Quote:
Originally Posted by T3rminator
His comments on russian subs lines up with what mate with links to the navy told me very early on, that they suspect there are already subs off the coast of the US ready for a nuclear strike if they get too involved.
|
No need to "suspect" that there are Russian subs off the US coast, that's been public knowledge for years. Same as there is US subs off the Russian coast. All part of the MAD (mutually assured destruction) plan that lets each country know that even if they can totally destroy the other they themselves will be destroyed
No need to assess his credibility, his story lives or dies on the strength of the evidence he has to prove any of it. Some of it is contradicted by what the Russians themselves say, like destroying Ukrainian infrastructure. He claims the Russians could have destroyed the power supply and other infrastructure but didn't. Maybe the Russians felt that bombing a nuclear reactor might not be a good idea if you want to occupy a country later. The other things like bridges, railways, oil refineries etc the Russians claim to have destroyed already.
His claim that the Syrians were happy and well fed until the CIA started a rebellion doesn't stand up either. The long drought and the countries economic problems at that time are well documented. Not saying that the US is innocent but lots of arab nations had issues around that time.
Black's claim that the Russians avoided destroying cities is contradicted by what they did in Chechnya. The capital Grozny was levelled. Rebel groups rarely have the munitions to level a whole city.
I don't object to anyone having a different point of view but if he wants to make extraordinary claims then he needs to produce some evidence for at least some of it.