That's the narrative. — Tzeentch
I think you simply lack the practical knowledge to understand my objections. — Tzeentch
Except that the story goes that they didn't mask themselves. — Tzeentch
Apparently they left port with their name plate on display and kept their active sensors on, without apparent reason other than it being very convenient for the story. — Tzeentch
What it shows is that I understand how these systems work and what constitutes an actual ship identification, rather than a dramatized collection of circumstantial evidence. — Tzeentch
What exactly was unconventional about the methods? The method is never really explained, but from what I gather they used AIS data, passive intercepts and satellite imagery; that's about as conventional as it gets. — Tzeentch
It sounds like you are confusing territorial waters with Economic Exclusive Zones. To reach Bornholm island there is no need to enter Swedish territorial waters, and Bornholm Island itself is located in the Danish waters. The sabotage was conducted on the border of Danish territorial waters and the Danish/Swedish EEZ border. — Tzeentch
If you want to live in a fantasy where Sweden sees all that happens in a noisy, shallow sea like the Baltic, be my guest, I suppose - shows what you know. — Tzeentch
Because NATO and Russia have been practically at war since February 2022. I'd expect western intelligence agencies to keep tabs on literally every Russian vessel they can, especially in the Baltic and Black Seas. — Tzeentch
What findings? — boethius
The findings by the investigative journalists that were just released. Are you illiterate or just ignorant? — Christoffer
With confirmation from navy intelligence officers going over the material, simply concluding "With this evidence it is much more clear who was responsible". — Christoffer
Do the wretched Ruskies not have access to a stopcock somewhere, if they want to cut off the flow? — unenlightened
The lawmaker was also told that more than 1,000 pounds of "military grade" explosives were used by the perpetrators. — 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, wikipedia
You seem to claim this is some sort of backup for NATO's claims. — boethius
But if you want to pretend there's some "independent journalism" that is stronger evidence than the lead suspect saying they will do exactly this thing, believe what you want to believe. — boethius
Which is the central problem behind the idea the Russian's blew up their own pipelines, as there was far less destructive means to shut them down, restrict gas supplies while also keeping the leverage on the table in the future. — boethius
"lead suspect" is something you have made up. In no way is the US any lead suspect other than through Russian propaganda and people gullible enough to eat that propaganda without a second thought. — Christoffer
The US blatantly stated it was going to end Nord Stream. It has been trying to change European energy dependency since the Bush administration. — Tzeentch
We have almost a day-by-day account of what happened provided by an independent, world-renowned journalist. — Tzeentch
You mean that the actual top investigative journalists in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland are less trustworthy than a proven liar and disinformation blogger?
The fact that you believe one has to be brainwashed by Russian propaganda to believe the US is a likely suspect is just rich, and probably points towards an effort of projection on your part. — Tzeentch
using known conspiracy theory bloggers — Christoffer
You have nothing tangible to support anything you say, only your biased opinions. It's so intellectually empty. — Christoffer
Excuse me? — Tzeentch
That's quite simply untrue. I support everything I say here with tangible arguments, and most of what is discussed is directly related to my own academic field. — Tzeentch
Vanessa Beeley, it's who you linked to if you had any idea. — Christoffer
I think this thread has fried some people's brains. — Christoffer
No, what I refer is that navy and military investigators, as well as independent ones who went over what the journalists found agreed that what they found is significant. That is a confirmation of it being important, it doesn't mean this investigation is in any form of alliance with these military officals and investigators. It's like you don't even attempt to understand any of this but just boil everything that is said down to some unintelligent interpretation. It's like speaking to a child. — Christoffer
"lead suspect" is something you have made up. In no way is the US any lead suspect other than through Russian propaganda and people gullible enough to eat that propaganda without a second thought. It's this presumption that makes you acting out bias towards what you already believe, and me only referring to the evidence at hand. — Christoffer
Sure, doesn't prove who did it, but declaring you'll "end" something and then that very thing you promised you'd end does get ended, results in two possibilities:
1. You did it, just like you said you would.
2. You're a fucking moron. — boethius
The whole idea behind it being a post-soviet propaganda system that doesn't act on trying to convince Russia to be right, they only need to plant doubt into populations of other nations in order to get them into conflict with each other instead of focusing on Russia. It's the foundation for why Russia wanted Trump to win. Vlad Vexler has gone into those things describing the difference between propaganda before the wall fell and after. — Christoffer
... Obviously I was referring to Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh — Tzeentch
nearly day-by-day account of the Nord Stream bombing, directly incriminating the United States. Hersh who, by the way, has a proven track record of bringing US misdeeds to light. — Tzeentch
It's rather cute you are trying to dismiss the poster of a YouTube video - as though the poster is in any way relevant - when the video features former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice outright admitting their preoccupation with European energy dependency. — Tzeentch
It is not worth my time for something as low stakes as the question of whether Russian ships (civilian, military, covert) are in the Baltic doing what they would normally be doing in peace, and much more-so in war time. — boethius
However, since no one is debating at the moment anything remotely important (such as if the cost of the war to Ukraine is worth the benefits so far or then expected benefits in the future and if whether the Western policy to supply is in Ukraine's interest, the West's interest or then just the arms suppliers interest) I will pick apart your delusions for the benefit of the casual follower to this discussion. — boethius
I have zero problem defending that I am defining the US as the lead suspect. — boethius
In any crime, someone who credibly states they intend to do that crime beforehand makes themselves the lead suspect. — boethius
You accuse me of ignoring this "important evidence" of some messages or whatever — boethius
To make a credible case it was someone else, you need to first explain why this threat by the US was not actually credible and we should dismiss it. For example, perhaps it was a bluff ... or perhaps it wasn't a bluff but the US and Russia were in a race to blow up the pipelines first and Russia just so happened to win that race because they are so competent and crafty. — boethius
For, if it's actually in Russia's interest to blowup the pipeline because they are "masters of perception" a la Soviet: — boethius
Then obviously, if making a bluff to blow up the pipeline plays right into the hands of the "Vlexler" you are a complete fucking moron for making that bluff, as it's literally blown up in your face. — boethius
If you're argument is "Biden's a fucking moron, delusional senile ol' goat that is liable to say whatever comes into his mind on live television and his words should be ignored — boethius
We are not, in fact, in disagreement. You just don't want to call a spade a space or then offer some other theory as to what Biden's words meant, why they don't matter, or why did matter but the Russians got to same plan first ... in which case why is it in Russia's favour if the US was planning to do the exact same thing? — boethius
The US bombed Nord Stream for the simple fact that it didn't want European opinions getting in the way of war — Tzeentch
The US has been profiting immensely from blowing up the pipeline. — Tzeentch
Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh and [...] — Tzeentch
More evidence on the possibility of Russia being the culprit for Nordstream pipeline bombings.
