Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Lawman]

Hey! You can be taught. I think there's hope for you yet. Instead of a 10 year old event unrelated to the current conflict, you've somehow combed through over 1800 episodes and found a 4 year old podcast unrelated to the current conflict. It ain't much, but it's something. I'm sure it took a lot of effort, so I'll commend you for it. Side thought: Are you at work today? Hmmm.
Remember that comment I made about you being the high school debate team's one trick pony? You'll will never abandon your ad-hominem tactic no matter how transparent it makes your unwillingness to address the actual facts or lies. Aren't you even a little bit ashamed that that is your only defense? It only gets you so far.
Because the topic of this podcast is so far out of the realm of issues that are of importance in the context of the Rus-Ukr war, I am unfamiliar with this one. But I'm willing to give it a listen and report back to you with an original take using critical thinking that I didn't have to defer to Google for. Understand I have to withold judgement until I verify that the claims within are ridiculous, and I'll even concede there is a probability of bullshit given my commitment to truth and honesty. So I'm already going in with a bias that suits your fancy. Can I get a little appreciation? At first glance, however, I'm suddenly reminded of claimed chemical attacks and WMD that were used as a pretext for going to war. You may have been a child then, so you might not remember.
Anyway, thanks for the link. It's in the lineup.
 

Man 1398 more podcasts before you can exercise any level of critical thinking on the nature of its content… how will you have time to keep up with all the breaking news on OAN.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[uhhello]

I don't know how you guys have the energy

[gearhog]

17 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Man 1398 more podcasts before you can exercise any level of critical thinking on the nature of its content… how will you have time to keep up with all the breaking news on OAN.

I've only listened to one. I'll listen to the other one you recommended in the morning. If it's decent, I may add it to my favorites. OAN? I don't think "watching the news" is still a thing anymore. At least among serious people. You seem like the kind of guy that watches AFN to stay informed, and maybe flirts with Rachael Maddow every now and then.

How many times do I have to tell you that yeah... some of it might be bad info. Some of it might not be. Haven't you realized I'm impervious to bullshit. After all, I've been reading yours for a few pages now. So far, I've provoked responses from you consisting of several thousand words and you've had the courage to mention two, count them, two... incidents or examples of Russian propaganda. MH17 and Syrian chemical weapons or whatever. Even then, you don't seem to be able to articulate anything resembling an original thought. 

If we were to calculate the ratio of your original critical thinking assessments of actual events and news pertaining to the topic of this thread to the amount of words written, it would be exactly zero. For a guy that talks a lot, you don't have much to contribute. What's your pronouns?

[SurelySerious]

So if a pilot from "x" community crashes an airplane for something stupid, now all pilots from that community can't be trusted to fly?
Similarly, if you had a CC from community "x" who was a dirtbag, now all ppl from that community are considered trash?

Actually this is incredibly true. One C-17 lands at Peter O Knight, and they’re all guilty by association for landing at the wrong airport. Same with B-1 pilots and landing gear up. Can’t trust any of them.

[gearhog]

58 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

So if a pilot from "x" community crashes an airplane for something stupid, now all pilots from that community can't be trusted to fly?

Similarly, if you had a CC from community "x" who was a dirtbag, now all ppl from that community are considered trash?

That's what I've been trying to say. One bad podcast or bit of propaganda doesn't mean they're all bad. 😄 Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Lawman]

I've only listened to one. I'll listen to the other one you recommended in the morning. If it's decent, I may add it to my favorites. OAN? I don't think "watching the news" is still a thing anymore. At least among serious people. You seem like the kind of guy that watches AFN to stay informed, and maybe flirts with Rachael Maddow every now and then.
How many times do I have to tell you that yeah... some of it might be bad info. Some of it might not be. Haven't you realized I'm impervious to bullshit. After all, I've been reading yours for a few pages now. So far, I've provoked responses from you consisting of several thousand words and you've had the courage to mention two, count them, two... incidents or examples of Russian propaganda. MH17 and Syrian chemical weapons or whatever. Even then, you don't seem to be able to articulate anything resembling an original thought. 
If we were to calculate the ratio of your original critical thinking assessments of actual events and news pertaining to the topic of this thread to the amount of words written, it would be exactly zero. For a guy that talks a lot, you don't have much to contribute. What's your pronouns?

No we all get it you’re a troll. You just like to be a more sophisticated one than our regular troll.

