‘Russian bounty’ story shifts: New York Occasions now claims Afghan CRIMINALS & not Taliban had been paid, cites nameless sources once more

‘Russian bounty’ story shifts: New York Times now claims Afghan CRIMINALS & not Taliban were paid, cites anonymous sources again

The New York Occasions is doubling down on claims that Russia supplied bounties for the killing of US troops in Afghanistan, however now says native criminals and never the Taliban had been the recipients, once more providing no precise proof.

The brand new article, printed Tuesday, says that “digital information displaying giant monetary transfers from a checking account managed by Russia’s army intelligence company to a Taliban-linked account” was intercepted by US spies and “bolsters suspicions” that Russia supplied bounties to militants – as claimed by the Occasions final week.

As soon as once more, the Occasions quotes nameless sources – “three officers conversant in the intelligence” – so the declare is inconceivable to confirm. No proof of the alleged digital switch is supplied, solely a third-hand rumour that “analysts concluded from different intelligence that the transfers had been probably a part of a bounty program.”

The article finally will get round to quoting a number of native officers from Afghanistan, who say that a number of individuals who switch cash by an Islamic banking system are suspected of being a part of a hoop of middlemen” between Russia and “Taliban-linked militants.”

The ‘hawala’ banking system doesn’t really use digital transfers. Furthermore, the article says the Afghan safety forces discovered “a half-million {dollars}” – presumably in money – in a single Kabul residence about six months in the past. Safiullah Amiry, described as “the deputy provincial council chief” in Kunduz, “mentioned the Afghan intelligence company had instructed him the raids had been associated to Russian cash being dispersed [sic] to militants.”

Additionally on

There they go once more: NYT serves up spy fantasy about Russian ‘bounties’ on US troops in Afghanistan

Within the authentic article, the Occasions claimed President Donald Trump had been briefed on this alleged plot someday in March. The White Home, the CIA and the Workplace of the Director of Nationwide Intelligence have since denied this. 

So the narrative has now shifted, with the Occasions citing “two officers” who say the knowledge was included in Trump’s written presidential every day transient (PDB) “in late February,” accompanied by the – likewise unverified – declare that Trump sometimes doesn’t learn these. The article additionally claims the CIA talked about the intelligence in its World Intelligence Overview e-newsletter, also referred to as The Wire, dated Could 4. 

The id of the suspected recipients of the “Russian bounties” has shifted as properly, from the Taliban to “criminals intently related to the Taliban” – in accordance with yet one more nameless US official.

Most mainstream US media shops and the Democrats have taken the unique New York Occasions reporting at face worth, denouncing Trump as “Putin’s puppet” and a traitor for allegedly not doing something to “punish Russia” based mostly on the purported intelligence assessments, slightly than demanding to see proof there was something to it.

Assume your pals would have an interest? Share this story!