4 ms·

I was watching the news last night, and apparently, not only they're pretty sure it was Russia that bombed the half-Russian pipelines to Europe (NordStream2), b

by brabel 4y ago

I was watching the news last night, and apparently, not only they're pretty sure it was Russia that bombed the half-Russian pipelines to Europe (NordStream2), but it was Russia (or Russian partisans, whatever they mean) that tried to kill Putin last night with a drone attack as well. You can accuse Russia of anything you want in the current climate, and everyone will take you seriously regardless of evidence.

stickfigure 4y ago
When you have a history of lying and running malevolent information operations, plus invading your neighbors on multiple occasions... yeah, you kinda lose the benefit of the doubt. Your comment looks like an information operation itself. As far as I can tell, the only claims that the drones "tried to kill Putin" come from Russian state media.
- brabel 4y ago
  When you start accusing someone or a country of everything, it's not them who are losing the benefit of the doubt. It's you who are losing any credibility. > As far as I can tell, the only claims that the drones "tried to kill Putin" come from Russian state media. Well, I was reporting what the news said, and it was definitely not the Russian media.
- mc32 4y ago
  News: More than one country is involved in propaganda and disinformation and information and narrative shaping in the world.
- LetsGetTechnicl 4y ago
  You do realize that the US government itself has a history of lying, running malevolent information operations and invading other countries in order to de-stabilize them and install friendly dictators? That is why I don't buy this China and Russia scare tactics. Everyone's doing it.
  - cjensen 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
    - bmacho 4y ago
      It's more of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample
- lesuorac 4y ago
  > you kinda lose the benefit of the doubt. Losing benefit of the doubt doesn't mean you're guilty. It just means when Russia accused the UK [1] of blowing up the pipeline you can't trust them. Or when Russia accuses the US [2] of blowing up the pipeline you can't trust them. It doesn't mean the US or UK didn't do it; it just means Russian claims are not evidence and you'd probably be better off just completely ignoring them so that it doesn't taint any opinions. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-british-navy-personnel-blew-up-nord-stream-gas-pipelines-2022-10-29/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-british-nav... [2]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-09/russia-blames-us-for-nord-stream-blasts-threatens-consequences https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-09/russia-bl...
- revelio 4y ago
  > running malevolent information operations They might be doing this. I'd be tempted, if I were Putin. But it's pretty clear that 90%+ of all claims that Russia is doing this turn out to be malevolent information operations by our own side. Example: Hamilton 68, supposedly a website that tracked Russian "information operations" on Twitter. Except it turned out to be pure, unadulterated garbage from a US think tank that was labelling Americans who worked night shifts as Russians. That didn't stop the media reporting it as "russian disinfo" for years, and when the truth finally came out, refusing to report on their own failed reporting and complicity. There's tons of stuff like that. If a western source is making a claim about Russian misinformation, it's pretty much a dead cert thing that they're making it up.
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  Other than the "your neighbours" part you literally just described America... and technically we can include the "your neighbours" part too if we're willing to look far enough backwards. Anyways I'm hardly savvy enough to know who did what and what was faked through the fog of war and all the war propaganda, but "If the Russians say down, they are disreputable invaders, so we must say up" is not a very good mode of analysis for teasing out the truth.
ackbar03 4y ago
Something similar was reported years ago https://youtu.be/vm1U5E44W90 https://youtu.be/vm1U5E44W90
hgsgm 4y ago
[flagged]
mc32 4y ago
I think in a different time, we'd be able to say that it's become a farce, but ideology doesn't allow that thought to creep in. Even at the height of the cold war, we'd have contrarians and simple sympathizers who tried to nudge us --eventually both sides realized that the other wasn't the evil one thought the other was and that eventually allowed for Gorbachov and Reagan to have constructive dialog. But who in their right mind would be _convinced_ without a doubt that it was Russia who destroyed the pipeline cutting their nose to spite their face? It's so stupid. Even Saddam wasn't accused of being that stupid.
- w7 4y ago
  You say destroyed as if it was completely destroyed. https://www.dw.com/en/putin-offers-europe-gas-through-nord-stream-2-germany-declines/a-63416138 https://www.dw.com/en/putin-offers-europe-gas-through-nord-s... The only pipeline that was destroy was the one Germany had shutdown, Russia immediately began trying to poke Germany to open the other pipeline.
  - goodSteveramos 4y ago
    Russia has been the one wanting all the pipelines open this whole time and the US has been the one demanding they stop existing. Your argument is fooy.
    - w7 4y ago
      So the US who "has been the one demanding they stop existing" covertly places explosives on 3/4 pipes, and ignores the last pipe despite direct proximity to the others? "Russia has been the one wanting all the pipelines open this whole time" Key word is "wanting", they were not getting it, Germany made is clear they were not getting it.
      - goodSteveramos 4y ago
        So the fact that whoever blew up 3 of the 4 pipes decided not to or wasn't able to or failed to blow up the last one means they must want Russia supplying gas to Europe? These bad faith arguments are why no one trusts the US anymore and everyone is getting on board with BRICS. The US lies and stabs you in that back no matter what.
w7 4y ago
You're excluding the part where: A) it was only partially destroyed B) Russia offered to run gas through the remaining pipeline at a higher price, almost immediately after running campaigns pointing fingers at everyone else Apparently with A whoever did it decided not disable it completely, and with B somehow Russia is extremely confident it won't be attacked again. It's not a hard conclusion to reach that Russia bombed its own shutdown pipeline, while leaving it functional, in order to cause confusion amongst enemies.
- tanseydavid 4y ago
  >> decided not disable it completely...while leaving it functional It isn't as if someone flipped a switch. This is underwater explosives at considerable depth. There is nothing self-evident in what you've laid out here but you sure seem to think that it is. Asserting that you do not find it difficult to reach this conclusion does not make the conclusion you have reached, any less convoluted.
  - goodSteveramos 4y ago
    His reasoning must be convoluted because his conclusion is false. His argument is like saying that the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't also kill Jackie Kennedy means Oswald must have liked the Kennedys and wanted them to stay in the White House.
    - w7 3y ago
      It's not. Instead of trying to come up with convoluted analogies for my conclusion to try and paint it as outlandish, maybe go back to talking about off topic stuff like BRICS.
      - goodSteveramos 3y ago
        My analogy’s convoluted and contrived logic perfectly captures yours.
        3y ago
notlukesky 4y ago
South Park blamed Canada