I just like pointing out the dubious guests and theories by your new favorite podcast to champion because anybody taking your advise to give service to them is gonna waste their time figuring that out first hand.

It’s like watching you defend Tucker as still being needed to be listened too seriously. That’s a Rogan episode you can definitely skip.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

33 minutes ago, Lawman said:

No we all get it you’re a troll. You just like to be a more sophisticated one than our regular troll.

I just like pointing out the dubious guests and theories by your new favorite podcast to champion because anybody taking your advise to give service to them is gonna waste their time figuring that out first hand.

It’s like watching you defend Tucker as still being needed to be listened too seriously. That’s a Rogan episode you can definitely skip.

Because I'm aggressively defending a position I believe in that happens to be contrary to yours, you continue to flail and search for a reason to dismiss, in this case, calling me a "troll." Real original. But I do thank you for recognizing that my position is sophisticated and nuanced. Keep working at it, and you, too, may have one one day as well.

I had no idea that podcast existed until you started bitching about it. It isn't my favorite, but I do appreciate the introduction. I'll probably keep listening. Nothing piques my interest more than someone attempting to discourage me from watching, listening, reading something they disagree with.

What is it with you and Tucker? You've brought him up a half dozen times when no one else has. It's weird. I haven't listened to Rogan in a couple week so I hadn't realized he was on. You realize what I'm going to do now, right? LOL

For months you've been obsessing over him. My reply to you back in August:

On 8/19/2023 at 7:31 AM, gearhog said:

I've never mentioned or written about "Tucker". Why are you trying to inject him into the conversation? Is this a left vs right thing for you? You'll spend a thousand words decrying something being "from the Internet", "from Russia", "from Twitter", "from Tucker"....but you'll never address the content itself.

It's kinda like the rainbow hair people who scream into the camera when someone asks them a simple, logical question that defeats their position. I've been asking you specific detailed questions about your position and you ever-so consistently decline to approach them. Instead, you deflect with irrelevant nonsense about "Tucker", "Soros", "Nazis", "Illuminati," "Covid", etc. Interestingly, these are all leftist criticisms. Hmm.

[Lawman]

I don't know how you guys have the energy

It’s this or pay attention to Daniel Tiger.

Though I think that show would give as good a ground intelligence summary as two hacks telling us Ukraine is done for and all the worlds ills are the fault of the west and NATO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

29 minutes ago, Lawman said:

It’s this or pay attention to Daniel Tiger.

Though I think that show would give as good a ground intelligence summary as two hacks telling us Ukraine is done for and all the worlds ills are the fault of the west and NATO.

Would you mind quoting where I have said either of those things? I never did. Do a keyword search, click more options, search by author, and type "gearhog" in the second search bar. You'll get a list of the things I have typed. That's how I found you brought up "Tucker" eight times in this thread when no one else mentioned him. When you find that I have said either of those two things, post it here and I'll be thoroughly humbled.

Or you could just admit that your position has become so weak that you feel you now need to straight up lie to defend it.

 

Edited April 27 by gearhog

[Lawman]

Would you mind quoting where I have said either of those things? I never did. Do a keyword search, click more options, search by author, and type "gearhog" in the second search bar. You'll get a list of the things I have typed. That's how I found you brought up "Tucker" eight times in this thread when no one else mentioned him. When you find that I have said either of those two things, post it here and I'll be thoroughly humbled.
Or you could just admit that your position has become so weak that you feel you now need to straight up lie to defend it.
 

I bring him up because no rational person would attempt to disprove his demonstrated lack of integrity (the the point of openly defending himself in court saying so) or defend the concept we need to listen to his content with any reasonable expectation of truth.

What an irrational person would do is take a similarly set of highly compromised individuals hosting a podcast which spends its content selling fabricated stories and negative narratives of the west and NATO as somehow worthy of the time to spend to mince through said content in search of any kind of truth.

You aren’t nuanced, you’re just obtuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

2 minutes ago, Lawman said:

I bring him up because no rational person would attempt to disprove his demonstrated lack of integrity (the the point of openly defending himself in court saying so) or defend the concept we need to listen to his content with any reasonable expectation of truth.

What an irrational person would do is take a similarly set of highly compromised individuals hosting a podcast which spends its content selling fabricated stories and negative narratives of the west and NATO as somehow worthy of the time to spend to mince through said content in search of any kind of truth.

You aren’t nuanced, you’re just obtuse.