Still the question is open... — ssu
You are still unable to understand that this does not equal guilt of the bombing. — Christoffer
This was reported by a collaboration between top investigative journalists in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. It was rigorously verified using a former Navy operative in England and through advanced satellite tracking. With confirmation from navy intelligence officers going over the material, simply concluding "With this evidence it is much more clear who was responsible". — Christoffer
I have already described three times now what the possible motives are, but you don't care. Your mind seems to wander through conspiracy-land being both confused and paranoid. — Christoffer
For the Russians, attacking their own pipelines would be a PR thing — boethius
Blowing up the pipeline had no purpose for the US when the invasion had already had the effect of moving Germany and Europe away from dependency on Russia. The changeover was already happening so there's no point in bombing a pipeline and hurting allies. Russia, however, have everything to win by the chaos it produces. You are just blaming the US because it rhymes with your personal opinions. — Christoffer
the intended effect, you're here playing into exactly what Russia wants to have; the west fractured by gullible people and muddying the waters to the point that when there's even tangible evidence of the act you continue to push for your personal opinions, using every bias and fallacy possible. — Christoffer
The US president saying:
We will bring an end to it. I promise you. We will be able to do it.
— the president of America
Sure, doesn't prove who did it, but declaring you'll "end" something and then that very thing you promised you'd end does get ended, results in two possibilities:
1. You did it, just like you said you would.
2. You're a fucking moron. — boethius
Now you're walking back from "much more clear who was responsible" to "conjecture". — boethius
What you fail to do is account for the undisputed fact the US threatened to blow up the pipelines. — boethius
If you want to propose an alternate theory, you need to take into account the undisputed facts. — boethius
You need to say "I have this theory that it was the Russians that conspired to blow up the pipelines and make it look like the US did it by taking advantage of the fact the US said they would do it, all while totally not being a conspiracy theorist conjecturing about this conspiracy theory I have" (or is it only a "conspiracy theory" if it's not the Russians somehow?). — boethius
You do not even have the beginnings of a proposal. — boethius
I get it, Western media simply ignores the US president threatening to blow up the pipeline — boethius
So ... why would the US threaten to blow up pipeline — boethius
Even in the realm of conjecture, you're idea should cohere with the known facts. — boethius
As I say above, if you're theory is the Russian's did it and Biden is a moron for doing the Russians the favour of making empty threats about the pipeline, I don't have a problem with that theory. Conjecture all you want Russia is the master of strategy and perception and US officials are dunces that have no idea what they are talking about or why. — boethius
Is only because the US president threatened to blow up the pipelines in Public. — boethius
So, at least start your presentation with — boethius
For someone who does so much mental gymnastics, you're not doing nearly enough to avoid the obvious conclusion which is: — boethius
Which, again, where is the disagreement? — boethius
We both agree both the US and Russia had opportunity to blow up the pipeline. — boethius
If it wasn't the US then how do avoid the conclusion that Biden is a fucking moron for threatening to do it before hand ... — boethius
↪boethius, nice story, sort of. I suppose you'd have the UN being "war-mongers". — jorndoe
Why would I agree that the US had the opportunity or reason to? I specifically gave a motivation as to why the US wouldn't, which, as with everything else just wooshes right over your head. — Christoffer
You never fucking understand what hindsight bias is, do you? And you never understand that your entire argument is based on what you believe his speech meant. — Christoffer
Speaking at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Biden said, "If Russia invades... again, then there will be longer Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
When asked how he would do that, he responded, "I promise you we will be able to do it." — Reuters
Strawman again... seriously, get your medicine or whatever. — Christoffer
I have already described three times now what the possible motives are, but you don't care. Your mind seems to wander through conspiracy-land being both confused and paranoid. — Christoffer
It was rigorously verified using a former Navy operative in England and through advanced satellite tracking. With confirmation from navy intelligence officers going over the material, simply concluding "With this evidence it is much more clear who was responsible". — Christoffer
Calm down. You're crossing a line here. — Baden
A normal useful idiot for Russia basically. — Christoffer
Calm down. You're crossing a line here. — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.