801–810 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you name a single news org or reporter who does not engage in that practice?
The sun? The onion ?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
America "doing things in the long-term interests of EU citizens, despite causing them some short-term discomfort" is exactly why the US is seen as the baddy in a lot of countries. We are not your children to be nannied and taken decisions on behalf of!
We are not your children to be nannied and taken decisions on behalf of! Until you can defend yourselves, you are.
There is no scenario in which Russia could successfully invade an appreciable part of the EU, even without taking into account European nukes.
Looks like the only 100% benefactor of this is Ukraine. Russia now must pump all its gas to Europe through Ukraine. And they are already at war with Russia, so there is no risk of escalation. And they have pulled other impressive stunts no one believed were possible, like Moscow cruiser, Kerch bridge, Engels airport. They kept it secret because didn't want to alienate Germany.
Not saying they can't have done it, but it would have required more resources than ukraine would spare imho. And if they have such resources, would they not use it instead to sabotage something else of more importance to russia? Such as their oil or gas fields that are still operational?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Gell Mann Amnesia in full effect here. Everything you two have said are basic geopolitical knowledge blunders and it's clear Hersh has lost his intellectual bearing the last decade as he's now 85... Hersh: "Today, the supreme commander of NATO is Jens Stoltenberg" Reality: Jens Stoltenberg is the secretary general of NATO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Allied_Commander_Europ... https://en.wikipedia.org/w…
This is a mistaken title attribution, but even with a correction do you think it changes much? Stoltenberg is the civilian leader of NATO and having his support is crucial. Hersh may have been mistaken in the title, but not the person nor their importance.
None of this is proof, of course. But it logical. Who else would do it? And why? I think it's great the topic has been brought up again. This was a major event that somehow got swept away like nothing happened. The propaganda machine even tried to sell it as Russians blowing up their own pipe. Cause you know, at this point they could be blamed for the most ridiculous thing and it would still "track" because crazy. Wh…
russia is the one perpetrating war. And yet, it is somehow the US that is questionable?
It isn't really logical for the US to do it - risk vs reward wise. And i doubt any european country would want to help the US do this either - they stand to gain very little. Even if Norway stands to gain more gas sales - those aren't guaranteed, and the reputational damage is not worth the financial reward imho.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if Germany OKayd it. 51% of it belongs the Swiss Holding company. You can't just go blow up some private companies assets and get away with it.
Russia does that every day on a mass scale and so far is getting away with it, unfortunately. If US is truly behind it, the Swiss company can sue US (and perhaps Germany) and I believe they would have a chance. Certainly better chance than Ukrainians have with reparations from Russia.
if they didn't have their nukes, then guess whether they'd "get away with it" or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can claim that you destroyed the pipeline and it would be equally as valid at this point. No, it wouldn't. The narrative provided by Hersh's source, whether it's true or not, explains many of the facts that demand an explanation. It provides plausible answers to the questions "How were the explosives placed", "How were the explosives triggered" and "how weren't they detected". Not necessarily true ones! But plaus…
>This article is remarkable for how different it is from Hersh's Syrian gas claims. It really isn't: >What became clear to participants, according to the source with direct knowledge of the process, is that Sullivan intended for the group to come up with a plan for the destruction of the two Nord Stream pipelines … >… Everyone involved understood the stakes. “This is not kiddie stuff,” the source said. If the attack…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because without an indisputable evidence it would only play for "RUSSIANS DID IT" narrative, "See! Because they say it was US means it was themselves!".
Russian propaganda machine keeps spouting lies about everything without much regard to credibility (firehose of lies), it's actually difficult to orient yourself in all the contradictory propaganda narratives. It's just strange they keep largely silent on this, even though it seems like a golden opportunity. Why are they not attacking German society with "Americans are trying to freeze you, they blew up the pipes"?
Pointing fingers at the americans to germany is not going to work inside germany.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, Vietnam was over in '75, Stoltenberg was 16 then. It's just all so absurd.
>Thanks, Vietnam was over in '75, Stoltenberg was 16 then. It's just all so absurd. Not necessarily. I had thought Hersh's "since the Vietnam War" line to be poorly phrased, or an editing mistake, but /u/michaelmacmanus makes an interesting point https://np.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/10wx42b/seymour_h... >. Maybe we should take the line literally!
We had the motive. We had the means. oh yea, and our president said we would do it in advance of it happening:
"If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." (reporter: "How will you do that, exactly, since the project is within germany's control?") "I promise you we'll be able to do it. (smirks, silence)"
https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=81
With that context why wouldn't the default be to assume it was destroyed by the US unless there was compelling evidence otherwise?