4 ms·

You may want to actually read the article. Pretty much everybody, from the Taliban, to Russians, to DoD and American intelligence, dismisses the story. The cho

You may want to actually read the article. Pretty much everybody, from the Taliban, to Russians, to DoD and American intelligence, dismisses the story. The choice lines from YOUR source: - "On July 9, 2020, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said that Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie Jr. and DOD intelligence agencies have not found a link between alleged Russian bounties and that specific attack." - "On September 14, 2020, Gen. McKenzie stated, "It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," reflecting a growing consensus among the U.S. military leaders that the anonymous sources initially presented in the media were either exaggerated or false." Give me a break. If there was even an inkling that this story was true, it would be front-page news from now until election day.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
joshuamorton 6y ago
> Give me a break. If there was even an inkling that this story was true, it would be front-page news from now until election day. Clearly not. Circular arguments aren't a good look.
acoard 6y ago
This also seems relevant: >According to the New York Times, on 1 July, the National Intelligence Council, which reports to the director of national intelligence, John Ratcliffe, produced a two-and-a-half page document in which various intelligence agencies assessed the credibility of the existence of a bounty program based on the available evidence. Anonymous officials who had seen the memo said that the "C.I.A. and the National Counterterrorism Center had assessed with medium confidence—meaning credibly sourced and plausible, but falling short of near certainty"—that the GRU had offered bounties. It takes evidence to get to a medium confidence assessment, it is not purely "speculative bullshit."
- macspoofing 6y ago
  Very good cherry picking. Right in your paragraph it says the standard for 'medium confidence' is that it is 'plausible'. That's the best you could do? Notice, the claim put out by the NY Times was much much stronger. It actually linked a SPECIFIC American soldier death, to a GRU bounty. Where is the evidence for that?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

joshuamorton 6y ago

> Give me a break. If there was even an inkling that this story was true, it would be front-page news from now until election day. Clearly not. Circular arguments aren't a good look.

acoard 6y ago

This also seems relevant: >According to the New York Times, on 1 July, the National Intelligence Council, which reports to the director of national intelligence, John Ratcliffe, produced a two-and-a-half page document in which various intelligence agencies assessed the credibility of the existence of a bounty program based on the available evidence. Anonymous officials who had seen the memo said that the "C.I.A. and the National Counterterrorism Center had assessed with medium confidence—meaning credibly sourced and plausible, but falling short of near certainty"—that the GRU had offered bounties. It takes evidence to get to a medium confidence assessment, it is not purely "speculative bullshit."

macspoofing 6y ago
Very good cherry picking. Right in your paragraph it says the standard for 'medium confidence' is that it is 'plausible'. That's the best you could do? Notice, the claim put out by the NY Times was much much stronger. It actually linked a SPECIFIC American soldier death, to a GRU bounty. Where is the evidence for that?