Live data from Hacker News

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

seymourhersh.substack.com

311–320 of 1001 posts

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

#311

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.

No official or well supported narrative does not mean you should jump on whatever narrative is out there or offered. Be open minded, but not so open your brain falls out

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

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Maybe time will tell. This article shouldn't be allowed here until that time. Reputation is not evidence.

Topics with unknown or unknowable answers are regularly discussed here. Curiosity in the face of uncertainty is pretty much what this place is about.

Whether it turns out to be true or false, this article is interesting right now.

If it’s true, for obvious reasons.

If it’s false, for what it says about Hersh, and a myriad of followup questions that arise.

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

#313
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the future please at least look at an article before deciding to undo all the flags, many from actual readers.

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

#314

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…

The EU politicians may have expected to declare an unprecedented economic war on Russia while the latter dutifully continued to fulfill its gas contracts to the EU. Seems plausible given the geopolitical mastery the EU posesses.

But does anyone else actually believe that? The other contract party trying to destroy your economy is a pretty good reason to terminate a contract. Failing that Russia could keep inventing problems with turbines. Or sabotage the pipelines somewhere one can more easily repair them.

I do remember how several media organizations and politicians from the EU jumped at accusing Russia with zero proof. Once the media mania subsided several US newspaper reported that indeed there was no proof whatsoever and they had jumped to conclusions.

The later conspicuous silence from EU governments on a potential culprit, lack of evidence pointing at Russia and several statements from acting US politicians threatening NS and gloating over its demise plus a former Polish politician thanking the US certainly don’t do anything to clear the US from suspicion. Still, this remains all circumstantial evidence.

But not even this kind of circumstantial evidence exists pointing to Russia as culprit. Just far-fetched theories about them wanting to dodge contract penalties or doing it to show that they can. This is as credible as them doing it as an experiment to see what happens when you blow up a pipeline, really.

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

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe time will tell. This article shouldn't be allowed here until that time. Reputation is not evidence.

Reputation absolutely is evidence. I think you mean it’s not “proof”. If John Carmack says there is an exciting breakthrough in 3D rendering that will give 8k 120fps ray tracing on commodity hardware, that’s noteworthy, and his reputation is evidence that there is substance to the claim. HN would be super boring if only topics that had been conclusively proven could be discussed.

> (...) and his reputation is evidence that there is substance to the claim.

No it isn't. The guy's reputation is reason to give the benefit of the doubt, but either his claims are proven sound or else they are just as bullshit if Joe blow himself made them.

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

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Enron's accounting department kind of did, not physically but still.

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

#317
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's with the question mark in the title? Hersh certainly doesn't frame this as a question. Unless it's a miskey of some kind which sounds like the most plausible explanation.

Edit: I took out the question mark in response to anigbrowl making the point that it's confusing things: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34714493 . Edit 2: I've replaced the question mark with quotation marks following a suggestion by bee_rider: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713987 . -- original comment: -- We sometimes add a question mark when a title makes a dramatic and divisive claim, because otherw…

> are somehow endorsing the claim

You are endorsing the claim when you override the ranking system and allow opposing views to be flagged and thus never appear for balance.

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

#319

I don’t have a strong opinion about who blew up Nord Stream. I do believe one thing: with US AWACS and other assets, and in that part of the world, I believe that the US government (and perhaps other governments, like Germany) know who did it. There a many reasons why they would not share information, such as an ally could have done it. Or, of course, Russia may have done it. I am glad this story is posted on HN beca…

yeah I'm sure the US and probably European governments know exactly what happened. Also if Russia did do it, its officially an attack on NATO and requires a response? It makes sense that USA/Europe didn't officially blame Russia with evidence.

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

#320
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.

But we do have a proofen and working mechanism: Flagging. If the submission doesn't get flagged, cool. If it does, it does. I don't see a reason to intervene here.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. The flagging system works well, arguably better than the upvoting system does, but you can't just rely on these systems in an unsupervised way—it leads to suboptimal outcomes. Another way of putting this is that moderation is necessary to jig the software+community systems out of their failure modes.

You can of course argue that I've made a wrong call in this case, but the point I'm making here is different: you need moderators who make judgment calls, including to override flags sometimes. And of course no one is ever going to get the calls 100% right; we have failure modes too.

Post reply on HN