So About This Russian Bounty Thing
-
wrote on 3 Jul 2020, 16:28 last edited by
I agree that this story is not something that needs to be worried about.
-
I agree that this story is not something that needs to be worried about.
wrote on 3 Jul 2020, 16:31 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
I agree that this story is not something that needs to be worried about.
Oh we do. The NYT said it was worrisome and we need to validate this oft quoted source of news that has devolved to op/ed.
-
@taiwan_girl said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
I agree that this story is not something that needs to be worried about.
Oh we do. The NYT said it was worrisome and we need to validate this oft quoted source of news that has devolved to op/ed.
wrote on 3 Jul 2020, 16:39 last edited by@Loki said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
@taiwan_girl said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
I agree that this story is not something that needs to be worried about.
Oh we do. The NYT said it was worrisome and we need to validate this oft quoted source of news that has devolved to op/ed.
Bad op-ed.
-
wrote on 3 Jul 2020, 17:18 last edited by
More like Prop-Ed.
-
Well, well, well....
Reports that a Russian military intelligence unit offered bounties on coalition soldiers in Afghanistan are based partially on old information that surfaced more than a decade ago, international intelligence sources said. The sources include both Western-based analysts and front line personnel on the ground in South Asia.
Many of the sources spoke to Just the News via encrypted communications, and insisted that their names not be revealed because their lives are at risk.
“The only thing new about this story is the date on the headline,” one South Asian contact said. “This is old information, going back to Obama days and before. Everyone who has been involved in Afghanistan heard this a long time ago.”
Reports of an alleged deal between the Taliban and Russia’s military intelligence directorate, the GRU, leaked last week, leading to public outrage on many fronts. President Donald Trump has said the claims likely are fabricated, and Democrats in particular have accused Trump of siding with Moscow to deny the truth.
No one definitively has determined, though, what the truth is in this situation.
wrote on 3 Jul 2020, 17:39 last edited byThis post is deleted! -
Media Bias Fact Check rates Just the News thusly: "Overall, we rate Just the News moderately Right Biased based on story selection that mostly favors a conservative perspective. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and a reasonable fact check record."
For more, go here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-the-news/
wrote on 4 Jul 2020, 11:59 last edited by@Catseye3 said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
Media Bias Fact Check rates Just the News thusly: "Overall, we rate Just the News moderately Right Biased based on story selection that mostly favors a conservative perspective. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and a reasonable fact check record."
For more, go here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-the-news/
Here's the front page of today's New York Times. Tell me there's no bias in their reporting of what they consider "The News."
-
wrote on 4 Jul 2020, 12:29 last edited by
My comment from the Media Bias Check wasn't meant to be critical. Did you read it also said "High for factual reporting"?
-
My comment from the Media Bias Check wasn't meant to be critical. Did you read it also said "High for factual reporting"?
wrote on 4 Jul 2020, 12:40 last edited by@Catseye3 said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
My comment from the Media Bias Check wasn't meant to be critical. Did you read it also said "High for factual reporting"?
Of course I did. My point is that it mixes editorializing with "factual reporting." When words like "railing," "discordant,"and "divisive" appear in the so-called "news" section, on the front page, above the fold, it makes me wonder what other "factual reporting" The Times is doing.
-
wrote on 4 Jul 2020, 12:42 last edited by
Cats, your post was about how Just The News seems to be pretty factual, while George's is about how the NYT is not. They are complementary.
-
Cats, your post was about how Just The News seems to be pretty factual, while George's is about how the NYT is not. They are complementary.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 12:44 last edited by
Remember this breathtaking news by NYT, where is it now???
No scorecard for track record I suppose.
-
Remember this breathtaking news by NYT, where is it now???
No scorecard for track record I suppose.
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 12:46 last edited by George K 7 Sept 2020, 12:47@Loki said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
Remember this breathtaking news by NYT, where is it now???
Here:
And then there's this:
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 12:46 last edited by
It got no traction and they were exposed once again.
-
AFAIK, there is no hard intelligence this actually happened.
We've got bigger things to worry about.
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 18:35 last edited byhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/us-intel-walks-back-claim-russians-put-bounties-on-american-troops
"But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue.
“The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019 and perhaps earlier,” a senior administration official said."
“This information puts a burden on the Russian government to explain its actions and take steps to address this disturbing pattern of behavior,” the official said, indicating that Biden is unprepared to walk the story back fully.
Significantly, the Biden team announced a raft of sanctions on Thursday. But those sanctions, targeting Russia’s sovereign debt market, are prompted only by Russia’s interference in the 2020 election and its alleged role in the SolarWinds cyber espionage. (In contrast, Biden administration officials said that their assessment attributing the breach of technology company SolarWinds to hackers from Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service was “high confidence.”)
Putting on a tinfoil hat here, isn't it just possible that this type of disinformation was used to, ahem, affect an election?
Nah...
-
https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-intel-walks-back-claim-russians-put-bounties-on-american-troops
"But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue.
“The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019 and perhaps earlier,” a senior administration official said."
“This information puts a burden on the Russian government to explain its actions and take steps to address this disturbing pattern of behavior,” the official said, indicating that Biden is unprepared to walk the story back fully.
Significantly, the Biden team announced a raft of sanctions on Thursday. But those sanctions, targeting Russia’s sovereign debt market, are prompted only by Russia’s interference in the 2020 election and its alleged role in the SolarWinds cyber espionage. (In contrast, Biden administration officials said that their assessment attributing the breach of technology company SolarWinds to hackers from Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service was “high confidence.”)
Putting on a tinfoil hat here, isn't it just possible that this type of disinformation was used to, ahem, affect an election?
Nah...
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 19:05 last edited by@george-k said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-intel-walks-back-claim-russians-put-bounties-on-american-troops
"But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue.
“The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019 and perhaps earlier,” a senior administration official said."
“This information puts a burden on the Russian government to explain its actions and take steps to address this disturbing pattern of behavior,” the official said, indicating that Biden is unprepared to walk the story back fully.
Significantly, the Biden team announced a raft of sanctions on Thursday. But those sanctions, targeting Russia’s sovereign debt market, are prompted only by Russia’s interference in the 2020 election and its alleged role in the SolarWinds cyber espionage. (In contrast, Biden administration officials said that their assessment attributing the breach of technology company SolarWinds to hackers from Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service was “high confidence.”)
Putting on a tinfoil hat here, isn't it just possible that this type of disinformation was used to, ahem, affect an election?
Nah...
Yup another bit of vomit from the people who call other people liars. You can’t make this up.
-
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 20:12 last edited by
There are some people that need to roast in Hell for eternity.
-
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 20:13 last edited by
BTW...Cats, what is your opinion on this story now?
-
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 20:18 last edited by
This story was so forgettable that I had actually forgotten about it until now.
-
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 20:32 last edited by
@renauda said in So About This Russian Bounty Thing:
This story was so forgettable that I had actually forgotten about it until now.
Just consider us a regurgitating memory hole....
-
wrote on 15 Apr 2021, 20:39 last edited by
Even if there was any truth to it at all, they may well have gotten the idea from us in the 1980's.
