6 ms·

Just because they are also pushing for conflict doesn't mean they are the only ones.

Just because they are *also* pushing for conflict doesn't mean they are the *only* ones.

ngetchell 4y ago
Have the Russian troops leave Ukraine and the armed conflict will drop to zero.
fabian2k 4y ago
So what's the alternative, don't support Ukraine and let Russia finish their invasion? Arming the defender against an illegal aggression is not aggression itself.
- stackola 4y ago
  We aren't even talking about arming anyone, we were talking about sabotage.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > we were talking about sabotage This is a message, a fuckup or an accident. What it is not is a successful covert operation by a competent intelligence agency.
    - stackola 4y ago
      ... is what the intelligence agency would say.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > is what the intelligence agency would say Intelligence agencies will say anything. Everyone crafting pet conspiracy theories today belies either underlying motive or incompetence. (I tend to assume the latter.) It’s in the same category as same-day armchair crash investigation. Fact-driven analysis not yet possible, the discussion gets dominated by those fitting data to their worldviews.
        stackola 4y ago
        And yet you make the assertion "What it is not is a successful covert operation by a competent intelligence agency." "Coicidence theories" (for lack of a better word) are just as difficult to prove on day 1.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > you make the assertion "What it is not is a successful covert operation by a competent intelligence agency." Yup. Because obvious, minor disablement not in anyone’s interest. Russia, U.S. or Europe. It might be latent capabilities firing early (fuckup), rogue elements (fuckup), et cetera. But anyone arguing this news benefits America or Moscow is already outside reality.
    - aa-jv 4y ago
      Biden openly stated that he would destroy these pipelines. Why would a "competent" intelligence agency need to get involved in making it covert, after the US President, himself, admitted that it would happen? This straw man argument you're making does serve to deflect attention from the one party that is obviously going to benefit from this event, however.
      - ngetchell 4y ago
        I've seen Russian media and Tucker Carlson try to make the claim that the US did this but no reputable outlet.

Just because they are *also* pushing for conflict doesn't mean they are the *only* ones.

Have the Russian troops leave Ukraine and the armed conflict will drop to zero.

So what's the alternative, don't support Ukraine and let Russia finish their invasion? Arming the defender against an illegal aggression is not aggression itself.

stackola 4y ago
We aren't even talking about arming anyone, we were talking about sabotage.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > we were talking about sabotage This is a message, a fuckup or an accident. What it is not is a successful covert operation by a competent intelligence agency.
  - stackola 4y ago
    ... is what the intelligence agency would say.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > is what the intelligence agency would say Intelligence agencies will say anything. Everyone crafting pet conspiracy theories today belies either underlying motive or incompetence. (I tend to assume the latter.) It’s in the same category as same-day armchair crash investigation. Fact-driven analysis not yet possible, the discussion gets dominated by those fitting data to their worldviews.
      - stackola 4y ago
        And yet you make the assertion "What it is not is a successful covert operation by a competent intelligence agency." "Coicidence theories" (for lack of a better word) are just as difficult to prove on day 1.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > you make the assertion "What it is not is a successful covert operation by a competent intelligence agency." Yup. Because obvious, minor disablement not in anyone’s interest. Russia, U.S. or Europe. It might be latent capabilities firing early (fuckup), rogue elements (fuckup), et cetera. But anyone arguing this news benefits America or Moscow is already outside reality.
  - aa-jv 4y ago
    Biden openly stated that he would destroy these pipelines. Why would a "competent" intelligence agency need to get involved in making it covert, after the US President, himself, admitted that it would happen? This straw man argument you're making does serve to deflect attention from the one party that is obviously going to benefit from this event, however.
    - ngetchell 4y ago
      I've seen Russian media and Tucker Carlson try to make the claim that the US did this but no reputable outlet.