by brabel 4y ago

stickfigure 4y ago

When you have a history of lying and running malevolent information operations, plus invading your neighbors on multiple occasions... yeah, you kinda lose the benefit of the doubt. Your comment looks like an information operation itself. As far as I can tell, the only claims that the drones "tried to kill Putin" come from Russian state media.

brabel 4y ago
When you start accusing someone or a country of everything, it's not them who are losing the benefit of the doubt. It's you who are losing any credibility. > As far as I can tell, the only claims that the drones "tried to kill Putin" come from Russian state media. Well, I was reporting what the news said, and it was definitely not the Russian media.
mc32 4y ago
News: More than one country is involved in propaganda and disinformation and information and narrative shaping in the world.
LetsGetTechnicl 4y ago
You do realize that the US government itself has a history of lying, running malevolent information operations and invading other countries in order to de-stabilize them and install friendly dictators? That is why I don't buy this China and Russia scare tactics. Everyone's doing it.
- cjensen 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  - bmacho 4y ago
    It's more of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample
lesuorac 4y ago
> you kinda lose the benefit of the doubt. Losing benefit of the doubt doesn't mean you're guilty. It just means when Russia accused the UK [1] of blowing up the pipeline you can't trust them. Or when Russia accuses the US [2] of blowing up the pipeline you can't trust them. It doesn't mean the US or UK didn't do it; it just means Russian claims are not evidence and you'd probably be better off just completely ignoring them so that it doesn't taint any opinions. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-british-navy-personnel-blew-up-nord-stream-gas-pipelines-2022-10-29/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-british-nav... [2]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-09/russia-blames-us-for-nord-stream-blasts-threatens-consequences https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-09/russia-bl...
revelio 4y ago
> running malevolent information operations They might be doing this. I'd be tempted, if I were Putin. But it's pretty clear that 90%+ of all claims that Russia is doing this turn out to be malevolent information operations by our own side. Example: Hamilton 68, supposedly a website that tracked Russian "information operations" on Twitter. Except it turned out to be pure, unadulterated garbage from a US think tank that was labelling Americans who worked night shifts as Russians. That didn't stop the media reporting it as "russian disinfo" for years, and when the truth finally came out, refusing to report on their own failed reporting and complicity. There's tons of stuff like that. If a western source is making a claim about Russian misinformation, it's pretty much a dead cert thing that they're making it up.
faeriechangling 4y ago
Other than the "your neighbours" part you literally just described America... and technically we can include the "your neighbours" part too if we're willing to look far enough backwards. Anyways I'm hardly savvy enough to know who did what and what was faked through the fog of war and all the war propaganda, but "If the Russians say down, they are disreputable invaders, so we must say up" is not a very good mode of analysis for teasing out the truth.

