They didn't do it. We did.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Unseen wrote:

I think the fact that there’s little apparent interest in investigating the matter is the best indication that we did do it.

My intention is to withhold conclusions until there’s sufficient evidence. All “evidence” so far is circumstantial. I’m so disappointed with the online trend to draw conclusions without evidence, while constantly viralizing all discussions from every POV, it seems that a little pushback is called for against obviously one-sided or prejudiced arguments that lack verifiable evidence. One doesn’t have to take a side just to point out that evidence is lacking. Similar to the Wuhan covid leak vs zoonotic crossover to explain where the pathogen originated… even scientists favoring a scandalous lab leak theory say that there’s no solid evidence to support any conclusion, and there may never be.

Meanwhile, IMO, a much, much bigger issue is Putin’s lies and lack of transparency. He uses his troops as cannon fodder and pays Wagner to execute war crimes with the most ruthless efficiency possible. His nuclear saber rattling is a reason to NOT appease him, and to disempower him as quickly as possible before he can win with impunity. If Biden is evil for lying about the pipeline, Putin out-evils him a hundred times over and should be taken out of the big picture for good.

A useful reaction from the pandemic would be to do a better job making research practices more transparent. China’s withheld data, which poses the largest challenge, at least wrt covid forensics. And “gain of function” is another virilized mess of non-expert opinionating and conspiracy hyperbolics. Determining pathogenic risks, pre-pandemic prophylaxes, and pandemic countermeasures is increasingly essential. One lab leak, if it really happened that way, should not deter further, transparent and regulated research, or else Mother Nature will continue to make the zoonotic risks rise.

• This reply was modified 9 months, 1 week ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: typos and clarity again. i write terrible drafts

[UnseenParticipant]

@PB

It doesn’t seem to you passing strange that all we get is “We didn’t do it” along with a hint that anyone who thinks we did is just stupid, when a flight of subpoenas could settle the matter?

You seem to imply that if we did do it, it’s not such a big deal. Well, it’s a big deal to a Europe that is dealing with scarce fuel and the cascade of side effects in their supply chains.

These are our allies and if we did do it, we stabbed them in the back.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Bombing the pipeline was an irrational and destructive thing to do, that harmed the interests of the West.  Who does that point to?  R …

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

It could also have been Ukraine, attempting to harm Russian interests.  It doesn’t make any sense that the US or NATO did it.  There was already an energy shortage in Europe.

[_Robert_Participant]

PopeBeanie wrote:

Unseen wrote:

I think the fact that there’s little apparent interest in investigating the matter is the best indication that we did do it.

My intention is to withhold conclusions until there’s sufficient evidence. All “evidence” so far is circumstantial. I’m so disappointed with the online trend to draw conclusions without evidence, while constantly viralizing all discussions from every POV, it seems that a little pushback is called for against obviously one-sided or prejudiced arguments that lack verifiable evidence. One doesn’t have to take a side just to point out that evidence is lacking.

Yes Pope,

As the US/Euro economy is being overtaken by China’s we can expect tons of infighting. Two empires can coexist for a long time but essentially the result is that real wages are going down and young Americans won’t be as wealthy as their parents. Russia is only a nuclear threat as its economy is tiny and its conventional miliary is a paper tiger.

People want to assign blame for all this. Practically every meme or politically charged Youtube video title is an example of a logic fallacy or a host of them. The direct result of collecting your view history and targeting you with what you already want to believe in an endless positive feedback loop. This is why when someone commits an appeal to authority argument instead of producing evidence, the best thing to do is show the authority is suspect. They are called social media “influencers”, FFS. The appeal to fear is another fallacy running wild.

They will just help speed up the transition to a world once again dominated by authoritarianism.

[UnseenParticipant]

Conflicting Reports Thicken Nord Stream Bombing Plot

None of the emerging narratives surrounding the Nord Stream pipeline bombing really contradicts Seymour Hersh’s central allegation that Biden authorized the operation.

