Jump to content

Trump shits all over the troops again

JimmyJames

By JimmyJames
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 783
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bama Llama
Bama Llama

My uncle was one of those living skeletons the Marines found in Tokyo.  His carrier based bomber was kamikazied out of the sky off Iwo Jima.  He survived bailing out into the ocean only to be picked u

Aqua Buddha
Aqua Buddha
TexArcher
TexArcher

This creates one of the best examples of irony in modern times. Millions of people have boycotted their favorite sports, literally their favorite pasttimes, because they thought black athletes we

Posted Images

JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23717

Posted
Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 10158

Posted
Posted

“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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46161

Posted
Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 10158

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
totallynotabuttpirate

totallynotabuttpirate 5484

Posted
Posted (edited)
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32074

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23717

Posted
Posted (edited)
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 17407

Posted
Posted
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.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23717

Posted
Posted
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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
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...

 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 17407

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23717

Posted
Posted (edited)
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
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?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23717

Posted
Posted
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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23717

Posted
Posted
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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...