Who blew up Nord Stream and why? And more importantly... will we ever know?
Replies to: Who blew up Nord Stream and why? And more importantly... will we ever know?
I wonder who owned all the NG that is being wasted?
It was in the pipeline under pressure to counteract the water pressure. It wasn't being pumped anywhere. But, there was a lot of it and it is all being lost.
The finger points to Sleepy Joe. Here's why:
On February 7, 2022, Joe said that " If Russia invades,...there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2, we will bring an end to it."
Was that Hunter in the frogman suit?
Has Biden considered those prolife, rosary-praying, school board opposing threats to democracy?
(no message)
Russia is the main suspect
Seems to make little sense to blow up their own pipeline…but maybe they figured that would give them some deniability (they’ll deny it no matter what), and maybe they wanted to cause chaos in European markets.
Then again, this hurts them most. They need to sell that oil.
I hope we didn’t do it. Members of Baltic parliaments are now openly thanking the United States.
I saw that idiot on Twitter doing just that.
I wish he wouldn't have opted to show his "gratitude."
Biden's handlers could not be this irresponsible.
It's not oil that is leaking... it's methane... allegedly a primary culprit in global warming.
PLUS... the US would take an horrific PR hit if we did this.
All of Joe's multitrillions in spending for CC control down the tubes in a day.
(no message)
Always look to who benefits the most. Not definitive, but accurate 9 out of 10 times.
(no message)
Central question for conspiracy theorists: “who benefits the most”
That gets you to some crazy answers. Which might be what you are really looking for anyway.
Motive is a conspiracy concept to you. And “crazy”answers makes it not useful? Heh.
Motive isn’t the only tool (opportunity, means), but it’s the biggest here.
You NEED this to be the Russians for your political peace of mind. I hope your right actually.
But only a fool would fail to consider the Ukrainians, Russians, Saudis, China, and the US. Those aren’t “answers”, they are “suspects” to be ruled out……among others. And yes, you administration is dumbass and radical enough to have to have done something like this.
The Saudis, Chinese and Ukrainians are suspects?
As always, you totally know what you are taking about.
Simply a detached view of who has greatest motive. Nothing more. I’d say Russia, US/Ukraine are
most likely, but others are possible.
Of course, despite your assumptions and leaps here, I am not accusing anyone, I am merely asking dispassionately,
“Which parties benefit the most from this?” If the evidence doesn’t give a clear answer by itself, then those parties are where I would direct my attentions.
Right. Evidence-free, armchair blather.
"The Saudis" did make me laugh out loud, though, so thanks for that.
You didn't read it, did you? I specifically said, "If the evidence doesn't give a clear answer
I said "If the evidence doesn't give a clear answer by itself, then those parties [with most to gain] are where i would direct my attention".
I'm glad you found humor in this thread since I did as well as you smugly dismissed some of the most basic tenants of criminology (Motive, means, and opportunity) because you think that might bring unwanted scrutiny upon the regime that you support with unbounded zealotry.
If evidence answers the question - awesome.
When evidence fails, motive (those with something significant to gain) helps to assemble a list of suspects while means and opportunity help to narrow that list down.
Amazing how you are willing to focus carefully on the minutest of details when it comes to someone you oppose, but will not follow even basic logic when it involves your own kin.
Now, again Chris, so you are crystal clear on this, I didn't say that the Saudis or anyone else did this. In fact, i would put them near the bottom of likely possibilities, but I wouldn't dismiss anyone who could gain from this if we don't get a clear answer from the evidence.