|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jul 4, 2020 14:13:09 GMT
First, Russians paying bounties is possible, plausible, and believable. Credibility is lacking due to the lack of actual evidence, just the same vague rumors without details. Agreed. I'd even go so far as to say it's believable. He's done a lot of (as you mention next) "letting the enemy save face" actions. So publically pretending this isn't going on while conducting actions to stop it and punish Putin is cleanly on the table for me. Agreed with my minor addition. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jul 4, 2020 14:15:05 GMT
I'm more interested in who recently torched the centrifuge facility at Natanz since it likely set back Iran's ability to make more nuclear weapons by at least a year. My money is on the Mossad never taking official credit for it.  |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jul 4, 2020 15:05:45 GMT
It makes it even more possible and plausible when Russia is concerned. Trump will not go against Putin and has proven his willingness to let Putin slide on many different things.
Here's another article. Again, mostly opinions, but it does offer some insights on the entire mess:
It's an opinion piece, but still offers some insights into why Russia would offer bounties.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Jul 4, 2020 18:53:48 GMT
Depends on which part of the story you're discussing. Remember, the whole story is that the Russians are paying bounties for dead US GIs, Trump knew about it since March, and he's done nothing. First, Russians paying bounties is possible, plausible, and believable. Credibility is lacking due to the lack of actual evidence, just the same vague rumors without details. Second, Trump knowing about it is possible, plausible, and maybe believable, but not credible. There's too many people actually interested in protecting the US that have absolutely stated Trump wasn't briefed. So, either Trump wasn't briefed, or Trump is a master manipulator that has managed to get so many people to lie right before an election that it strains plausibility that he'd be caught out by the news media. Finally, Trump not doing anything is possible, but not very plausible. For starters, Trump has been quite hard on Russia. What he publicly says is very different from what actions his administration takes -- Trump's foreign policy is weird. He says nice things about terrible people, seemingly in an attempt to let them change and save face. However, his administration is quite direct in leveling sanctions and other actions against Russia and other states. Recall that despite his friendly statements about Kim Jong Un, Trump ratcheted down the sanctions on North Korea to the tightest they ever were and extracted actual concessions from NK and still more heavy sanctions in place against NK than Obama ever did. Same with Russia -- there's no relaxing of sanctions against Russia in the record. Here's what the Brookings Institute found when looking at concrete actions towards Russia. The Brookings Institute has been evaluated by Media Bias as center-left.So, no, it's not very believable that credible intelligence was briefed to Trump in March about Russia bounties on US GIs and nothing was done. That's the kind of thing Trump jumps on with both feet. It's only the persistent fever dream that Trump is a Russian lackey -- disproved by all available evidence -- that lets this even get started. It's pure stupid on the part of consumers. I seriously doubt Trump wouldn't be briefed if the intel sources were credible. That it might be in the national security advisor's own separate briefing as "here's some unsub stuff we're trying to validate" is entirely possible. Either way, you're right that this is something Trump would jump on if deemed credible. For all we know, he actually *was* briefed and is denying it because of OPSEC *because* its still being dealt with. I'll be pleasantly surprised if, in the future, he touts the destruction of some sites somewhere in the region since that's Trump only main flaw - he likes to brag about successes. I'm more interested in who recently torched the centrifuge facility at Natanz since it likely set back Iran's ability to make more nuclear weapons by at least a year. OPSEC and Trump don't really go together. Trump isn't interested in quietly doing anything, so any plan approved by him will not be quiet, thus not requiring complete silence as a part of the OPSEC. Trump will approve things that allow him to brag, where keeping details secret is part of OPSEC, but there's very, very little likelihood that Trump would have something in the works since March and not have it become public, especially as his numbers tumble due to CV19. This is one of my main complaints about Trump, actually -- while I think he does think he's helping, it's always in ways that let him brag. |
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Jul 4, 2020 18:58:19 GMT
It makes it even more possible and plausible when Russia is concerned. Trump will not go against Putin and has proven his willingness to let Putin slide on many different things.
