[flagged]
So in this thread we have one person claiming out of nowhere that one attack on underwater infrastructure is definitely a false flag, and you are claiming that another one is definitely not a false flag, all without a shred of evidence. How is this any better than just piping llm outputs directly to comment box? This sort of discussion is worthless.
Conclusive evidence is scarce. And to the extent it exists we're stuck with sources that aren't impartial.
Arguments about motives & rationality add some value, but they don't create broad consensus.