Tucker Carlson: Tony Blinken’s Statement Is an Admission the US Was Behind Nord Stream Pipeline Bombings (VIDEO)

[gipper]

You make my point for me. What benefit would we get from doing this?

You’ve asked this foolish question repeatedly. I thought you were joking, but apparently you aren’t. Lol.

Where do you think Europe will get it’s eneregy now that Russia can’t offer any????? Who do you think will profit?

This isn’t hard.

 

[busybee01]

That's why Tucker Carlson is one of the best journalists in the US today! He is not afraid of telling it how it is!

Tucker Carlson: Tony Blinken's Statement Is an Admission the US Was Behind Nord Stream Pipeline Bombings (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Aerial view of blown Nord Stream pipeline near Bornholm Island.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The Russians clearly blew up Nordstream. You Putin lovers are disgusting animals.

 

[busybee01]

the democrats have proven over and over again that they are capable of doing anything

You treasonous Putin lovers will do anything.

 

[busybee01]

There are many morons around.....

You are a perfect example of a moron or treasonous Putin asset.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

You treasonous Putin lovers will do anything.

the corrupt democrat politicians love their blind fanatic cult

 

[gipper]

The Russians clearly blew up Nordstream. You Putin lovers are disgusting animals.

DUPE ALERT!!!

 

[Rigby5]

The Russians clearly blew up Nordstream. You Putin lovers are disgusting animals.

That makes no sense.
Russia paid for and built Nordstream, and obviously was still using it to supply Germany with gas when it was blown up.
So the only country who wanted to stop Russia and Germany from using the pipeline was the US.
And about the only country that could have found and blown up the pipeline is the US.

You treasonous Putin lovers will do anything.

The reality is that Putin is vastly more moral and refrains from illegal violence than the US.
It is the US that illegally used force in China, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc.

 

[gipper]

You are a perfect example of a moron or treasonous Putin asset.

Please get informed.

 

[gipper]

You are a perfect example of a moron or treasonous Putin asset.

 

[gipper]

You are a perfect example of a moron or treasonous Putin asset.

Am I getting through to you yet?

 

[gipper]

That makes no sense.
Russia paid for and built Nordstream, and obviously was still using it to supply Germany with gas when it was blown up.
So the only country who wanted to stop Russia and Germany from using the pipeline was the US.
And about the only country that could have found and blown up the pipeline is the US.


The reality is that Putin is vastly more moral and refrains from illegal violence than the US.
It is the US that illegally used force in China, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc.

The warmongers are escalating…

 

[forkup]

I wasn't even thinking about you. You don't have to justify yourself, you provided a relevant view of the actual content which was offered up for discussion/debate. You're free to express your views, irrelevant of whether anyone agrees or disagrees. It's not necessary that we all agree on everything anyway. It's only necessary that we all agree that we should all be free.

Mac and some others, however, have a historic tendency to show up purposefully dropping grenades in threads where specific sources they don't like are cited. And with specific intent.

They're not really interested in discussing the dialogue in the topical content itself. They just wanna see it disappeared because their problem is with who is asking the questions or presenting a given argument. They attack sources and people through targeted and collective ad-hom. Not the content itself. They've got a pretty good track record in accomplishing that disappearing act, too, normally operating as a wrecking ball in a small group in those given threads. After all, it do take a village. Or so they say.

Which is really the only reason I said anything about it, honestly. Heck, somebody's gotta say something about it, else it'll just continue unchallenged. They get comfortable. They get confident. It eventually becomes both expected and acceptable collectively. Ultimately, the shenanigans have the potential to set a precedent that certain sources they don't wanna see cited are frowned upon as a matter of policy. And if you give em an inch in order to achieve that endeavor, they'll take a mile every single time. That kind of behavior is human nature, unfortunately. Man is, after all, a mixture of good and evil.

I'm sorry. The "their" comment made me assume it was a general dig at those on the left. Sorry if I jumped the gun.

Having said that. Although I don't attack any source without having a specific counterpoint to it, I have to say that Gateway Pundit is in general completely unreliable as a source. Not just resorting to obviously biased reporting by the use of loaded language and shoddy sourcing but by employing titles that act as clickbait that then isn't supported by the actual content of the article.

I'm not claiming this is solely something we see on the right, but when judging a source finding that their own headlines don't support the actual articles doesn't inspire confidence.

Neither by the way, is dismissing a source out of hand something only people on the left do. I've had plenty of examples of me citing an interview to make a point that is than summarilly dismissed because the person I'm talking to sees the CNN banner. Mind you the interview shows stuff litterally coming out of the horses mouth and it's still being dismissed out of hand.

