"Conspiracy theory" quickly went from "a belief that a group of people is conspiring in secret" to "any belief that runs contrary to the establishment narrative" to "any belief I don't like*. Once a term enters the erstwhile consciousness of the NPCs, it is immediately stripped of all meaning and turned into yet another synonym for "bad".
Often I've noticed that the dumbest of the dumb don't even use the full term any more. They just say "conspiracy", accidentally revealing that they have zero clue as to the meaning of the words they're saying. They're just noises they heard on TV.
Anything said by that clown Seymour Hersh instantly makes it less credible. He claims everything he's saying is from a single anonymous source. Riiiight. Reminds me of the Trump "pee tapes".
He's an atheistic jew anti-American propagandist. The libs loved him when he published propaganda against the US during the Vietnam War, because they were on the same side. Later, when he started attacking Obama, the Left turned against him and he is universally recognized as a conspiratorial crank. In 2018, Hersh told an interviewer, "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11." Hersh later lied about Syria not using chemical weapons: Bellingcat accused Hersh of sloppy journalism: "Hersh based his case on a tiny number of anonymous sources, presented no other evidence to support his case, and ignored or dismissed evidence that countered the alternative narrative he was trying to build." He's an atheistic jew far left propagandist.
9/11 being an "inside job" is completely retarded and makes no sense on any level. The evidence offered in support - shit like "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" & "omg those are demolition squibs!" - is laughably wrong on its face and would only fool a complete idiot.
By contrast, the idea that Russia blew up its own pipeline is eminently reasonable, which is why I believe it is by far the most likely:
Putin, as a career KGB operative, LOVES doing shady espionage shit like false flag attacks. There is a long history of him doing so, most famously blowing up his own people in the apartment bombings so he could blame it on muslims as a pretext to invade/escalate against Chechnya. His agents famously got caught in Ryazan. He'd done something like this before: Two explosions on a gas pipeline in North Ossetia in January 2006, which were caused by remote-controlled military-grade charges. The explosions halted Russian gas supply to Georgia after the country had started seeking NATO membership.
Putin is obsessed with the manipulation and control of the Russian people. He devotes enormous resources to it. Blowing up the pipeline as a false flag gave Putin a propaganda weapon to cast Russia as being under attack by foreign powers. It is perfectly tailored to shore up domestic war support.
The pipeline was already inoperative. Putin had every reason to believe that sanctions would mean that Germany would not resume purchases indefinitely, rendering the pipeline worthless anyway. Germany and other countries had already stockpiled natural gas in August and September, which was clearly done to enable a total long term withdrawal from Russian supplies. The pipeline was blown up in late September soon after this had become clear. Might as well blow it up and extract what propaganda value out of it he could. Conversely, it would make no sense for the US/UK to blow up a pipeline after Germany and others had already taken steps to eliminate dependency on it and it was worthless.
Putin may have hoped blowing them up would cause a panic/shock in natural gas markets. "On 27 September 2022, European gas prices jumped 12 percent after news spread of the damaged pipelines".
Putin has a long history of being over-promised and under-delivered by his subordinates. To us outsiders it might seem like blowing up the pipeline is not likely to help Russia much, but Putin's perception would be very different as his FSB executives pitched him on it. Putin may have believed that blowing it up would drive a wedge between Germany and the US/UK. This is laughable to Westerners, but Putin living in his bubble believes a lot of stupid shit.
Biden is a coward and consistently refuses to support even trivial escalations, such as by refusing to supply ATACMS HIMARS missiles to Ukraine because they might use those missiles to strike targets in Russia. Biden opposed the Bin Laden raid. Biden cucked out of Afghanistan. Biden is the last guy who would do something bold and risky and escalatory like try to secretly blow up a pipeline.
"European security officials observed Russian Navy support ships nearby where the leaks later occurred on 26 and 27 September. One week prior, Russian submarines were also observed nearby."
He's literally a senile puppet, not in control of anything.
Someone linked the plane analysis down the thread, but I don't think actually reading a thread before shitposting is in your capability if you think Russia would blow up it's own fucking pipeline for no reason.
I'm no "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" type either, but believing one of those bullshit stories is legit and the other isn't is pure fucking stupid.
Equally retarded is believing that Russia loves false flags, but thinking the US wouldn't do them - declassified operation Northwoods. CIA planned a false flag op to start war with Cuba. Kennedy shut it down. The US doing false flags is no less likely than Russia - the US federal government is not some kind of "good guy".
All these giant governments are criminal organizations.
Someone linked the plane analysis down the thread, but I don't think actually reading a thread before shitposting is in your capability if you think Russia would blow up it's own fucking pipeline for no reason.
I disagree with him, but I'm glad he made the argument, which is why I did upvote him. It's boring when everyone agrees on a given subject.
All these giant governments are criminal organizations.
And this is the most important point.
Same for politicians.
A politician isn't 'a good guy' simply because he agrees with you, or says he agrees with you. You need to hold them accountable.
It's not just that. You think it's interesting if every comment has the exact same POV? I'm not interested in having my own views echoed to myself in 30 different ways.
It's way too easy to slip into believing nonsense when you are in a hivemind.
No, but I also get zero benefit or interest watching people create conflict for the sake of having conflict, just to have an argument.
You are speaking as if its a binary, when there is also the option of not saying anything because its already been said and you have nothing to add to it.
My kind of guy! The current regime deserves criticism. My question is: why do we have to rely on people on the left, like Greenwald, Mate and Tracey, and Hersh, to write good journalism criticizing the regime?
Later, when he started attacking Obama
So he was consistent, like GG, and wasn't a Democratic Party hack. Good to know.
Hersh later lied about Syria not using chemical weapons: Bellingcat accused Hersh of sloppy journalism
Oh wow, BELLINGCAT! I can't think of a better CIA-funded, British government-funded organization whose word I'd rather take for it. And for the record, there are AT BEST major questions about whether Syria used chemical weapons again, and there were whistleblowers at the OPCW saying that the Muricans had put pressure on them to lie.
The USG lying about weapons of mass destruction? Tell me it ain't so!
9/11 being an "inside job" is completely retarded and makes no sense on any level. The evidence offered in support - shit like "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" & "omg those are demolition squibs!" - is laughably wrong on its face and would only fool a complete idiot.
Maybe (I've been downvoted heavily here at time for not being a 9/11 truther) but it's less retarded than "Russia blew up its own pipeline", for which you have zero evidence, and which doesn't even benefit Russia in any way - the way 9/11 benefited the USG.
the idea that Russia blew up its own pipeline is eminently reasonable
You're a good guy and I like you, but you have Russia Derangement Syndrome (evidenced by the fact that you call me an FSB employee).
There is a long history of him doing so, most famously blowing up his own people in the apartment bombings
I've already provided you with definitive evidence disproving this, from a journalist working from Perfidious Albion. But it's interesting that you will believe anything negative about Russia and nothing negative about the precious globalists in the USG.
His agents famously got caught in Ryazan.
Yes, which was a training exercise about how to foil such attacks by Chechen Muslim terrorists, where it wasn't even established that the explosives were explosives.
Blowing up the pipeline as a false flag gave Putin a propaganda weapon to cast Russia as being under attack by foreign powers. It is perfectly tailored to shore up domestic war support.
Come again? This would explain 9/11 better than it does for a country that is actually at war.
Putin had every reason to believe that sanctions would mean that Germany would not resume purchases indefinitely, rendering the pipeline worthless anyway. Germany and other countries had already stockpiled natural gas in August and September, which was clearly done to enable a total long term withdrawal from Russian supplies
What a joke. The only thing that saved Europe was the unusually warm winter. Or people would have frozen and starved, which is just as well according to the despicable ruling class here. As long as they get their bribes.
Biden is a coward and consistently refuses to support even trivial escalations
Biden has never seen a war he doesn't love. He voted for the Iraq War, he supported Libya, and now he is escalating massively in Ukraine.
such as by refusing to supply ATACMS HIMARS missiles to Ukraine because they might use those missiles to strike targets in Russia.
Come now, the Russian roads are so bad that people would not be able to see the difference between a before and after a HIMARS strike picture.
CIA spook: HAHA, RUSSIANS! TAKE THAT! Your roads are now full of potholes. HIMARS O'CLOCK!
Russian: First time, tovarish?
Biden is the last guy who would do something bold and risky and escalatory like try to secretly blow up a pipeline.
