Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheBusStop12 t1_j9is1xf wrote

Reply to comment by msemen_DZ in Dutch intelligence services have warned that Russia is "covertly mapping" key energy infrastructure in the North Sea, in preparation for possible sabotage attacks. by green_flash

>Try calling Article 5 on something with no proof, you gonna get shut down by other NATO members.

All of NATO came along when the US triggered article 5 after 9/11 to invade Afghanistan without proper proof (everyone nowadays knows it was mostly Saudi Arabian people behind the attack)

If Article 5 is triggered then that's it, members will have to respond in some form. Lest you risk the alliance falling apart. It's built on trust after all.

Luckily members do not throw this around willy nilly, especially where Russia is concerned, and will likely only trigger it if there's substantial proof that Russia crippled critical infrastructure

5

venomm1123 t1_j9ise1q wrote

> All of NATO came along when the US triggered article 5 after 9/11 to invade Afghanistan without proper proof (everyone nowadays knows it was mostly Saudi Arabian people behind the attack)

Osama bin Laden was physically in Afghanistan and Afghanistan received an ultimatum requesting to hand him over to the US, which they refused.

11

Quackagate t1_j9iv941 wrote

Ehh they offered to turn him over if we recognized them as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. O how the would would be different if we had took that path

5

venomm1123 t1_j9iykkk wrote

When dealing with sociopaths, "yes if (condition)" means no. It is a test of your naivete. This is basically a fundamental part of criminal mind and traces all the way to game theory.

Would one be stupid enough to actually agree and recognize Taliban? If one is indeed naive, then they'll make sure to apologize profusely once Mr. bin Laden escapes right after you recognized Taliban.

In fact, they'll be so sorry that they will promise they'll spare no effort in finding him IF (another condition)

The length of this sequence is limited only by the stupidity of the mark.

12

ringobob t1_j9klonj wrote

How about "the US is prepared to recognize anyone who hands Bin Laden over to us as de facto leaders of Afghanistan at the point of transfer. Go. We'll be making a trophy."

Tongue firmly planted in cheek, if that wasn't obvious to anyone.

1

venomm1123 t1_j9l91xx wrote

I believe the very desire to get into these word games means you are already tricked. It's the wrong approach.

You know the Aesop's fable of "The Wolf and the Lamb"? https://read.gov/aesop/063.html

When talking to a wolf, it is not about the word games. It is about whether you look like a lamb, or a grizzly bear.

1

ringobob t1_j9lcx71 wrote

Hence the tongue in cheek. I agree with you.

1

msemen_DZ t1_j9ivcgw wrote

They had proof linking Al Qaeda to the event in just a few hours, that's why everyone responded.

The point is the US still had to prove to NATO allies that the attacks were eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty Article 5. This wasn't confirmed until beginning of October even though the US invoked it on the 12th of September.

8