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

161–170 of 1001 posts

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

#161

Post by [deleted] »

LarryMullins wrote: post #136
hef19898 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, the aithor (no idea who that is...) should write a spy novel around this. As a fictional setting it would be great! As anything else, not so much. Heck, the Baltic states, along with Poland and the Scandinavian countries, have some of the best naval divers and EODs on the planet, virtue of having the priviledge of cleaning two world wars worth of mines, bombs and torpedoes from the Baltic sea... This piece shoul…

> Man, the author (no idea who that is...) Seymour Hersh, famous for his coverage of the My Lai massacre, Project Azorian, and more. You probably should know him.

[deleted]

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

#163

Post by Tepix »

kibwen wrote: post #116
mc32 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this turns out to be right --and we don't have conclusive evidence, but this would upset the current narrative. Why would Russia be an idiot to shoot itself in the foot (cui bono) and blow up their leverage; though in international affairs the unimaginable is possible, so yeah they may have done it to themselves -though to outsiders it would seem illogical If true though, it would be as big as the Gulf of Tonkin i…

The Gulf of Tonkin involved the US claiming that a US ship was fired upon as a pretense to declare war in retaliation. The idea here is that the US blew up a Russian pipeline in order to... what? Declare war on Russia in retaliation for Russia's own pipeline being destroyed? This makes no sense unless you're accusing Russia of blowing up the pipeline.

Blowing up the pipeline is an act of war.

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

#164

Post by dang »

sschueller wrote: post #44
dang wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No need to delete. I know these things can be intensely infuriating—all of us have some topic that hits us like that. Managing that without bursting into flames is a work-in-progress and we're all learning together (myself definitely included).

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

#165

Post by steponlego »

Apocryphon wrote: post #104
macintux wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they had it, they likely couldn’t share it for security reasons. And of course, proving innocence is effectively impossible without proving someone else did it.

Sure. I'm just curious about who did it and hey if Hersh is providing one narrative, it's better than the lack of answers or even any attempt at an investigatory effort from any party , whether NATO or Russian.

The lack of real concern on all parties about trying to figure out who did it is essentially proof of who did it. You have multiple PMs and FMs saying in the days afterward that "everybody knows" who did it. Who did it? If it was Russia and "everybody knew" then that'd have entered the press.

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

#166

Post by akmarinov »

cde-v wrote: post #85

Seymour Hersh took out the Nord Stream pipeline. In this essay, I will use the same number and quality of sources as Hersh did in his article to support my claims. Hersh had an incentive to take out the Nord Stream pipeline so he could write the aforementioned article and become slightly relevant again, therefore he did. In conclusion, Seymour Hersh took out the Nord Stream pipeline.

It’s not that u/cde-v doesn’t have sources, it’s that he has a secret source, there’s a difference. So yes, Seymour Hersh did take out the Nord Stream pipeline.

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

#167

Post by treis »

macintux wrote: post #94
Apocryphon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like they should provide undeniable evidence then!

Even if they had it, they likely couldn’t share it for security reasons. And of course, proving innocence is effectively impossible without proving someone else did it.

They could definitely share or leak it to a trusted source without any real security implications.

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

#168

Post by Haunted_Cabbage »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #151
Haunted_Cabbage wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get really upset when claims are made without evidence to support them. It might be a moral failing of mine, but for some reason I really loathe when assertions are made without evidence.

One thing to keep in mind is that counter assertions have been made without evidence. > Asked for comment, Adrienne Watson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email, “This is false and complete fiction.” Tammy Thorp, a spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, similarly wrote: “This claim is completely and utterly false.” "This is ... complete fiction." is a claim that the story was fabricated. I think it…

>One thing to keep in mind is that counter assertions have been made without evidence.

Are you familiar with Christopher Hitchens? That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Until the author provides evidence of their claims, there's nothing required to dismiss them.

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

#169

Post by [deleted] »

cpursley wrote: post #75
partiallypro wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pipeline was already not operational. What are you missing? If you think the US had a profit motive (which it seems you are saying this), NATO is much much more profitable than gas which will be diversified over time. So why would they risk the entire NATO alliance for this? Again, the theory makes no sense.

I didn’t say a thing about US profit motive. I was very clear: Russia can’t blackmail the EU with energy if they don’t have a way to deliver it. Why would they want to lose that leverage (and their billions in investment)? And EU industry very much depends on low cost gas (chemical manufacturing, vehicle and other industrial manufacturing, greenhouse heating, etc). There’s report after report of vital industrial faci…

[deleted]

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

#170

Post by hef19898 »

arcticfox wrote: post #100
jessaustin wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I agree that it's not an extraordinary claim, given the few players with the capability and at least theoretical motives. But it's an extraordinarily detailed claim. And it seems to hinge on a single source (is my understanding of journalism broken, aren't you supposed to have confirmation of sources?), who clearly has an agenda given this quote: "The only flaw was the decision to do it." So even if the broad strokes…

The capabilities are plenty, especially with countries around the Baltic sea, which is not very deep to begin with.
Post reply on HN