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

271–280 of 1001 posts

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

#271

Post by keithwhor »

dang wrote: post #240
keithwhor wrote: post #121

An unsubstantiated story that’s presented as if it’s fact doesn’t really belong on Hacker News. The fact the submission has to be edited to include a question mark when the source material does not is an implicit admission of such by the moderation team. Why it hasn’t been removed I have no idea.

It's no such admission. In fact it's the opposite, because if we thought the story didn't belong on HN, nothing would be easier than to let it sink without a trace. I think the story belongs on HN because I know a little bit about the historical significance of Seymour Hersh and I think the appearance of this story is intellectually interesting. Maybe I'm the only commenter who feels that way, since most appear only…

Nothing I’ve argued about the quality of this submission — either publicly or privately — has been political. This is hearsay presented as fact. It is simply not intellectually honest source material.

It could be true! I’ve read lots of compelling narratives over the years. Many of them are wholly true, some have elements of the truth, some are fiction. But there’s no verifiably new information presented here; only a compelling narrative.

I really urge you to reconsider your stance but this is the last comment I’ll make on the topic.

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

#272

Post by atdrummond »

keithwhor wrote: post #244
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…

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,…

I appreciate having the honesty to publicly share your desire to unilaterally restrict content, not just for yourself, but for all of HN’s audience.

Sadly I don’t think your request is the morally good action you presume it to be.

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

#273

Post by The_Colonel »

woooooo wrote: post #249
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I, too, can make up a code name and operational details. Still no evidence.

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

#274

Post by ohmaigad »

spoiler wrote: post #209
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.

If you could you humor me: if he came out saying Russians blew up the pipeline, would you have the same stance? These tensions have been brewing between NATO (mostly America) and Russia for at least a decade. It's unfortunate that the situation escalated in Ukraine though, which AFAIK is the victim in the scheming and plotting of those two powers. I don't support the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it seems like tha…

> These tensions have been brewing between NATO (mostly America) and Russia for at least a decade. It's unfortunate that the situation escalated in Ukraine though, which AFAIK is the victim in the scheming and plotting of those two powers.

As a person from Eastern Europe this is literal Russian propaganda or in simple words - dogshit. You know why somebody like Baltic countries wanted to get in NATO? Because Russia was/is a genuine threat after these countries were deoccupied from the Soviet Union. Russia thinks that these former Soviet Union countries are still their own property, they can't imagine that these countries don't want to live "the Russian way".

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

#275

Post by bee_rider »

dang wrote: post #255
bee_rider wrote: post #182

Why was a question make added to the submission here? It makes it look like a (incorrectly written) question about a thing that happened, rather than… whatever it is, speculation I guess.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713747

Odd, haven’t seen titles like this before. It seems like a weird policy, to change headlines in a manner that is misleading if parsed following normal English grammar rules. And especially to only apply that rule in controversial cases.

If the goal is to make it clear that the claim is not endorsed by HN, why not something like

AuthorName: “This is clearly a quote because it is in quotation marks”

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

#276

Post by ceejayoz »

swader999 wrote: post #253
ceejayoz wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because "put an end to it" can easily (and more plausibly) encompass approaches like "sanction Nord Stream AG into the ground".

"There will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

There is no longer an Enron, either. No one blew up their headquarters to do it.

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

#277

Post by atdrummond »

threeseed wrote: post #245
dang wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

The level of engagement seems to indicate there is interest amongst a wide swath of the site.

Some of that interest, rather predictably, is negative.

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

#278

Post by hef19898 »

atdrummond wrote: post #272
keithwhor wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I appreciate having the honesty to publicly share your desire to unilaterally restrict content, not just for yourself, but for all of HN’s audience. Sadly I don’t think your request is the morally good action you presume it to be.

The submissiom was, apparently, flagged into almost oblivion before the flagging was switched of as a mod decision.

When Modi-critical submissions get flagged to death, just to pick another flame war guarantee as an example, there is no such intervention. So it is odd it happened in this case.

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

#279

Post by Eduard »

LarryMullins wrote: post #236
rsync wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You could probably write a similar one with Russia ..." I disagree - there is no credible motive here for Russia and, in fact, the outcome was directly opposed to every outcome they are, or were trying, to achieve. Not only do I, as a US citizen, believe that the US perpetrated this act but further: I believe it is an overtly hostile action against EU citizens and, particularly, Germans, who will suffer the most eco…

> I believe it is an overtly hostile action against EU citizens and, particularly, Germans, who will suffer the most economically. In the scenario where America did it, I think there is a strong argument to be made that it was in the long-term interests of EU citizens, despite causing them some short-term discomfort. They never should have started this pipeline project in the first place, buying energy from Russia ma…

> ... causing EU citizens short-term discomfort

You have no idea what's going on.

Also, are you arguing that having less choice in market supply is good better for EU?

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

#280

Post by readonthegoapp »

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…

  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.
an incredible amount of tech is involved in these pipelines, building them, blowing them up, figuring out who blew them up, etc.

the war/defense industry is the foundation of all US technology:

https://thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/PentagonSystem_Chom.h...

ukraine is a massive test ground for us weapons/tech -- including operations which don't occur strictly in Ukrainian territory.

and, the world might be over any day now because of the war, so there's always that.

is there a HN in heaven/hell?

Post reply on HN