Reuters Tries To Discredit Seymour Hersh Piece On Biden Nordstream Bombing By Referring To It As A 'Blog Post'

submitted by Drewski from reuters.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Read you own link again, dipshit.

Oooh, schoolyard insults! That proves you must be right!

NS2 pipe A was destroyed. You think that Putin's plan was to reduce the volume of gas able to be shipped to Germany to just half of what it was before? And even that was reliant on Germany saying "Oh, some Americans mystery terrorists blew up three of the four pipes, so rather than buy gas from Norway and the USA, we'll certify the damaged pipe from Russia and hope that the Americans terrorists don't blow it up again!"

You believe that Biden wanted to blow up NS1 and leave NS2 functional and lying there untouched?

By "untouched" you mean pipe A destroyed and pipe B possibly damaged but not enough to leak.

It is pretty obvious that the attack attempted to destroy all four pipes but one set of charges failed to detonate. In the region damaged, the pipes are 80m below the surface, and then buried under ground. Planting bombs that deep under salt water is tough on equipment. The simplest explanation is that at least one charge failed to go off. That's all.

The idea that the Russians did it is crazy. Even the Washington Post had to reluctantly admit what everyone else already knew: there is no evidence for Russian involvement and it makes no sense that they should blow up their own infrastructure.

Meanwhile the Americans have not only opposed these two pipelines since they were first proposed, but they have repeatedly threatened them culminating with Biden saying, and I quote, "If Russia invades, there will be no more Nord Stream 2, we will put an end to the project." And when a reporter asked how exactly he intended to do that, since the project was mainly under German control, Biden said only: "I promise that we will be able to do it."

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Proof that pipe B was damaged? I suspect you invented that.

Even the Washington Post had to

Wait so now there are times where you believe and cite the wapo? What are the rules for when wapo is believable and citable? When it aligns with your imaginary world view?

with Biden saying, and I quote

He was correct that Germany would never certify if ruzzia remained belligerent.

You think that Putin's plan was to reduce the volume of gas able to be shipped to Germany to just half of what it was before

Putin believes that Germany are desperate for gaz and that Europe would freeze this winter without him. These actions fit the MO of an energy terrorist

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What does it matter if Pipe B is damaged or not? The exact words I used was that pipe B is possibly damaged but not enough to leak. Okay, let's assume it's not damaged at all: that just means that one of the charges failed to go off.

It still makes zero sense for Putin to cut his own gas pipelines from two working pipes (Nord 1) down to one pipe that hadn't even been certified (half of Nord 2). Why would he do that? Nord 1 was already shutdown for repairs and not shipping gas, because the Russians couldn't get the parts to repair them due to sanctions. So from Putin's point of view, the Nord gas pipelines no longer represented either a carrot or a stick to Germany:

  • Russia could no longer deliver gas through Nord 1, due to the sanctions blocking repairs.
  • Germany wasn't going to certify Nord 2.
  • He couldn't threaten to turn the gas off because the gas was already off.

So Russia just sold the gas to other countries instead, and let Germany just buy very expensive American gas. If Germany goes broke, that's less money they have to give to Nazis.

Wait so now there are times where you believe and cite the wapo? What are the rules for when wapo is believable and citable?

When their stories make logical sense, and when they are supported by credible evidence. If Wapo says that water is wet and fire is hot, I believe them. If they say that women have penises and black cops beating people to death is "white supremacy", I don't.

It has never made any sense to say that Russia would destroy their own pipeline. Russia paid for the damn things, and they weren't cheap. Eventually the war will be over, Europe will want to buy that gas again. Why destroy the pipes when they can just shut them down for (real or pretend) maintenance?

America has always wanted the Nord pipelines destroyed, since before they were even built. Russia wanted to sell gas to Europe, and not long after Biden clearly said that America has ways to stop the Nord pipelines, the pipelines were destroyed by a terrorist attack that completely coincidentally happened right in the spot nearby to US naval exercises. What an amazing coincidence, right? You coincidence theorist.

Putin believes that Germany are desperate for gaz and that Europe would freeze this winter without him.

Germany is desperate for gas. They are buying it at hugely inflated prices from America, and from Norway. But even so, with the huge price increase, Germany industry has shut down because they can't afford to pay for heating and power.

And the irony is, nobody did this to them except their own ruling elite, and the Americans. They can't blame the Russians, Russia was perfectly happy to keep selling them gas at the contracted price. They didn't even make it conditional on them stopping support of Nazis.

Germany has learned that their supposed ally, the US, will stab them in the back -- and the Germany ruling political class is happy to let them do it.

(Might have something to do with all those tens of thousands of US soldiers on those military bases all over Germany.)