We still haven't been shown any hard evidence for Russians paying bounties in Afghanistan, and we never will be. This doesn't matter as far as the propagandists are concerned; they know they don't need actual facts to get this story believed, they just need narrative control. /1
All the propagandists need to do is say over and over again that Russia paid bounties to kill the troops in Afghanistan in an increasingly assertive and authoritative tone. After awhile people will start assuming it's true, just because the propagandists have been doing this. /2
They'll add new pieces of data to the narrative, none of which will constitute hard proof of their claims, but after enough "bombshell" stories reported in an assertive and ominous tone of voice, people will start assuming it's a proven fact that Russia paid those bounties. /3
Narrative managers will just wave their hands at a disparate, unverified cluster of information and proclaim that it is a mountain of evidence and anyone doubting all this proof must be a kook. This is the definition of a Gish gallop fallacy by the way. 4/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gall…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gall…
The New York Times would never have reported the #Bountygate story if they were interested in journalism and reporting factual information. The fact that they did is proof that their interest is not in telling the truth, but in narrative control. NYT is a propaganda firm. 5/5
Secret evidence is not evidence. Invisible proof is not proof.
Kill the last of the nuclear treaties with Russia to enable new arms race, kill the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, manufacture consent for more sanctions and cold war escalations against Russia, a nation long targeted by the US-centralized empire.
Remember, international law only exists to the extent that the rest of the world agrees to enforce it. Targeting Russia via international collaboration requires international narrative control about what Russia is doing.
I did say what it would take to convince me: proof. Hard, verifiable proof. This is also what it should take to convince you. Nothing remotely close to this has been provided. Only drooling morons believe unproven assertions by anonymous spooks.
