Live data from Hacker News

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

seymourhersh.substack.com

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America "doing things in the long-term interests of EU citizens, despite causing them some short-term discomfort" is exactly why the US is seen as the baddy in a lot of countries. We are not your children to be nannied and taken decisions on behalf of!

We are not your children to be nannied and taken decisions on behalf of! Until you can defend yourselves, you are.

Yup, pretty much this. We all know who wears the pants in the NATO relationship.

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

#912
post #848

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are not your children to be nannied and taken decisions on behalf of! Until you can defend yourselves, you are.

We do have nukes you know. Feel free to pack up, go home and never come back. Would be the best thing to ever happen to Europe. Honestly Europe would be far more peaceful now without NATO. The US has mostly been a destabilising force for the past three decades.

> We do have nukes you know.

The only nukes Germany has are those that America charitably allows Germany to borrow. If Germany grew up like UK and France and bought/made their own toys, then maybe Germany would find itself to have more autonomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

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

#913

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe it is an overtly hostile action against EU citizens and, particularly, Germans, who will suffer the most economically. In the scenario where America did it, I think there is a strong argument to be made that it was in the long-term interests of EU citizens, despite causing them some short-term discomfort. They never should have started this pipeline project in the first place, buying energy from Russia ma…

America "doing things in the long-term interests of EU citizens, despite causing them some short-term discomfort" is exactly why the US is seen as the baddy in a lot of countries. We are not your children to be nannied and taken decisions on behalf of!

Europeans are lucky that most Americans don't care what Europeans think of America, and continue to support and defend the EU despite Europeans being utterly ungrateful for any of it. If you lot had to pay for your own defense, you'd have a lot less social programs to go around, a lot less to gloat about to the Americans you hate so much.

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

#914
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.

> This is a poorly-sourced speculative piece of propaganda

You mean like most mainstream news that parrot state-sponsored talking points? It seems counterpropaganda propaganda pieces are the only way to balance out state propaganda these days.

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

#915

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Project Azorian was a crazy conspiracy theory, and also true. You discredit yourself by using "conspiracy theory" in the "obviously false" sense. Intelligence agencies really do conspire to do things. That's their job.

a) that was never considered "crazy" b) recovering a submarine is not the same as saying, actually Assad is an innocent bystander and the rebels gassed themselves, The CIA worked with Putin and Assad to undermine Obama...also US soldiers raped children and video recorded it, oh and let's not forget that the US planned to fake how OBL was killed in coordinate with Pakistan because stealth helicopters aren't possible (…

> a) that was never considered "crazy"

The very premise of stealing a Soviet submarine wreck off the ocean floor with nobody noticing is pants-on-head insane. The USN thought the CIA was being moronic to even consider this plan. The USN's idea was a lot saner; to simply use submersibles to extract intelligence-relevant materials from the wreck underwater, not lift and take the entire wreck. No surface ships needed, much less an expensive purpose-built attention-drawing surface ship.

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

#916

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing to keep in mind is that counter assertions have been made without evidence. > Asked for comment, Adrienne Watson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email, “This is false and complete fiction.” Tammy Thorp, a spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, similarly wrote: “This claim is completely and utterly false.” "This is ... complete fiction." is a claim that the story was fabricated. I think it…

>One thing to keep in mind is that counter assertions have been made without evidence. Are you familiar with Christopher Hitchens? That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Until the author provides evidence of their claims, there's nothing required to dismiss them.

> That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Until the author provides evidence of their claims, there's nothing required to dismiss them.

Maybe you're not familiar with the practice of journalism where anonymous sources are routine, and have successfully uncovered a great deal of misconduct by governments. Reserve skepticism of course, but dismissal of a routine practice with a proven track record is not justified.

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

#917

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…

Perhaps some folks care very much that it was the US that executed the plan instead of Sweden or the UK or some other country, but for me you could swap out all the names of entities in the reporting and it would still be very interesting reading. For me, I take the story as, "this is a plausible explanation for how a modern nation state plans and executes targeted subterfuge as part of a web of global politics".

It's not entirely fiction such as, "And then Biden sacrificed a peahen, waved his magic wand, and spoke the incantation and the pipeline exploded!" The events, organizations, equipment, and strategy described in the document is all real-life stuff!

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

#918
post #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.

> Also if Russia did do it, its officially an attack on NATO and requires a response?

In either the case of America attacking a pipeline jointly owned by the Russians or the Russians attacking a pipeline jointly owned by a NATO country, you could call this an act of war. But in neither case will either side use it as their casus belli to start WW3, because nobody wants that. Nobody is waiting for a 'legitimate' excuse to start such a war. It is much safer for everybody to pretend they haven't noticed such attacks, or to pretend that the culprit is uncertain or maybe that it was done by accident. Pretending to be ignorant of the provocation is preferable to WW3, for both sides of the conflict.

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

#919
post #848

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do have nukes you know. Feel free to pack up, go home and never come back. Would be the best thing to ever happen to Europe. Honestly Europe would be far more peaceful now without NATO. The US has mostly been a destabilising force for the past three decades.

> We do have nukes you know. The only nukes Germany has are those that America charitably allows Germany to borrow. If Germany grew up like UK and France and bought/made their own toys, then maybe Germany would find itself to have more autonomy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

Most definitely. I am French by the way but I think the French nuclear umbrella can be extended to the EU at least somewhat.

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

#920
post #196

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…

Thanks for the work you do. Handling controversial things is difficult.
Post reply on HN