Thread: Russia offered cash for British and American soldiers to be killed in Afghanistan

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

As both the Soviets and seppos have proved, it's impossible to weed all these little bastards out of their holes in the ground, and as soon as your back is turned they are back up to their old tricks.

After all, it's their country, isn't it?

(wondering how any other country would fare having invaders, robbers, in their country for centuries...)

Originally Posted by hallelujah

RT?



I must confess that when I posted the original, I was really looking forward to you come running with your Pravda links.

You're so funny and you don't even realise it.

Everybody is free to read what he believes is true (Pravda in Rissian language) and what are lies. Mostly the lies are easily to recognize that's like we recognize what is 1+1 = 3...

The New York Times controversies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The New York Times has been the subject of criticism from a variety of sources. Criticism aimed at the newspaper has been in response to individual controversial reporters, as well as alleged liberal political bias.[1]

The New York Times used to have a public editor who acted as an ombudsman and "investigates matters of journalistic integrity".[2] The sixth and last Times public editor was Liz Spayd, who contributed her last piece in June 2017.[3]


Contents
1 A Test of the News on the Russian Revolution 1917-1920
2 Los Alamos investigation
3 1619 Project
4 Anthrax attacks
5 Jayson Blair affair
6 Judith Miller
6.1 Second Iraq War
6.2 Valerie Plame affair
7 CampusJ
8 National Security Agency revelations delayed
9 Terrorist Finance Tracking Program
10 Iran
11 MoveOn.org ad controversy
12 Corporate-influence concerns
13 Duke University lacrosse case reporting
14 John McCain-lobbyist article criticism
15 Alessandra Stanley errors
16 Story about fathers
17 China
18 India
19 Yorkshire
20 Publishing leaked photos from the Manchester bombing
21 Abu Huzaifa al-Kanadi
22 Accusation of homophobia
23 Hiring of Sarah Jeong
24 Accusation of anti-Chinese bias
25 Anti-Semitic cartoons
26 Anti-Semitic political editor
27 See also
28 References
29 External links

Read more
The New York Times controversies - Wikipedia

Common boggiemen within the imperial packs.

Imagine that.

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Everybody is free to read what he believes is true (Pravda in Rissian language) and what are lies. Mostly the lies are easily to recognize that's like we recognize what is 1+1 = 3...

The New York Times controversies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The New York Times has been the subject of criticism from a variety of sources. Criticism aimed at the newspaper has been in response to individual controversial reporters, as well as alleged liberal political bias.[1]

The New York Times used to have a public editor who acted as an ombudsman and "investigates matters of journalistic integrity".[2] The sixth and last Times public editor was Liz Spayd, who contributed her last piece in June 2017.[3]


Contents
1 A Test of the News on the Russian Revolution 1917-1920
2 Los Alamos investigation
3 1619 Project
4 Anthrax attacks
5 Jayson Blair affair
6 Judith Miller
6.1 Second Iraq War
6.2 Valerie Plame affair
7 CampusJ
8 National Security Agency revelations delayed
9 Terrorist Finance Tracking Program
10 Iran
11 MoveOn.org ad controversy
12 Corporate-influence concerns
13 Duke University lacrosse case reporting
14 John McCain-lobbyist article criticism
15 Alessandra Stanley errors
16 Story about fathers
17 China
18 India
19 Yorkshire
20 Publishing leaked photos from the Manchester bombing
21 Abu Huzaifa al-Kanadi
22 Accusation of homophobia
23 Hiring of Sarah Jeong
24 Accusation of anti-Chinese bias
25 Anti-Semitic cartoons
26 Anti-Semitic political editor
27 See also
28 References
29 External links

Read more
The New York Times controversies - Wikipedia

Ok, Vlad.

It's almost as though The Great Game is still ongoing....

Originally Posted by hallelujah

RT?



I must confess that when I posted the original, I was really looking forward to you come running with your Pravda links.

You're so funny and you don't even realise it.

Not just RT but an RT OP-ED!

Op-Eds don’t belong in the NEWS, (no name mentioned here.)

Gulf War: Truth or propaganda?

The Story

It is a story that's both shocking and horrific. It is also a lie, a propaganda piece meant to rally the masses. In this clip, CBC Radio dissects the multi-layered public relations disaster. The story, that had been told by a young woman named "Nayirah" to the U.S. Congress in the fall of 1990, was that she had witnessed Iraqi troops storming a Kuwait hospital, ripping babies out of incubators and leaving them to die on the cold floor. It has since been revealed that Nayirah is in fact the daughter of the American ambassador to Kuwait. Her heartfelt story, told through tears, had been a fabrication developed by a public relations firm in order to build support for the war. Alexander Cockburn, a columnist for The Nation, explains how the story was exposed as a lie.

Did You Know?
Nayirah's story was developed by the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton. Hired by a group named Citizens for a Free Kuwait, the company was paid $11.5 million to boost support for the American intervention in the Iraq occupation of Kuwait.