In an earlier comment, you called Biden a puppet. Which he is. The military-industrial complex calls the shots. And here, it definitely benefited the gas companies which are now selling their useless, overpriced LNG when we could be getting cheap gas from a real country.
"European security officials observed Russian Navy support ships nearby where the leaks later occurred on 26 and 27 September. One week prior, Russian submarines were also observed nearby."
European security officials? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Yeah, that's the most reliable source on the planet. Funniest thing I've ever heard. You should have asked the clown at the local circus, he would have way more credibility.
Achtung, Mein Fuehrer Joe Biden. We saw ze Russian warships on 26 August *gets a kick*, I mean, 26 September. Yes, it was definitely ze Russians who planted zese CIA explosives. As you can see, our Drang Nach Osten is completely justified and we need to conquer Russia like our glorious forefazers had the foresight to do!
Bruh, Assad was using chemical weapons with regularity throughout the war, literally more than 600 separate attacks. Most didn't achieve significant casualties because Assad's army are incompetent cannon fodder.
Assad was using chemical weapons with regularity throughout the war, literally more than 600 separate attacks.
I don't know about the 600 number, but yeah, I know Assad uses chemical weapons. The discussion was about one specific attack that had Trump retaliate, because it's very much in doubt (at best) that this was a chemical attack by Assad.
Though the spooks at Bellingcat will certainly portray it as such.
Propagandists criticize whether deserved or not, and they use falsehoods to do so. I see no value in listening to them. All credible sources must be capable of saying "even though I don't like Biden, there is no credible evidence he did this in particular".
My question is: why do we have to rely on people on the left, like Greenwald, Mate and Tracey, and Hersh, to write good journalism criticizing the regime?
Greenwald does good journalism. Hersh does not, you just like him because he tells you what you want to hear. I don't even know the other two.
So he was consistent, like GG, and wasn't a Democratic Party hack. Good to know.
He's just one of those commies who is so far left that he sees the Democrats and Republicans as almost the same. He sees America as fundamentally evil. That said, he also knows what will win him awards so he targets the Republicans far more.
Oh wow, BELLINGCAT!
Should have known he'd be on the FSB hate list. They're seen as highly credible in the OSINT community.
"Russia blew up its own pipeline", for which you have zero evidence
I have plenty of circumstantial evidence and logical deduction. You have zero evidence of the US doing it.
you have Russia Derangement Syndrome (evidenced by the fact that you call me an FSB employee).
Not at all. I agreed with Russia/Putin in a lot of areas and defend Russia on a lot of topics, just not things like empire building through wars of aggression.
The only thing that saved Europe was the unusually warm winter. Or people would have frozen and starved
Not true at all. Germany was at 0 risk from the winter even under "worst case" scenarios.
Biden has never seen a war he doesn't love.
You mean like Afghanistan?
now he is escalating massively in Ukraine.
Not at all. Biden just goes along with whatever the euros want to do. Lately, this has meant allowing a small number of tanks to be sent sometime later this year. It's not an escalation.
Russian roads are so bad that people would not be able to see the difference between a before and after a HIMARS strike picture.
Russians slowly adapted to HIMARS by moving their ammo stockpiles outside of HIMARS range and taking pains to disperse them. Sometimes they fuck up and get hit, but its far more rare now.
ATACMS is so important because it would nullify the main Russian adaptive measure of simply moving their ammo stockpiles further back. ATACMS would bring back the days of a big Russian ammo stockpile blowing up almost every night. Moving them further away would be impossible because the ATACMS range is so long at ~300km that it simply wouldn't be possible to keep stockpiles anywhere in theater. This would create a problem the Russians might never solve, and if they did, it would still cause a lot of inefficiency and massively degrade logistics.
CIA spook: HAHA, RUSSIANS! TAKE THAT! Your roads are now full of potholes. HIMARS O'CLOCK!
I don't know why you keep on with the "pothole" meme when there was widely reported incidents where HIMARS kills hundreds of Russian soldiers in a single strike: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makiivka_military_quarters_shelling HIMARS are very inefficient at blowing up a strongly reinforced large bridge, but they still put that bridge out of action anyway.
The military-industrial complex calls the shots.
No, the Democrat donor class elite agents who staff the white house do. There is no such thing as the MI complex and the Democrats hate the military anyway. Biden only gives money to Ukraine as a virtue signal.
Propagandists criticize whether deserved or not, and they use falsehoods to do so. I see no value in listening to them. All credible sources must be capable of saying "even though I don't like Biden, there is no credible evidence he did this in particular".
Yeah sure. But you have no evidence that he is a propagandist.
He's just one of those commies who is so far left that he sees the Democrats and Republicans as almost the same.
So he's getting stuff right?
He sees America as fundamentally evil
As far as I know, Hersh talks mostly about foreign policy. American foreign policy is indisputably fundamentally evil. I could go further and say that American domestic policy is also fundamentally evil. What do you call neutering 13-year-old kids if not that?
You need to be able to distinguish between a country, the people - and the criminals who rule over it.
Should have known he'd be on the FSB hate list. They're seen as highly credible in the OSINT community.
Anything funded by the British and the Americans will be on the hitlist of anyone who cares about the truth. That is not the OSINT "community", who are autistic retards pushing American foreign policy.
I have plenty of circumstantial evidence and logical deduction. You have zero evidence of the US doing it.
No, you have squat. I have Biden's repeated threats to destroy it, the fact that it's in American interests, Victoria Nuland admitting that she is happy that it was blown up, Blinken saying that what Russia supposedly did "is a great opportunity", and Hersh's article.
Not at all. I agreed with Russia/Putin in a lot of areas and defend Russia on a lot of topics, just not things like empire building through wars of aggression.
[American empire looking through the curtans.]
Not true at all. Germany was at 0 risk from the winter even under "worst case" scenarios.
German industry was collapsing even before winter. And I know that you've rationalized all sorts of stuff, and now declare victory because you got extraordinarily, once-in-a-lifetime lucky, but no.
You mean like Afghanistan?
Which he voted for, which he supported. Apparently, Raytheon was not making enough money off of a lightweight US presence, so out they go.
Not at all. Biden just goes along with whatever the euros want to do. Lately, this has meant allowing a small number of tanks to be sent sometime later this year. It's not an escalation.
Bennett admitted that Scholz and Macron wanted peace, and Bozo Johnson didn't. Biden supported the Bozo. Stop blaming us for all this nonsense.
ATACMS is so important because it would nullify the main Russian adaptive measure of simply moving their ammo stockpiles further back. ATACMS would bring back the days of a big Russian ammo stockpile blowing up almost every night
So it's an act of war, like blowing up NS2, and Russia should retaliate, you say?
I don't know why you keep on with the "pothole" meme when there was widely reported incidents where HIMARS kills hundreds of Russian soldiers in a single strike: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makiivka_military_quarters_shelling HIMARS are very inefficient at blowing up a strongly reinforced large bridge, but they still put that bridge out of action anyway.
Is that the incident where Russian command was so retarded that they put everyone together? I wouldn't be bragging about killing hundreds of Rusdsian soldiers btw. I'm sure you were outraged about that whole 'Russian bounties' hoax, given Murica's actions, next time I think it will not be a hoax.
No, the Democrat donor class elite agents who staff the white house do. There is no such thing as the MI complex and the Democrats hate the military anyway. Biden only gives money to Ukraine as a virtue signal.
LOL! Biden and the Dems increaased the military budget to previously unknown heights. And Austin was literally plucked from the board of Raytheon. They love MIC bribes as much as Republicans do.
But you have no evidence that he is a propagandist.
Of course I do. He has a history is saying wrong shit without evidence always aimed at a singular agenda of attacking America. I would say the same thing if someone was deranged in their criticism of Putin and kept calling Putin a homosexual or something.
American foreign policy is indisputably fundamentally evil.
Nope. American foreign policy is the best thing that ever happened to the world. We saved humanity from both fascism and communism, and that was just in 50 years.
You need to be able to distinguish between a country, the people - and the criminals who rule over it.
Well as much as I don't like Biden, I wouldn't go so far as to call him a crim- BREAKING NEWS, MORE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS FOUND, THIS TIME UNDER BIDEN'S BED IN BIDEN'S STASH OF VINTAGE PORNO MAGAZINES ALONG WITH A RECEIPT FROM XI JINGPING "FOR THE BIG GUY" - uhhh, well then.
