CNN is obsessed with Russia. One might think they want to single-handedly re-start the Cold War. Case in point:
CNN:
The Taliban have received improved weaponry in Afghanistan that appears to have been supplied by the Russian government, according to exclusive videos obtained by CNN, adding weight to accusations by Afghan and American officials that Moscow is arming their one-time foe in the war-torn country.The use of the word "appears" in that first sentence is quite subjective. Consider:
US generals first suggested they were concerned the Russian government was seeking to arm the Afghan insurgents back in April, but images from the battlefield here corroborating these claims have been hard to come by.
These two videos show sniper rifles, Kalashnikov variants and heavy machine guns that weapons experts say are stripped of any means of identifying their origin.
...The videos don't provide incontrovertible proof of the trade, of which Moscow has categorically denied involvement.If you don't realize this, US generals are not an impartial bunch. Generals need to make the case for bigger budgets and more weapons. Former President Ronald Reagan introduced the term "welfare queen" into our political lexicon, but some of the biggest welfare queens in our country are generals. Demagoguing Russia plays right into their hands.
Mind you, that doesn't mean Russia isn't a threat to the U.S. They certainly are. But this thing about Russia supplying guns to the Taliban? Kalishnikov variants have been around since 1947, long before the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989). The Taliban could have easily acquired many of these guns from that conflict.
Continuing:
Two separate sets of Taliban, one in the north and another in the west, claim to be in possession of the weapons, which they say were originally supplied by Russian government sources. One splinter group of Taliban near Herat say they obtained the guns after defeating a mainstream rival group of Taliban. Another group say they got the weapons for free across the border with Tajikistan and that they were provided by "the Russians."Notice how we have Taliban fighting Taliban here? The Taliban aren't much of a threat if they are killing each other.
Note the splinter Taliban group is saying the other group got their guns from Russia, while the other Taliban group claims to have gotten their guns from Russia. Is it possible something is getting lost in translation?
One case they mentioned is pretty weak:
In one video the Herat group are seen brandishing the guns, which they said were taken from the mainstream Taliban, led by Mullah Haibatullah, after that group attacked them. Eighteen of their rivals were killed in the attack and six were captured, they said."Via Iran"? Could the Iranians have bought guns from the Russians, and then turned around and sold or given them to the Taliban? Of course they could. But then that isn't the Russians arming the Taliban, but the Iranians.
"These weapons were given to the fighters of Mullah Haibatullah by the Russians via Iran," said their deputy leader, Mullah Abdul Manan Niazi. He went on to repeat the often-heard rationale behind the arming -- which Moscow denies -- that the weapons were supplied to help the Taliban better fight ISIS.
In addition:
Weapons experts from the Small Arms Survey studied the videos and said there was little in them to directly tie the guns to the Russian state. The weapons were not particularly modern or rare, and even some of the more elaborate additions, like a JGBG M7 scope on one machine gun, were Chinese made and readily available online, they said.If someone is intentionally arming the Taliban, they wouldn't want the guns traced back to them. It makes perfect sense they would remove any manufacturer markings. That doesn't mean it was the Russians doing it. Russians sell guns to much of the world, so there are plenty of ways they could go from Russia to the Taliban via a third party.
Yet Benjamin King from the Survey said, "the weapons didn't seem to have the manufacturer markings where we would expect them." He said that elsewhere there have been reports of supplying governments and others going to great lengths to remove identification markings from weapons.
But let us throw in a hypothetical: What if the Russians are supplying the Taliban in Afghanistan with weapons? After 16 years of war in Afghanistan, does ramping up our efforts now sound any more likely to end this war?
In other news...
Fox News:
President Trump took to Twitter late Monday to call out The Washington Post and ask if the paper is being used as a 'lobbyist weapon' for internet giant Amazon.
Is Fake News Washington Post being used as a lobbyist weapon against Congress to keep Politicians from looking into Amazon no-tax monopoly?— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017
Billionaire Jeff Bezos owns the paper and is the founder of Amazon.
...Amazon.com collects state sales taxes in all 45 states with a sales tax and the District of Columbia, according to their website. State governments have sought to capture sales taxes lost to internet retailers, though they have struggled with a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that retailers must have a physical presence in a state before officials can make them collect sales tax.
...In 2015, [Trump] wrote that Bezos bought the Post “for purposes of keeping taxes down at his no profit company, @amazon.” He added that “If @amazon ever had to pay fair taxes, its stock would crash and it would crumble like a paper bag. The @washingtonpost scam is saving it!”While Trump is correct here, as this Newsweek article from last year shows, the question is why is Trump bringing this up now? Fox News speculates:
Trump was apparently upset with the paper's report on Syria.Specifically:
Trump does appear to be referring to this article from last week:The Amazon Washington Post fabricated the facts on my ending massive, dangerous, and wasteful payments to Syrian rebels fighting Assad.....— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017
Washington Post:
President Donald Trump has decided to halt the CIA’s years-long covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the regime of the nation’s president Bashar al-Assad. Russia had long pushed the United States to end the program.The Post article isn't against what Trump did. There is no apparent bias. On top of that, Trump's tweet admits the program was making "massive, dangerous, and wasteful payments to Syrian rebels".
The phasing out of the secret program was reported by The Washington Post on Wednesday. Officials told the newspaper that ending the operation reflects Trump’s interest in finding ways to work with Russia.
The program was a key component begun by the Obama administration in 2013 to put pressure on Assad to relinquish power. But even its supporters have questioned its usefulness since Moscow sent forces in Syria two years later.
My speculation on this is it revolves around the line, "ending the operation reflects Trump’s interest in finding ways to work with Russia." Not a bad thing, but in the current media feeding frenzy over all things Russia, it appears President Trump has gotten overly sensitive to the Russia issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment