It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian bounty should receive the same “retaliation” as the Iranian bounty on US president?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Great.

Now. Want to post anything regarding the opening post.

While the Russian thing comes down to this,

If true, was there any appreciable increase in threat levels missed by actual threat level assessments issued to troops in the areas affected. Did the threat level actually change overtime? Or was it consistent, with no actual impact of the allegations of a bounty.

What policy changes should have occurred. Especially in the context of known bounties put on US citizens in the past?




posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
The increase in drone strikes was due to the actual attempt today destroy ISIS, rather than Obama's policy of feeding, funding, training and arming the militants in Syria .

Do we have an accurate current count of 2019 drones strikes, or even 2020 to date?? Because I have not taken my eyes off the war, and all the drone strikes are either Russian Turkish in syria, Turkey and the UAE in Libya and the UAE again in Yemen. The Saudis use more f16 than drones in yemen, but Ansari Allah does a very successful job of hittingsaudi Arabia pretty much every week for some time now with drones and cruise missiles.
Most of the USA drone strikes right now are in Afghanistan, eastern Africa around Somalia, and the seldom occasional Yemen strike.



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



And it is part of history that Ahmad Hamzeh did call for a bounty on Trump.


Has he paid it? Russia has paid out $100's of thousands, according to intel.



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

There's no proof at all of anything being true 😃



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: neutronflux



And it is part of history that Ahmad Hamzeh did call for a bounty on Trump.


Has he paid it? Russia has paid out $100's of thousands, according to intel.



Ok? If true?

While the Russian thing comes down to this,

If true, was there any appreciable increase in threat levels missed by actual threat level assessments issued to troops in the areas affected. Did the threat level actually change overtime? Or was it consistent, with no actual impact of the allegations of a bounty.

What policy changes should have occurred. Especially in the context of known bounties put on US citizens in the past?



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Read earlier today that the original Intel is from the time of bush jr, and all they had was a money transfer from Russia to the taliban.

Also most likely reason for the payment was for Intel on us weapons platforms, and tactics.



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




If true, was there any appreciable increase in threat levels missed by actual threat level assessments issued to troops in the areas affected.


The intel itself increases the threat level.



What policy changes should have occurred.


Sanctions against Russia? Maybe not lobby to get them readmitted to the G8 and then invite Putin to the G7? Maybe not threaten NATO, encourage Putin's influence in Ukraine and not pull troops from Germany?

edit on 5-7-2020 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You


The intel itself increases the threat level.



How. My wording...

If true, was there any appreciable increase in threat levels missed by actual threat level assessments issued to troops in the areas affected. Did the threat level actually change overtime? Or was it consistent, with no actual impact of the allegations of a bounty.

Do you understand on the ground threat level?

Did the US troops in the area get inaccurate intel on actual present military strength, equipment, and movement. Was there a missed increased in military strength? or massing troops?

Is it false many of those opposing US military strength in the area fight based on religious reasons, and are already dedicated to engaging US troops?

Put it simple. Was there a tangible and measurable increase in physical enemy combatants and equipment missed by the threat assessments given to the troops? You do understand innuendo in its self is not a actual and tangible threat?

You


Sanctions against Russia?


Vs what sanitation are already in place?




Trump administration issues new sanctions related to Russia’s takeover of Crimea

www.washingtonpost.com...




And I have no desire for the USA being the worlds police force. And maybe Germany shouldn’t buy energy from Russia?


edit on 5-7-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




You do understand innuendo in its self is not a actual and tangible threat?


Tell it to the widows, the children of, the parents, family members and friends of the soldiers killed in Afghanistan.



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: neutronflux




You do understand innuendo in its self is not a actual and tangible threat?


Tell it to the widows, the children of, the parents, family members and friends of the soldiers killed in Afghanistan.



So. There is no proof of any tangible increase of military threat against US troops that can be measured by troop movements, increased in actions against US troops, increases in military equipment, or an increase in forces opposing US troops?

Got it.



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: neutronflux




You do understand innuendo in its self is not a actual and tangible threat?


Tell it to the widows, the children of, the parents, family members and friends of the soldiers killed in Afghanistan.



I would like to have the US military out of Afghanistan....



House Democrats, Working With Liz Cheney, Restrict Trump’s Planned Withdrawal of Troops From Afghanistan and Germany

theintercept.com...



Whatever happened to code pink? I guess they lost their political relevance to the Democratic Party?


edit on 5-7-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Go ahead and keep believing what ever your little heart desires.

But don't complain later when the NWO and American Democrats wreck everything like they've been trying so hard to do.

🤓🤣🤓


Why would they even do that? I'm fairly sure they think they will win in November, and they don't want to inherit an abject disaster.

And also, just before Trump was elected, they were the government, for the two previous terms. They thought they would win back then too, so they wouldn't have been deliberately screwing things up back then, either.

