This title almost sounds like a setup for a joke or something.
Where’s the Mexican, the American and the French guy? “Diosico Diosico que caiga diosico! Y que cae de osico.” That’s the Mexican punchline. Give me a like if you know the joke!
I translated that, but it’s doesn’t get the joke across:
God-God God let God fall! And that falls from the bear.
The French are best poop, but the American one is lost on me
So this offensive Mexican joke is that several people of different nationalities are jumping from an airplane. They all realize that their back pack has no function except for the American. He jumps, pulls the chord, a parachute opens and he lands safely. Then the rest jump but their parachute is just a backpack. So, mid air, they all begin to pray. Each pray for different soft things to land on… For example the French man would pray “dios mio, dios mio que caiga end in colchon” which translated to English is “my god, my god have me land on a cushion/mattress”. Fast forward to our Mexican representative who is usually either Indian/indigenous or from some place like Chiapas where people are short, brown and speak funny due to all the China, Japan and Filipino trade of years past…they fake the accent by saying “diosico” instead of “diosito” which translates to “little God” God in an endearing way. But since we already spent too long on the joke, he has no time to finish his prayer…" Diosico, diosico! Que caiga diosico! Splat!.. He falls mouth first on the ground became diosico sounds also like “de osico” which translates to " from the mouth" worst is that osico is the word for a beast’s mouth like a bear, a horse or a dog. At this point everybody laughs. As I am now older, much older and American… So wiser… I realize just how shitty Mexican racism is towards the most vulnerable Mexicans of which group I am one of. Anyway, I hope this helps. Maybe someone can make it Russian and tell putin he’s an imbecile.
I see! Thnx for the detailed explanation. This does how information dense silly jokes can be.
Considering the cable was likely cut by just dragging the anchor over the seafloor, there’s not much to find. It’s perfectly plausible that the crew consists of a bunch of idiots.
No matter what the truth actually is, it’s impossible to prove.
Criminal negligence has entered the chat
Considering the cable was likely cut by just dragging the anchor over the seafloor, there’s not much to find.
Dropping an anchor isn’t done accidentally. There’s a pretty high risk for things to go wrong. Your assertion just doesn’t make sense. It isn’t “perfectly plausible” to drop anchor accidentally, nor is it to drag it for ages.
Considering the cable was likely cut by just dragging the anchor over the seafloor, there’s not much to find. It’s perfectly plausible that the crew consists of a bunch of idiots.
It isn’t even a proper investigation as I read it. There were Chinese officials supervising the activities. Though I wonder what they could find, after the crew had ample time to get prepared, and to get rid of whatever evidence they might have had.
But they did drag the anchor for 100 miles (link WSJ). Dragging an anchor for 100 miles would’ve been very noticeable for any crewmember, experts say.
Sure, but can you prove that they were not just incompetent?
You can blame the captain personally for negligence, sure, but unless he has instructions from an intelligence agency open on his desk, you can’t prove anything political.
Honestly, they don’t really need to prove malicious intent. The stakeholders of the cable should hold the ship owner liable for the cost of repairs, holding the ship captive as collateral until such a time comes that the amount is paid. If the cost can’t be paid, then confiscate the ship and sell it to recoup the cost and as a deterrent measure.
Whether or not they did it intentionally and why is a matter that should be left to intelligence agencies who will interrogate the crew and collect information about the ship to understand what’s going on and act accordingly.
It could also be that this is not sanctioned by China and that the crew members are working for Russia. It’s not obvious what China gains from this kind of behavior. China is very dependent on European good will and trade. Especially as the trade war with the US intensifies.
China up to all the same fuckery as Russia. They’re actively involved in supplying weapons and evading sanctions with Russia. They aren’t doing Europe any favours.
China up to all the same fuckery as Russia.
Yeah, seems that way for sure. Been thinking about the arguments made in the comments here, and the most plausible explanation to me, is that it’s part of a psy-ops. Someone is benefiting from the chaos in de BalticSea, and probing to check out the new Nato defense protocols & responses or something Remember that the Northern European/ Baltic Nato borders recently expanded due to the membership of Sweden en Finland. The mobility of the Russian Kalijigrad naval base is therefore enormously being reduced.
It’s not obvious what China gains from this kind of behavior.
Maybe just testing the limits and pushing boundaries? I doubt this will result in any substantial consequences.
They also shut down their transponders right before the… accident, if I recall correctly. In my country we say “if it’s white and in a bottle…”
I need you to finish that saying for me lol
I’ve come up with “it’s milk” and “it’s white-out”, then decided I don’t have the context to know what the correct ending would be. Google wants to talk about white wine, which is more yellow or green imo.
Lol… Interesting context. Yeah it’s supposed to be milk 😂
A court would only have to prove that a competent sailor would notice. You couldn’t argue they weren’t competent sailors due to the fact they sailed across the world professionally. If you could argue they weren’t competent sailors, the most reasonable solution would be they were incompetent spies.
It’s not excusable to drag a anchor for 100s of miles, it’s a difficult thing to do. Even if they didn’t cut cables they could still be liable for environmental damage.
Yes, which is exactly what I wrote above.
They wouldn’t let them aboard if any evidence was present
“Let them board”? The ship is high on the suspects list for serious sabotage claims and has been stopped by the local military. Why can’t they just search it, maybe with something signed by a judge?
Because of admiralty law.
I would expect that the laws regarding damages and liability would cover that. Which are part of the admirality law.
