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.
“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”
311–320 of 1001 posts
Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”
#312Earlier 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.
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”
#313Earlier 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.
Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”
#314Gazprom, 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…
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”
#315Earlier 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.
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”
#316Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”
#317Earlier 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…
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”
#318Do people realise that once the article is on the internet, removing it from HN is self censorship, the equivalent of pretending something doesn’t exist?
Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”
#319I 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…
Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”
#320Earlier 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.
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.