Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Russian Bounty on U.S. military in Afghanistan.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI just did. I said if this was a credible threat then Pelosi et al were just as GUILTY AS TRUMP.
Personally I don't think this was a credible threat. I think it was rumor that they cannot confirm.Last edited by JimL; 07-07-2020, 05:12 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineBoob View PostOk, well you know what the leaks claim. What sources and methods do you think were revealed by the allegedly false leaks?
Originally posted by DivineBoob View PostHow do you think Pelosi / Schumer and their staffs were eliminated as possible sources of the leaks, given that they had (according to you) full access to the intel?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAnd speaking of NAMED sources....
Top general has doubts Russian bounty program killed US troops in Afghanistan
Marine Corps commandant: Bounty claims ‘were news to me’
The top U.S. general in the Middle East said Tuesday he was aware of the intelligence of a Russian bounty program targeting U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but while he said he found it “worrisome,” he said he did not believe it was tied to actual U.S. military deaths on the battlefield.
“I found it very worrisome, I just didn't find that there was a causative link there," Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the commander of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview with a small number of reporters.
‘The intel (intelligence) case wasn't proved to me -- it wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law -- and you know that's often true in battlefield intelligence,” said McKenzie.
“You see a lot of indicators, many of them are troubling many of them you act on. But, but in this case there just there wasn't enough there I sent the intelligence guys back to continue to dig on it, and I believe they're continuing to dig right now, but I just didn't see enough there to tell me that the circuit was closed in that regard.”
He added that force protection levels in Afghanistan are always high “whether the Russians are paying the Taliban or not." McKenzie said the insurgent group has always focused its attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan, though that has ceased under the current U.S. peace agreement with the Taliban.
“Over the past several years, the Taliban have done their level best to carry out operations against us, so nothing is practically changed on the ground in terms of force protection, because we have a very high force protection standard now, and that force protection standard's going to continue into the future,” said McKenzie.
Pretty much what I've been saying all along, and, as JimL would say - he AGREES with me!
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThe fact that Gen. McKenzie was aware of the intel is enough, that it wasn't proven to the level where he would take it to a court of law is irrelevant. He's acknowledging that the intel existed, that he was aware of it and Trump did zilch about it. Did he warn the Russians? Nope. Did he threaten them with further sanctions if the intel was confirmed? Nope. What he did do was to invite them back into the G-7 and removed 10,000 troops from Germany, probably at the request, or demand, of Putin.
He also said he "did not believe it was tied to actual U.S. military deaths on the battlefield". Got that?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostNow THAT's what I call selective reading! The SENIOR MILITARY guy knew the Taliban hated us and wanted to kill us, and states that "the Taliban have done their level best to carry out operations against us, so nothing is practically changed on the ground in terms of force protection, because we have a very high force protection standard now, and that force protection standard's going to continue into the future,” said McKenzie.
He also said he "did not believe it was tied to actual U.S. military deaths on the battlefield". Got that?
Which is consistent with what we've heard from every other source who has put his name on the record.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostHe also said "The intel case wasn't proved to me" and that "there wasn't enough there" to act on.
Which is consistent with what we've heard from every other source who has put his name on the record.
Hey --- channeling Hillary.... "What difference at this point does it make?”The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostHe also said "The intel case wasn't proved to me" and that "there wasn't enough there" to act on.
Which is consistent with what we've heard from every other source who has put his name on the record.
"We should always remember the Russians are not our friends, they are not our friends and they are not our friends in Afghanistan and they do not wish us well," said McKenzie. "And we just need to remember that at all times, when we evaluate that intelligence."
But I guess that's not helpful to your "Let's get them back in G7" cheerleading.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostHe also said
"We should always remember the Russians are not our friends, they are not our friends and they are not our friends in Afghanistan and they do not wish us well," said McKenzie. "And we just need to remember that at all times, when we evaluate that intelligence."
But, hey.... flog on!!!The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYES!!!!! What me and MM (my best buddy in all the world) have been saying all along! It is ZERO surprise that Russia could pay bounties to the Taliban, but the Taliban already HATED us, and wanted (wants) our troops dead!
But, hey.... flog on!!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostI don't know what possesses you to think I will forget that the issue is Trump rewarding Russia after this information was made available to him.
You're making it sound like Trump specifically decided to "REWARD" Putin for the alleged bounties. That's a steaming load of cat poop.
Honestly it's just gross to see you carry on like this.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostNow THAT's what I call selective reading! The SENIOR MILITARY guy knew the Taliban hated us and wanted to kill us, and states that "the Taliban have done their level best to carry out operations against us, so nothing is practically changed on the ground in terms of force protection, because we have a very high force protection standard now, and that force protection standard's going to continue into the future,” said McKenzie.
He also said he "did not believe it was tied to actual U.S. military deaths on the battlefield". Got that?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYou're all over the place on this --- it's just another OrangeManBad rant.
You're making it sound like Trump specifically decided to "REWARD" Putin for the alleged bounties. That's a steaming load of cat poop.
Yeah, about being gross..... you wanna go THERE again?Last edited by DivineOb; 07-07-2020, 06:50 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostEveryone knows the Taliban were out to kill US military, that goes without saying, we were at war,
but this Russian bounty scheme was timed to be carried out during peace negotiations.
"He" the General, does not believe it was tied to actual US military killings.
But "he" does not know that either, and neither does the intelligence with certainty confirm it,....
But, the rest of your post is just OrangeManBad wishful thinking, so... Gosh, golly, I want SO BADLY to blame Trump!!!!The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostNo, that's just what you're pretending
I'm saying (I've already clarified this explicitly in an earlier post so I have to assume you're being intentional). I'm pointing out that after this information was made available to Trump he chose to reward Russia. Simple as that. Failing to avail himself of this information before offering the extremely coveted G7 position is just a scandal of a different sort.
I'm not a pastor, smart guy.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
166 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
401 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
383 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment