zlacker

>>hungle+(OP)
Seymour doesn’t provide any proof or any evidence. It’s argument by assertion. What he writes is plausible but without any sources or other corroborating evidence. I think it more believable that Seymour has been paid to write this by a Russian aligned entity.

I don’t know the truth of the matter and Seymour could be right. We just can’t tell from the evidence provided.

>>syzari+A2
If this turns out to be right --and we don't have conclusive evidence, but this would upset the current narrative. Why would Russia be an idiot to shoot itself in the foot (cui bono) and blow up their leverage; though in international affairs the unimaginable is possible, so yeah they may have done it to themselves -though to outsiders it would seem illogical

If true though, it would be as big as the Gulf of Tonkin incident [as in it was us in pursuit of our own interest]

>>mc32+Es1
The Gulf of Tonkin involved the US claiming that a US ship was fired upon as a pretense to declare war in retaliation. The idea here is that the US blew up a Russian pipeline in order to... what? Declare war on Russia in retaliation for Russia's own pipeline being destroyed? This makes no sense unless you're accusing Russia of blowing up the pipeline.

>>kibwen+6w1
Blowing up the pipeline is an act of war.

>>Tepix+Wz1
Please be precise. Who, exactly, are you alleging blew up the pipeline in order to declare war on whom? And then the elephant in the room: nobody declared war on anybody in the wake of this, so how is the possible justification for a war that did not happen being used as evidence that this event was designed to incite a war?

>>kibwen+ZB1
From TFA:

The CIA argued that whatever was done, it would have to be covert. Everyone involved understood the stakes. “This is not kiddie stuff,” the source said. If the attack were traceable to the United States, “It’s an act of war.”