ackbar03 4y ago

Something similar was reported years ago https://youtu.be/vm1U5E44W90 https://youtu.be/vm1U5E44W90

hgsgm 4y ago

[flagged]

mc32 4y ago

I think in a different time, we'd be able to say that it's become a farce, but ideology doesn't allow that thought to creep in. Even at the height of the cold war, we'd have contrarians and simple sympathizers who tried to nudge us --eventually both sides realized that the other wasn't the evil one thought the other was and that eventually allowed for Gorbachov and Reagan to have constructive dialog. But who in their right mind would be _convinced_ without a doubt that it was Russia who destroyed the pipeline cutting their nose to spite their face? It's so stupid. Even Saddam wasn't accused of being that stupid.

w7 4y ago
You say destroyed as if it was completely destroyed. https://www.dw.com/en/putin-offers-europe-gas-through-nord-stream-2-germany-declines/a-63416138 https://www.dw.com/en/putin-offers-europe-gas-through-nord-s... The only pipeline that was destroy was the one Germany had shutdown, Russia immediately began trying to poke Germany to open the other pipeline.
- goodSteveramos 4y ago
  Russia has been the one wanting all the pipelines open this whole time and the US has been the one demanding they stop existing. Your argument is fooy.
  - w7 4y ago
    So the US who "has been the one demanding they stop existing" covertly places explosives on 3/4 pipes, and ignores the last pipe despite direct proximity to the others? "Russia has been the one wanting all the pipelines open this whole time" Key word is "wanting", they were not getting it, Germany made is clear they were not getting it.
    - goodSteveramos 4y ago
      So the fact that whoever blew up 3 of the 4 pipes decided not to or wasn't able to or failed to blow up the last one means they must want Russia supplying gas to Europe? These bad faith arguments are why no one trusts the US anymore and everyone is getting on board with BRICS. The US lies and stabs you in that back no matter what.

w7 4y ago

You're excluding the part where: A) it was only partially destroyed B) Russia offered to run gas through the remaining pipeline at a higher price, almost immediately after running campaigns pointing fingers at everyone else Apparently with A whoever did it decided not disable it completely, and with B somehow Russia is extremely confident it won't be attacked again. It's not a hard conclusion to reach that Russia bombed its own shutdown pipeline, while leaving it functional, in order to cause confusion amongst enemies.

tanseydavid 4y ago
>> decided not disable it completely...while leaving it functional It isn't as if someone flipped a switch. This is underwater explosives at considerable depth. There is nothing self-evident in what you've laid out here but you sure seem to think that it is. Asserting that you do not find it difficult to reach this conclusion does not make the conclusion you have reached, any less convoluted.
- goodSteveramos 4y ago
  His reasoning must be convoluted because his conclusion is false. His argument is like saying that the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't also kill Jackie Kennedy means Oswald must have liked the Kennedys and wanted them to stay in the White House.
  - w7 3y ago
    It's not. Instead of trying to come up with convoluted analogies for my conclusion to try and paint it as outlandish, maybe go back to talking about off topic stuff like BRICS.
    - goodSteveramos 3y ago
      My analogy’s convoluted and contrived logic perfectly captures yours.
      - 3y ago

notlukesky 4y ago

South Park blamed Canada