NYT: Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops

[Jonny]

Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says - The New York Times

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

damn democrat party

 

[rav3n]

Russia's still run by the KGB.

 

[Lark]

Russia's still run by the KGB.

Yeah, the west missed the opportunity to include a potentially different Russia in the international community.

Its a stitch up between the KGB and the mafia which emerged from the post-soviet fire sale and collapse in law and order now.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yeah, the west missed the opportunity to include a potentially different Russia in the international community.

Its a stitch up between the KGB and the mafia which emerged from the post-soviet fire sale and collapse in law and order now.

Not just Russia, you have pretty much the same story with all post-communist East-European countries. Even those that are supposedly democratic and they have joined western alliances. The west completely gambled away historic opportunity that existed in the 90s. Since in that time there was clear opportunity to create democratic world order. The window was actually open until the great financial crisis some 12 years ago, but after that the window started to close exponentially.



Also yesterday I was watching random report about one local school that teaches in Russian. While the kids love it and they all want to go to Russia. Many buildings that hosted western business now host eastern business, or they are empty. Typical first-worlder doesn't have a clue what is really going on here. In other words many countries here even formally don't really match the profile of a democracy anymore, while western media are downplaying the scale of the problem. I am just watching how my new parliament will look like. Reformed communist, not so reformed communists, mafia, far right, religious fanatics, pro-russians, convicts, pawns of big business, a few singers, anarchists ... etc. At least 90% of seats will fit at least in one of those boxes. Therefore in practical sense democracy is dead. While economy wouldn't really pass as Capitalism even by the standards of western left.




Regarding the thread: I claimed this years ago. The fact is that the war is going on for decades and the "mountain rednecks" still didn't run out of ammo. What directly implies "hidden factor" in the mix.

 

[Tomb1]

That would have made for a good "October surprise"... NY times got the itchy finger

 

[Riva]

Not sure whether the story is trustworthy.

But wouldn't be surprised if it's true.

I mean one thing USA is good at is making enemies. Usually they make enemies trying to make the world a better place of course - democracy, freedom, human rights and all those things...

The extraction of resources and the lucrative arms sale to unstable nations in just a side gig. Democracy and freedom is their main business.

 

[Lark]

Not just Russia, you have pretty much the same story with all post-communist East-European countries. Even those that are supposedly democratic and they have joined western alliances. The west completely gambled away historic opportunity that existed in the 90s. Since in that time there was clear opportunity to create democratic world order. The window was actually open until the great financial crisis some 12 years ago, but after that the window started to close exponentially.



Also yesterday I was watching random report about one local school that teaches in Russian. While the kids love it and they all want to go to Russia. Many buildings that hosted western business now host eastern business, or they are empty. Typical first-worlder doesn't have a clue what is really going on here. In other words many countries here even formally don't really match the profile of a democracy anymore, while western media are downplaying the scale of the problem. I am just watching how my new parliament will look like. Reformed communist, not so reformed communists, mafia, far right, religious fanatics, pro-russians, convicts, pawns of big business, a few singers, anarchists ... etc. At least 90% of seats will fit at least in one of those boxes. Therefore in practical sense democracy is dead. While economy wouldn't really pass as Capitalism even by the standards of western left.




Regarding the thread: I claimed this years ago. The fact is that the war is going on for decades and the "mountain rednecks" still didn't run out of ammo. What directly implies "hidden factor" in the mix.

That's an interesting point but there are a lot of explanations for that, the movies Lord of War and War Dogs both would indicate that there's no shortage of ammunition for sale after the cold war and those are the parts of the world they will go to be sold in, there and Africa and Latin America and South America for the crime syndicates.

The global arms trade is totally lawless, one of John Le Carre's greatest post-cold war intrigue novel's The Night Manager, is all about it, probably next to illegal and legal drugs or human trafficking this is one of the big, big horror trades if anyone wants to look at it.

I'm sure states have a hand in it but there's enough of it is private that all they need is complicity or corruption on the part of states.

 

[Virtual ghost]

That's an interesting point but there are a lot of explanations for that, the movies Lord of War and War Dogs both would indicate that there's no shortage of ammunition for sale after the cold war and those are the parts of the world they will go to be sold in, there and Africa and Latin America and South America for the crime syndicates.

