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

191–200 of 1001 posts

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

#191

Post by VincentEvans »

steponlego wrote: post #189
VincentEvans wrote: post #176

Gazprom, Russian gas monopoly, has on Kremlin’s orders first threatened to, and then suspended gas supplies to Europe in an attempt to blackmail it to stop supporting Ukraine under a threat of, as they put it, “freezing Europe”. In the process unilaterally breaking existing delivery contracts. There were no Western sanctions targeting Russian gas - it was entirely a political operation initiated by Russian government…

Why don't we just properly view the gas reductions for what they are - a form of sanctioning?

Kremlin sanctioned themselves? Or are you presenting the suspension of gas supplies to Europe by Russia as a sort of “retaliatory sanctions”? That’s fine of course, it’s like North Korea cutting off themselves from the world and starving as a way to punish the world for interfering in its internal matters as they relate to nuclear weapons.

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

#192

Post by kibwen »

Tepix wrote: post #163
kibwen wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please be precise. Who, exactly, are you alleging blew up the pipeline in order to declare war on whom? And then the elephant in the room: nobody declared war on anybody in the wake of this, so how is the possible justification for a war that did not happen being used as evidence that this event was designed to incite a war?

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

#194

Post by JumpCrisscross »

PonySoldier wrote: post #179
twblalock wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone else had written this, would it be significant? Wouldn't it just be written off as a conspiracy theory that provides little to no evidence for its claims? If the only thing that gets this on HN is Seymour Hersh's reputation (which has lately become somewhat questionable) then you might want to reconsider. Plus, the quality of the comments has not been very good so far.

This gatekeeping is ridiculous. This is the same guy who unveiled the atrocities that occured during the My Lai massacre and at Abu Ghraib, both of which painted the US Gov/military in a terrible light. This is an actual case of speaking truth to power. He clearly (and rightfully IMO) does not trust the US government and his "somewhat questionable" and recent work has continued that trend. Is it any surprise that the…

> the same guy who unveiled the atrocities that occured during the My Lai massacre and at Abu Ghraib, both of which painted the US Gov/military in a terrible light

Both were corroborated with evidence. I'm scanning this post for new evidence and coming up empty. The fact that American action was technically plausible has always been known.

One might twist Hersh claiming he has an anonymous source as new information. But that's the closest we get. On its own, that's not sufficient to advance the discussion in a meaningful way because it presents no new facts.

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

#195

Post by LarryMullins »

waiseristy wrote: post #152
LarryMullins wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Seymour Hersh, also a advocate of the Syrian rebel chemical weapon conspiracy and is a Osama Bin Laden death truther. Maybe we should also include his later work as well?

Sure, include those as well. Are you certain that he's wrong about either? Nothing can be certain when it comes to intrinsically clandestine matters.

Either way, you should at least know who the man is if you want to maintain any pretext of knowing modern American history.

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

#196

Post by dang »

twblalock wrote: post #80
dang wrote: post #34

All: Whether he is right or not or one likes him or not, Hersh reporting on this counts as significant new information ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... ), so I've turned off the flags on this submission. If you're going to comment in this thread, please make sure you're up on the site guidlelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ) and note this one: " Comments should…

If anyone else had written this, would it be significant? Wouldn't it just be written off as a conspiracy theory that provides little to no evidence for its claims? If the only thing that gets this on HN is Seymour Hersh's reputation (which has lately become somewhat questionable) then you might want to reconsider. Plus, the quality of the comments has not been very good so far.

No, I don't think it would be. Hersh is inevitably part of the story because of his historical significance and the network of government sources that he's cultivated for decades. It doesn't follow that his claims are true (even if he's accurately reporting, his sources must have their own agendas). That's why I added the question mark to the title above. The story being on HN doesn't imply anything about that—only that it's interesting.

Btw, I haven't gone back and looked at the history but I'd be willing to bet that the same things were said about Hersh's reputation from the beginning. That's standard fare for counterargument.

p.s. It's astonishing how narrow the space is for someone to say they don't know the truth about X but it's interesting. If X has any charge at all, you get pounced on by people who feel sure that they do know what the truth is. But if you think about it, it's a precondition for curiosity not to already know (or feel one knows) the answer—and this is a site for curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). So I don't feel that this is particularly a borderline call from a moderation point of view.

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

#197

Post by steponlego »

zzleeper wrote: post #107
Khelavaster wrote: post #79

This is the same journalist who broke news about Mai Lai, reported in-depth on Abu Ghraib, and much more. Serious, serious news.

And is the same guy who has been going into crazy conspiracy theories over the last ten years or so

Conspiracy theorists are being proved correct. Experts say, that's dangerous.

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

#198

Post by hef19898 »

thwayunion wrote: post #150
mmastrac wrote: post #97

It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents as the key players and be just as convincing. The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story. What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears…

> The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story. I'd bet my last dollar that at least four nations had "blow up Nord Stream to force continued conflict" contingency plans. Who did it? Germany, Russia, USA, Ukraine, or a curve ball from the one of the Nordic or Baltic states? We'll probably never know, and none of…

Considering that a lot people came out after the pipeline was blown up, people with the necessary training and experience, saying that it was not a particularly difficult job, it might even have been some rogues having a fun fishing trip.

Besides motive, this article doesn't provide anything new. And that the US had at least motive is established fact since basically the day of the explosion.

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

#199

Post by nawgz »

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…

> I think it's worth examining who would be doing that fabrication and what they would have to gain

Sure. Russia and geopolitical destabilization

> who is making the counter-claim and what they would have to gain from that

This part doesn't make sense to me - the accused party naturally is the one making the "counter-claim", and naturally they will make "counter assertions" without evidence - how do you disprove an unfalsifiable claim?

I overall don't think your comments really align. "The US has done bad things in the past" doesn't mean "all accusations of bad things pointed at the US should be treated with credibility and have to be disproved with an ironclad case by the US to not garner further suspicion"

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

#200

Post by dang »

torstenvl wrote: post #71
dang wrote: post #34

All: Whether he is right or not or one likes him or not, Hersh reporting on this counts as significant new information ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... ), so I've turned off the flags on this submission. If you're going to comment in this thread, please make sure you're up on the site guidlelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ) and note this one: " Comments should…

Dan, I respectfully ask you to reconsider. This is a poorly-sourced speculative piece of propaganda and clearly goes against site guidelines. You repeat, above, that HN is not for nationalist flamewar, and requires substance. But this post is nationalist flamewar and isn't substantive. Allowing it while shutting down similar content from the opposite perspective is... unsettling.

I'll read the article and reconsider. I haven't had time to even look at it yet. The moderation call here isn't based on agreeing, disagreeing, liking, or disliking. It just seems like an obvious interesting event, that's all.

Edit: Ok, I've read the first half and looked over the second half, and I think the moderation call was the correct one. Not saying this to pile on; I just wanted to report back.

Post reply on HN