3 ms·
This attack could be considered terrorism, but not the pipeline attack. Terrorism is the act or threat of violence to further political goals. There was nothing
by TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
This attack could be considered terrorism, but not the pipeline attack. Terrorism is the act or threat of violence to further political goals. There was nothing political about the pipeline attacks, it was just a ransomware company looking for a payout.
- smhost 5y agoIt was remarkable how quickly U.S. media accepted the "it wasn't terrorism" line after years of going on about how the Russians are the most comically evil superterrorist masterminds who are destroying the fabric of blah blah.
- sudosysgen 5y agoI mean, it can both be true that it wasn't terrorism, and that the mainstream media was wrong by blaming everything on russian superterrorist masterminds. We both know that media narratives don't have to be fully cromulent.
- smhost 5y agoI personally don't care whether it was or wasn't terrorism. Either way, you and I are never going to know (barring a Russian whistleblower). I was just commenting on the bizarre and coordinated behavior of the U.S. media.
- morpheos137 5y agoSee also the Notre Dame fire in 2019. Immediately the media "decided" that it was a simple accident rather than arson or even something else like a small meteorite that could have been easily lost in the wreckage.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> it was just a ransomware company looking for a payout With suspicious state links. Agree it isn't terrorism, though it's potentially closer to a low-grade act of war.
- roxaaaane 5y agoI agree, not sure why you're downvoted. Ironically enough the most famous sponsored attack on infra with the actual goal of damaging infrastructure was Stuxnet a joint Israel/American op
- failwhaleshark 5y agoIt's "military" when we do it, but "terrorism" when they do it. Terrorist/freedom fighter.