The right-wing propaganda doesn't even make rational sense any more.



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: chr0naut

Great.

Now. Want to post anything regarding the opening post.

While the Russian thing comes down to this,

If true, was there any appreciable increase in threat levels missed by actual threat level assessments issued to troops in the areas affected. Did the threat level actually change overtime? Or was it consistent, with no actual impact of the allegations of a bounty.

What policy changes should have occurred. Especially in the context of known bounties put on US citizens in the past?


Well, firstly, you'd need to establish if it is a legitimate threat or just propaganda.

My thought is that injuring or killing the President would just make him a martyr, would not dislodge the current Republican administration and would be counterproductive to Russian interests.

Since Russia is already an 'enemy state' and has been for decades, any threat to the President is already covered. He has Secret Service agents with him in public at all times and the resources of law enforcement and Homeland Security are probably sufficient to the protective task.

He could also wear a vest and drive around in an armored vehicle and stuff.




posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: chr0naut
The increase in drone strikes was due to the actual attempt today destroy ISIS, rather than Obama's policy of feeding, funding, training and arming the militants in Syria .

Do we have an accurate current count of 2019 drones strikes, or even 2020 to date?? Because I have not taken my eyes off the war, and all the drone strikes are either Russian Turkish in syria, Turkey and the UAE in Libya and the UAE again in Yemen. The Saudis use more f16 than drones in yemen, but Ansari Allah does a very successful job of hittingsaudi Arabia pretty much every week for some time now with drones and cruise missiles.
Most of the USA drone strikes right now are in Afghanistan, eastern Africa around Somalia, and the seldom occasional Yemen strike.


We don't have any accurate 'official' figures on drone strike because Trump, on March 6, 2019, signed executive order 13862 revoking the requirement that U.S. intelligence officials publicly report the number of civilians killed in Counter-Terrorism missions in Areas Outside of Active Hostilities, and which countermanded Section 1057 of the National Defense Authorisation Act of 2018, signed in by the Obama administration.

I would think that hiding the numbers of military actions against terrorists (and collateral casualties), is somewhat nefarious. It authorizes 'kill without sanction or prior approval' and is unspecific about the domain it covers (i.e: it may include the use of drone strikes within the United States).

edit on 5/7/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: neutronflux




You do understand innuendo in its self is not a actual and tangible threat?


Tell it to the widows, the children of, the parents, family members and friends of the soldiers killed in Afghanistan.



So. There is no proof of any tangible increase of military threat against US troops that can be measured by troop movements, increased in actions against US troops, increases in military equipment, or an increase in forces opposing US troops?

Got it.


No, you don't "got it".

"Tangible"? Is intel tangible? Are a record of payments and a confessed middleman tangible? Are soldier's testimony tangible? Are dead bodies tangible?
edit on 5-7-2020 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
Oh, so your trying to allude that there are bombs dropping in all kinds of places including right here at home, without a single report or dissenting voice from the opposition media??

What would that tell you then about the opposition media in order for that disguised inference of yours to have any validity??

The majority of drone strikes that are documented and happening and often get reported by centcom are in Afghanistan and the lands around somalia.

Not reporting civilian casualties does not mean kinetic actions conducted by the armed forces are not reported.

I suppose we could speculate on the full extent of the cia program, it woukd just be unpacked speculation though.



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha
Is 200 dead russians not enough?? How many dead russians by american firepower is a good enough amount of dead russians by american firepower for you??

Oh wait, let me do this again.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: lightedhype
Russia and their officials are already under dozens of separate sanctions.

Perhaps we should upgrade encounters like these ...


Back into encounters like this



Maybe if we kill a couple hundred more Russians like we did in 2018 we can appease the media??



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




I think that the implementer of drone strikes and NSA surveillance of the US public was George Bush.

Proof your thinking is sometimes flawed

edit on 7/5/20 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry




Is 200 dead russians not enough??


Are you talking about Syria? Are you trying to say that attack was in retaliation for Russian bounty payments on American soldiers in Afghanistan? Trump practically gave Putin our military bases in that area. So, there's that.

I'm talking about not cozying up to Putin by calling on him to be reinstated in the G8, not inviting him to attend the G7, defending him in Helsinki, encouraging his Ukraine efforts, attacking NATO's efforts, and not leaving Germany vulnerable, and maybe some more sanctions, at the very least.



posted on Jul, 5 2020 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: chr0naut




I think that the implementer of drone strikes and NSA surveillance of the US public was George Bush.

Proof your thinking is sometimes flawed

Drone strikes in Pakistan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Note, the strikes started in 2004.

George W. Bush
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GW Bush was President from 2001 to 2009.

So, drone strikes began while George W. Bush was President.

Also,

NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Also under George W. Bush's Presidency.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join