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

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by arisAlexis »

slantedview wrote: post #612
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…

Biden stated last year: "If Russia invades [Ukraine] there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." [1] This was a clear threat, clear as day, that the US could destroy Nordstream. It should surprise nobody that the US was involved. Since Nordstream was destroyed amidst public pressure from US energy companies who wanted to takeover the European energy market, the US has become the world's lead…

actually gas prices in Europe are lower than just before the invasion and in any case the provider of Nord Stream is blackmailing with nukes. Finally, threatening does not lead to proof. Maybe yes, maybe not.

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

#962

Post by peterfirefly »

naasking wrote: post #959
peterfirefly wrote: post #949

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would have been treated as an attack on NATO. Why perform a hostile act if a much cheaper threat works? Even if it only gets you 10% of what a successful hostile act gets you, it is worth doing because it is a lot less risky.

Gotta say this threat doesn't sound compelling. Who didn't know Russia could bomb a pipeline? Seems more like Russia punching itself in the face for literally no reason. Also, given the climate now, if there was even a shred of evidence or any hint that Putin did this, US media and intelligence officials would be blaring that from every rooftop and every talking head would be "Russia this", and "Russia that". I think…

We also know that kidnappers can kill people. We take them a lot more seriously when they started sending ears in the post, don't we?

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

#963

Post by berniedurfee »

miguelazo wrote: post #938
berniedurfee wrote: post #936

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, very well written and full of detail, but with no shred of evidence, it’s just a theory. The credibility of the author should never be taken for granted, especially with stories of this sensitive nature. The veracity also depends on an anonymous source, which will likely never be revealed nor verified or verifiable. I think the danger here is that many people will take the author’s credibility for granted an…

He’s protecting his source. You can think what you want, but the circumstantial evidence that supports the assertions is voluminous. And it certainly makes more sense than any of the other “theories”, especially the absurd idea that Russia blew up its own pipeline.

That’s my point though. Voluminous circumstantial evidence is still just that, circumstantial.

The most likely theory is still just that, a theory.

With great credibility comes great responsibility. Many people will read this and other stories as fact. It’s been an issue since the dawn of man, but with the reach a single voice has today, it has far more impact.

I had read a comment on HN once that said a course on critical thinking ought to be mandatory in school. I agree with that more and more.

I also think an author with this degree of influence ought to include a disclaimer reminding people to think critically about what is the truth and what could be the truth. A warning before using these words in anger would be the right thing to do.

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

#964

Post by berniedurfee »

miguelazo wrote: post #938
berniedurfee wrote: post #936

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, very well written and full of detail, but with no shred of evidence, it’s just a theory. The credibility of the author should never be taken for granted, especially with stories of this sensitive nature. The veracity also depends on an anonymous source, which will likely never be revealed nor verified or verifiable. I think the danger here is that many people will take the author’s credibility for granted an…

He’s protecting his source. You can think what you want, but the circumstantial evidence that supports the assertions is voluminous. And it certainly makes more sense than any of the other “theories”, especially the absurd idea that Russia blew up its own pipeline.

Sorry, one more thing. You stated that he’s protecting his source. How do we know he even has a source?

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

#965

Post by weatherlight »

onlypositive wrote: post #543
weatherlight wrote: post #261

Not a few hours later, 17 hours apart. No military is going to arrange for two pipes in the same general area to be destroyed 17 hours apart. 17 hours to find the second floating sonar device. 17 hours to get caught with your pants down. I'm saying this as former US military here. the Idea that in the middle of a OPORD, of any kind, POTUS would come in last minute and change a detail, like an explosive on a timer (fa…

A lot of people in this thread are making the "no knife no charge" argument. The rest of us in the world live in reality and just assume the US did this. Biden threatened it and then it happened. Shocked Pikachu face. Sure, it could have been someone else, but does it even matter at this point? PS some of us still remember the rainbow warrior, this move, like that move, has your yank cia stench all over it.

to counter, a lot of people in this thread are saying that the united states is the only country that benefits, (hind sight is 20/20), therefor they must have done it. And all of this is without a shred of evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream_2 ^ a lot of different parties, including the US didn't want this to happen.

How many times has Russias the past 30 years weaponized its gas pipelines? Speak to Moldova, or Estonia, or Ukraine. https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/russia-using-energy-weapon-agai...

I'm not saying the Russians did it, I personally think it was a maintenance accident.

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

#966

Post by miguelazo »

berniedurfee wrote: post #964
miguelazo wrote: post #938

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s protecting his source. You can think what you want, but the circumstantial evidence that supports the assertions is voluminous. And it certainly makes more sense than any of the other “theories”, especially the absurd idea that Russia blew up its own pipeline.

Sorry, one more thing. You stated that he’s protecting his source. How do we know he even has a source?

Because I read the article.

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

#967

Post by miguelazo »

berniedurfee wrote: post #963
miguelazo wrote: post #938

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s protecting his source. You can think what you want, but the circumstantial evidence that supports the assertions is voluminous. And it certainly makes more sense than any of the other “theories”, especially the absurd idea that Russia blew up its own pipeline.

That’s my point though. Voluminous circumstantial evidence is still just that, circumstantial. The most likely theory is still just that, a theory. With great credibility comes great responsibility. Many people will read this and other stories as fact. It’s been an issue since the dawn of man, but with the reach a single voice has today, it has far more impact. I had read a comment on HN once that said a course on cr…

Critical thinking would make one far more skeptical of a government that has lied repeatedly to its own people about every armed conflict, foreign policy intrigue, etc., rather than doubt a legendary journalist who has repeatedly exposed that government’s lies and has provided enough operational detail to make a very convincing case. I don’th think we should accept anything at face value, but weighing the credibility of the two parties and the evidence provided, it’s pretty easy to determine which story is closest to the truth.

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

#968

Post by fulafel »

jacquesm wrote: post #682
dang wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly possible! But I would need to hear an argument about why, which actually addresses the reasons I've given in my responses in this thread. So far I haven't heard that. In fact, no one seems to have even tried (maybe I missed it amid the inundation - I've been trying and failing to keep up for a couple hours now).

I think the argument is pretty simple: if you overrule the flags on any article that by a pretty simplistic reading of the guidelines should be flagged because (1) it is nationalistic flamebait and (2) does not present actual evidence even though the title pretends that it does by stating things as fact when they clearly are not then it is your own judgment about the veracity of the article that drives you to do so.…

In what way is it nationalistic? Doesn't seem that way to me.

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

#969

Post by dghlsakjg »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #572
dghlsakjg wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any US journalistic outlet would KILL to be first to report on this. The US loves its military, but American news sources have no want to keep a secret like this on behalf of the government. The US media loves to report on US war crimes, and other stupid government shit It wouldn't surprise me to know that the US government had knowledge of this. It would surprise me if they were directly involved though.

Why would you be surprised?

Because the destruction of the pipeline serves american interests, but being directly involved in the destruction of russian state infrastructure that serves a bunch of NATO allies is something the US would not want to be involved in.

In other words, The US very much likes that the pipeline is gone, but it would been politically insane to be involved.

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

#970

Post by smsm42 »

kubectl_h wrote: post #828
smsm42 wrote: post #822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Zero Dark Thirty claims to be a factual description of the events, or a work of fiction?

It is a dramatization of the hunt for OBL. It elides names, sources and methods for obvious reasons. The larger shape of the story aligns without how the administration and CIA claim the search and assassination of OBL played out. It is alleged that the CIA cooperated heavily with the filmmakers. This would make sense given the amount of torture apologia that is in the movie.

> It is alleged that the CIA cooperated heavily with the filmmakers.

I'm sure if they did, that was with the sole purpose of ensuring maximum factual accuracy, and no other purpose whatsoever.

Post reply on HN