this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2025
24 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
23116 readers
292 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, thanks, I get it.
Totally. It's easy to forget, that this is not obvious for libs.
From the AI summary:
This is one of the points that I was sceptical about when reading the original article. I'm ready to believe, that intelligence was shared that lead to the destruction of the ship. But I don't think intentions or emotional reactions can be reliably established. I mean, yes, it could have been this way and maybe that's exactly how it happened. Or, maybe, they totally did share this intelligence on purpose. I can easily imagine an editor or pentagon contact going: "well in this case we can't really say we wanted that escalation, it doesn't quite fit the reasonable image we want to get across to our audience, oh, I know, just say it wasn't intentional, that'll work and also spice up the story nicely "
I completely agree. Engaging in proxy warfare is largely about establishing the illusion of plausible deniability after all. I suppose it was careless of me to not add a disclaimer. I assumed most comrades here would know to separate the opinion from fact, but you can never be too cautious.