The global arms trade is totally lawless, one of John Le Carre's greatest post-cold war intrigue novel's The Night Manager, is all about it, probably next to illegal and legal drugs or human trafficking this is one of the big, big horror trades if anyone wants to look at it.

I'm sure states have a hand in it but there's enough of it is private that all they need is complicity or corruption on the part of states.

Of course this isn't black and white issue. But it is hard to believe that Russia and their allies have just nothing to do with all of this. Over the years I even posted a number of articles about this.


Take a look at the map.
Does Afghanistan borders on a single blue country? No.
Therefore even with the lawless trade those guns simply need to get over/through those countries year after year.

For those that don't know geography: Afghanistan is the blue-green chunk of land in Central Asia. Therefore on the north there are ex-USSR countries and Russia. To the west is Iran. To the south is Pakistan. To the East is mainland China. And that is the main reason why this war is "unwinnable and endless". It is just too deep into fundamentally hostile zone. In the case that the neighbors wanted rebels crushed they would have been crushed long time ago.



There are plenty of political problems that are coming simply from the fact that most people don't know geography. However once you put it nicely into the open the problem(s) become kinda obvious.

 

[The Cat]

Duh...?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The global arms trade is totally lawless, one of John Le Carre's greatest post-cold war intrigue novel's The Night Manager, is all about it, probably next to illegal and legal drugs or human trafficking this is one of the big, big horror trades if anyone wants to look at it.

I'm sure states have a hand in it but there's enough of it is private that all they need is complicity or corruption on the part of states.

Well in that book by Le Carre, the government of the U.K definitely has a hand in it. There's a subplot about different factions within the intelligence community revolving around that fact. I haven't finished it yet (I have a very weird way of reading books where I am partway through multiple books at any one time), but I doubt we get a total feel-good ending.

 

[Maou]

How is this new or a surprise?

 

[Jonny]

How is this new or a surprise?

I'm going to answer this question with an example tailored to your political ideology.

Imagine if Fox News reported that the Biden administration had credible intelligence (witnesses, documents, maybe video, etc.) that Bill Clinton raped underage girls on Epstein's island. The Biden administration found out maybe a few months or a year before the Fox News report, and it was likely that Biden knew, though he denied ever being briefed on it. During the time before the Fox News report but after the intelligence was allegedly known, Biden had multiple calls/interactions with Bill Clinton and was publicly advocating for the former POTUS to be a part of his current administration.

The report comes out, and people simply shrug and say "How is this new or a surprise?" Biden himself stays silent on it, maybe even says something like "I've talked with Bill and he denies it. I believe him."

 

[Maou]

I'm going to answer this question with an example tailored to your political ideology.

Imagine if Fox News reported that the Biden administration had credible intelligence (witnesses, documents, maybe video, etc.) that Bill Clinton raped underage girls on Epstein's island. The Biden administration found out maybe a few months or a year before the Fox News report, and it was likely that Biden knew, though he denied ever being briefed on it. During the time before the Fox News report but after the intelligence was allegedly known, Biden had multiple calls/interactions with Bill Clinton and was publicly advocating for the former POTUS to be a part of his current administration.

The report comes out, and people simply shrug and say "How is this new or a surprise?" Biden himself stays silent on it, maybe even says something like "I've talked with Bill and he denies it. I believe him."

Dunno, I don't watch Fox news. I am just saying that America has enemies, and by extention would want to kill us no? Also, your analogy fails because thats internal, and this is external.

 

[Jonny]

Dunno, I don't watch Fox news. I am just saying that America has enemies, and by extention would want to kill us no? Also, your analogy fails because thats internal, and this is external.

You asked a question and I tried to provide you with an answer. I'm sorry it was hard for you to understand. Should I have picked Alex Jones or OAN instead of Fox? Does 4chan have a news network?

The point is, there is a difference between something being suspected or expected, and it being confirmed. It makes a difference.

Just curious, why does your seemingly arbitrary distinction between internal and external matter? To me, it seems like you're just pulling something out of your ass to self-soothe.

 

[Maou]

You asked a question and I tried to provide you with an answer. I'm sorry it was hard for you to understand. Should I have picked Alex Jones or OAN instead of Fox? Does 4chan have a news network?