…

The question of whether Hersh’s story is accurate — either in whole or in part — is of monumental significance, and there are some issues related to this story that have not received as much attention as they deserve. Among these are questions surrounding the legal and constitutional framework the Biden administration would have used if, as Hersh’s source alleges, Biden directly ordered the bombing of the Nord Stream pipelines. There is also an emerging counternarrative to Hersh’s reporting from U.S. intelligence that warrants scrutiny, both on its merits and for how it might relate to Hersh’s story.

[UnseenParticipant]

The diversions begin. Now, it’s some unidentified pro-Ukraine group that destroyed the pipelines. Which, if true, was kinda dumb. By throwing Germany into a needless economic crisis, it hurts Germany’s ability to support the Ukraine war effort.

[UnseenParticipant]

and

A YEAR OF LYING ABOUT NORD STREAM

Notice that few are still taking the “Russia did it” theory very seriously.

 

[UnseenParticipant]

The story that won’t die continues…

The Hunt for the Nord Stream Bombers

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Unseen wrote:

The story that won’t die continues… The Hunt for the Nord Stream Bombers

I enjoyed reading that article, as it presented several possible scenarios, including my contention (left unanswered) that it wouldn’t take nation-state level technology and equipment to plant the bombs. Note that I didn’t say it wasn’t a nation-state that was responsible, but that some of the presumptions made, e.g. that nation-state level involvement in planting the bombs are necessary.

One of the proposals in the article is that the demolitions could have been carried out by state sponsored (e.g. Poland and/or Ukraine) yacht or sailboat manned by a crew of six, mentioned because of some evidence that supports this possibility.

In fact, at Nord1 and Nord2 pipeline depths, a large proportion of the technology required (that most consumers of news and speculation would be unaware of) has been around for a hundred years.

Atmospheric Diving Suits
Submersibles

Sophisticated, commercial seafloor drilling operations have taken place at five times the depths of the pipelines. I think the biggest issue to be explained may be how to obtain enough explosives.

This is all STILL just speculation about numerous possibilities. If I had to put money on the most likely possibilities, I might choose Poland and/or Ukraine as those being able to sponsor and/or carry out operation, aided (or not) by expertise and technical means provided by USA or Russia.

Unseen, you kept asking why Russia would sabotage its own pipeline, but that source of income was shut down even before the explosions, while winter was approaching and a false flag sabotage might have been just one of several of Putin’s miscalculations. Even a third party like Prigozhin could have sponsored and aided this kind of operation. There’s no shortage of acts of desperation in this war put into motion by Putin.

I plan to not comment more on this. I just wanted to help balance the excess of speculations and claims. IMO you’ve helped with balance in that regard, with this article. Thank you!

[UnseenParticipant]

PopeBeanie wrote:

Unseen, you kept asking why Russia would sabotage its own pipeline, but that source of income was shut down even before the explosions, while winter was approaching and a false flag sabotage might have been just one of several of Putin’s miscalculations. Even a third party like Prigozhin could have sponsored and aided this kind of operation. There’s no shortage of acts of desperation in this war put into motion by Putin.

It was still a big investment that Putin could use to extort cooperation out of Germany and her planned customers. While Putin has been cultivating alternative markets for its oil (India, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar, and even two NATO members, Bulgaria and Turkey!), he could have done that in addition to using the pipelines’ potential for preventing a hard winter for Western Europe.

If you “follow the money,” the beneficiary is the United States, and Biden promised to bring an end to the pipeline if Russia attacked. Was he lying? bluffing? No matter, it’s the U.S. who’s rolling in the dough. You think Putin couldn’t have anticipated that?

What remains is that there is more evidence that the U.S. did it or somehow got it done than there is evidence for anyone else. I’m referring to Seymour Hersh’s source. I don’t think he’d risk his reputation on a questionable source.

By contrast, the U.S. is hinting that it was done by rogue Ukrainians. And what evidence or reliable source do they have? NONE, no one, zip, nada.

[Author]

Posts