Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Accidents, not Russian sabotage, behind undersea cable damage, officials say [View all]reACTIONary
(7,145 posts)6. First, They are reporting on ....
.... the assessment provided by several intelligence agencies, including our own. That would be reporting, not supporting. As far as supporting goes, they provide several contrary assessments, including several based on the fact that the anchor was being dragged for hundreds of miles.
I don't know if your opinion about WaPo is based on this article, or of you bothered to read it. Maybe you would let us know exactly how this article represents "shitty reporting".
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
3 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Accidents, not Russian sabotage, behind undersea cable damage, officials say [View all]
reACTIONary
Jan 2025
OP
they have the satellite tracking of one of the ships that cut the electrical line going to Finland
lapfog_1
Jan 2025
#45
No chance it was an accident. That ship dragged its anchor for miles and miles.
Calista241
Jan 2025
#2
Bull. No names making these assertions. No attribution. It's all "sources." n/t
dobleremolque
Jan 2025
#21
Yet, you automatically believe unattributed sources who agree with your views on things.
paleotn
Jan 2025
#30
Reminds me of the "Call before you dig" adverts in the yellow pages back in the day.
paleotn
Jan 2025
#26