Here's another article. Again, mostly opinions, but it does offer some insights on the entire mess: It's an opinion piece, but still offers some insights into why Russia would offer bounties. I see someone's unable to read the links I provided that show Trump's been very active sanctioning Russia for lots of things the last 3 years. I even got a left-center source, and linked to the Media Bias ranking. I guess it's easier to be an idiot and lie than actually learn things that don't support the dream. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jul 4, 2020 19:28:01 GMT
Your list doesn't include the context of the imposed sanctions, just the bare facts. So, on the surface, it looks good, but under the surface, it gets murky quick.
Trump lifts sanctions
Trump - Russia ties
Mostly, I'm leaning towards it's plausible and believable that Russia used the Taliban to kill American soldiers. Trump knew about it, but did nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Jul 4, 2020 22:17:00 GMT
Your list doesn't include the context of the imposed sanctions, just the bare facts. So, on the surface, it looks good, but under the surface, it gets murky quick.
Trump lifts sanctions Trump - Russia ties Pretty much every single thing your first article complains about from back in 2018 was addressed and sanctioned later by the administration. This isn't rocket science, and pulling an article from 2 years ago complaining about things that Trump went on to do -- like sanction the cyber attacks, and indict Russian over cyber attacks (not just the ones Mueller recommended, either) happened pretty quickly after that article. I mean, the article starts off listing the very strong and serious sanctions and actions Trump took, but then says 'But some say that's not enough' before finding any nit to pick. Obama pleaded with Putin to lay off until after the election so he could treat better, but it's Trump that hasn't done everything so he must be a Russian stooge. Honestly, can you even hear yourself? Your second article is from 2017 and has been conclusively shown to be bunk by Mueller, who couldn't find any evidence of collusion despite turning over every stone. heh, didn't mean to do that one, but, yeah, I'm keeping it. Yes, I know that you're taking it on faith, without evidence, that Trump is satan. It's religious, not reason. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jul 4, 2020 23:06:38 GMT
Well, he didn't burst into flames when he stepped on church grounds or when he held the bible upside down. So that rules that out. His other actions and words do paint him as a terrible person, a horrible leader and at least a Putin fan, if not a collaborator. So in that light, it's easy to believe him capable of not doing a damned thing about even investigating if it was true that Russia paid the Taliban to kill American soldiers.
Dunno if it's true or not, but in my mind, it's believable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Jul 4, 2020 23:47:48 GMT
Well, he didn't burst into flames when he stepped on church grounds or when he held the bible upside down. So that rules that out. His other actions and words do paint him as a terrible person, a horrible leader and at least a Putin fan, if not a collaborator. So in that light, it's easy to believe him capable of not doing a damned thing about even investigating if it was true that Russia paid the Taliban to kill American soldiers. Dunno if it's true or not, but in my mind, it's believable.
They don't, you just have been told to believe that, and you're a good little idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jul 5, 2020 0:48:03 GMT
Verses you, who automatically believes Trump, Putin and the Taliban. You might think I'm stupid, but I'm not as gullible as you seem to be. Just because they claim it's fake news and a hoax, doesn't make it so. In fact, given who we're talking about, it makes it even more believable and it should be investigated thoroughly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Jul 5, 2020 2:04:12 GMT
Verses you, who automatically believes Trump, Putin and the Taliban. You might think I'm stupid, but I'm not as gullible as you seem to be. Just because they claim it's fake news and a hoax, doesn't make it so. In fact, given who we're talking about, it makes it even more believable and it should be investigated thoroughly.
