Comment please.
This guy says that the US benefits by shipping gas to Europe, which is true. Europe, NATO, and the US have all been strengthened by Putin’s invasion.
He never says the US was behind the attacks, but I think most would agree he was implying it, whether because he believes it or because it’s a clickbaity thing to say. It is one of many possibilities.
I don’t know that there’s much to really comment on. It’s just one guy rambling.
Interesting way to describe “this guy.”
Stanley McChrystle was a 4 star general in command of JSOC. His opinion is as expert as it gets on this matter.
It’s a cute theory but what happens when two 4-star generals have opposing opinions?
Does the universe collapse into itself? Or do we consider the possibility that human beings could be lying, or be wrong, etc.?
Who’s the other general?
And was your general speaking candidly when he didn’t know he was being filmed/recorded?
- Are you asserting there aren’t other generals who have said otherwise?
More to the point:
- The exercise is supposed to get normal, rational people to admit that the title of general doesn’t make someone infallible. I think we can both agree to that.
Speaking candidly at a press event in a book store, to sell his latest book, when a reporter asks him a question? WTF is this question?
Keep in mind that all he said was that the US benefited, which was very true. But just because a party benefits doesn’t mean they are responsible. That’s faulty logic. Which is why even McChrystal doesn’t definitively conclude that the US did it.
Note that I never denied any of his points, and even said his implication that the US was involved was a possibility. What is there to even argue about here?