Which he voted for, which he supported.
Biden voted with his party, and the Democrats were opposed to Afghanistan as soon as it became politically safe to do so. They always wanted to run away, they were just afraid of being called cowards. Trump unfortunately gave them cover to leave by making it bipartisan and insulating them from being called cowards. Trump was a massive idiot sometimes, and his Afghanistan policy was one of the biggest examples.
Apparently, Raytheon was not making enough money off of a lightweight US presence, so out they go.
That's an idiotic and intellectually dishonest argument that lays bare how nonsensical your "Raytheon controls the US government" line is. If that was true, Raytheon would have successfully escalated the war instead of allowing the de-escalation and reduction of US footprint there. Raytheon also would have opposed the pull out. Some money is better than no money. Try to be logically consistent at least.
Bennett admitted that Scholz and Macron wanted peace, and Bozo Johnson didn't. Biden supported the Bozo.
Germany and France were cowards who didn't want to help Ukraine and got pressured into it so they wouldn't look bad to the public. Boris Johnson was a strong leader who stood up for freedom and democracy against a neo-Soviet war of conquest.
And as for Bennett: "A former Israeli prime minister is walking back his suggestion that the United States may have "blocked" an agreement last year to end the war in Ukraine, a claim that had been amplified by Russian state media and Kremlin sympathizers in the West... He relayed to Putin a request from Zelenskyy to meet. "They're Nazis, they're warmongers, I won't meet him," Putin responded, in Bennett's telling... "It's unsure there was any deal to be made," Bennett said in response to Musk. "At the time I gave it roughly a 50% chance. Americans felt chances were way lower. Hard to tell who was right." ... The English subtitles are flawed, however. In the exchange, Bennett and the interviewer do not use the word "blocked" but rather "stopped," referring to ongoing peace talks, not an agreement. In the interview, Bennett himself notes that it was not the US, France, or Germany that put an end to any peace talks. Rather, "The Bucha massacre, once that happened, I said: 'It's over,'" Bennett recalled."
So it's an act of war, like blowing up NS2, and Russia should retaliate, you say?
Sure, it's an act of war. Let's go to war, NATO vs Russia. Sound good to you? You bring your empty nuke threats, and we will utterly destroy all your deployed forces in maybe 2 weeks while also sinking your whole navy around the world.
I'm sure you were outraged about that whole 'Russian bounties' hoax, given Murica's actions, next time I think it will not be a hoax.
No I wasn't outraged at all. That was a Democrat play acting outrage thing. That's fine if Russia wants to fuck with the United States, we'll fuck them back twice as hard. The only thing that outrages me is when the weak bitch Democrats allow the United States to be attacked without launching the appropriate retaliation to teach the attackers a swift lesson about who the most powerful nation in the world truly is. Americans don't work hard and produce the most economic wealth in the world just to have our elected leaders cuck us out.
Biden and the Dems increaased the military budget to previously unknown heights.
Democrats constantly try to limit the growth of, or otherwise reduce, the military's budget. Democrats also try to undermine the military by forcing up VA and personnel benefits spending, which makes our soldiers too expensive and forces us to compensate by reducing the size of the military. You just seem to be ignorant of budget politics. Democrats demanded 1:1 cuts in defense for cuts in EVERYTHING ELSE even though Defense is only 12% of the budget.
Hersh is an anti-American and lost most of his credibility by bootlicking for Assad but there's no plausible theory other than the US or an ally doing it. Russia blowing up their own pipeline just so they can try to blame the US for it 6 months later is just not a good reason to blow up a hugely valuable pipeline. Frankly it's exactly the same type of dumb propaganda Russia tends to use ("they did it to themselves!").
I didn't. But then again, most who are 'elected' are selected, so I guess. Obviously, Assad does not reflect the will of the majority in Syria, no more than European leaders do.
scummy in his case because he's intentionally running interference for a murderous dictator.
How did you read his mind?
Assad is a rather bad guy, but the alternative is way worse. Expect genocide for the Christian and Alawite populations.
So I guess I'm also running interference for a "murderous dictator". Murderous though he be, he has caused less death than Western leaders, that's for sure.
Eh true, I mean how long did it take them to admit they knew pearl harbour would happen in advance and they still haven't admitted the CIA killed JFK..
They didn't know about Pearl Harbor in advance though. They had cracked the diplomatic code, which only made clear that something was going to happen.
Incompetence? Yes. Cui bono? Roosevelt. But did they know it beforehand? No.
As for the CIA killing JFK, it's not impossible, but the amount of evidence is not sufficient to make that conclusion. I'd say it's more likely that they are hiding the evidence for more ordinary reasons, like the fact that they just like to classify everything and don't want to be accountable to anyone. But that's just me.
It's one of those things I don't trust the government on, as we are talking about a war where the British used a dead body to trick the German's on a fake invasion route.
As for JFK, I think the fact the Soviets were panicking around even asking their intelligence service 'this wasn't us right?' To which their response was 'we know the shooter, but too unstable to use so avoided him' makes me think the CIA knew he had brief contact and thought 2 birds, 1 stone as JFK was a thorn in their side.
It's one of those things I don't trust the government on,
So one of those everything?
Cause the government is not to be trusted. However, there is no strong historical evidence saying anything other than what I just specified.
as we are talking about a war where the British used a dead body to trick the German's on a fake invasion route.
That's just ordinary. To be able to keep it secret for 80 years afterwards would take superhuman ability, particularly when people have been asking questions about it.
I think the fact the Soviets were panicking around even asking their intelligence service 'this wasn't us right?' To which their response was 'we know the shooter, but too unstable to use so avoided him' makes me think the CIA knew he had brief contact and thought 2 birds, 1 stone as JFK was a thorn in their side.
I'm not so sure. Considering that I don't like the CIA, it'll be very tempting to just say yes, so I'll have an argument against them - but I just haven't seen the evidence.
And to be fair, if they were involved, obviously they would do their best to hide the evidence. Which they do. But there can be other reasons why they try to hide the evidence.
As for JFK, I think the fact the Soviets were panicking around even asking their intelligence service 'this wasn't us right?' To which their response was 'we know the shooter, but too unstable to use so avoided him' makes me think the CIA knew he had brief contact and thought 2 birds, 1 stone as JFK was a thorn in their side.
Kruschev was probably shitting himself. I think the suspicion in the Kremlin was that it was the military that assassinated him, and was going to install Le May into power to start a war. To be honest, considering that nearly happened to Kruschev more than once, it's not an unreasonable suspicion. The fact that Oswold fucking worked for the KGB, and lived in Moscow for a time, means that if the US wanted to, they absolutely could have started WW3 with that information. There'd be no way to convince the US public that the Soviets weren't the perpetrators if the government came out and said: "a communist political activist, defector to the Soviet Union, and former KGB informant assassinated JFK."
It was only a few years since the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his own military basically tried to start WW3 with Castro, without even warning him. Castro actually stated that his goal was to start WW3, and the militarists in Moscow were all about it. Kruschev nearly lost all control. He probably thought the same thing was happening in DC. He knew the military had been gunning for war basically since 1947, and he knew that the military assumed that the best way to prevent a large-scale nuclear exchange was to go pre-emptive. The military didn't know what Kruschev knew: that there was basically no chance of the USSR coming out the winner in a nuclear exchange because the US had basically more of everything, and the USSR was hiding it's nuclear weakness, going all the way back to the "Bomber Gap" days.
They didn't know about Pearl Harbor in advance though. They had cracked the diplomatic code, which only made clear that something was going to happen.
They knew, and if they didn't know, they were being wildly irresponsible.
FDR had been trying to provoke the Axis into getting into a war with the US for years. He started with Germany, intentionally violating war zones, and transporting military equipment; BUT the Germans saw that shit coming because Wilson used the Lusitania to get into WW1. (The Lusitania was also carrying weapons and violating a war zone restriction).
Not to mention, that FDR had ordered a US military ship to aggressively shadow and harass a IJN military ship until she was fired upon. The casualties were low, so that too wasn't enough to provoke the general public into a war effort, because the anti-war sentiment in the US was genuinely very strong.
Anyone who understood Japan knew full well that a war with the US was inevitable, and the Japanese certainly knew that they couldn't operate the way they were in the Pacific without provoking a war with the US. Hence why they chose a pre-emptive strike. They knew that they had no capacity to match the US's economic or military capability once it got going, and their only chance was a devastating first strike.