Here's a simple logic test: So the reason you won't make any attempt to defy something someone says is because they have demonstrated a lack of integrity. But in order to know that they've lied, you would have to listen to what they lied about. You keep saying you're not willing to do that an no one else should, either. This brings us back to my earlier point that you don't have any original thoughts, you have to rely on what someone else thinks who did listen.

How do you know that the stories are fabricated if you haven't listened? You keep bragging about how you're only willing to consider infomation that meets your personal standard for acceptability. That means you consume and process a fraction of the information I do, because I want to hear all perspectives and I'll do the sorting myself. You're intentionally being ignorant and trying to justify it to me. I don't think that's very smart.

[Lawman]

Here's a simple logic test: So the reason you won't make any attempt to defy something someone says is because they have demonstrated a lack of integrity. But in order to know that they've lied, you would have to listen to what they lied about. You keep saying you're not willing to do that an no one else should, either. This brings us back to my earlier point that you don't have any original thoughts, you have to rely on what someone else thinks who did listen.
How do you know that the stories are fabricated if you haven't listened? You keep bragging about how you're only willing to consider infomation that meets your personal standard for acceptability. That means you consume and process a fraction of the information I do, because I want to hear all perspectives and I'll do the sorting myself. You're intentionally being ignorant and trying to justify it to me. I don't think that's very smart.

Do you need to watch professional wrestling to know it’s fake, or has enough been demonstrated to meet the expected threshold to dismiss the idea it’s real?

At this point you just want to be contrarian to any evidence presented about these guys and their show and you’ve ignored all of it or dismissed it as “that doesn’t count because…”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

Just now, Lawman said:

Do you need to watch professional wrestling to know it’s fake, or has enough been demonstrated to meet the expected threshold to dismiss the idea it’s real?

At this point you just want to be contrarian to any evidence presented about these guys and their show and you’ve ignored all of it or dismissed it as “that doesn’t count because…”

Do you go around telling people they shouldn't be watching pro-wresting? I bet you do. If someone wants to watch it and find out for themselves, why not? Who made you the fact-check police?

At least a dozens times I've said it might be false, it might not be. You might be right, you might be wrong. It's impossible to know 100% without first hand experience. No one here needs some little busy-body like yourself up in everyone's business telling them what they should and shouldn't be listening to because you don't like who their friends with. I've never met anyone else on BO.net whose behavior more resembles that of a teen girl.

[McJay Pilot]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

It’s this or pay attention to Daniel Tiger.
 

Definitely don’t do that. You realize that psycho has tiger skin curtains in his house.

[BashiChuni]

4 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

So if a pilot from "x" community crashes an airplane for something stupid, now all pilots from that community can't be trusted to fly?

Similarly, if you had a CC from community "x" who was a dirtbag, now all ppl from that community are considered trash?

Mike Hayden, former CIA director, now analyst for CNN

Jim Clapper, former director of national intelligence, now CNN pundit

John Brennan, former CIA director, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC

Thomas Fingar, former National Intelligence Council chair, now teaches at Stanford University

Rick Ledgett, former National Security Agency deputy director, now a director at M&T Bank

John McLaughlin, former CIA acting director, now teaches at Johns Hopkins University

Michael Morell, former CIA acting director, now at George Mason University

Mike Vickers, former defense undersecretary for intelligence, now on board of BAE Systems

Doug Wise, former Defense Intelligence Agency deputy director, teaches at University of New Mexico

Nick Rasmussen, former National Counterterrorism Center director, now executive director, Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism

Russ Travers, former National Counterterrorism Center acting director

Andy Liepman, former National Counterterrorism Center deputy director

John Moseman, former CIA chief of staff

 Larry Pfeiffer, former CIA chief of staff, now senior advisor to The Chertoff Group

Jeremy Bash, former CIA chief of staff, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC

Rodney Snyder, former CIA chief of staff

Glenn Gerstell, former National Security Agency general counsel

David Priess, former CIA analyst and manager

Pam Purcilly, former CIA deputy director of analysis

Marc Polymeropoulos, former CIA senior operations officer

Timothy D. Kilbourn, former dean of CIA’s Kent School of Intelligence Analysis

 

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you.” - Sen Chuck Schumer

 

 

[Lawman]

Do you go around telling people they shouldn't be watching pro-wresting? I bet you do. If someone wants to watch it and find out for themselves, why not? Who made you the fact-check police?
At least a dozens times I've said it might be false, it might not be. You might be right, you might be wrong. It's impossible to know 100% without first hand experience. No one here needs some little busy-body like yourself up in everyone's business telling them what they should and shouldn't be listening to because you don't like who their friends with. I've never met anyone else on BO.net whose behavior more resembles that of a teen girl.

