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

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771

Post by sclarisse »

RajT88 wrote: post #565
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…

The one you'd never guess: Vanuatu It's the perfect crime

I lived next door to Tuvalu once, in New York City. Quiet little apartment building in Manhattan, west-facing views of the East River. We hung out with Vanatu once or twice. Doesn’t quite seem the type.

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

#772

Post by garbagecoder »

AlbertCory wrote: post #561
LarryMullins wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not unsourced, the source is being kept private. That may not seem like a meaningful difference but there is a difference. And that difference is the reason Seymour Hersh's reputation is relevant.

> Seymour Hersh's reputation Is this satire or what? His reputation is "as a nutcase" nowadays. Most reputable editors, when given a secret-sources story, either reject it outright, or say "OK, tell me their names and let me talk to them." If you're Hersh, maybe you get away with saying, "trust me."

That’s why he’s useful. Enough people associate his name with his wins and either don’t know he’s lost his mind or think it’s just the usual hit pieces.

But either he’s being fed this by someone with an agenda or he shares that agenda.

Conspiracy thinking ironically always includes blind credulity, just of other things.

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

#773

Post by joenot443 »

threeseed wrote: post #369
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.

Given there are 500 comments already and more to come, do you not think it’s been demonstrated the community has an interest in discussing it?

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

#774

Post by beaned »

jonstewart wrote: post #714
Lazare wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seymour Hersh has had a long and storied career, and he has made some very bold claims that later turned out to be correct. He's also, especially recently, made some very bold claims that so far have not turned out to be correct, whether because the truth just hasn't been revealed yet, or because Hersh was wrong or misled by his sources. It's also worth noting that Hersh - as with any journalist - is only as good as…

The thing that a good journalist would do is be skeptical of his crank sources and try to confirm them with reputable sources and evidence. He does neither. But a broken clock is right twice a day and a bad journalist can break two big stories in a career of publishing lies.

How can you call his sources crank without knowing who they are yourself?

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

#775

Post by dmatech »

SergeAx wrote: post #762
stephc_int13 wrote: post #471

There is one thing that is really bothering me in this story. I don't really care who is behind the sabotage, they would certainly not admit it for obvious reasons, and it could be more complex than it seems. But the press, here in the UK, in France and in the US, has been suspiciously "clueless", avoiding with great care to imply that anyone in the west could be behind it, even if it really seems obvious that it cou…

Can you please elaborate how exactly it was obvious (that anyone in the West could be behind the attack)? What is a motivation for the West?

The most straightforward reasons would be:

1. Russia would get income from the pipeline, empowering their economy. 2. This sort of infrastructure would represent increased German dependence on Russia for their energy needs. 3. This would also tend to increase economic and diplomatic ties between Germany and Russia.

Destroying the pipeline (even if it's not being used) could theoretically send the message that these infrastructure projects are not safe and that relying on Russia for energy is strategically unwise.

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

#776

Post by che_shirecat »

mlindner wrote: post #729
officehero wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a former resident in Russia I'm shocked at how all state controlled media from Russia has been completely censored in the west. I understand why it's done (bcs it breeds conspiracies etc) but it's not for free because now people don't get any 'alternative' view on the matter. Censorship is a tricky thing

There are plenty of "alternatives" that are not censored. There's media all over the middle east and asia that's not friendly to the US that isn't censored. It makes perfect sense to censor the aggressor in a war because of course they're only going to say things that benefit themselves, especially in a country that's passed laws against the criticism of the war. All you're really arguing for here is that the west sh…

what makes Russian propaganda different from US propaganda?

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

#777

Post by jessaustin »

mannerheim wrote: post #672
drewda wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seymour Hersh has decades of credibility from reporting the My Lai Massacre to the abuses at Abu Graib. But he does often rely on sources who remain anonymous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Use_of_anonymous... I did find it interesting in that Wikipedia article to read that The New Yorker's editor insists on knowing the identify of all of the anonymous sources that Hersh has used when his reporting is p…

I know nothing of him, but given that there's an entire paragraph about Jens Stoltenberg where almost every sentence is just completely factually wrong in a way that could be verified to be wrong with a look at the first paragraph on his Wikipedia page, I'm not inclined to take what he says seriously. I mean, par for the course for modern journalism, I suppose.

Yeah, the idea that he was involved in the American war in Vietnam seems far-fetched. Perhaps this is a confusion with some other, older Stoltenberg?

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

#778

Post by kubectl_h »

reducesuffering wrote: post #502
ianburrell wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, Supreme Allied Commander Europe is General Cavoli. Stoltenberg is Secretary General of NATO. The former is what most people would call the "supreme commander" since has military operational command. He is American so immediately suspect. In between there is Chair of the NATO Military Committee, who is Dutch admiral.

Yep. Gell Mann Amnesia in full effect here. Everything you two have said are basic geopolitical knowledge blunders and it's clear Hersh has lost his intellectual bearing the last decade as he's now 85... Hersh: "Today, the supreme commander of NATO is Jens Stoltenberg" Reality: Jens Stoltenberg is the secretary general of NATO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Allied_Commander_Europ... https://en.wikipedia.org/w…

This is a mistaken title attribution, but even with a correction do you think it changes much? Stoltenberg is the civilian leader of NATO and having his support is crucial. Hersh may have been mistaken in the title, but not the person nor their importance.

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

#779

Post by dragonwriter »

uoaei wrote: post #698
dragonwriter wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This little text bomb thrown by CIA at the Executive can only mean that the Swedes have found conclusive evidence. That’s a bizarre interpretation, since what the Swedish government says in that article, which is no different than non-US-government news source reporting on the same Swedish statement, is additional evidence of sabotage but no evidence of by whom. > Please note that Radio Free Europe is run by CIA. N…

To put a name to this organization, it is called the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) . It is widely understood to be a propaganda arm of the US, developing media presences in countries where the US wishes to increase its power by manipulating narratives around contentious political topics. "Radio Free Europe/Asia/etc." is a common offering of theirs, typically skeptical or outright critical of regimes the US w…

> To put a name to this organization, it is called the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

No, NED is a completely unrelated organization. The 501c3 that runs Radio Free Europe is RFE/RL, Inc. (the name conbining the abbreviations for Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.)

> Radio Free Europe/Asia/etc." is a common offering of theirs

No, Radio Free Asia is a separate 501c3, which is, like RFE/RL, funded by the Broadcasting Board of Governors through the U.S. Agency for Global Media; NED isn’t connected to it.

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

#780

Post by justinclift »

klrls wrote: post #731
bandyaboot wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen the White House refutation somewhere other than in the piece which is the subject of the questioning you’re responding to? If not, that’s a null point.

Yes, and it is trivial to find: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-house-says-blog-post-... Are people try to derail this story by flooding the submission with innocent questions?

There are quite a few articles popping up saying the same thing from various "news" sources, however they don't appear to be including any links to the supposed "White house" source they're talking about.

eg they could very well be propaganda themselves

Post reply on HN