So one of the most heavily armed fleets Japan had ever set to anchor was assembling in Hittokapu Bay. The Americans had photographs of the fleet, it's composition, it's size, and then one day... poof! ... It was gone. All those carriers, and the US simply waited for it to re-appear. Didn't appear in China. Didn't appear in Guam. Didn't appear in Korea. Didn't appear in Indonesia. Didn't appear in Australia.
Gee? Now, where would one of the most heavily armed Japanese Strike Forces ever assembled have disappeared to all at once? If they can't be spotted after a few weeks, they must be in the "invisible ocean" where there's no land to launch patrol flights. But that's in the northern pacific! Japan's not at war with anybody out there! Why, the only thing within reach of that fleet would be the US base at Pearl Harbor where the entire Pacific Fleet is sitting idle and at anchor with relatively no protection, including our entire compliment of battleships and aircraft carri....
... oh ...
It's like saying, "this man with a gun and the balaclava isn't here to rob the bank, clearly he's just a 2nd Amendment advocate!"
Either the Roosevelt administration was criminally negligent to the point of needing to face criminal prosecution for the intelligence and military failures at Pearl Harbor (thank God for rare Japanese incompetence and stunning American luck, otherwise they might have actually had a chance at winning); or FDR knew about the attack and decided to just take it on the chin, assuming he wouldn't loose the entire pacific fleet, or that someone would have intercepted it on time. Wrong: again, in the 2nd bloodiest day in American history, we actually rolled 3 Natural 20's, and the Japs rolled a Natural 1.
As for JFK? Oswold shot him, that's actually super clear. LBJ just exploited the murder and turned it into a coup. There's a reason the biggest proponents of the JFK Assassination conspiracy theory are all former members of the Kennedy administration. When you read about what happened after the president died, it certainly looks like a coup. The focus on the shooting itself is actually classic deflection. Everyone's digging their heels into the initial crime scene, and not talking about the fucking fist fights that broke out in the White House when the VP staffers literally started throwing people out and taking their security clearances.
FDR had been trying to provoke the Axis into getting into a war with the US for years. He started with Germany, intentionally violating war zones, and transporting military equipment;
Correct. This is what made Germany (in WW2) conclude that America was a de facto belligerent and that declaring war would do no further harm to them.
Anyone who understood Japan knew full well that a war with the US was inevitable, and the Japanese certainly knew that they couldn't operate the way they were in the Pacific without provoking a war with the US. Hence why they chose a pre-emptive strike. They knew that they had no capacity to match the US's economic or military capability once it got going, and their only chance was a devastating first strike.
The US wasn't going to use aggression. That would have been politically impractical. It would just use economic sanctions in order to force Japan's hand. It's genius really. If you are the aggressor, your decision will always be second guessed. But if you trick the other side into attacking first, then you can paint yourself as innocence violated.
So one of the most heavily armed fleets Japan had ever set to anchor was assembling in Hittokapu Bay. The Americans had photographs of the fleet, it's composition, it's size, and then one day... poof! ... It was gone. All those carriers, and the US simply waited for it to re-appear. Didn't appear in China. Didn't appear in Guam. Didn't appear in Korea. Didn't appear in Indonesia. Didn't appear in Australia.
The Philippines were considered the most likely destination. In retrospect, Pearl Harbor may seem damn obvious, but hindsight is 20/20.
Either the Roosevelt administration was criminally negligent to the point of needing to face criminal prosecution for the intelligence and military failures at Pearl Harbor (thank God for rare Japanese incompetence and stunning American luck, otherwise they might have actually had a chance at winning);
Even the Japanese did not think that they had a chance to win. However, the oil embargo had made the situation so desperate that even a small chance was considered preferable to certain defeat.
As for JFK? Oswold shot him, that's actually super clear. LBJ just exploited the murder and turned it into a coup. There's a reason the biggest proponents of the JFK Assassination conspiracy theory are all former members of the Kennedy administration. When you read about what happened after the president died, it certainly looks like a coup. The focus on the shooting itself is actually classic deflection. Everyone's digging their heels into the initial crime scene, and not talking about the fucking fist fights that broke out in the White House when the VP staffers literally started throwing people out and taking their security clearances.
I would not be surprised, given LBJ's character (which is terrible for every politician, but he was a down and dirty streetfighter as well), I just haven't seen the evidence for it. In fact, any evidence. There are limits to cui bono.
The Philippines were considered the most likely destination. In retrospect, Pearl Harbor may seem damn obvious, but hindsight is 20/20.
I'm sticking with criminal negligence.
Even the Japanese did not think that they had a chance to win. However, the oil embargo had made the situation so desperate that even a small chance was considered preferable to certain defeat.
That's too pessimistic for the militarists. There were plenty of people who thought they could win in 1941, they just weren't everybody. Hell, there were still a lot of dangerous people who thought they could win in 1945.
That's too pessimistic for the militarists. There were plenty of people who thought they could win in 1941, they just weren't everybody. Hell, there were still a lot of dangerous people who thought they could win in 1945.
I'll defer to your knowledge of the Pacific War, since I'm mostly interested in the war in Europe, but as far as I know, no one in Japan believed they could 'win' in 1945 - especially by the metrics they set out. Even if the US was not able to conquer the home islands, losing your entire empire and not getting conquered is a far cry from 'winning'.
Anyone who even entertained the idea that Russia destroyed their own pipeline, which constituted the entirety of their leverage over Europe, is an actual NPC.
Yeah, it was fucking retarded for anyone to suggest that. That Pipeline was the ONE trump card Russians had against the West. Now it's been taken away from them (but at the cost of some minor suffering in the West).
No, you're just ignorant. Nord Stream had been shut off since the war started, and offered absolutely no leverage whatsoever. In August and September, Germany had built up a large stockpile of natural gas, making it crystal clear that there would be no winter shortage, and this the pipeline was worthless.
Do your research before you assume you're the big brained one and everyone with a different opinion is an NPC. You're the NPC from where I'm sitting.
Frankly, "Russia blew up its own pipeline because the regime said so" is the biggest NPC move.
Doesn't matter that it was shut off. Hell, that proves the Russian case. Why blow up a pipeline when you've already closed it off? The smart thing to do is to use it for leverage, which is what the Americans feared, and which is why they blew up European critical infrastructure... in order to make peace between Germany and Russia impossible, and in order to continue selling their garbage, overpriced LNG to us.
There was no winter shortage because it was the warmest winter for a very long time. So you got very lucky, or even your slavish German vassals would have become uncomfortable.
Why blow up a pipeline when you've already closed it off?
I answered that question at length in my comment. Did you read it?
The smart thing to do is to use it for leverage
It had no leverage since the Germans had already switched their natural gas purchases to other sources and filled their stockpiles for the winter, meaning they'd have no reason to even want to buy any Russian gas. But I repeat myself.
which is what the Americans feared, and which is why they blew up European critical infrastructure... in order to make peace between Germany and Russia impossible, and in order to continue selling their garbage, overpriced LNG to us.
Nope. America did not "fear" anything. Russia already had lost all its leverage. There was a small chance that Germany might go begging to Russia for natural gas in the Summer when shortages were feared. Russia had leverage then. Germany made its choice in August/September when it filled its stockpiles at high prices from other sources, choosing short term financial pain (easily absorbed for a rich economy) to cut off Russia totally.
When Russia blew up its pipelines at the end of September, it had already been clear for some time that they were worthless.
There would be no reason for the US to blow up the pipeline in late Sept. If your theory were true, the US would have blown up the pipeline in early summer or sooner to force Germany's hand and take begging to Russia off the table. That's not what happened. The timing cuts strongly against your argument.
There was no winter shortage because it was the warmest winter for a very long time.
False. German stockpiles were sufficient to get through the winter even if it was worse than usual. Source
The mild winter has meant that stockpiles were barely affected. Current stockpile is 76.26%. Projections for this week ranged from 37% to 60%, with even the "worst case" 37% scenario never falling below 10% at its nadir in April. Instead we are at 76.26%, far higher than even the "high conservation, no export" scenarios. In other words, all the mild winter did was take an already-solved problem and render it overkill.
I answered that question at length in my comment. Did you read it?
Read and refuted!
America did not "fear" anything. Russia already had lost all its leverage.
No one cares about a corrupt puppet shithole non-country. That's the honest truth. The only reason Germany pretends to care, is because Germany is not a sovereign country. Left to its own devices, there would be a rapprochement between Russia and Germany, because it's in both these countries's interests.
If your theory were true, the US would have blown up the pipeline in early summer or sooner to force Germany's hand and take begging to Russia off the table.
Yes, right before winter.
Unfortunately, you are one of those people who think "my country, right or wrong" - even when your country is ruled by some of the most despicable, criminal people on the planet.
False. German stockpiles were sufficient to get through the winter even if it was worse than usual. Source
That was always wishful thinking on your part. And even when it became clear the winter was much warmer than normal, there were alarm bells about the gas supplies not lasting.
Instead we are at 76.26%, far higher than even the "high conservation, no export" scenarios. In other words, all the mild winter did was take an already-solved problem and render it overkill.
?
This makes little sense. How exactly did you establish the supposedly small contribution of a record warm winter?
Nordstream had been shut off about 4 weeks prior the bombing. Also, its continued functioning meant that Germany could at any time (probably secretly) come to an agreement with Russia, who would switch the gas back on. It was clearly a valuable asset and lever for Russia and a major threat to US leverage.
Germany had built up a large stockpile of natural gas, making it crystal clear that there would be no winter shortage
Did anyone tell the Germans that? Because it seems like gas prices skyrocketing everywhere in Europe, and the Indian's selling Russian gas to Europe with a mark-up is what's preventing full on shortages. Seems to me like the Germans don't have much of a reserve.
I don’t think anyone is surprised there, this has been a MIC pushed war and making Europe/NATO have an “excuse” to ramp up military funding of Ukraine was necessary.
Goddamn imp you are just not capable of containing yourself even when you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
This shit is old news, the OP article is half a year late. Some of the plane tracker types identified the aircraft that flew over the pipeline and even the part of the flight path where the payload was released, which the article claims was a signal buoy now, instead of the bonb everyone thought it was. That's the only new information involved.
How the fuck would the Ukes have done it when they were all tied up with getting smacked around by the Russians.
US military assets were in the area at the time. If, say, a UK dive team did it, they were supported by a US helicopter and a US ship.
That's not unfeasible, but do we really think the US needed a UK dive team? If the US got the UK in on the job, they did so purely to make sure the US wasn't the only party to blame when the truth came out.
Regardless of who did it, I'm sure the Germans know by now. And the fact that they've said nothing tells me it was an 'ally', and one that that basically owns them as a vassal.
Funny how it's always a 'conspiracy theory' when you assign responsibility to the US.
The US blowing up its own towers? CONSPIRACY THEORY.
Russia NOT blowing up its own pipelines? CONSPIRACY THEORY.
"Conspiracy theory" quickly went from "a belief that a group of people is conspiring in secret" to "any belief that runs contrary to the establishment narrative" to "any belief I don't like*. Once a term enters the erstwhile consciousness of the NPCs, it is immediately stripped of all meaning and turned into yet another synonym for "bad".
Often I've noticed that the dumbest of the dumb don't even use the full term any more. They just say "conspiracy", accidentally revealing that they have zero clue as to the meaning of the words they're saying. They're just noises they heard on TV.
"Conspiracy theory"
(n) A claim or statement that, if widely believed, would threaten the power of the Regime.
Anything said by that clown Seymour Hersh instantly makes it less credible. He claims everything he's saying is from a single anonymous source. Riiiight. Reminds me of the Trump "pee tapes".
He's an atheistic jew anti-American propagandist. The libs loved him when he published propaganda against the US during the Vietnam War, because they were on the same side. Later, when he started attacking Obama, the Left turned against him and he is universally recognized as a conspiratorial crank. In 2018, Hersh told an interviewer, "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11." Hersh later lied about Syria not using chemical weapons: Bellingcat accused Hersh of sloppy journalism: "Hersh based his case on a tiny number of anonymous sources, presented no other evidence to support his case, and ignored or dismissed evidence that countered the alternative narrative he was trying to build." He's an atheistic jew far left propagandist.
9/11 being an "inside job" is completely retarded and makes no sense on any level. The evidence offered in support - shit like "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" & "omg those are demolition squibs!" - is laughably wrong on its face and would only fool a complete idiot.
By contrast, the idea that Russia blew up its own pipeline is eminently reasonable, which is why I believe it is by far the most likely:
Putin, as a career KGB operative, LOVES doing shady espionage shit like false flag attacks. There is a long history of him doing so, most famously blowing up his own people in the apartment bombings so he could blame it on muslims as a pretext to invade/escalate against Chechnya. His agents famously got caught in Ryazan. He'd done something like this before: Two explosions on a gas pipeline in North Ossetia in January 2006, which were caused by remote-controlled military-grade charges. The explosions halted Russian gas supply to Georgia after the country had started seeking NATO membership.
Putin is obsessed with the manipulation and control of the Russian people. He devotes enormous resources to it. Blowing up the pipeline as a false flag gave Putin a propaganda weapon to cast Russia as being under attack by foreign powers. It is perfectly tailored to shore up domestic war support.
The pipeline was already inoperative. Putin had every reason to believe that sanctions would mean that Germany would not resume purchases indefinitely, rendering the pipeline worthless anyway. Germany and other countries had already stockpiled natural gas in August and September, which was clearly done to enable a total long term withdrawal from Russian supplies. The pipeline was blown up in late September soon after this had become clear. Might as well blow it up and extract what propaganda value out of it he could. Conversely, it would make no sense for the US/UK to blow up a pipeline after Germany and others had already taken steps to eliminate dependency on it and it was worthless.
Putin may have hoped blowing them up would cause a panic/shock in natural gas markets. "On 27 September 2022, European gas prices jumped 12 percent after news spread of the damaged pipelines".
Putin has a long history of being over-promised and under-delivered by his subordinates. To us outsiders it might seem like blowing up the pipeline is not likely to help Russia much, but Putin's perception would be very different as his FSB executives pitched him on it. Putin may have believed that blowing it up would drive a wedge between Germany and the US/UK. This is laughable to Westerners, but Putin living in his bubble believes a lot of stupid shit.
Biden is a coward and consistently refuses to support even trivial escalations, such as by refusing to supply ATACMS HIMARS missiles to Ukraine because they might use those missiles to strike targets in Russia. Biden opposed the Bin Laden raid. Biden cucked out of Afghanistan. Biden is the last guy who would do something bold and risky and escalatory like try to secretly blow up a pipeline.
"European security officials observed Russian Navy support ships nearby where the leaks later occurred on 26 and 27 September. One week prior, Russian submarines were also observed nearby."
He's literally a senile puppet, not in control of anything.
Someone linked the plane analysis down the thread, but I don't think actually reading a thread before shitposting is in your capability if you think Russia would blow up it's own fucking pipeline for no reason.
I'm no "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" type either, but believing one of those bullshit stories is legit and the other isn't is pure fucking stupid.
Equally retarded is believing that Russia loves false flags, but thinking the US wouldn't do them - declassified operation Northwoods. CIA planned a false flag op to start war with Cuba. Kennedy shut it down. The US doing false flags is no less likely than Russia - the US federal government is not some kind of "good guy".
All these giant governments are criminal organizations.
I disagree with him, but I'm glad he made the argument, which is why I did upvote him. It's boring when everyone agrees on a given subject.
And this is the most important point.
Same for politicians.
A politician isn't 'a good guy' simply because he agrees with you, or says he agrees with you. You need to hold them accountable.
Only for people who thrive on arguing for the sake of it.
It's not just that. You think it's interesting if every comment has the exact same POV? I'm not interested in having my own views echoed to myself in 30 different ways.
It's way too easy to slip into believing nonsense when you are in a hivemind.
No, but I also get zero benefit or interest watching people create conflict for the sake of having conflict, just to have an argument.
You are speaking as if its a binary, when there is also the option of not saying anything because its already been said and you have nothing to add to it.
My kind of guy! The current regime deserves criticism. My question is: why do we have to rely on people on the left, like Greenwald, Mate and Tracey, and Hersh, to write good journalism criticizing the regime?
So he was consistent, like GG, and wasn't a Democratic Party hack. Good to know.
Oh wow, BELLINGCAT! I can't think of a better CIA-funded, British government-funded organization whose word I'd rather take for it. And for the record, there are AT BEST major questions about whether Syria used chemical weapons again, and there were whistleblowers at the OPCW saying that the Muricans had put pressure on them to lie.
The USG lying about weapons of mass destruction? Tell me it ain't so!
Maybe (I've been downvoted heavily here at time for not being a 9/11 truther) but it's less retarded than "Russia blew up its own pipeline", for which you have zero evidence, and which doesn't even benefit Russia in any way - the way 9/11 benefited the USG.
You're a good guy and I like you, but you have Russia Derangement Syndrome (evidenced by the fact that you call me an FSB employee).
I've already provided you with definitive evidence disproving this, from a journalist working from Perfidious Albion. But it's interesting that you will believe anything negative about Russia and nothing negative about the precious globalists in the USG.
Yes, which was a training exercise about how to foil such attacks by Chechen Muslim terrorists, where it wasn't even established that the explosives were explosives.
Come again? This would explain 9/11 better than it does for a country that is actually at war.
What a joke. The only thing that saved Europe was the unusually warm winter. Or people would have frozen and starved, which is just as well according to the despicable ruling class here. As long as they get their bribes.
Biden has never seen a war he doesn't love. He voted for the Iraq War, he supported Libya, and now he is escalating massively in Ukraine.
Come now, the Russian roads are so bad that people would not be able to see the difference between a before and after a HIMARS strike picture.
CIA spook: HAHA, RUSSIANS! TAKE THAT! Your roads are now full of potholes. HIMARS O'CLOCK!
Russian: First time, tovarish?
In an earlier comment, you called Biden a puppet. Which he is. The military-industrial complex calls the shots. And here, it definitely benefited the gas companies which are now selling their useless, overpriced LNG when we could be getting cheap gas from a real country.
European security officials? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Yeah, that's the most reliable source on the planet. Funniest thing I've ever heard. You should have asked the clown at the local circus, he would have way more credibility.
Achtung, Mein Fuehrer Joe Biden. We saw ze Russian warships on 26 August *gets a kick*, I mean, 26 September. Yes, it was definitely ze Russians who planted zese CIA explosives. As you can see, our Drang Nach Osten is completely justified and we need to conquer Russia like our glorious forefazers had the foresight to do!
Bruh, Assad was using chemical weapons with regularity throughout the war, literally more than 600 separate attacks. Most didn't achieve significant casualties because Assad's army are incompetent cannon fodder.
I don't know about the 600 number, but yeah, I know Assad uses chemical weapons. The discussion was about one specific attack that had Trump retaliate, because it's very much in doubt (at best) that this was a chemical attack by Assad.
Though the spooks at Bellingcat will certainly portray it as such.
Propagandists criticize whether deserved or not, and they use falsehoods to do so. I see no value in listening to them. All credible sources must be capable of saying "even though I don't like Biden, there is no credible evidence he did this in particular".
Greenwald does good journalism. Hersh does not, you just like him because he tells you what you want to hear. I don't even know the other two.
He's just one of those commies who is so far left that he sees the Democrats and Republicans as almost the same. He sees America as fundamentally evil. That said, he also knows what will win him awards so he targets the Republicans far more.
Should have known he'd be on the FSB hate list. They're seen as highly credible in the OSINT community.
I have plenty of circumstantial evidence and logical deduction. You have zero evidence of the US doing it.
Not at all. I agreed with Russia/Putin in a lot of areas and defend Russia on a lot of topics, just not things like empire building through wars of aggression.
Not true at all. Germany was at 0 risk from the winter even under "worst case" scenarios.
You mean like Afghanistan?
Not at all. Biden just goes along with whatever the euros want to do. Lately, this has meant allowing a small number of tanks to be sent sometime later this year. It's not an escalation.
Russians slowly adapted to HIMARS by moving their ammo stockpiles outside of HIMARS range and taking pains to disperse them. Sometimes they fuck up and get hit, but its far more rare now.
ATACMS is so important because it would nullify the main Russian adaptive measure of simply moving their ammo stockpiles further back. ATACMS would bring back the days of a big Russian ammo stockpile blowing up almost every night. Moving them further away would be impossible because the ATACMS range is so long at ~300km that it simply wouldn't be possible to keep stockpiles anywhere in theater. This would create a problem the Russians might never solve, and if they did, it would still cause a lot of inefficiency and massively degrade logistics.
I don't know why you keep on with the "pothole" meme when there was widely reported incidents where HIMARS kills hundreds of Russian soldiers in a single strike: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makiivka_military_quarters_shelling HIMARS are very inefficient at blowing up a strongly reinforced large bridge, but they still put that bridge out of action anyway.
No, the Democrat donor class elite agents who staff the white house do. There is no such thing as the MI complex and the Democrats hate the military anyway. Biden only gives money to Ukraine as a virtue signal.
Yeah sure. But you have no evidence that he is a propagandist.
So he's getting stuff right?
As far as I know, Hersh talks mostly about foreign policy. American foreign policy is indisputably fundamentally evil. I could go further and say that American domestic policy is also fundamentally evil. What do you call neutering 13-year-old kids if not that?
You need to be able to distinguish between a country, the people - and the criminals who rule over it.
Anything funded by the British and the Americans will be on the hitlist of anyone who cares about the truth. That is not the OSINT "community", who are autistic retards pushing American foreign policy.
No, you have squat. I have Biden's repeated threats to destroy it, the fact that it's in American interests, Victoria Nuland admitting that she is happy that it was blown up, Blinken saying that what Russia supposedly did "is a great opportunity", and Hersh's article.
[American empire looking through the curtans.]
German industry was collapsing even before winter. And I know that you've rationalized all sorts of stuff, and now declare victory because you got extraordinarily, once-in-a-lifetime lucky, but no.
Which he voted for, which he supported. Apparently, Raytheon was not making enough money off of a lightweight US presence, so out they go.
Bennett admitted that Scholz and Macron wanted peace, and Bozo Johnson didn't. Biden supported the Bozo. Stop blaming us for all this nonsense.
So it's an act of war, like blowing up NS2, and Russia should retaliate, you say?
Is that the incident where Russian command was so retarded that they put everyone together? I wouldn't be bragging about killing hundreds of Rusdsian soldiers btw. I'm sure you were outraged about that whole 'Russian bounties' hoax, given Murica's actions, next time I think it will not be a hoax.
LOL! Biden and the Dems increaased the military budget to previously unknown heights. And Austin was literally plucked from the board of Raytheon. They love MIC bribes as much as Republicans do.
Of course I do. He has a history is saying wrong shit without evidence always aimed at a singular agenda of attacking America. I would say the same thing if someone was deranged in their criticism of Putin and kept calling Putin a homosexual or something.
Nope. American foreign policy is the best thing that ever happened to the world. We saved humanity from both fascism and communism, and that was just in 50 years.
Well as much as I don't like Biden, I wouldn't go so far as to call him a crim- BREAKING NEWS, MORE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS FOUND, THIS TIME UNDER BIDEN'S BED IN BIDEN'S STASH OF VINTAGE PORNO MAGAZINES ALONG WITH A RECEIPT FROM XI JINGPING "FOR THE BIG GUY" - uhhh, well then.
Biden voted with his party, and the Democrats were opposed to Afghanistan as soon as it became politically safe to do so. They always wanted to run away, they were just afraid of being called cowards. Trump unfortunately gave them cover to leave by making it bipartisan and insulating them from being called cowards. Trump was a massive idiot sometimes, and his Afghanistan policy was one of the biggest examples.
That's an idiotic and intellectually dishonest argument that lays bare how nonsensical your "Raytheon controls the US government" line is. If that was true, Raytheon would have successfully escalated the war instead of allowing the de-escalation and reduction of US footprint there. Raytheon also would have opposed the pull out. Some money is better than no money. Try to be logically consistent at least.
Germany and France were cowards who didn't want to help Ukraine and got pressured into it so they wouldn't look bad to the public. Boris Johnson was a strong leader who stood up for freedom and democracy against a neo-Soviet war of conquest.
And as for Bennett: "A former Israeli prime minister is walking back his suggestion that the United States may have "blocked" an agreement last year to end the war in Ukraine, a claim that had been amplified by Russian state media and Kremlin sympathizers in the West... He relayed to Putin a request from Zelenskyy to meet. "They're Nazis, they're warmongers, I won't meet him," Putin responded, in Bennett's telling... "It's unsure there was any deal to be made," Bennett said in response to Musk. "At the time I gave it roughly a 50% chance. Americans felt chances were way lower. Hard to tell who was right." ... The English subtitles are flawed, however. In the exchange, Bennett and the interviewer do not use the word "blocked" but rather "stopped," referring to ongoing peace talks, not an agreement. In the interview, Bennett himself notes that it was not the US, France, or Germany that put an end to any peace talks. Rather, "The Bucha massacre, once that happened, I said: 'It's over,'" Bennett recalled."