I didn’t tell you not to watch wrestling I told you it was fake.

You somehow seem to take that as “well I can’t know unless I watch it” which is an absolutely preposterous bit of logic you’ve committed yourself too.

Same is true for a bunch of Russian hacks with a long history of BS statements being presented by one of our more flamboyantly in the bag characters as “the real story on the ground.” Two of us knew how bogus that claim was, we provided you with easy verifiable examples of it… but you, like a child, need to stick the key in the wall socket to find out it will in fact be a negative experience for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

Definitely don’t do that. You realize that psycho has tiger skin curtains in his house.

The show feels like a form of sleep hypnosis. I don’t understand how my full cocaine and redbull rockstar energy child can somehow sit still for something with this pace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

47 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Do you need to watch professional wrestling to know it’s fake, or has enough been demonstrated to meet the expected threshold to dismiss the idea it’s real?

At this point you just want to be contrarian to any evidence presented about these guys and their show and you’ve ignored all of it or dismissed it as “that doesn’t count because…”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lawman,

your problem is you have righteous belief in government institutions who have been PROVEN to lie, deceive, and manipulate. Blind belief. maybe even extremist belief.

and the ironic thing is you can't see how blind you are, yet you accuse others of being blind. you have been so perfectly perfected by propaganda you're unable to have original thoughts, ideas, and analysis.

in short: you are a useful idiot.

[Lawman]

Lawman,
your problem is you have righteous belief in government institutions who have been PROVEN to lie, deceive, and manipulate. Blind belief. maybe even extremist belief.
and the ironic thing is you can't see how blind you are, yet you accuse others of being blind. you have been so perfectly perfected by propaganda you're unable to have original thoughts, ideas, and analysis.
in short: you are a useful idiot.

Yes it’s the Russians that are gonna tell you the real truth.

You know you are literally a vignette characature we have to do annual training on for insider threat?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arg]

4 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

So if 51 pilots from "x" community crashes an airplane for something stupid, now all pilots from that community can't be trusted to fly?

Similarly, if you had 51 CC from community "x" who was a dirtbag, now all ppl from that community are considered trash?

Silly

[BashiChuni]

24 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Yes it’s the Russians that are gonna tell you the real truth.

You know you are literally a vignette characature we have to do annual training on for insider threat?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

im not listening to the russians dumbass

[Boomer6]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

Mike Hayden, former CIA director, now analyst for CNN

Jim Clapper, former director of national intelligence, now CNN pundit

John Brennan, former CIA director, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC

Thomas Fingar, former National Intelligence Council chair, now teaches at Stanford University

Rick Ledgett, former National Security Agency deputy director, now a director at M&T Bank

John McLaughlin, former CIA acting director, now teaches at Johns Hopkins University

Michael Morell, former CIA acting director, now at George Mason University

Mike Vickers, former defense undersecretary for intelligence, now on board of BAE Systems

Doug Wise, former Defense Intelligence Agency deputy director, teaches at University of New Mexico

Nick Rasmussen, former National Counterterrorism Center director, now executive director, Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism

Russ Travers, former National Counterterrorism Center acting director

Andy Liepman, former National Counterterrorism Center deputy director

John Moseman, former CIA chief of staff

 Larry Pfeiffer, former CIA chief of staff, now senior advisor to The Chertoff Group

Jeremy Bash, former CIA chief of staff, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC

Rodney Snyder, former CIA chief of staff

Glenn Gerstell, former National Security Agency general counsel

David Priess, former CIA analyst and manager

Pam Purcilly, former CIA deputy director of analysis

Marc Polymeropoulos, former CIA senior operations officer

Timothy D. Kilbourn, former dean of CIA’s Kent School of Intelligence Analysis

 

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you.” - Sen Chuck Schumer

 

 

By this logic if you have a family member or two that's gay is it safe assume your whole family is a bunch of homos?

[gearhog]

9 hours ago, Lawman said:

I didn’t tell you not to watch wrestling I told you it was fake.

You somehow seem to take that as “well I can’t know unless I watch it” which is an absolutely preposterous bit of logic you’ve committed yourself too.