The point is, there is a difference between something being suspected or expected, and it being confirmed. It makes a difference.

Just curious, why does your seemingly arbitrary distinction between internal and external matter? To me, it seems like you're just pulling something out of your ass to self-soothe.

I asked if it was new and a surprise. An answer would have been yes or no. Yet you chose to go off on a tangent to not only antagonized me through your incorrct perception of where I get my news, but also attack my intelligence at the same time. Anyone else would have elaborated on the importance in making a distinction between suspected and confirmed politely and left it at that. Not attack me with underhanded tactics to make me look bad intentionally. But hey, I am sure you got a lot of brownie points for that from your allies here. Gotta be nice to always have validation. You sure showed me!

Also, it being internal vs external has a huge impact on the danger that could possibly be enacted. Big difference between Conservatives threatening to gun down Liberals in the streets, and offering bounties. Than ISIS threatening it. Because you know, the army exists and can easily unite against the threat. But internally, you just got the police and national guard, that would be scattered across the USA and loyalties would also be in disarray.. Things can get out of hand far quicker internally, simply due to just numbers. I am sorry it is hard for you to understand this distinction.

 

[Jonny]

I asked if it was new and a surprise. An answer would have been yes or no. Yet you chose to go off on a tangent to not only antagonized me through your incorrct perception of where I get my news, but also attack my intelligence at the same time. Anyone else would have elaborated on the importance in making a distinction between suspected and confirmed politely and left it at that. Not attack me with underhanded tactics to make me look bad intentionally. But hey, I am sure you got a lot of brownie points for that from your allies here. Gotta be nice to always have validation. You sure showed me!


Also, it being internal vs external has a huge impact on the danger that could possibly be enacted. Big difference between Conservatives threatening to gun down Liberals in the streets, and offering bounties. Than ISIS threatening it. Because you know, the army exists and can easily unite against the threat. But internally, you just got the police and national guard, that would be scattered across the USA and loyalties would also be in disarray.. Things can get out of hand far quicker internally, simply due to just numbers. I am sorry it is hard for you to understand this distinction.

My straightforward answer to your original question is, yes to both. This is new and it is a surprise, just as it would be if evidence surfaced that Clinton raped girls on Epstein's island. The fact that something is suspected doesn't negate that.

I'm sorry, you're right I was rude in my follow up to you. From my perspective, I was trying to reach out and answer your question through analogy, and it is frustrating to try to bridge the divide only to have it rejected. I think you do act in good faith and I can appreciate that, but I truly don't understand your perspective, and to be honest view it as ignorant and a threat to our society.

I acknowledge I could be wrong in my assessment of you, and I realize how even stating what I feel on the inside can be perceived as arrogant or rude or whatever. But I can't spontaneously change how I feel. I do try to engage with you sometimes to understand your perspective. And as I've said before, when I reached out to you about weight loss I was genuinely trying to get to know you better so I could change this distorted and negative view I hold of you. I don't like holding negative opinions of people.

George Carlin quipped that inside every cynical person is a disappointed idealist, and I can really relate to that. I want there to be understanding between us--both you and me personally, and the left and the right more generally. What we're all going through right now sucks, and we just can seem to understand each other. I thought my analogy would help you understand my perspective, and it was disappointing that it didn't. In part it felt like a failure on my part, as well.

 

[Maou]

My straightforward answer to your original question is, yes to both. This is new and it is a surprise, just as it would be if evidence surfaced that Clinton raped girls on Epstein's island. The fact that something is suspected doesn't negate that.

I am a straight forward person, and I generally have a philisophical approach to politics. While you can label me whatever you want, I don't really belong to any one political group. My opinions are based almost entirely on my own observations. While I admit I don't do enough research, I think my observations of people's behavior are more than enough to tell if I trust something. Regardless of words said, no good built on deciet will ever last.

I think people's world view is largely defined by two things. Evidence, and speculation. I lean more into speculation, because I see a lot of moving parts in society. Just like you cannot understand a person's history with a single court case. You cannot understand politics with a single incident. I believe a lot of truth is stuck in speculation due to corruption. Things happen to fast, to wait for evidence.

