zlacker

>>hungle+(OP)
It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents as the key players and be just as convincing.

The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story.

What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears to be based on a single, unnamed source "with direct knowledge of the operational planning".

>>mmastr+fu1
I agree, very well written and full of detail, but with no shred of evidence, it’s just a theory.

The credibility of the author should never be taken for granted, especially with stories of this sensitive nature. The veracity also depends on an anonymous source, which will likely never be revealed nor verified or verifiable.

I think the danger here is that many people will take the author’s credibility for granted and will be influenced to take some action based on their belief.

I guess that’s okay, but it feels like people ought to come to the conclusion that this is nothing more than an interesting theory, then move on.

>>bernie+C76
He’s protecting his source. You can think what you want, but the circumstantial evidence that supports the assertions is voluminous. And it certainly makes more sense than any of the other “theories”, especially the absurd idea that Russia blew up its own pipeline.

>>miguel+t96
Sorry, one more thing. You stated that he’s protecting his source. How do we know he even has a source?

>>bernie+8h8
Because I read the article.

>>miguel+Xd9
That doesn’t mean he has a source though. He could have fabricated the entire story.

He could also have a source who fabricated the entire story.

Even if he did have a source or sources, the level of detail is astonishing. The source or sources would have needed to be omnipresent across multiple agencies and government offices. That alone seems improbable.