Investigators later found that some premature babied did die in the tumultuous war environment, but none were pulled from their incubators.
CBC Archives


Nayirah testimony
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nayirah al-Ṣabaḥ during her testimony. It was later revealed that she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States and that her testimony could not be verified.

The Nayirah testimony was a false testimony given before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a 15-year-old girl who provided only her first name, Nayirah. The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and President George H. W. Bush in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيرة الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign, which was run by the American public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern atrocity propaganda.[1][2]

Nayirah testimony - Wikipedia

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Gulf War: Truth or propaganda?

The Story

It is a story that's both shocking and horrific. It is also a lie, a propaganda piece meant to rally the masses. In this clip, CBC Radio dissects the multi-layered public relations disaster. The story, that had been told by a young woman named "Nayirah" to the U.S. Congress in the fall of 1990, was that she had witnessed Iraqi troops storming a Kuwait hospital, ripping babies out of incubators and leaving them to die on the cold floor. It has since been revealed that Nayirah is in fact the daughter of the American ambassador to Kuwait. Her heartfelt story, told through tears, had been a fabrication developed by a public relations firm in order to build support for the war. Alexander Cockburn, a columnist for The Nation, explains how the story was exposed as a lie.

Did You Know?
Nayirah's story was developed by the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton. Hired by a group named Citizens for a Free Kuwait, the company was paid $11.5 million to boost support for the American intervention in the Iraq occupation of Kuwait.

Investigators later found that some premature babied did die in the tumultuous war environment, but none were pulled from their incubators.
CBC Archives


Nayirah testimony
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Nayirah testimony - Wikipedia

Waffle, deny, obfuscate. Waffle, deny, obfuscate. Waffle, deny, obfuscate.



You toe the party line very well, Vlad. Your communist forefathers would be very proud of you.

Originally Posted by misskit

Not just RT but an RT OP-ED!

Op-Eds don’t belong in the NEWS, (no name mentioned here.)

He's hilarious.

Originally Posted by misskit

Not just RT but an RT OP-ED!

Op-Eds don’t belong in the NEWS, (no name mentioned here.)

cough cough VOA,RFA

does anyone know of any good books by russian soldiers about their afgan campaign ?

Originally Posted by baldrick

does anyone know of any good books by russian soldiers about their afgan campaign ?

I don't know Balrick, but there's this, I just started watching it, seems good.

The US said it was withdrawing from ghan, finally. Still waiting. Another lie? Another nam debacle in the making?

If the orange afterbirth pulls out before the election he'll look weak to his inbred base

Originally Posted by baldrick

does anyone know of any good books by russian soldiers about their afgan campaign ?

Not by a Russian but by a Polish(-American) Zbigniew Brzezinski: The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives.

When asked if he regretted supporting Islamist groups in their fight against the Soviet Union, Brzezinski replied, "What was more important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of central Europe and the end of the Cold war?"[52] Brzezinski argued that U.S. aid was "quite important in hastening the end of the conflict, not in deciding the conflict," as "in my view, the Afghans would have prevailed in the end anyway, 'cause they had access to money, they had access to weapons, and they had the will to fight." He further noted: "The Soviet Union at the time was actively engaged in helping international terrorism, including those elements of the PLO that were very active ... So it was a good thing that the Soviets were bogged down in Afghanistan."

I think HooHoo and his little puppy would love to live under a repressive dictatorship.

I don't know why they don't emigrate to Russia or China and stop whining about how good they are.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I don't know why they don't emigrate to Russia or China and stop whining about how good they are.

A usual comment of somebody who does not have an argument to the facts...

Brzezinski argued that U.S. aid was "quite important..."

Perhaps I had missed an outrage of NYT - and of the whole "international community" about the "U.S. aid" to Taliban (mujahideens) fighting the sovereign Afghan govt helped by Soviets...


Similarly I had missed an outrage about the "U.S. aid" to "resistance fighters" fighting the sovereign Syrian govt ...

(to name just few "U.S. aids"...)

What was the name for such "standard"?

Originally Posted by Klondyke

What was the name for such "standard"?

They weren't direct payments for kills . . . the difference between Russia and the US. Russians aren't known for their refinement.




. . . but then there's Trump.

Hmmmm

What's this scurrilous attack on ageism,Vlad will be only 83 at the end of his term.
#old lives matter
#old billionaires matter more.

Originally Posted by Klondyke

What was the name for such "standard"?

Double...

Trump denies briefing about reported bounties on US troops



WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has denied he was made aware of U.S. intelligence officials’ conclusions Russia secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing American troops in Afghanistan. The Trump administration was set to brief select members of Congress on the matter Monday.


The intelligence assessments came amid Trump’s push to withdraw the U.S. from Afghanistan and suggested Russia was making overtures to militants as the U.S. and the Taliban held talks to end the long-running war. The assessment was first reported by The New York Times, then confirmed to The Associated Press by American intelligence officials and two others with knowledge of the matter.


