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

241–250 of 1001 posts

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

#241

Post by VincentEvans »

steponlego wrote: post #235
VincentEvans wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Deliberately misunderstanding what I said won't change my opinion or anybody else's.

Don’t pout but rather explain what you meant.

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

#242

Post by someotherperson »

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?

[flagged]

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

#244

Post by keithwhor »

dang wrote: post #196
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.

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 t…

Dan I’ve emailed you privately but I simply don’t think this is appropriate to keep on HN given the framing of the article as fact and the current evidence provided. Hearsay is not new evidence. Give us a recording, a photo, anything. As written this is a compelling fiction presented as fact which is dishonest to the community. Especially considering these articles are simply clicked and read more often than debated, only a fraction of us are silly enough to write comments on the internet.

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

#245

Post by threeseed »

dang wrote: post #186
davesque wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly really shocked by your stance on this. Regardless of whether or not this information is credible, this seems like text book flame war kindling. In the past, I've thought HN's policy of "you can discuss things like this in other forums" was wise and I've been corrected by it myself many times. Why wouldn't that apply in this case?

Because it's interesting. Hersh reporting on it is an interesting story in its own right. Is what he says true? I have no idea. We don't have a truth meter here.

> Because it's interesting

No. It's interesting to you.

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

#246

Post by kstenerud »

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…

Just flagged this in the hopes that you'll reconsider.

It's no secret that Hersh's work has become increasingly suspect in recent years. Every time he writes, he cites a single anonymous source and yet manages to go into an implausible level of detail and completeness with neatly tied up loose ends you'd only expect to find in a Tom Clancy novel. The only reason this story has been rescued from the dustbin is due to Hersh's (old) reputation, which though well earned, shouldn't just give him a pass.

https://www.businessinsider.com/robert-grenier-reflects-on-s...

https://www.vox.com/2015/12/21/10634002/seymour-hersh-syria-...

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

#247

Post by haswell »

threeseed wrote: post #219
dang wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

a) I don't understand the relevance at all to Hacker News. There are plenty of interesting things going on in the tech world that aren't making the front page. b) There is a lack of evidence in the article. I can claim that you destroyed the pipeline and it would be equally as valid at this point. c) His previous reputation is important but history is littered with examples of people making mistakes and relying on th…

> I can claim that you destroyed the pipeline and it would be equally as valid at this point.

An established reputation is the difference between those claims. You making a claim without evidence is just that.

Hersh making a claim without sharing his evidence is something different. That isn’t to say we don’t need evidence, but there’s a better reason to believe him than you, given the context of the situation.

> His previous reputation is important but history is littered with examples of people making mistakes and relying on their own hubris.

And it’s also full of the opposite. The existence of hubris is not evidence of it.

But even then, that claim doesn’t fit, unless you are implying that he made the whole thing up and concluded that it must be what happened.

Another conclusion is that he has a source, and simply has not shared it yet.

Maybe time will tell.

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

#248

Post by threeseed »

LarryMullins wrote: post #123
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…

Good call. Like it or not, reputation counts for a lot. Particularly in reporting of matters the government prefers remain private.

You know what matters even more than reputation. Evidence.

And there is an absence of it here.

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

#249

Post by woooooo »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #194
PonySoldier wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

He has the code name of the operation and a ton of alleged operational details, attributed to his sources in the Intel community.
Post reply on HN