Same is true for a bunch of Russian hacks with a long history of BS statements being presented by one of our more flamboyantly in the bag characters as “the real story on the ground.” Two of us knew how bogus that claim was, we provided you with easy verifiable examples of it… but you, like a child, need to stick the key in the wall socket to find out it will in fact be a negative experience for you.

You're presenting this analogy like you're smarter than everybody else because you've figured out something everyone has known since 1980. Are you going to argue Star Wars is fake? No one is pretending that it isn't. Pro-wrestling isn't presenting itself as a fair play competition regulated by a code of rules and ethics. It's entertainment. WWE.

Dumb analogy, but congrats, at least it doesn't involve consuming human waste. More progress. It's like raising a child, getting one to make good choices doesn't happen overnight, but if your patient and persistent, you can change their behavior, and it's very rewarding.

The second paragraph is almost unintelligible. What specific "on the ground" claim was bogus? You're dancing around the issue again but not articulating it. And who is this "we" that provided "what" examples?

You're like the dog that yips and yaps at everyone on the other side of the fence, but is afraid to go through an open gate.

Here's a fun one for you. I often watch/read UNSC testimonies just to see what's happening up there.  Found this one from yesterday. It's a former State Department and CIA official who also worked counter-terrorism until about 2016. Before you overload your Google search bar in a frantic search for an ad-hominem attack, try to read it and look for signs of factual information and signs of bias yourself. There are both. This guy clearly has a bone to pick, but is he a Russian agent? Is it a complete fabrication produced by a Russian Psyop? I don't know. Let's read it and see. Use your critical thinking skills.

Quote

 

" I'm here at my own expense without compensation for my time; all material and comments are my own. My goal in addressing you today is simple: I want to propose steps that I believe can help resolve the mystery of the source of the attack on the Nordstream pipeline and thus help resolve the tensions that resulted from that unprecedented attack.

Perhaps I bring a unique perspective to this issue because of my past experience with intelligence operations and analysis during my time with the Central Intelligence Agency, with counterterrorism policy and investigations while serving in the State Department Office of Counterterrorism, and with the scripting and execution of more than 200 counterterrorism training missions for US military Special Operations forces while working as a contractor, along with successful money laundering investigations carried out in my role as the managing partner of Berg Associates. One of these investigations included a successful case conducted on behalf of the European Union and the governors of Colombia.

One of the strongest reasons for this belief is our faith in the United Nations. The United Nations has three great roles to play in preventing wars: first, it provides a way for negotiation and the settlement of disputes among nations by peaceful means; second, it provides a way of utilizing the collective strength of member nations under the charter to prevent aggression; third, it provides a way through which, once the danger of aggression is reduced, the nations can be relieved of the burden of armaments. I believe it is not only the responsibility but the sacred duty of the Security Council to take the lead in bringing about a settlement of the means. I will not review the mountain of evidence that implicates my own country, the United States, in this act of war against the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Germany. There was no compelling national security interest to justify the destruction of the Nordstream pipeline, which has inflicted significant economic pain on the people of Germany. This attack accomplished nothing in terms of helping bring an end to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and Ukraine's NATO facilitators; it made matters worse.

During my time at the CIA, I acquired an understanding of how covert action was planned and executed in places as diverse as Afghanistan and Central America. Such operations are not conducted spur of the moment; they are funded, planned, and rehearsed before being executed. Seymour Hersh's account of the US covert action against the Nordstream pipeline is consistent with the knowledge I acquired during my time at the agency. In the late 1980s, when I began working for Ambassador Morris Busby in the office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the US State Department, one of my first tasks was getting country clearances for the FBI as they investigated the terrorist bombing of PanAm 103, which crashed in Lockerby, Scotland, in December of 1988.

One of the most important lessons I drew from that experience, which I believe is relevant to the Nordstream matter, was the difference between a criminal investigation and intelligence activities. Great care was exercised to ensure that the evidence gathered by the FBI was neither tainted nor spoiled by intelligence activities. It was a fine line, but Ambassador Busby made sure that the FBI and the CIA stayed in their own lanes. And maybe that is the most important lesson of all: the leadership demonstrated by Ambassador Busby. Professional, mature leadership is essential to the successful investigation of complex international operations that result in attacks like PanAm 103 and the Nordstream pipeline.

