gearhog

"There are no parallels" That's your defense? That's just denying reality. Water is Wet. Lawman: No, it isn't. What disinformation am I supporting? At least address it specifically instead of making general false claims. We've been in a continuous state of conflict since you and I were both young and you're trying to convince me that there isn't a Western desire to continue? Again, where did I ever type "Russia didn't invade Crimea, those are sepratists"? Nazis? WTF are you talking about? Do you have any other tactic aside from pretending I said something I didn't and attacking it? Congrats for dunking on a lie you made up in first place...again. And in the middle, you begin equivocating and switch to the argument "Well.... there's 'nuance'...." and "We should accept any Ukrainain skeletons in their closet." Make up your mind. It's either black and white/good and bad or it isn't. I've been saying all along it isn't. I don't have to accept the bad with the good. I can call bullshit whether it's coming from you or Mother Theresa. Shit or spagehetti - yet another false dilemma. I don't have to eat either. All you have are these logical fallacies to make your case with. Figure it out.

Every narrative that doesn't align with the US government narrative is not a pro-Russian narrative. Calling into question the actions of US government officials does not make one anti-American. I have never once expressed any support for anything Russia is doing. I can't control or influence them. I don't speak Russian. Realize the only thing I can do is share opinions and ideas regarding the people that represent me in my country. Me criticizing conflict escalation does not make me pro-Russian. Me criticizing conflict escalation does not make me Anti-American. Is there anything I can do aside from obediently shouting "Slava Ukraini!" to make this clear to you? "In political communication, the phrase "you are either with us, or against us" and similar variations are used to generate polarisation and reject non-partisanship. The implied consequence of not joining the partisan effort of the speaker is to be deemed an enemy. A contemporary example is the statement of former US President George W. Bush, who declared at the launch of his anti-terrorism campaign, "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."[1] The statement generally is a descriptive statement identifying the beliefs of the speakers, and thus state a basic assumption, not a logical conclusion. It may also be interpreted as a speech act. Sometimes it is interpreted as a splitting or a false dilemma, which is an informal fallacy. Some see the statement as a way of persuading others to choose sides in a conflict which does not allow the position of neutrality.[2] Only when there are no alternatives like a middle ground does the phrase hold validity as a logical conclusion. The phrases are a form of argumentation.[3]"

I don't want to comment as to what we should or shouldn't be doing. If anyone is interested, this guy has brass balls. He made excellent series of videos depicting the absolute hellscape in Haiti. No agenda, just documenting the reality. I agree, it's difficult to believe this exists near to us. Worth the watch if you have time.

Their military model doesn't attempt to achieve Air Superiority through air platforms. They don't have all the facets to make it achievable. I just wanted to reiterate this today. https://twitter.com/DarwinAwards_/status/1623392345101307904?s=20&t=pLcJaWjfNdQq8jVqaPgkEQ

I could go all in on the cautious backpedaling in the first few lines of your post, but I'm not. I'm just glad you're starting to be receptive to other possibilities. Good post.

Once again, you're using personal insults. C'mon, man. I've never tried to denigrate you as a person or what you've accomplished. If you're trying to present yourself as reasonable and knowledgeable enough to adequately make your case, you're only shooting yourself in the foot. It makes you look bad, not me. I'm interested in challenging ideas and my own ideas being challenged. I don't care about your condescending emotional tirades. I get it, though, it was late and you were probably frustrated. No big deal, I understand, and can excuse that. That's the way this forum usually goes. Just make your case without all the other nonsense about being disgruntled, going fishing, finding a hobby, illuminati bullshit and all that, and don't let what I say bother you as much. I've never used the words "military industrial complex" or "illuminati" in any of my previous posts. This is the most common tactic here: Pretend I said something that I didn't, attempt to attribute it to me, and attack me for it. It's lame and it's lying. If you believe I'm wrong to give an "alternative to the government narrative" then I can only assume you're only willing to buy into the official government narrative. Have you seen a White House press briefing lately? Good lord. I can't believe you're swallowing that. I glossed over the Buk ADA purposefully. I know you're knowledgeable on that specific issue and I could tell you were dying to dunk on whatever I said about Russian Air Defenses. Again, if you want to tell me all you know about it from the vault and your personal first hand experiences, I'm interested in reading it. Your assessment that Ukrainians aren't smart enough to use a BUK is an interesting take. There's plenty of video of Americans on the front lines of Ukraine right now. Why would your frame your claim that "There were Russian contract guys masquerading as rebels!" as some shocking nefarious act when we've clearly engaged in it, in many of our recent conflicts around the world. In reference to the half-dozen times Russia tried to expand their influence, check out the last 30 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia

I get the impression you really want to tell everyone about the time you sat in a SA-11/117. Please do. I'm an American and I believe we have been blessed with all the necessary ingredients for being a great country, and we have been a great country. Somehow, you cannot imagine me holding the people leading this country to a high standard of integrity, righteousness, and honesty in hopes of keeping it that way. Stirring a hornet's nest for expansion of wealth and power not only at the cost of our citizens, but citizens and soldiers on the other side of the world is something I think needs to be criticized. After a while, I got tired of people cheerleading this conflict. There's plenty of people here bemoaning all the awful things that have happened to the USA at the hands of people acting in self-interest, yet also believe that same leadership is delivering pristine justice around the planet. The other side needs to be presented. Do you really want to live in a place where corrupt leadership can put your future at serious risk while going completely unchallenged? Anyone who questions the intentional escalation of foreign conflict at a tremendous cost is not patriotic, right? I've always wondered how hundreds of thousands of people in those old documentaries can go to war like herd animals thinking they're the good guys only to be taken to task and pay a terrible price in the end. I'm starting to understand. You also claimed I'm dredging shit up. I posted today's headline regarding a report on an incident that happened in 2014 to drum up support for increased supplies of weapons and aid to Ukraine... but I'm dredging shit up. LOL. How did you not spot the irony? Finally, something we can agree on. Just kidding.

You're accusing me of being empathetic and even sympathetic to Russians? Why? I 100% believe that a Russian made missile shot down that aircraft. But since you brought up propaganda, this is about an incident that occurred almost 10 years ago. This investigation team, with Ukraine as one of the investigators, just now release a report headlining Putin as having approved a deal that transferred missiles to pro Russian Ukrainians during a Ukrainian civil war. They fucked up and shot down a passenger jet. I don't remember there ever being any doubt this was the case. But to trot out this "investigative" report at the same time the Ukrainians and all other countries with members on this "International Team of Investigators" are advocating for increased arms sales to Ukraine and escalating conflict with the headline "Putin Responsible"... that isn't propaganda? To anyone with a keen eye for the obvious, this is being dusted off as a reason to escalate.

Ok. To any conscientious listener, it is blatantly obvious what they're saying here. I think they were actually winking at one another during this Senate hearing. Victoria Nuland: "I was gratified to have a chance to go through some of those specific measures in the classified session yesterday, but going beyond that in this open session, I think doesn't... um... help us get from here to there but we every everything is on the table I would say if if that is helpful." Senator Ron Johnson: "One thing that i believe...certainly the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is pretty unified on it... (may not be unanimous) was our support for sanctions against Nordstrom 2 pipeline. And that I think we were all, many of us, were very disappointed that those sanctions were not fully implemented and the construction continued. I can't think of a more powerful way to punish Russian aggression than by rolling back what progress has been made and if, at all possible, uh... prevent the Nordstream 2 from ever being completed. Is that something that is being discussed with allies? Is that something that's being contemplated?" Victoria Nuland: "Absolutely. And as, if as you recall from the July US/German statement, that was very much…uh…in that statement that if that any moves Russian aggression against Ukraine… uh… would have a direct impact on the pipeline and that is our expectation and the conversation that we're having so again direct impact is one thing… Senator Ron Johnson: "But i'm… i'm literally talking about rolling back the the pipeline, you know, you can loosely define that but i mean taking action that will prevent it from ever becoming operational." Victoria Nuland: "I think if President Putin moves on Ukraine our expectation is that the pipeline will be suspended." Senator Ron Johnson: "Well, I certainly hope that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would take up legislation to go beyond just suspending it but ending it permanently, but anyway, thank you Undersecretary Nuland."

Your tactic here is to generalize everything I may say as a conspiracy and dismiss it all. Stay on topic. We're talking about a single incident. Re-read this thread from the beginning and see if the evidence presented is in alignment. I still don't understand how you can say "in the absence of evidence... Russia did it." Wouldn't the reasonable thing to say be "In the absence of evidence... I don't know."? You're copying and pasting what ClearedHot said as using it as your own, phraseology and all. Awkward. How can you not be sure? Isn't it evident that when you answer blowing up the pipeline is bad, you cannot amoralize and rationalize the act after the culprit is revealed?

@nsplayr, did you miss this?

How are those outlandish? You don't think Pakistan and Saudi benefited from playing both sides against the middle? I haven't spent any time on this, but at first glance, I'm not outright dismissing it just because it doesn't jive with the narrative you and I've been fed for 22 years. You do realize we spent hundreds of billions hunting Bin Ladin. Maybe people like money. You could fill encyclopedias with the shit the US has been doing under the radar. I posted the other day regarding Wesley Clark inadvertently revealing we had plans to escalate conflicts in Syria. We sent ships full of arms from Libya to Syria after Libya unexpectedly erupted in chaos and fell. https://www.businessinsider.com/obama-admin-admits-to-covertly-sending-heavy-weapons-to-syrian-rebels-2012-12 Knights of Malta? Never heard of them, but the F cares if they were? They're an aid organization from I can tell. https://www.orderofmalta.int/ I hoped you of all would realize I am only goading people into committing to a position knowing full well what the eventual outcome will be. Nearly all of the elements to this story were posted here by people here on this forum long before the story was published. The Baltic Exercise, Victoria Nuland, Biden's Anti-Nordstream Speeches, etc. 75% of the pieces were already there, Hersch just finished the puzzle.

You really have to think this through. Do you think you're the first one to every wonder why journalists would keep their sources anonymous? Reporter's Privilege and Confidential Sources have been long established practice and you and I should be thankful. Would we ever get revelations into crime and corruption if every whistleblower feared retribution for speaking out?

Another thought I had regarding the picture you posted: Who watches the Watchmen?

Here's how I see it. Your contention is that Russians are "assholes" and are at war and probably did it because of some cliche theory you slapped on the situation. How can you possibly expect me, or anyone else, to take you seriously? You spent 5 seconds and zero critical thinking on your assessment. No evidence, no reasonable explanation, no references, no nothing. On the other hand, a multiple award winning author and journalist spends months putting together a story with multiple sources obviously illegally communicating the truth with him at great risk to themselves and their career and you're critical because you don't know their names. If he had documents, you'd be complaining he was publishing secrets. What was his motivation? To damage the country he lives in? Turning a profit by publishing a free story on substack? How are you even serious? You have zero to offer. At least create some semblance of a plausible story explaining how and why Russia did it with half as much detail. Here's a question for you: Without any acknowledgment or consideration of who may or may not be responsible, was it wrong to blow up the pipeline?

This guy is not mainstream media, and for good reason. He is blatantly critical of MSM. Instead of using the argument that because MSM lied to you, this guy must also be lying... why don't you critique the man alone and his archive of work? You're merely repeating what someone else said an hour before you. He's been around since Viet-Nam, surely you can find something. The US was likely not involved because of Biden's "timidity". Well, at least that's an original take. No one else is using that as a defense. LOL Do you know the definition of the word "equivocating"? It's a sure sign of a weak argument.

URGENT: Team of International Investigators conclude Vladimir Putin personally shot down Malaysian Airlines flight, killing 300 innocent civilians. Horrible if true. He should be punished. https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-putin-likely-signed-off-missile-supply-malaysia-airlines-shoot-down-investigators-say

LOL. It's like some sort of delusional cult. Literally every question, every investigation, every mainstream news article has increasingly pointed toward US involvement and away from Russia since the day of the incident. I wouldn't be wasting my time on this issue if it wasn't completely obvious which way this was going to go. The BALTOPS exercise cover was glaringly evident months ago. It was my first response in this thread. Millions of people are going to pick up on this story, and there will be enormous pressure for some sort of admission from someone involved. You apparently believe in an alternative story, but there is absolutely nothing out there you can give me to support it with a credibility in the same ballpark as Seymour Hersh. Go waste your time looking for one if you like, but no one has even bothered to even hint that there is evidence Russia did it. Like your photo, it's comic book fantasy. I know you're just trying to make a dismissive quip without addressing the issue, but if you are intellectually sincere about finding the answer to your question, the author simultaneously published this explanation with regard to substack. I hope you read it. https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/why-substack "I’ve been told my stories were wrong, invented, outrageous for as long as I can remember—but I’ve never stopped. In 2004, after I published the first stories about the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, a Pentagon spokesman responded by calling my journalism “a tapestry of nonsense.” (He also said I was a guy who “threw a lot of crap against the wall” and “expects someone to peel off what’s real.” I won my fifth George Polk Award for that work.) That’s where Substack comes along. Here, I have the kind of freedom I’ve always fought for. I’ve watched writer after writer on this platform as they’ve freed themselves from their publishers’ economic interests, run deep with stories without fear of word counts or column inches, and—most importantly—spoke directly to their readers. What you’ll find here is, I hope, a reflection of that freedom. The story you will read today is the truth as I worked for three months to find, with no pressure from a publisher, editors or peers to make it hew to certain lines of thought—or pare it back to assuage their fears. Substack simply means reporting is back . . . unfiltered and unprogrammed—just the way I like it."

So how is it that you ascertain knowledge of anything? Because someone once lied, everyone else is a liar? You're holding so tightly to the narrative "We didn't do this" that you will never publicly admit that your ill-informed gut-feeling that your leaders only act with honor and integrity and aren't capable of such things was wrong. This is obviously going to make some waves, create more questions, and the truth will come out sooner rather than later. So get prepared to cross your arms, dig in your heels, and repeat "Nuh-unh" no matter what further evidence is presented.

Of course. Everything that doesn't prop up your worldview is a lie.

The entire story in detail: https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream

I. Told. You. So. Hopefully some of you can finally wake up to the realization that we're being led down the wrong path by f'n criminals. I want to believe USA is good and Russia is bad, but "The World is Grey, Jack". I don't want these devious acts to be done in the name of America, but they are. Our allies were harmed by this and the people of Europe were lied to. How long can we keep doing this before the rest of the world turns on us?

Wow. Great post. A few pointed barbs in there, but I don't mind. 😄 I appreciate the time and effort. I think you're misplacing a large part of the responsibility for all the positive things we've enjoyed. We've enjoyed a period of relative peace and prosperity in spite of our government actions the last 80 years, not because of them. You and I came along at a period in time where humans have stumbled onto a vast amount of energy resources. An incredible exponential increase in energy available per person has lifted most of the planet out of poverty. More energy = more prosperity = more peace. It's the reason for everything. But exponential growth curves can't stay exponential. (Fusion or any other magic free energy isn't going to save us) "Tragedy of the Commons". Whatever the reasons given for supporting war, this is ultimately the reason. You don't want your standard of living threatened. What lengths are you willing to go to protect it? The determination has already been made to reduce your prosperity through back-door taxes, eliminate the competition (Russia, then China, then ?), while those who have the power to do both actually increase their share of wealth and resources. You're being tricked into believing you're only going to retain these things you value if only Russia didn't exist. Not true. They are fighting to exist. Don't discount the effect of desperation on the will to fight. I'm about halfway through the second volume of Edmond Morris's Roosevelt biography, Theodore Rex. It's amazing how history repeats itself. If you're advocating for a globalized world, you're advocating for monopolistic behavior. With the industrialization of the early 1900s, there was massive increases in wealth and with that came monopolies. Big banks, Big Coal, Big Railroad. Whenever competition is eliminated, people like you and I suffer because there are no disincentives for greed. Thank goodness he was able to break up many of these trusts or we could have seen another civil war. Globalization will need a governing body, and they'll fear no one. Do you really want the type of people currently running our government also running the world? You and I both love the USA, but do you really think our leadership does? They'd sell us down the river for a whiff of a chance to keep themselves in a position of power. They've jedi mind trick-fucked you into believing Russia is the greater threat. Again, the history of this conflict didn't start when Russia crossed the border. You're a reasonable guy, but you seem willfully blind to the obvious bullshit that was happening in the years leading up to 2022. Half of Ukraine elected a pro-Russian government and it was overthrown by a western backed violent coup. Eastern Ukraine was getting shelled by the new government while NATO influence and missile "defenses" aimed at Russia poured in with the intent of making it a NATO state when the population was staunchly divided. Yet you're led to believe that all of Ukraine was the victim here. Ukrainian territory was always intended to be the sacrificial bait. This will be another "nation-building" failure. You apparently had to deal with a psycho bitch. That sucks sorry to hear. I haven't so I can't really say what I'd do, but I imagine you were put in a position multiple times to choose from one of many bad choices. Instead of lamenting the choices, you may have asked why you were put in that dilemma in the first place? Because she wanted to manipulate you to do something that harmed you and benefited her. I'm sure there's a lot of forcibly conscripted Ukrainians asking the same. I agree with most all of this. I think there is a fourth option. Have you noticed there is a never-ending supply of boogeymen outside our borders the last 20 years? We're constantly distracted by imaginary threats on the horizon while the wolf is already in the sheep's pen. Think about it, what is the ratio to the amount of words you've used trying to convince me of foreign dangers and solutions compared to your concerns over the innumerable self-inflicted dangers. Sure, there are bad people doing bad things on the other side of the planet and they may need to be dealt with eventually, but why is that taking priority over the obvious threats here? You've been tricked. Just realize it.

It's not controversial, until I ask you how our leadership designates our enemies and opponents. If they sink a ship with causing loss of American lives - enemy. If they bomb a US naval base - enemy. If they fly planes into US buildings - enemy. Like the Mattis quote "‘I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all." But I think your definition is much more lose, and you'd seek direct conflict simply over political differences, competition for resources, a nation impeding our expansion, or possibly just for an economic benefit that a wartime economy brings. That's what's controversial. EDIT: BTW, The Defense Minister of Ukraine was just fired/resigned amid controversy. What an absolute shit show.

Oh, you were just joking… yeah. I have never said America sucks. America is undoubtedly the pinnacle of human civilization. But it’s not perfect in that we’ve allowed our system of government to be led increasingly by corrupt leadership that are not acting in our best interests. You know, the expansionist imperial types who are willing to enrich themselves and expand their power by manipulating the gullibles. The types that want to crush their enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women. You can relate.