201–210 of 267 posts
Can someone explain why some people here are so agitated over a claim that the US did it? Is it hard to believe that US intelligence would do something like this? Besides, if you hate Russia then it's a good thing right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said, until someone can provide hard evidence, which that is not, I'll continue to hold reservations as any reasonable person would.
Yes. We can continue to hold reservations but that can be considered evidence. It is akin to someone getting killed and someone else prior saying they would kill that person. It doesn't mean they actually did it, but it is suspicion and motive that should lead to further investigations. That Germany and other countries aren't looking into it can also be considered circumstantial evidence.
For the US such an operation would have a huge amount of risk and they have to gain nothing until the war is over and even after that very little or nothing. (Potentially they can sell their gas - but others as well.) So why do it?
On the other hand, Germany had to gain a bit (shutting down the voices calling for it being opened) and Russia had to gain a lot (sowing distrust within NATO; forcing a change from NS1 to the remaining NS2; as a show of power and a threat; making a strategic change impossible to shut down future opposition within the power structure of Russia) or just to complete their shift to trade with China now instead. The NS2 project was already dead.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Biden pretty much gave it away. In a press conference before the invasion he assured the German media that nordstream 2 will never happen and when asked how the US has any say in a German / Russia venture he said he it will never happen, trust me. Blowing up the pipeline is the only way to make sure. The only other option would have been to somehow sanction Germany if they turned on Nordstream 2 but that would also b…
I thought there was subsequent reporting that Biden got a commitment from the chancellor (embarrassingly, I can’t remember if it was before or after Merkel left) that if Russia did invade, Germany would pull the plus on NS2. That could just as easily explain the comment, no?
To the people are saying "oh this is just nitpicking", it's not. Hersh's claims are extraordinary[0], and require if not extraordinary evidence, at least evidence that's not sloppy as hell. Given the subject matter it's completely reasonable that he could only have anonymous sources. But when you have anonymous sources then their information has to line up with reality. If it doesn't then you're either getting played…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>by a discredited journalist I'm French and I had never heard of that journalist. Can you share the link to the official list of discredited journalists so I know who not to trust going forward?
I think the commenter is labelling Hersh a "discredited journalist". The discrediting part would be his recent articles on Syrian government complicity in chemical warfare attacks, his narrative of how the Bin Laden killing actually happened, and if the Russians actually poisoned the Skripals. But you probably knew all that and I have been concern trolled. Oh well, I try.
It’s interesting to me that dang overrode community moderation of this story [1] yesterday. Without having first even read it. A story that was based on an unverified anonymous source, by a discredited journalist, and which as we see now contained provably made up parts. Because dang overrode moderation, that literal fake news (fake as in actually made up) was allowed to hover on the front page for a long time and gi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. We can continue to hold reservations but that can be considered evidence. It is akin to someone getting killed and someone else prior saying they would kill that person. It doesn't mean they actually did it, but it is suspicion and motive that should lead to further investigations. That Germany and other countries aren't looking into it can also be considered circumstantial evidence.
It‘s not evidence because the pipeline wasn‘t that important anymore. They also looked into it. And finally any of them could have done it themselves as well. Nothing points to the US specifically. For the US such an operation would have a huge amount of risk and they have to gain nothing until the war is over and even after that very little or nothing. (Potentially they can sell their gas - but others as well.) So w…
They've been doing war and killing innocents ("collateral damage", sorry...) for decades, all in the name of some doubtful "freedom and democracy", and what has happened to them? Nothing whatsoever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe to ensure a "bysailing" ship isn't accidentally damaged? Presumably a plan could detect a ship if it was near target and do a go around?
The pipeline is 80m underwater - a ship could be sailing right over and not even realize an explosion happened under it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m genuinely curious where the gymnastic is? I am asking in good faith. What is Russia’s interest in sabotaging it? They can’t sell gas to fund their war machine. What’s the US interest? Now Europe must buy LNG from our fantastic gas companies. US exports of LNG are at an all time high price. Europe is pissed off at our rival. Not to mention our commander in chief threatened to blow it up, why? Everything here says…
Russia is the only country who could do it without risking provoking a war. Russia knew they weren’t going to make any money on it due to the strong reaction to the war on Ukraine. Russia could have decided to do it to remind Western Europe that it could do the same to other pipelines they depend on. None of that is determinative that Russia did do it, but it’s sufficient to me to indicate that they could have done i…