3 ms·
That's why my first question was > In what country is intentional property destruction not a crime? You’re not arguing that it’s really accidental, right? So
by echoangle 2y ago
That's why my first question was
> In what country is intentional property destruction not a crime? You’re not arguing that it’s really accidental, right?
So you are arguing that it's an accident? Do you agree that it would be a crime if it was intentional?
- MichaelZuo 2y agoDo you not understand what intentionally anchoring in a place means on a ship? I’ll repeat as clearly as possible, literally every single month on planet Earth many ship captains are intentionally putting very heavy objects into the water in areas that they know may contain some property that their anchor may hit/drag/snare/etc… on something. This is usually done when the probability is very low, but in bad enough conditions they may just not care regardless of probability, and anchor anyways.
- echoangle 2y agoOk, so we could have saved 5 comments if you just answered „yes“ to my first question. The cable disruptions most likely aren’t real accidents but sabotage, coupled with plausible deniability explanations of anchor accidents. That’s why I was talking about intentional damage from the start. Read the thread again.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoI had assumed you already understood the basics before writing the first comment. Why do you think your questions or assumptions even make sense?