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

361–370 of 1001 posts

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

#361

Post by anigbrowl »

hef19898 wrote: post #287
readonthegoapp wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... uk…

Blowing them up requires either a shaped charge or C4 or some other explosive. Hardly high tech.

The social & physical infrastructure is the story here, not the fact that explosives go boom - although if you don't think explosives are technologically interesting, perhaps that means you just don't know much about them.

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

#362

Post by mzs »

dang wrote: post #343
mzs wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Of course I nearly always do, but in this case the moderation call didn't depend on it, for reasons I've already explained in several other comments in this thread.

I read your decision as - it is worthy because Hersh says, that that is is the notable part and it invites curiosity to ponder. But are you aware that over the last 10 years he has published almost exclusively conspiracy theories that do not stand-up to scrutiny?

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

#363

Post by ghostwriter »

ohmaigad wrote: post #274
spoiler wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Sorry to tell you, but the US think-tanks have been saying it for years that the Baltic states are there in their current configuration to only restrain Russia from forming closer ties with Germany: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UcXiUYLgbo

They even have a term for it - "Cordon sanitaire": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire_(internationa...

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

#364

Post by throwaway894345 »

VincentEvans wrote: post #176

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…

> Kremlin has miscalculated

Europe has also had a very mild winter, so luck played a nontrivial role.

> Now that the Western sanctions are strangling Russian economy

I'm very curious about how Western sanctions are affecting the Russian economy (I understand that you're speaking narrowly to Gazprom, but I'm asking about the Russian economy more broadly). My understanding is that Putin has spent the better part of the last decade immunizing the Russian economy from Western sanctions, and that this project has largely succeeded--that Russian oil sales are still making plenty of money to finance his invasion, etc. Can anyone elucidate?

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

#365

Post by chollida1 »

steponlego wrote: post #189
VincentEvans wrote: post #176

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…

Why don't we just properly view the gas reductions for what they are - a form of sanctioning?

I would think because it was the Gazprom/Kremlin who cut of the gas supply.

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

#366

Post by dang »

anigbrowl wrote: post #344
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…

because of his historical significance and the network of government sources that he's cultivated for decades This seems a little partial and hard to implement consistently. Can we assume the same metric will be applied to every Robert Woodward story, or any of many single-sector journalists with a lengthy track record, such as Radley Balko who has spent years writing about policing? I also don't think adding a quest…

Ok, that last bit is a good point - I'll take out the question mark. Thanks!

Re your other question, the answer is somewhere in the space demarcated by (1) yes, (2) we'll try, (3) moderation consistency is impossible, (4) we're always open to reader input. (I'm sorry that I'm responding in shorthand but I'm being inundated atm)

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

#367

Post by itsoktocry »

torstenvl wrote: post #71
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, 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.

Honest question: what about this story seems so far-fetched to you that you can't give the author the benefit of the doubt? There are decades of such intelligence goings-on.

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

#368

Post by bnralt »

karaterobot wrote: post #238
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…

It does strike me as odd that (by my reading) there's only a single, unnamed source for all these claims. Hersh's reputation as a journalist is significant and worth considering, but for me it makes it stranger that there's so little evidence in this piece which, as it notes, alleges an act of war.

> but for me it makes it stranger that there's so little evidence in this piece which, as it notes, alleges an act of war.

It makes it less surprising to me. Back in 2006 I believed Hersh when he reported that the U.S. had troops inside Iran laying the groundwork for an imminent American attack. This was also based on anonymous sources. After the attack failed to materialize, I learned to take such reporting with a large grain of salt.

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

#369

Post by threeseed »

Laaas wrote: post #328

It is bewildering how many here are against this post staying up; no matter whether it's true or not, it's an interesting article! If you feel it is not true, why take it down rather than simply state your opinion in the comments? Do we not have the freedom to discuss and form our own opinions about it?

Because this is Hacker News not Political Conspiracy News.

For every one of these posts that are manually forced to stay on the front page we lose an actual relevant, technical post that we never see and get a chance to comment on.

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

#370

Post by lubesGordi »

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…

It is astonishing how so many people think that others can't read something like this and make their own judgements about it. I guess that they're worried that too many people will just accept this as True, and that will make the world a worse place? I just find it an incredibly arrogant position to take. If there's some other way of justifying that opinion, I'd love to hear it.
Post reply on HN