5 ms·

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 imme

by w7 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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.
      - w7 3y ago
        It's not even close. You're comparing a time sensitive attack with tons of security to 4 pipes sitting in the ocean. A lone attacker on a short time scale, versus a potential entire state backed demolitions team with tons of operational lead time. Stop with the bad faith arguments. It is highly unlikely that A) the US with such lead time would fail to blow up all 4 pipes, and B) the US would bother when it had already handled the situation diplomatically.

by w7 3y ago

tanseydavid 3y 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 3y 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.
    - w7 3y ago
      It's not even close. You're comparing a time sensitive attack with tons of security to 4 pipes sitting in the ocean. A lone attacker on a short time scale, versus a potential entire state backed demolitions team with tons of operational lead time. Stop with the bad faith arguments. It is highly unlikely that A) the US with such lead time would fail to blow up all 4 pipes, and B) the US would bother when it had already handled the situation diplomatically.