I don't automatically believe Trump, or Putin, or the Taliban. I believe that every leader in the Trump administration has denied that Trump was even briefed, and all have said that the intelligence could not be confirmed. I don't care what Putin says, and I certainly don't care what the Taliban says. You having zero evidence for your religious belief doesn't mean that my disagreement means I similarly have an opposing religious belief. That your world is so simple -- your side and everyone else an enemy -- is both par for your idiot course and terribly sad. I mean, here's a case where you don't have to think Trump is good, or did a good thing, or is right, you just have to not believe the lies you're being told. You can be in a place where you don't agree, at all, with Trump and simultaneously aren't an idiot taking clear denials of US officials at face value. Instead, you just take as gospel anything against Trump and dismiss anything that cuts against that. Up to an including where you accuse anyone not as stupid as you of being a true believer in Trump. You're just a gibbering idiot, which isn't a cool D&D monster. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jul 5, 2020 12:22:09 GMT
Ovi, you're the one accusing me of being stupid for not believing Trump and company are telling the truth. I am not saying that the entire thing is true or false, only that the scenario is very believable. Which it is. Whenever I don't agree with you, you call me stupid or an idiot, regardless of my reasons for not agreeing with you. Then you cry and stomp your feet when I tell you I'm not being stupid and how dare I for calling you gullible.
You can't stand it when I turn your insults around on you and you can't stand it when I disagree with you. You're not being mature.
Oh and again, here's another article that bolsters the notion that Trump and company are lying through their teeth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Jul 5, 2020 15:30:50 GMT
Ovi, you're the one accusing me of being stupid for not believing Trump and company are telling the truth. I am not saying that the entire thing is true or false, only that the scenario is very believable. Which it is. Whenever I don't agree with you, you call me stupid or an idiot, regardless of my reasons for not agreeing with you. Then you cry and stomp your feet when I tell you I'm not being stupid and how dare I for calling you gullible.
You can't stand it when I turn your insults around on you and you can't stand it when I disagree with you. You're not being mature. Oh and again, here's another article that bolsters the notion that Trump and company are lying through their teeth. Now you're lying about what you've been saying, from "I believe it" to "it's believable." These aren't the same thing, at all. And, you've clearly said you believe it. The fact that you think you've got the better end of this is quite funny. I'm trying to respond to your whirling cavalcade of claims by providing evidence and reasoning, but you think it's me stomping my feet because you've successfully turned the insult tables on me. It's not that, it's me trying to actually reach you and get you to do some thinking of your own rather than stuff the dick of anyone willing to say a bad thing about Trump down your throat and say how tasty it is. Trump's a blowhard. I don't believe that he knew about this because he's incapable of being quiet about it. If he knew, he'd be all over it. If he were a Russian stooge, he'd still be all over it, just in the other direction. The one thing he would not be is quiet, and that's the very thing you're saying is the evidence he knew. That's the strongest evidence he didn't. You hate the man so much that whatever is said bad about him must be true, even if it's inherently contradictory. Trump manages to spin the media so well not because he's a master manipulator, but because the media is willing to bite on anything and they burn themselves. All he has to do is do him and then call it out when they score own-goals. The sad thing is that you're a die-hard fan and you keep buying that the only reason your team isn't winning is because Trump. You don't evaluate the own-goals as anything other than nefarious manipulation by the Trump, and then turn around and buy that you're going to win the next match because Trump's an idiot Russian stooge. You don't bother to reconcile these opposed things because it's not a reasoned or rational position, it's a religious cult. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jul 5, 2020 15:54:10 GMT
Trump is Putin's useful idiot. It doesn't take much to manipulate him. Not only that, he has a shit-ton of ties to Russia, which makes it even easier for Russia to manipulate him.
I have been saying it's believable from the outset. I have not said it's true or not. Only that it's believable.
I am not a die hard fan of anything. I absolutely hate Trump, that's true enough though. The man makes my skin crawl.
The fact that you keep defending Trump kinda points you to being a die-hard fan of his. Nice try at projecting though. Doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jul 5, 2020 16:22:41 GMT
It makes it even more possible and plausible when Russia is concerned. Trump will not go against Putin and has proven his willingness to let Putin slide on many different things.
Here's another article. Again, mostly opinions, but it does offer some insights on the entire mess:
It's an opinion piece, but still offers some insights into why Russia would offer bounties.
Again, you're going by words. Trumps actions have been to sanction Russia strongly, just like he did with North Korea. You can't go by Trump's words on anything. You have to go by his actions to see what he is really about. |
|
