump is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

 

What is Dotard’s skull full of?

60% repressed memories of inappropriately groping Ivanka. 

20% desire to bring Carl's, Jr. to the East Coast 

10% vague knowledge of 1980s real estate deals 

5% vague knowledge of a girl named Tiffany he once knew 

5% other

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I just mean the IC has a pretty mixed record on timely and accurate intel.

Agreed.  And outlets like the NYT are used by the IC to shape and propel public opinion.  This stuff just plays out over and over again. I mean, they had to write a fucking editorial in the NYT after Iraq detailing their fuck ups, how intelligence sources mislead them, and how they failed basic aspects of journalistic integrity. A few hundred thousand dead later...

 

 

Edited by Anastasis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Right, it's not.  It's the CENTCOM commander on the record and not a web of circular anonymous corroboration.

 

 

Right it is not.  It is a CENTCOM commander giving a empty fluff piece or a political statement and not a report on the investigation or their conclusions.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It’s funny how the skeptics are only ever skeptical in one direction.

Sure, but they put in the effort to be willfully obtuse in the other. Both sides, you see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Right it is not.  It is a CENTCOM commander giving a empty fluff piece or a political statement and not a report on the investigation or their conclusions.   

I don't disagree. I characterized the commander's position as "he has not seen the dots connected into an actionable assessment", which is supported by his statement.

I will just again point out that you are requiring a higher level of evidence to reject a position that you have adopted based on a different, and lower, level of evidence. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some real strong "Bill Barr's letter proves that the Mueller report actually vindicates Trump" energy in the room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2020 at 12:06 PM, Anastasis said:

"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, told NBC News. McKenzie oversees U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The U.S. continues to hunt for new information on the matter, he said.

"We continue to look for that evidence," the general said. "I just haven't seen it yet. But … it's not a closed issue."

McKenzie's comments, reflecting a consensus view among military leaders, underscores the lack of certainty around a narrative that has been accepted as fact...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the general military, intelligence thread now?

Three cheers for a Resistance fave, and a man whose word the CR takes as Gospel, John Brennan. 
 

I’m guessing that sentiment was echoed x 💯 here when he said it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is GRHorn trying to play up the UAE-Bahrain-Israel "peace deal"?  A deal between countries that have never been at war with each other?  Some other poster compared it to the Lichtenstein-Andorra treaty.  I mean, good job Jared...I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

I don't disagree. I characterized the commander's position as "he has not seen the dots connected into an actionable assessment", which is supported by his statement.

I will just again point out that you are requiring a higher level of evidence to reject a position that you have adopted based on a different, and lower, level of evidence. 

 

I did no such thing.  I look at them as apples and oranges.   One is a political statement, with very little information in content.  We do not know if the Russian Bounty is real or if it is a hoax.  A General stated he has not see enough intelligence to support the claim this was real.    

Since you are not being specific to the reporting of rumor lets take both of the major ones.

1) Trump calling troops is another thing in itself.  The story was reported by CI's and confirmed by multiple journalists and IIRC by multiple CI's.  That in itself is not enough.  The indisputable shitting on former soldiers (John McCain) and their service is not in question.  The disrespect he showed Johnson's widow is not in question.  This and other patterns of behaviors (you think we're so innocent?") demonstrate a pattern of behavior.   

2) The initial report about a bounty program was stated as intelligence officials not a single source.  The reporting did not indicate how high this program went within the Russian government nor how widespread it was but they concluded this was actually happening.  There is nothing wrong with this report.   Lets call it a rumor for brevity.  The rumor had been known to the Trump Administration since early 2019.   Mark Esper said that Gen. Mackenzie and the DOD did not link a specific attack that the NSA attributed to the program, which is tantamount to saying "well, I didn't rape THAT woman."   As of right now, we have intelligence officials believing it is credible, and a military leader saying 'well we haven't established the link to my standard" and a politician saying, the specific incident wasn't related.   Politico also reports that Pompeo and members of the Pentagon spoke to Lavrov and Russian officials and warned them against taking such action.  Why would they feel the need to do this?  Pentagon declined and interview, Pompeo declined to answer whether Trump was briefed, and to identify those military officials at the Pentagon or the Russians outside of Lavrov.      So let's recap.   According to Wiki, NSA and CIA believe there is a bounty program, the DOD does not, a politician used double speak to deny it, another spoke with his counter part in Russia about it,  the administration refuses to acknowledge whether the President was briefed or not and when.   We do not know how widespread this program is (also according to wiki, this intelligence came from interrogations of multiple sources from different parts of the Afghanistan).  This is hardly the rumor that the Wonder Years kid is in Marilyn Manson.     A normal President would respond with "I have been briefed and we are looking into this and taking this very seriously but at this time, I will not discuss it further. The American people can be assured we are looking into this."  And that would put the issue to rest while the investigation continued.  But we all know how much he loves Vlad and how fucks up even the easy things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I negotiated a treaty between Liberia and Antarctica.  Historic indeed and that was before breakfast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Nivek said:

We do not know if the Russian Bounty is real or if it is a hoax.

Well then I think that we agree, there is not conclusive evidence.  In the absence of conclusive evidence, I would suggest that we assume the null posture, especially in light of the larger context and timing. 

24 minutes ago, Nivek said:

1) Trump calling troops is another thing in itself.  The story was reported by CI's and confirmed by multiple journalists and IIRC by multiple CI's.  That in itself is not enough.  The indisputable shitting on former soldiers (John McCain) and their service is not in question.  The disrespect he showed Johnson's widow is not in question.  This and other patterns of behaviors (you think we're so innocent?") demonstrate a pattern of behavior.   

I agree.  But that doesn't have anything to do with the supposed bounty program. 

24 minutes ago, Nivek said:

According to Wiki, NSA and CIA believe there is a bounty program

This is not accurate. NSA said that they did not have supporting evidence aligned to the assessment of the CIA.  NYT reported this, WSJ as well.  There is a pattern of course of the CIA going much further than the NSA in their assessments. One relies on actual signals intelligence, the other relatively soft assessments subject to disinformation (waterboarded anyone recently my friend?). 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/us/politics/memo-russian-bounties.html

But other parts of the intelligence community — including the National Security Agency, which favors electronic surveillance intelligence — said they did not have information to support that conclusion at the same level, therefore expressing lower confidence in the conclusion, according to the two officials. A third official familiar with the memo did not describe the precise confidence levels, but also said the C.I.A.’s was higher than other agencies.

 Also, from WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/nsa-differed-from-cia-others-on-russia-bounty-intelligence-11593534220

The National Security Agency strongly dissented from other intelligence agencies’ assessment that Russia paid bounties for the killing of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

Edited by Anastasis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nivek said:

I negotiated a treaty between Liberia and Antarctica.  Historic indeed and that was before breakfast. 

You eat pieces of shithole countries for breakfast?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Well then I think that we agree, there is not conclusive evidence.  In the absence of conclusive evidence, I would suggest that we assume the null posture, especially in light of the larger context and timing. 

I agree.  But that doesn't have anything to do with the supposed bounty program. 

This is not accurate. NSA said that they did not have supporting evidence aligned to the assessment of the CIA.  NYT reported this, WSJ as well.  There is a pattern of course of the CIA going much further than the NSA in their assessments. One relies on actual signals intelligence, the other relatively soft assessments subject to disinformation (waterboarded anyone recently my friend?). 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/us/politics/memo-russian-bounties.html

But other parts of the intelligence community — including the National Security Agency, which favors electronic surveillance intelligence — said they did not have information to support that conclusion at the same level, therefore expressing lower confidence in the conclusion, according to the two officials. A third official familiar with the memo did not describe the precise confidence levels, but also said the C.I.A.’s was higher than other agencies.

 Also, from WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/nsa-differed-from-cia-others-on-russia-bounty-intelligence-11593534220

The National Security Agency strongly dissented from other intelligence agencies’ assessment that Russia paid bounties for the killing of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

While your analysis may be correct, you would have a lot more credibility if you applied a similar analysis to claims that purport to denigrate Trump and his relationship with Russia.

Which for some reason you never do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In anticipation of the response, let’s hear them. How has trump and his relationship with Putin and Russia hurt America? Never?

Edited by JimmyJames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JimmyJames said:

While your analysis may be correct, you would have a lot more credibility if you applied a similar analysis to claims that purport to denigrate Trump and his relationship with Russia.

Which for some reason you never do.

While my analysis may be correct you wish that I would spend more time caping for the people that keep us engaged in endless wars racking up hundreds of thousands of lives.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

While my analysis may be correct you wish that I would spend more time caping for the people that keep us engaged in endless wars racking up hundreds of thousands of lives.  

Since you know all of them, remind me which argument logically fallacy this one is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JimmyJames said:

Since you know all of them, remind me which argument logically fallacy this one is?

Right after you tell us which one this reflects...

5 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

While your analysis may be correct, you would have a lot more credibility if you applied a similar analysis to claims that purport to denigrate Trump and his relationship with Russia.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure. You’re the master of rhetoric here. You tell us.

I realize you will never answer my question. The board does too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Not sure. You’re the master of rhetoric here. You tell us.

I realize you will never answer my question. The board does too.

The board also recognizes that you self admittedly never paid attention prior to 2016. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually complimented you on being right. Just wondering why this astute brain is always focused on one side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

The board also recognizes that you self admittedly never paid attention prior to 2016. 

Never had to until a grave danger like trump came along. I admit it. So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JimmyJames said:

I actually complimented you on being right. Just wondering why this astute brain is always focused on one side.

Yes, my analysis is likely correct. That you don't realize that the analysis is agnostic to sides is unsurprising. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Yes, my analysis is likely correct. That you don't realize that the analysis is agnostic to sides is unsurprising. 

That’s not what I said and you know it. 
 

I asked you a different question that you don’t care to answer because you don’t have one.

Its all good. I can’t force you to answer it. Ce la vie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...