While Russian meddling in Afghanistan isn’t a new phenomenon for seasoned U.S. intelligence officials and military commandos, officials said Russian operatives became more aggressive in their desire to contract with the Taliban and members of the Haqqani Network, a militant group aligned with the Taliban in Afghanistan and designated a foreign terrorist organization in 2012. Russian operatives are said to have met with Taliban leaders in Doha, Qatar, and Afghanistan; however, it’s unknown if the meetings were to discuss bounties.


The officials the AP spoke to said the intelligence community has been investigating an April 2019 attack on an American convoy that killed three U.S. Marines after a car rigged with explosives detonated near their armored vehicles as they traveled back to Bagram Airfield, the largest U.S. military installation in Afghanistan.


Three other U.S. service members were wounded in the attack, along with an Afghan contractor. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack on Twitter. The officials the AP spoke to also said they were looking closely at insider attacks — sometimes called “green-on-blue” incidents — from 2019 to determine if they are also linked to Russian bounties.


In early 2020, members of the elite Naval Special Warfare Development Group, known to the public as SEAL Team Six, raided a Taliban outpost and recovered roughly $500,000. The recovered funds further solidified the suspicions of the American intelligence community that the Russians had offered money to Taliban militants and linked associations.

MORE Trump denies briefing about reported bounties on US troops

Originally Posted by misskit

Trump denies briefing about reported bounties on US troops



WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has denied he was made aware of U.S. intelligence officials’ conclusions Russia secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing American troops in Afghanistan. The Trump administration was set to brief select members of Congress on the matter Monday.


The intelligence assessments came amid Trump’s push to withdraw the U.S. from Afghanistan and suggested Russia was making overtures to militants as the U.S. and the Taliban held talks to end the long-running war. The assessment was first reported by The New York Times, then confirmed to The Associated Press by American intelligence officials and two others with knowledge of the matter.


While Russian meddling in Afghanistan isn’t a new phenomenon for seasoned U.S. intelligence officials and military commandos, officials said Russian operatives became more aggressive in their desire to contract with the Taliban and members of the Haqqani Network, a militant group aligned with the Taliban in Afghanistan and designated a foreign terrorist organization in 2012. Russian operatives are said to have met with Taliban leaders in Doha, Qatar, and Afghanistan; however, it’s unknown if the meetings were to discuss bounties.


The officials the AP spoke to said the intelligence community has been investigating an April 2019 attack on an American convoy that killed three U.S. Marines after a car rigged with explosives detonated near their armored vehicles as they traveled back to Bagram Airfield, the largest U.S. military installation in Afghanistan.


Three other U.S. service members were wounded in the attack, along with an Afghan contractor. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack on Twitter. The officials the AP spoke to also said they were looking closely at insider attacks — sometimes called “green-on-blue” incidents — from 2019 to determine if they are also linked to Russian bounties.


In early 2020, members of the elite Naval Special Warfare Development Group, known to the public as SEAL Team Six, raided a Taliban outpost and recovered roughly $500,000. The recovered funds further solidified the suspicions of the American intelligence community that the Russians had offered money to Taliban militants and linked associations.

MORE Trump denies briefing about reported bounties on US troops

The thing here is if he was briefed or otherwise informed and did/said nothing it's atrocious. The only other option is he wasn't briefed/apprised of the situation, assuming the reports are true, which is equally atrocious.

Complete bunch of unsubstantiated lies, according to this report:

We matched The New York Times’ great reporting on how US intel has assessed that Russians paid Taliban to target US, coalition forces in Afg which is a pretty stunning development,” tweeted Wall Street Journal’s Gordon Lubold.All three of these men are lying.
John Hudson’s claim that the Washington Post article he co-authored “confirmed the New York Times’ scoop” twice uses the words “if confirmed” with regard to his central claim, saying “Russian involvement in operations targeting Americans, if confirmed,” and “The attempt to stoke violence against Americans, if confirmed“. This is of course an acknowledgement that these things have not, in fact, been confirmed.
The Wall Street Journal article co-authored by Gordon Lubold cites only anonymous “people”, who we have no reason to believe are different people than NYT’s sources, repeating the same unsubstantiated assertions about an intelligence report. The article cites no evidence that Lubold’s “stunning development” actually occurred beyond “people familiar with the report said” and “a person familiar with it said“.
The fact that both Hudson and Lubold were lying about having confirmed the New York Times‘ reporting means that Savage was also lying when he said they did. When they say the report has been “confirmed”, what they really mean is that it has been agreed upon. All the three of them actually did was use their profoundly influential outlets to uncritically parrot something nameless spooks want the public to believe, which is the same as just publishing a CIA press release free of charge. It is unprincipled stenography for opaque and unaccountable intelligence agencies, and it is disgusting.

https://www.nexusnewsfeed.com/articl...its-most-vile/