Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

seymourhersh.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#41

Post by dang »

0xDEF wrote: post #35
LarryMullins wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seymour Hersh has a very credible background and reputation. Assuming he is still lucid in his age, hasn't become a senile puppet of a ghost writer, then it would be foolish to write off his claims just because he isn't telling you who his source is.

Hersh was once a reputable journalist. But now he is predominantly a cheerleader for authoritarian regimes that makes up "anonymous sources" to back up his claims. As soon as he has made an assertion he cites a 'source' to back it. In every case this is either an un-named former official or an unidentified secret document passed to Hersh in unknown circumstances. […] By my count Hersh has anonymous 'sources' inside 3…

Please don't copy/paste comments.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#42

Post by partiallypro »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #9
syzarian wrote: post #2

Seymour doesn’t provide any proof or any evidence. It’s argument by assertion. What he writes is plausible but without any sources or other corroborating evidence. I think it more believable that Seymour has been paid to write this by a Russian aligned entity. I don’t know the truth of the matter and Seymour could be right. We just can’t tell from the evidence provided.

If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. Of course this is not evidence but this the sort of operation where success means no evidence (at least no evidence available to the public at large as it is possible and, one might hope, likely that neighbouring countries know).

> If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it.

How so? The pipeline(s) was/were already off, so the US and Norway already had a new customer because of this. If the US risked blowing up the pipeline(s) (which was already not delivering,) it would put NATO in jeopardy which is explicitly against US interests and WAY more valuable than natural gas. The entire theory doesn't even make sense from the standpoint of US needs/wants.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#44

Post by sschueller »

dang wrote: post #39
sschueller wrote: post #36

Usually destroying 40% of a countries energy resource is considered an act of war but I guess if it's your ally that also spies on your top officials it's OK. /s

Please make your substantive points without snark or flamebait. This topic is obviously as inflammable as it gets. More at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34712496

Sorry, got emotional, can't seem to be able to delete it anymore. It's extremely infuriating situation having to deal with the consequences of what a few top officials decide the world should look like and expecting at least one side to play fair.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#45

Post by pphysch »

syzarian wrote: post #37
pphysch wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Dirty War" over Syria is ongoing (US boots are literally on the ground right now) and there are many documented disinformation campaigns revolving around it from both sides, including from Western intelligence mouthpieces like Bellingcat. To assert that it is "settled" and Hersh is therefore "debunked" is deeply disingenuous. https://mronline.org/2021/10/11/bellingcat-funded-by-u-s-and...

What is settled is Russia’s crimes in Syria and their indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Seymour lost credibility by disregarding these facts in his reporting. The U.S. is still involved there and the U.S. hardly can take the moral high ground when it comes to the Middle East but neither can Russia and Seymour acts as if they can.

The US is actively occupying Syria, facilitating the theft of its natural resources including oil to (also occupied) Northern Iraq, while backing AQ-affiliated terrorists like Abu Mohammad al-Jolani to advance its goal of overthrowing the legal Syrian government.

US state media literally aired a puff piece for Jolani, including interviews from top DoD officials. It is staggering [1].

These are all undisputed facts which I can supply primary evidence to support. Russia is doing nothing of the sort. Some civilians possibly died as collateral as Russia targeted extremist strongholds in extremist-controlled Idlib. In fact, outside the West, Russia is credited with preventing Syria from turning into an Iraq/Libya-style disaster.

[1] - https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/the-jihadist/...?

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#46

Post by cpursley »

partiallypro wrote: post #42
mytailorisrich wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. Of course this is not evidence but this the sort of operation where success means no evidence (at least no evidence available to the public at large as it is possible and, one might hope, likely that neighbouring countries know).

> If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. How so? The pipeline(s) was/were already off, so the US and Norway already had a new customer because of this. If the US risked blowing up the pipeline(s) (which was already not delivering,) it would put NATO in jeopardy which is explicitly against US interests and WAY more valu…

It absolutely does. Blowing up the pipeline took away Russias ability to hold the EU hostage with the energy card.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#47

Post by erentz »

LarryMullins wrote: post #18
syzarian wrote: post #2

Seymour doesn’t provide any proof or any evidence. It’s argument by assertion. What he writes is plausible but without any sources or other corroborating evidence. I think it more believable that Seymour has been paid to write this by a Russian aligned entity. I don’t know the truth of the matter and Seymour could be right. We just can’t tell from the evidence provided.

Seymour Hersh has a very credible background and reputation. Assuming he is still lucid in his age, hasn't become a senile puppet of a ghost writer, then it would be foolish to write off his claims just because he isn't telling you who his source is.

He's lost his credibility over the years. Which is likely why this didn't get published by NY Times.

It's long but after reading this ask why you would believe this man who, in this new article, is making plenty of assertions all based on quotes from a single anonymous source.

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bi...

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#48

Post by partiallypro »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #40

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is the evidence ?

The blog post is mostly a sea of text with no real citations and loose quotes. The author, though a famed journalist for his breaking of a story 50 years ago, has also made claims recently to defend dictators such as Assad; even going so far as to claim the US was going to fake Bin Laden's dead by dragging his body back to Afghanistan from Pakistan to pretend like he died in a missile strike. His reasoning for this? Well, basically apparently flying below the deck and stealth helicopters are impossible.

People need to come to grips that people can slowly become kooks over time (or maybe they were always crazy, but did one good thing and now have clout.) Snowden, Greenwald have made similar kooky remarks of late defending bad actors all over. It's bizarre, but not unusual.

Post reply on HN