Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ 2 Oct 2023 20:55)
See previous discussion.
Yeah, sorry, this thread is incredibly frustrating. By the time I come around to post a reply, the discussion has already moved 4+ pages ahead, and by the time I read them, it's moved on for yet another 1-2 pages.
Anyway, you were posting an article as evidence for your claim whose key facts have since been retracted. And now twist yourself into a pretzel to maintain your line of reasoning.
Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ 2 Oct 2023 20:53)
So you're right, he has no obligation to provide it legally, but he is taking a stance on what constitutes aggression versus defense, and making that determination in Russia's favor.
And since he made this determination after being in contact with multiple Russian agents including Putin, and after those contacts made tweets about making peace that just so happened to be what Russia wanted... yeah... it's pretty obvious what's going on.
Since the start of the war, the area covered by Starlink has not changed, it remained consistent. It's a huge stretch to claim that Musk refusing to expand its coverage for the explicit purpose of providing a guiding system for a massive missile attack cannot possibly have come from a principled stance and must necessarily have resulted from successful Russian lobbying.
This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 2 2023 01:11pm