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

351–360 of 1001 posts

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

#351

Post by anigbrowl »

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 don't mind the submission (although I am skeptical of its thesis), but I think the lack of transparency about how flagging and moderation operates is Not Great, and I have raised this issue for years. I do want to see and discuss significant non-technology news on HN, because the hacker ethos is a matter of motivation as much as capacity.

But such submissions also suck up a lot of oxygen and it's understandable that they are often flagged or discouraged when they get too flamey. It might be worthwhile to have a designation like 'Chat HN:' which is understood to be non-technical, and which users can filter in or out of their feed.

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

#352

Post by tanseydavid »

nindalf wrote: post #180
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 there’s no sugarcoating this - you’ve got it wrong on this one. I say this as a supporter of your moderation policies in general. The sooner you reverse this decision, the better for everyone.

>> The sooner you reverse this decision, the better for everyone.

Opinion -- cloaked in shame and coercion.

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

#353

Post by itsoktocry »

twblalock wrote: post #187
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…

That’s not good enough. No level of reputation or historical track record should exempt anyone from the basic responsibility of providing evidence for claims they make.

>That’s not good enough.

For you.

But maybe, just maybe, other people are willing to to accept claims backed by reputation.

I mean, do you have any idea how difficult some of these stories, throughout history, would be to bring to light with "hard evidence"? What would "hard evidence" even entail? A whistleblower?

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

#354

Post by ttctciyf »

anigbrowl wrote: post #330

It might be true. But the story rests on the following premise: *Biden’s and Nuland’s indiscretion, if that is what it was, might have frustrated some of the planners. But it also created an opportunity. According to the source, some of the senior officials of the CIA determined that blowing up the pipeline “no longer could be considered a covert option because the President just announced that we knew how to do it.”…

I wonder what Biden was referring to when he stated

> "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

> When asked how, the president says, "I promise you, we will be able do that."

(C-SPAN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 )

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

#355

Post by ZeroGravitas »

swader999 wrote: post #190
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…

Why even question Hersh on this when Biden publicly admitted they would put an end to it? https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8

This angle made me doubt the story Hersh is pushing.

When you're just speculating or building a conspiracy theory then those "ominous" comments are worth quoting.

If you are claiming to be in contact with someone with deep knowledge of the actual operation, why even mention those? Worse still, add some extra twist where the spies have a meta comment on their cover being blown by those comments.

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

#356

Post by tromp »

Perhaps the discussion should be phrased instead as

how likely can a hypothetical operation as sketched by Mr Hersh, involving so many people in so many governments, remain without hard evidence leaking out for years?

Personally, I wonder what would have happened to the sonar buoy that was alledged to have triggered the explosives. Wouldn't they have to come back and pick it up to avoid leaving evidence of the triggering mechanism? And if they have to come pick it up anyway, why drop a buoy at all? Why not use that presence to send a time delayed trigger?

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

#357

Post by erentz »

anigbrowl wrote: post #330

It might be true. But the story rests on the following premise: *Biden’s and Nuland’s indiscretion, if that is what it was, might have frustrated some of the planners. But it also created an opportunity. According to the source, some of the senior officials of the CIA determined that blowing up the pipeline “no longer could be considered a covert option because the President just announced that we knew how to do it.”…

He claims SOCOM covert military operations have to be reported to Gang of Eight but if you use regular Navy forces to do the covert operation you somehow do not. That seems beyond extremely suspect.

> There was a vital bureaucratic reason for relying on the graduates of the center’s hardcore diving school in Panama City. The divers were Navy only, and not members of America’s Special Operations Command, whose covert operations must be reported to Congress and briefed in advance to the Senate and House leadership—the so-called Gang of Eight. The Biden Administration was doing everything possible to avoid leaks as the planning took place late in 2021 and into the first months of 2022.

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

#358

Post by oezi »

rsync wrote: post #207
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…

"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…

The amount of LNG gas remains insignificant so far. Germany also hasn't signed any significant contract with the US but rather with Qatar.

To give you one credible motive for Russian involvement: Russia cut off Europe of Gas supplies to get leverage on the Ukraine conflict, but this largely failed as European countries pooled their gas reserves and vowed to move away from Russian gas. As Russia could see that this market was lost the explosions were a last punch to send gas prices higher before the European winter and protect Gazprom from lawsuits. The mild weather killed that first motive, let's see about the other.

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

#359

Post by lamontcg »

hef19898 wrote: post #198
thwayunion wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There's probably thousands of scuba divers are trained in cold water diving to 300ft/100m depths. That is deep technical diving, but not crazy or stupid deep.

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

#360

Post by jamisteven »

Its crazy that people prior to this thought this was some kind of conspiracy when it was so blatantly obvious who blew it up. Ask anyone working in commodities trading who blew it up, they all knew exactly who it was. The US had the most to gain and they even told us on 2 different occasions thats they would do it.
Post reply on HN