125
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
125 points (97.0% liked)
World News
31525 readers
948 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
So... The US did it.
Ukraine actually did it, but there's no chance they'd do that without the US giving the go-ahead.
No, it was definitely straight up the US. Ignore any bullshit about yachts and Ukrainian divers.
Here is the USS Kearsage - one of the only ships in the world with a moon pool that would allow divers to operate at the pipeline's depth - leaving after "NATO exercises" in the area of the pipeline five days before it explodedHere is a USN Boeing P-8A Anti-Submarine plane - one of the only planes in the world that can generate a radio pulse capable of reaching to the depth of the pipeline - flying along the length of the pipeline almost exactly 24 hours before it exploded
Here is President of the United States Joseph Robinette Biden, stating that the Nord Stream 2 project - which competes with US LNG sales to Europe - will not be allowed to continue; just out of frame is Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz, who offers no form of contradiction or rebuttal
I mean, that US basically owns germany since WW2... has a basis with privileges like an embassy for near east espionage in g... has intelligence programs where g would like to be a closer partner...
Not disputing you but very interested in reading more and sources - I always was very skeptical the volunteer Ukrainian saboteurs angle
The author of this article has a very strong track-record, so I choose to trust it. Though it does rely on anonymous sources. https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream
Thanks for linking, but while there’s smoke and circumstance, it’s not a fire imo. Anonymous source, not sources.
And Hersh seems to have fallen from the tightrope of critical analysis and skepticism, into acceptance of conspiratorial narratives from shaky actors.
His reporting has always relied on anonymous sources, and has always panned out in the long run. Nothing's changed, we're just not far enough removed from the war in Syria for the propaganda to lose control of the narrative in the west.
In seeking to decouple from state propaganda, it is important to critically examine alternative sources, lest you be duped into becoming a state mouthpiece.
Kan du laste opp den artikkelen til archive.org? Gratisversjonen av artikkelen henger hovedsaklig på denne:
Altså at NAFO sier det er Russisk propaganda. Men de sier alt er Russisk propaganda. Å sette en anonym kilde fremstilt av Hersh og Reddit kommentarer på samme linje er helt useriøst. De nevner også Tweeten om at "poor waif in his underwear" er et Russisk ordspill som ekstra bevis, men så vidt jeg kan finne så stemmer ikke det. Det er ikke engang relevant, siden det ikke er samme kilde det er snakk om. Blir også teit å si at en hypotetisk Russisk kilde hadde hatt interessekonflikt, og deretter vise til en Norsk kilde. Snakker da om Faktisk.no.
Faktisk.no kan jeg ikke debunke eller bli overbevist av. Det krever for mye teknisk kunnskap, ressurser og data vanlig folk ikke har tilgang til, og det vet de. Dette føles som 'gish gallop', fordi når jeg ser på de delene hvor jeg faktisk kan forstå nok til å ha en mening, så er det tydelig lav kvalitet på argumentene.
En del av artikkelen handler om at Stoltenberg er for ung til å ha hatt noen mening om Vietnamkrigen. Det blir for dårlig. Den kan godt hende at han tok feil, han blandet Stoltenberg med noen andre. Samme det vel? Det er en så liten detalj. Dessuten så er det faktisk.no som tar feil. Stoltenberg begynte i AFU i 1972. Og han sier han angrer på at søstra dro han med på en anti-Vietnamkrig protest. Anti-anit-Vietnamkrig er pro-Vietnamkrig.
En annen del av artikkelen klager på at kartet han brukte har en legendefeil.
Det er jo 95% riktig, bare at legenden har motsatt farge på marine og luft baser. Det spiller ingen rolle for artikkelen.
Flere ganger i artikkelen bruker de Forsvaret som kilde for å finne ut om Forsvaret ødela Nordstream. Er det dette som skal være bedre journalistikk en My Lai Massacre (Som forsvaret i USA og i Norge nektet), MHChaos (Som forsvaret i USA og i Norge nektet), Highway of Death (Som forsvaret i USA og i Norge nektet), Abu Gharib (Som forsvaret i USA og i Norge nektet), Saringassangrepet i Syria (Som forsvaret i USA og i Norge nektet)?
From what I have heard it is actually really hard to do, and only a few countries have the capabilities and equipment.
lol no. You've made the classic blunder of believing a propaganda narrative.
The propaganda says the Russians did it (which is ridiculous, it's their own pipeline, and they could just shut it down on their end if they wanted to). Either way, there's no way the US didn't at least consent to it, and yeah, most likely was more directly involved in it.
Propaganda says both: first that Russia did it, then that Ukraine did it. The former is insulting stupid and the second is more subtle but still makes no logistical sense, as Ukraine lacks the specialized equipment and personnel required. The "Ukraine did it" narrative is one that's still safer for the NATO bloc group that certainly did it, as even if they acknowledge it as true (which they don't need to and have avoided doing), it's easy to brush under the rug as Good Slava Ukraini Resistance.
This is why these countries doing investigations are mum. They know neither narrative is true.
Lack of any reaction from Germany after the Ukraine version was announced is very telling. You would think they would at least consider to stop gutting their own country to help a country that supposedly did such thing, but nothing happened at all.
Right? Nothing from their political class.
wait why are we blowing up fkn pipelines now exactly?
The war hawks answer would be so that we can economically separate russia-germany so that germany is more willing to go against russia. If Germany is dependent on gas from Russia they are less willing to risk their relationship.
At the time, Germany was on the fence about sanctions because they were getting gas via the Nordstream from Russia and didn't want to endanger that. Sudden, completely unexpected lack of gas from Russia = no impediment to backing sanctions. And that's how it turned out.
German industry was seen as competition by the US, and US didn't like Germany becoming economically tied with Russia.