Although the criminal indictments against the two men implicated in carrying out the bombing did not come until November of 1991, the evidence that cracked the case was in hand by March 1990. That's only 15 months after PanAm 103 fell from the skies and 20 months before the criminal indictments. Compare that investigation with the indifference and lack of curiosity demonstrated by the NATO countries with respect to Nordstream. It has been 19 months since the pipeline was destroyed, and the NATO countries appear to have adopted the posture of the three wise monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

I have some insight into the logistics and execution of the attack on Nordstream, thanks to work I did on behalf of the US military Special Operations Forces. That work commenced in the spring of 1994 and ended in 2016. During those 22 years, I was part of a team that scripted multiple counterterrorism exercises. We would create scenarios such as a group threatening to use a biological weapon in a North African country and then replicate the diplomatic and intelligence traffic reporting the threat to stimulate a response by the particular military-diplomatic task force, both to analyze, contain, and defeat the threat. In the course of this work, we also had to think like saboteurs or terrorists, understand their motives, understand the capabilities required to carry out such an attack, and identify the kinds of resources and training that would underpin such a terrorist operation.

Four years after I started consulting with the US military, I, along with four others, started Berg Associates. Two of my partners previously worked with the Drug Enforcement Administration: one ended his career as the chief of international operations of DEA, the other ran storefront undercover money laundering operations here in New York City. One of our first jobs was the investigation of what is commonly known as the Bank of New York Russian money laundering case. We also organized investigation and collection of evidence that was used to file a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as RICO, against major tobacco companies which were laundering money for drug cartels. Two separate causes of actions were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, the European Union, and the governors of Colombia.

My point in mentioning this history is to emphasize that even in complex international investigations, without access to classified material, we were able to gather massive quantities of evidence which would have been admissible and stood up in a US criminal court. In doing these investigations, I learned that Disneyland has it right: it is a small world after all. The nexus between criminal organizations, major international corporations, financial institutions, and intelligence organizations is not a fantasy; it is real and involves hundreds of billions of dollars. My experience convinces me that a properly funded investigation carried out by professionals will uncover documents, informants, that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt who carried out the Nordstream pipeline bombing. The nations assembled here have one advantage in an investigation that we as private investigators did not have: you have signals intelligence satellites, you have data stored, for example, that can provide intelligence ranging from the movements of ships to the movement of money. When you combine that data with conventional evidence, you have a powerful means for identifying who ordered and executed the bombing of the Nordstream pipeline. I can say this much with certainty about that operation: it was carried out with the financial and material support of at least one nation-state. There are written records, almost certainly highly classified and stored with very limited access, but there may be available evidence outside such classified records that can illuminate the act significantly, if not solve the mystery."

 

 

Edited April 27 by gearhog

[SurelySerious]

By this logic if you have a family member or two that's gay is it safe assume your whole family is a bunch of homos?

Eagle drivers, nuff said.

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, gearhog said:

You're presenting this analogy like you're smarter than everybody else because you've figured out something everyone has known since 1980. Are you going to argue Star Wars is fake? No one is pretending that it isn't. Pro-wrestling isn't presenting itself as a fair play competition regulated by a code of rules and ethics. It's entertainment. WWE.

Dumb analogy, but congrats, at least it doesn't involve consuming human waste. More progress. It's like raising a child, getting one to make good choices doesn't happen overnight, but if your patient and persistent, you can change their behavior, and it's very rewarding.

The second paragraph is almost unintelligible. What specific "on the ground" claim was bogus? You're dancing around the issue again but not articulating it. And who is this "we" that provided "what" examples?

You're like the dog that yips and yaps at everyone on the other side of the fence, but is afraid to go through an open gate.

Here's a fun one for you. I often watch/read UNSC testimonies just to see what's happening up there.  Found this one from yesterday. It's a former State Department and CIA official who also worked counter-terrorism until about 2016. Before you overload your Google search bar in a frantic search for an ad-hominem attack, try to read it and look for signs of factual information and signs of bias yourself. There are both. This guy clearly has a bone to pick, but is he a Russian agent? Is it a complete fabrication produced by a Russian Psyop? I don't know. Let's read it and see. Use your critical thinking skills.

 

Sounds like the dude is trying to get a juicy contract for an investigation no one wants.

 

The investigations have been done. Everyone who has a stake in knowing the answer already does. And all interested parties have decided to move on without public commentary.

 

Besides, his defense of the UN is a bit too rosy to take seriously. I get it, he's trying to get them to find him, but come on.