Sure, it's an act of war. Let's go to war, NATO vs Russia. Sound good to you? You bring your empty nuke threats, and we will utterly destroy all your deployed forces in maybe 2 weeks while also sinking your whole navy around the world.
No I wasn't outraged at all. That was a Democrat play acting outrage thing. That's fine if Russia wants to fuck with the United States, we'll fuck them back twice as hard. The only thing that outrages me is when the weak bitch Democrats allow the United States to be attacked without launching the appropriate retaliation to teach the attackers a swift lesson about who the most powerful nation in the world truly is. Americans don't work hard and produce the most economic wealth in the world just to have our elected leaders cuck us out.
Democrats constantly try to limit the growth of, or otherwise reduce, the military's budget. Democrats also try to undermine the military by forcing up VA and personnel benefits spending, which makes our soldiers too expensive and forces us to compensate by reducing the size of the military. You just seem to be ignorant of budget politics. Democrats demanded 1:1 cuts in defense for cuts in EVERYTHING ELSE even though Defense is only 12% of the budget.
Hersh is an anti-American and lost most of his credibility by bootlicking for Assad but there's no plausible theory other than the US or an ally doing it. Russia blowing up their own pipeline just so they can try to blame the US for it 6 months later is just not a good reason to blow up a hugely valuable pipeline. Frankly it's exactly the same type of dumb propaganda Russia tends to use ("they did it to themselves!").
"bootlicking for Assad"
why is defending the elected leader of a country fighting against a group of global terrorists "bootlicking"?
You're brainwashed scum and deserve to be thrown feet-first into a woodchipper.
Whoa, where did that come from? Because he called Assad 'elected'? That was a strangely harsh reaction to a run-of-the-mill comment.
Calling Assad "elected" is ignorant in your case, scummy in his case because he's intentionally running interference for a murderous dictator.
I didn't. But then again, most who are 'elected' are selected, so I guess. Obviously, Assad does not reflect the will of the majority in Syria, no more than European leaders do.
How did you read his mind?
Assad is a rather bad guy, but the alternative is way worse. Expect genocide for the Christian and Alawite populations.
So I guess I'm also running interference for a "murderous dictator". Murderous though he be, he has caused less death than Western leaders, that's for sure.
killing terrorists is good, actually.
answer the question, fuckface.
Can you please rephrase the question in the form of a video of you diving into a woodchipper?
seethe and dilate
answer the question
I mean yeah? This was as obvious as the 'obviously right wing' protests in DC with all of them with the same haircut, style, shades and build...
Eh true, I mean how long did it take them to admit they knew pearl harbour would happen in advance and they still haven't admitted the CIA killed JFK..
They didn't know about Pearl Harbor in advance though. They had cracked the diplomatic code, which only made clear that something was going to happen.
Incompetence? Yes. Cui bono? Roosevelt. But did they know it beforehand? No.
As for the CIA killing JFK, it's not impossible, but the amount of evidence is not sufficient to make that conclusion. I'd say it's more likely that they are hiding the evidence for more ordinary reasons, like the fact that they just like to classify everything and don't want to be accountable to anyone. But that's just me.
It's one of those things I don't trust the government on, as we are talking about a war where the British used a dead body to trick the German's on a fake invasion route.
As for JFK, I think the fact the Soviets were panicking around even asking their intelligence service 'this wasn't us right?' To which their response was 'we know the shooter, but too unstable to use so avoided him' makes me think the CIA knew he had brief contact and thought 2 birds, 1 stone as JFK was a thorn in their side.
So one of those everything?
Cause the government is not to be trusted. However, there is no strong historical evidence saying anything other than what I just specified.
That's just ordinary. To be able to keep it secret for 80 years afterwards would take superhuman ability, particularly when people have been asking questions about it.
I'm not so sure. Considering that I don't like the CIA, it'll be very tempting to just say yes, so I'll have an argument against them - but I just haven't seen the evidence.
And to be fair, if they were involved, obviously they would do their best to hide the evidence. Which they do. But there can be other reasons why they try to hide the evidence.
I trust them to fuck things up, they're the main reason I live by the ethos 'hope for the best but plan for the worst'
They really don't fuck things up. Not the things they care about. Only the things you care about.
Kruschev was probably shitting himself. I think the suspicion in the Kremlin was that it was the military that assassinated him, and was going to install Le May into power to start a war. To be honest, considering that nearly happened to Kruschev more than once, it's not an unreasonable suspicion. The fact that Oswold fucking worked for the KGB, and lived in Moscow for a time, means that if the US wanted to, they absolutely could have started WW3 with that information. There'd be no way to convince the US public that the Soviets weren't the perpetrators if the government came out and said: "a communist political activist, defector to the Soviet Union, and former KGB informant assassinated JFK."
It was only a few years since the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his own military basically tried to start WW3 with Castro, without even warning him. Castro actually stated that his goal was to start WW3, and the militarists in Moscow were all about it. Kruschev nearly lost all control. He probably thought the same thing was happening in DC. He knew the military had been gunning for war basically since 1947, and he knew that the military assumed that the best way to prevent a large-scale nuclear exchange was to go pre-emptive. The military didn't know what Kruschev knew: that there was basically no chance of the USSR coming out the winner in a nuclear exchange because the US had basically more of everything, and the USSR was hiding it's nuclear weakness, going all the way back to the "Bomber Gap" days.
They knew, and if they didn't know, they were being wildly irresponsible.
FDR had been trying to provoke the Axis into getting into a war with the US for years. He started with Germany, intentionally violating war zones, and transporting military equipment; BUT the Germans saw that shit coming because Wilson used the Lusitania to get into WW1. (The Lusitania was also carrying weapons and violating a war zone restriction).
Not to mention, that FDR had ordered a US military ship to aggressively shadow and harass a IJN military ship until she was fired upon. The casualties were low, so that too wasn't enough to provoke the general public into a war effort, because the anti-war sentiment in the US was genuinely very strong.
Anyone who understood Japan knew full well that a war with the US was inevitable, and the Japanese certainly knew that they couldn't operate the way they were in the Pacific without provoking a war with the US. Hence why they chose a pre-emptive strike. They knew that they had no capacity to match the US's economic or military capability once it got going, and their only chance was a devastating first strike.
So one of the most heavily armed fleets Japan had ever set to anchor was assembling in Hittokapu Bay. The Americans had photographs of the fleet, it's composition, it's size, and then one day... poof! ... It was gone. All those carriers, and the US simply waited for it to re-appear. Didn't appear in China. Didn't appear in Guam. Didn't appear in Korea. Didn't appear in Indonesia. Didn't appear in Australia.
Gee? Now, where would one of the most heavily armed Japanese Strike Forces ever assembled have disappeared to all at once? If they can't be spotted after a few weeks, they must be in the "invisible ocean" where there's no land to launch patrol flights. But that's in the northern pacific! Japan's not at war with anybody out there! Why, the only thing within reach of that fleet would be the US base at Pearl Harbor where the entire Pacific Fleet is sitting idle and at anchor with relatively no protection, including our entire compliment of battleships and aircraft carri....
... oh ...
It's like saying, "this man with a gun and the balaclava isn't here to rob the bank, clearly he's just a 2nd Amendment advocate!"
Either the Roosevelt administration was criminally negligent to the point of needing to face criminal prosecution for the intelligence and military failures at Pearl Harbor (thank God for rare Japanese incompetence and stunning American luck, otherwise they might have actually had a chance at winning); or FDR knew about the attack and decided to just take it on the chin, assuming he wouldn't loose the entire pacific fleet, or that someone would have intercepted it on time. Wrong: again, in the 2nd bloodiest day in American history, we actually rolled 3 Natural 20's, and the Japs rolled a Natural 1.
As for JFK? Oswold shot him, that's actually super clear. LBJ just exploited the murder and turned it into a coup. There's a reason the biggest proponents of the JFK Assassination conspiracy theory are all former members of the Kennedy administration. When you read about what happened after the president died, it certainly looks like a coup. The focus on the shooting itself is actually classic deflection. Everyone's digging their heels into the initial crime scene, and not talking about the fucking fist fights that broke out in the White House when the VP staffers literally started throwing people out and taking their security clearances.
