Most everything The New York Times claims about nations on the US target list for regime change is suspect at best, a gross perversion of reality at worst—state-approved propaganda over truth and full disclosure.
The Times’ claim about Russia offering bounties to kill US forces in Afghanistan ranks with the worst of its propaganda rubbish though the years—more evidence of its long ago lost credibility.
The phony claim shifted from one report to another.
After first claiming Moscow paid Taliban fighters bounties to kill US forces, no evidence supporting it, the narrative shifted to paying “Taliban-linked militants to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan,” using a middleman “contractor [sic].”
Another account claimed “intercepted electronic data on financial transfers… from a bank account controlled by Russia’s military intelligence agency to a Taliban-linked account,” compounds the fake news story—again no evidence supporting the claim.
Sources used by the Times were anonymous, an obvious red flag.
When individuals behind claims aren’t identified, they lack credibility, should never be used, and surely not believed.
Shifting versions of Times fake news about alleged Russian bounties to kill US forces in Afghanistan had nefarious motives.
Notably they include support for endless/unlawful US occupation of Afghanistan, more unjustifiable sanctions imposed on Russia (a UN Charter breach), and vilifying Trump for wanting improved relations with Vladimir Putin and not being tougher on Moscow—aiming to further weaken his chance for reelection.
The notion that Russia would collude with anyone anywhere to kill American soldiers or civilians flies in the face of how it operates.
Moscow is the world’s leading proponent of peace, stability, and cooperation among nations, abhorrent of wars and related violence.
The Times latest version of an alleged Russia/Taliban connection to kill Americans walked backed from its original fake news.
Its editors had no choice after the US intelligence community submitted a 2.5-page document to the White House.
Summarizing what’s known about the Times accusations, it said no direct evidence indicates a Russian/Taliban connection to kill US military personnel in Afghanistan, no evidence of bounties offered.
Anonymous sources the Times cited lied. The broadsheet repeated them, ignoring their suspicious origin.
In walking back from its phony claims while trying to suppress its fake news, its headline was unsatisfactory, saying: “New [White House] Memo Seeks to Foster Doubts About Suspected Russian Bounties [sic].”
A proper headline would admit publishing fake news based on spurious sources.
At the same time, its editors couldn’t duck an intelligence community assessment, debunking its own that “emphasized uncertainties and gaps in (alleged) evidence” the Times reported as facts based on Big Lies.
Translation of the intelligence community language makes clear that no nefarious Russia/Taliban connection exists, not now or earlier.
The NSA was more definitive in its assessment, the Times saying its “electronic surveillance intelligence [found no] information to support” the broadsheet’s fake news.
The bottom line is that no credible evidence supports the Times’ assessment.
Once again, it was caught red-handed, pretending propaganda without credibility is “all the news that’s fit to print” it consistently shuns on major issues, especially about nations on the US target list for regime change.
Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov minced no words, calling Times fake news reports “100 percent bulls..t.”
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at email@example.com. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.