I'm sorry, you're right I was rude in my follow up to you. From my perspective, I was trying to reach out and answer your question through analogy, and it is frustrating to try to bridge the divide only to have it rejected. I think you do act in good faith and I can appreciate that, but I truly don't understand your perspective, and to be honest view it as ignorant and a threat to our society.

If you want to use analogies, don't use negative stereotypes. Otherwise you come off like Justin Trudeau in his trips to foreign countries. Yes, bridging the divide is difficult now because people are polarized and forget everyone is human, and intelligent. In reality, the divide isn't even real in the sense of empathy and understanding. Most people actually want the same things. It is just the method in which to do so that becomes the problem. In that case, I feel it is defined by idealism vs realism. The Left having more faith in the goodness of people, and the Right having faith on what has worked in the past. In my opinion, the Right has less room for error as well as change, because human behavior is somewhat predictable and follow patterns. History, also supports traditionalism as the reason societies persist for longer periods of time. When liberalism is on the rise, it usually signified the fall of a society. I've resigned myself to believing that this will forever be the case. While I am not a traditionalist, I do believe humans follow a specific behavioral pattern in society. I believe it is every person's duty to resist instinct and become non-materialistic. As doing so is what seperated us from the animals to begin with. It is why society collapses with the embrace of hedonism and egotism.

I acknowledge I could be wrong in my assessment of you, and I realize how even stating what I feel on the inside can be perceived as arrogant or rude or whatever. But I can't spontaneously change how I feel. I do try to engage with you sometimes to understand your perspective. And as I've said before, when I reached out to you about weight loss I was genuinely trying to get to know you better so I could change this distorted and negative view I hold of you. I don't like holding negative opinions of people.

Politics is indeed a terrible place to get to know someone, as I think I said before. I am also hard to get to know because I am rather avoidant and fleeting. I am also bad at explaining and communicating. Because I only learned how to do so in the last 8 years. So part of this is on me. You can fairly say I am socially inept. One day I'll master the art of conversation, and kick your proverbial argument in the butt. That is if 2020 really isn't the apocalypse though.

George Carlin quipped that inside every cynical person is a disappointed idealist, and I can really relate to that. I want there to be understanding between us--both you and me personally, and the left and the right more generally. What we're all going through right now sucks, and we just can seem to understand each other. I thought my analogy would help you understand my perspective, and it was disappointing that it didn't. In part it felt like a failure on my part, as well.

I think that quote is pretty accurate to be honest. I also want people to understand each other more. The dismissal with buzzwords is a real problem I feel, on both sides. People often tout them, without explaining why. Or redefining words to suit their needs. That is why I think conversations without links, and arguing with your own words is important.

Sorry for taking so long and if I missed anything, I am at work.

 

[???]

I'm going to answer this question with an example tailored to your political ideology.

Imagine if Fox News reported that the Biden administration had credible intelligence (witnesses, documents, maybe video, etc.) that Bill Clinton raped underage girls on Epstein's island. The Biden administration found out maybe a few months or a year before the Fox News report, and it was likely that Biden knew, though he denied ever being briefed on it. During the time before the Fox News report but after the intelligence was allegedly known, Biden had multiple calls/interactions with Bill Clinton and was publicly advocating for the former POTUS to be a part of his current administration.

The report comes out, and people simply shrug and say "How is this new or a surprise?" Biden himself stays silent on it, maybe even says something like "I've talked with Bill and he denies it. I believe him."

Yeah, except the credible evidence even gets obfuscated into oblivion by the mass propaganda media; so it doesn't even seem to matter what's true or credible anymore, just what propaganda each side presents. That's what everyone focuses on anyway.

 

[ceecee]

Yeah, except the credible evidence even gets obfuscated into oblivion by the mass propaganda media; so it doesn't even seem to matter what's true or credible anymore, just what propaganda each side presents. That's what everyone focuses on anyway.

I don't consider The Military Times to be some bastion of mass propaganda media but yanno, you do you.

Russian bounties on American troops further strain Trump’s bond with veterans

This story is also supported by data on financial transfers. I mean not being able or apparently willing to distinguish actual investigative reporting (not CNN lol) from Tucker Carlson style opinion vomit but it just makes you look unwilling to do your homework. And you don't have to focus on it, you can find independent reporting.