Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

oalexanderdk.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 267 posts

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#11

Post by pydry »

macintux wrote: post #9
notinfuriated wrote: post #4

While the Seymour Hersh story seems unbelievable to me, so does the initial explanation that was being thrown around, that Russia did this as sabotage, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/28/nord-stream-... . The utter stupidity of that idea is along the sames lines as rhetoric, also present in OP, that Russia "weaponized" its gas pipelines. (To use that language, nearly anything can be a "weapon.") I'…

The idea that Russia would use it as a reminder that they could sabotage other pipelines doesn’t seem so far-fetched.

It is ridiculously far fetched. It was extremely expensive asset and provided a source of leverage.

This is why the US publicly hated on the pipeline.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#12

Post by pydry »

createdapril24 wrote: post #7

I regret that Hersh's reporting relied on anonymous officials. That's not a dig on Hersh - this is the standard for journalism on these topics. As a standard it creates a deniability to any story that comes out e.g. "they probably made it up", "the source doesn't know what they are talking about", "the source is influencing the journalist for their own ends". I think Hersh's article is interesting and useful however.…

>I regret that Hersh's reporting relied on anonymous officials.

Nobody much wanted to talk on the record about My Lai or Abu Ghraib when it happened either.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#13

Post by rexxxmi »

createdapril24 wrote: post #7

I regret that Hersh's reporting relied on anonymous officials. That's not a dig on Hersh - this is the standard for journalism on these topics. As a standard it creates a deniability to any story that comes out e.g. "they probably made it up", "the source doesn't know what they are talking about", "the source is influencing the journalist for their own ends". I think Hersh's article is interesting and useful however.…

Until someone else can corroborate Hersh's story, or Hersh provides hard evidence, this is whole thing is a nothing burger.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#14

Post by notinfuriated »

macintux wrote: post #9
notinfuriated wrote: post #4

While the Seymour Hersh story seems unbelievable to me, so does the initial explanation that was being thrown around, that Russia did this as sabotage, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/28/nord-stream-... . The utter stupidity of that idea is along the sames lines as rhetoric, also present in OP, that Russia "weaponized" its gas pipelines. (To use that language, nearly anything can be a "weapon.") I'…

The idea that Russia would use it as a reminder that they could sabotage other pipelines doesn’t seem so far-fetched.

Extremely far-fetched, you'd have to convince me that the Russian government and military are full of total morons.

Building a pipeline is not cheap, not in money or time or bureaucratic effort. It's easier to just stop supplying the gas if you want to make an obvious threat.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#15

Post by reducesuffering »

notinfuriated wrote: post #4

While the Seymour Hersh story seems unbelievable to me, so does the initial explanation that was being thrown around, that Russia did this as sabotage, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/28/nord-stream-... . The utter stupidity of that idea is along the sames lines as rhetoric, also present in OP, that Russia "weaponized" its gas pipelines. (To use that language, nearly anything can be a "weapon.") I'…

Russia has already demonstrated they will blow up their own pipelines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_en...

You keep using strong words like "utter stupidity" and "insane" without being aware of recent Russian history...

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#16

Post by pydry »

freitzkriesler2 wrote: post #3

After years and years of dubious, "anonymous sources" literally making up claims, I have come to doubt the truthfulness of nearly anyone who claims something from an anonymous sources. Even if it is from a well regarded journalist. This is a consequence of how far the profession has fallen.

Have you heard of Abu Ghraib?

Most of his award winning journalism has relied upon anonymous sources.

This is how it has always worked.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#17

Post by htwaterx »

While interesting, the author appears to be nitpicking. It does not really refute Hersh's story, because these minor inconsistencies appear in any news article, including the NYT.

It is irrelevant whether Hersh gets all details right, the important thing is whether his source is correct on the big picture or not.

It seems to me that the veracity of Hersh's claims cannot be decided by textual analysis, but rather by another investigative reporter who would travel for months to Florida, Norway, etc. and try to dig into the story. But who will finance that? Who would dare that?

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#18

Post by notinfuriated »

reducesuffering wrote: post #15
notinfuriated wrote: post #4

While the Seymour Hersh story seems unbelievable to me, so does the initial explanation that was being thrown around, that Russia did this as sabotage, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/28/nord-stream-... . The utter stupidity of that idea is along the sames lines as rhetoric, also present in OP, that Russia "weaponized" its gas pipelines. (To use that language, nearly anything can be a "weapon.") I'…

Russia has already demonstrated they will blow up their own pipelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_en... You keep using strong words like "utter stupidity" and "insane" without being aware of recent Russian history...

> Russia dismisses the accusations, claiming the charges could be set by terrorists. The pipelines were eventually fixed.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#19

Post by ed25519FUUU »

macintux wrote: post #9
notinfuriated wrote: post #4

While the Seymour Hersh story seems unbelievable to me, so does the initial explanation that was being thrown around, that Russia did this as sabotage, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/28/nord-stream-... . The utter stupidity of that idea is along the sames lines as rhetoric, also present in OP, that Russia "weaponized" its gas pipelines. (To use that language, nearly anything can be a "weapon.") I'…

The idea that Russia would use it as a reminder that they could sabotage other pipelines doesn’t seem so far-fetched.

Can you name a single other instance in history where a country at war significantly damaged its ability to raise money for the war to “send a message”? What exactly is the message? The US didn’t think Russia had a submersible and some C4 and now they do?

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#20

Post by freitzkriesler2 »

pydry wrote: post #16
freitzkriesler2 wrote: post #3

After years and years of dubious, "anonymous sources" literally making up claims, I have come to doubt the truthfulness of nearly anyone who claims something from an anonymous sources. Even if it is from a well regarded journalist. This is a consequence of how far the profession has fallen.

Have you heard of Abu Ghraib? Most of his award winning journalism has relied upon anonymous sources. This is how it has always worked.

Abu Ghraib was over 20 years ago mate.

Journalists during Bush Jr's era were solid. Post Obama, the entire profession couldn't handle not being the under dog.

And now we're paying the price with untrustworthy or outright made up "anonymous sources".

Post reply on HN