 

[forkup]

So your premise is he blew the pipelines to increase prices. Is that right?

Partial credit. Increasing gas prices was one of the two reasons why Putin would want to blow up Nordstream. The other reason being and in my view being slightly more important. To give his nuclear threats more credibility by showing he is willing to escalate to a hair's breadth of executing an act of war.

 

[forkup]

Putin blowing up the pipelines means he loses all leverage with the west to sell them gas.

What leverage to increase prices do you assume someone has when he has already shut down supply? The only possible purpose keeping the line intact has for the Russians is if they would want to de-escalate. Nothing in Putin's actions, including by the way the statement by Putin that supply only would be restored if the West lifts the sanctions suggest the Russian are interested in that. So blowing up actually serves a purpose, letting it just lay there doesn't.

 

[Ralph Norton]

Partial credit. Increasing gas prices was one of the two reasons why Putin would want to blow up Nordstream. The other reason being and in my view being slightly more important. To give his nuclear threats more credibility by showing he is willing to escalate to a hairs breath of executing an act of war.

breadth

 

[forkup]

breadth

Adjusted, thank you.

 

[gipper]

Partial credit. Increasing gas prices was one of the two reasons why Putin would want to blow up Nordstream. The other reason being and in my view being slightly more important. To give his nuclear threats more credibility by showing he is willing to escalate to a hair's breadth of executing an act of war.

Following your logic Putin would want it known he blew them up. He hasn’t claimed responsibility and as more evidence comes forth, it points to the USG.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm sorry. The "their" comment made me assume it was a general dig at those on the left. Sorry if I jumped the gun.

Having said that. Although I don't attack any source without having a specific counterpoint to it, I have to say that Gateway Pundit is in general completely unreliable as a source. Not just resorting to obviously biased reporting by the use of loaded language and shoddy sourcing but by employing titles that act as clickbait that then isn't supported by the actual content of the article.

I'm not claiming this is solely something we see on the right, but when judging a source finding that their own headlines don't support the actual articles doesn't inspire confidence.

Neither by the way, is dismissing a source out of hand something only people on the left do. I've had plenty of examples of me citing an interview to make a point that is than summarilly dismissed because the person I'm talking to sees the CNN banner. Mind you the interview shows stuff litterally coming out of the horses mouth and it's still being dismissed out of hand.

I dunno, I don't read it.

Only time I see it sourced is on here.

But, no, no reason to apologize. In this case, there was video of the specific dialogue, which is certainly open to interpretation, and should be discussed from all points of view. Particularly given that we do know that this event with the pipe explosion was a valid act of conspiracy itself, and one that could only be performed by certain governments.

To focus solely on attacking the sources themselves, completely avoiding the actual content, and then to go further by also attacking posters who cite them just because some find them personally unfavorable is not fruitful to functional dialogue in any case, whether it be CNN or Gateway Pundit or anything else. And really only encourages others of the same intent to pollute a given thread with the same ad-hom rather than contributing to the actual topical content and making one's case for or against the material itself. And, of course, that gets it shoved in the basement, out of view of casual passers-by or in some cases locked down. You see?

I had posted the same dialogue from Blinkin a few days ago, sourced directly from the DOJ, for what its worth.

But, yeah. I did use a broad brush in expressing my observation there. I'll try to do better with that. The ones who play that ad-hom game know who I meant, though.

 

[forkup]

Following your logic Putin would want it known he blew them up. He hasn’t claimed responsibility and as more evidence comes forth, it points to the USG.

Lol, this whole discussion is only fought on message boards and by people like Tucker Carlson. The countries involved are perfectly aware or at the very least strongly suspect who did it and why. International relations aren't courts of law. The only people Putin needs to convince are those in the governments of the West.

So no, Putin doesn't need to claim responsibility. In fact, by not doing so, people like Tucker Carlson are free to confuse the situation providing plausible deniability for him within the general populace. While at the same time making it clear to the West that it's a mistake to believe they know what he will and won't do. Do you have any idea how much of a gift having someone like Tucker Carlson blaming his own country is for the Kremlin? They can have their talking heads on state tv say" look even Americans admit to it."

 

[gtopa1]

I do NOT want to "believe" that Biden took out the Nord Stream pipeline, but there are several things that just don't add up. Is this Biden's "Osama" moment?? Where he takes out THE major "enemy"?? Frankly I don't "know", but hell I really am wondering. I am also wondering: who is doing the investigation??

This is NOT good.

Greg