Correct. This is what made Germany (in WW2) conclude that America was a de facto belligerent and that declaring war would do no further harm to them.
The US wasn't going to use aggression. That would have been politically impractical. It would just use economic sanctions in order to force Japan's hand. It's genius really. If you are the aggressor, your decision will always be second guessed. But if you trick the other side into attacking first, then you can paint yourself as innocence violated.
The Philippines were considered the most likely destination. In retrospect, Pearl Harbor may seem damn obvious, but hindsight is 20/20.
Even the Japanese did not think that they had a chance to win. However, the oil embargo had made the situation so desperate that even a small chance was considered preferable to certain defeat.
I would not be surprised, given LBJ's character (which is terrible for every politician, but he was a down and dirty streetfighter as well), I just haven't seen the evidence for it. In fact, any evidence. There are limits to cui bono.
I'm sticking with criminal negligence.
That's too pessimistic for the militarists. There were plenty of people who thought they could win in 1941, they just weren't everybody. Hell, there were still a lot of dangerous people who thought they could win in 1945.
I'll defer to your knowledge of the Pacific War, since I'm mostly interested in the war in Europe, but as far as I know, no one in Japan believed they could 'win' in 1945 - especially by the metrics they set out. Even if the US was not able to conquer the home islands, losing your entire empire and not getting conquered is a far cry from 'winning'.
Anyone who even entertained the idea that Russia destroyed their own pipeline, which constituted the entirety of their leverage over Europe, is an actual NPC.
Yeah, it was fucking retarded for anyone to suggest that. That Pipeline was the ONE trump card Russians had against the West. Now it's been taken away from them (but at the cost of some minor suffering in the West).
Absolutely. What's sad is people believing the exact same type of idiocy about Assad's use of chemical weapons, in this very thread.
No, you're just ignorant. Nord Stream had been shut off since the war started, and offered absolutely no leverage whatsoever. In August and September, Germany had built up a large stockpile of natural gas, making it crystal clear that there would be no winter shortage, and this the pipeline was worthless.
Do your research before you assume you're the big brained one and everyone with a different opinion is an NPC. You're the NPC from where I'm sitting.
Frankly, "Russia blew up its own pipeline because the regime said so" is the biggest NPC move.
Doesn't matter that it was shut off. Hell, that proves the Russian case. Why blow up a pipeline when you've already closed it off? The smart thing to do is to use it for leverage, which is what the Americans feared, and which is why they blew up European critical infrastructure... in order to make peace between Germany and Russia impossible, and in order to continue selling their garbage, overpriced LNG to us.
There was no winter shortage because it was the warmest winter for a very long time. So you got very lucky, or even your slavish German vassals would have become uncomfortable.
I answered that question at length in my comment. Did you read it?
It had no leverage since the Germans had already switched their natural gas purchases to other sources and filled their stockpiles for the winter, meaning they'd have no reason to even want to buy any Russian gas. But I repeat myself.
Nope. America did not "fear" anything. Russia already had lost all its leverage. There was a small chance that Germany might go begging to Russia for natural gas in the Summer when shortages were feared. Russia had leverage then. Germany made its choice in August/September when it filled its stockpiles at high prices from other sources, choosing short term financial pain (easily absorbed for a rich economy) to cut off Russia totally.
When Russia blew up its pipelines at the end of September, it had already been clear for some time that they were worthless.
There would be no reason for the US to blow up the pipeline in late Sept. If your theory were true, the US would have blown up the pipeline in early summer or sooner to force Germany's hand and take begging to Russia off the table. That's not what happened. The timing cuts strongly against your argument.
False. German stockpiles were sufficient to get through the winter even if it was worse than usual. Source
The mild winter has meant that stockpiles were barely affected. Current stockpile is 76.26%. Projections for this week ranged from 37% to 60%, with even the "worst case" 37% scenario never falling below 10% at its nadir in April. Instead we are at 76.26%, far higher than even the "high conservation, no export" scenarios. In other words, all the mild winter did was take an already-solved problem and render it overkill.
Read and refuted!
No one cares about a corrupt puppet shithole non-country. That's the honest truth. The only reason Germany pretends to care, is because Germany is not a sovereign country. Left to its own devices, there would be a rapprochement between Russia and Germany, because it's in both these countries's interests.
Yes, right before winter.
Unfortunately, you are one of those people who think "my country, right or wrong" - even when your country is ruled by some of the most despicable, criminal people on the planet.
That was always wishful thinking on your part. And even when it became clear the winter was much warmer than normal, there were alarm bells about the gas supplies not lasting.
?
This makes little sense. How exactly did you establish the supposedly small contribution of a record warm winter?
Funny thing about shutting a pipeline off (using the stick) is that the option to open it back up turns it into a carrot.
Nordstream had been shut off about 4 weeks prior the bombing. Also, its continued functioning meant that Germany could at any time (probably secretly) come to an agreement with Russia, who would switch the gas back on. It was clearly a valuable asset and lever for Russia and a major threat to US leverage.
Did anyone tell the Germans that? Because it seems like gas prices skyrocketing everywhere in Europe, and the Indian's selling Russian gas to Europe with a mark-up is what's preventing full on shortages. Seems to me like the Germans don't have much of a reserve.
I don’t think anyone is surprised there, this has been a MIC pushed war and making Europe/NATO have an “excuse” to ramp up military funding of Ukraine was necessary.
well possible rooster of culprits: from those who have to gain more to those who have to gain less
USA
UK
Ukraine
nations with gas in the baltic
some investors filled of money who speculate on gas futures
terrorists
4chan
Russia
--
if it has been USA or Ukraine, Germany is literally at "the massa cry in pain as they hit you" stage of vassalage. no future.
if it has been a third-party there are very few reasons to stay quiet about it.
if it has been Russia, then Germany reply to the destruction of a country's strategic infrastructure is to cuck down. again no future.
not nice scenarios.
You forgot to add Sam Hyde.
It was obviously the US from the beginning, but it's nice to have some specifics.
Joe Biden basically said that he was going to attack it in so many words.
I say: fuck it.
That's the US engaging in an Act Of War that has brought direct and tangible harm to Germans. The US engaged in an Act Of War against a NATO ally.
Throw the US out of NATO.
I think, even as an American, that's a bad thing to happen to us; but I can't say that it wouldn't be entirely warranted.
No shit.
My condolences to Hersh's family for his untimely death at the age of 85.
Condolences to Seymour Hersh's family.
UK did it on US orders.
Goddamn imp you are just not capable of containing yourself even when you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
This shit is old news, the OP article is half a year late. Some of the plane tracker types identified the aircraft that flew over the pipeline and even the part of the flight path where the payload was released, which the article claims was a signal buoy now, instead of the bonb everyone thought it was. That's the only new information involved.
How the fuck would the Ukes have done it when they were all tied up with getting smacked around by the Russians.
Where did you read about the findings of those plan trackers?
https://www.monkeywerxus.com/blog/the-nord-stream-2-pipeline-sabotage
UK means United Kingdom, not Ukraine, you Putin bootlicking lowlife.
On what planet have I supported Putin you illiterate fuck.
United Kingdom, not Ukraine, although I'd argue that they're the same country deep down, as the UK government listens to everything Ukraine wants.
Russia themselves accused the UK and claimed to have evidence.
You're getting the direction of the control wrong.
And AFAIK, the Russians said Anglo-Saxons. Which could be the Muricans as well.
You sure it wasn't the women?
Liz Truss was PM at the time. That's why he was blaming the UK.
Nice! But he had a (armskinned) hateboner for the UK before and after. I don't think that's specifically it.
That said, if it had been Johnson, he'd blame that slut of his, and if it was Rishi, he'd blame his wife.
US military assets were in the area at the time. If, say, a UK dive team did it, they were supported by a US helicopter and a US ship.
That's not unfeasible, but do we really think the US needed a UK dive team? If the US got the UK in on the job, they did so purely to make sure the US wasn't the only party to blame when the truth came out.
Regardless of who did it, I'm sure the Germans know by now. And the fact that they've said nothing tells me it was an 'ally', and one that that basically owns them as a vassal.
Which tells me it's the US.
Ask the Russians, they were the ones who claimed it.