Well, somebody blew up that pipeline. And the list of possible suspects is very short. Germany, Denmark and Sweden have not yet blamed Russia.
Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
21–30 of 267 posts
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#22It does seem like what happened is that Hersh got a legitimate source (probably in the US or Norwegian intelligence community) who was willing to talk about an existing plan for this kind of operation, and then spun it into a story just declaring that it happened that way. In point of fact probably every major player in the region had a plan like this. Nord Stream 2 was a huge football for everyone with interest. We…
I think it's overwhelmingly obvious that the US, or US-aligned forces, were responsible. It's not clear to me who else even has a motive to do this. US has capable forces in the region at the time, a clear motive (remove the temptation for Germany to use the pipeline). The other possibilities are Russia, they could just turn off the pipeline rather than blow it up, Germany, they could just turn off their end of the pipeline without blowing it up, or... Ukraine, Poland, etc I count as "US-aligned" forces.
Then, when you add in that Biden explicitly threatened unilaterally stopping the pipeline, and that threat was subsequently reiterated by the head of the State Department... I have to wonder what evidence would convince people that the US was probably behind the action.
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
In WWI, Germany attacked France, it's largest trading partner.
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#24Some of the most prolific bull-shitters on the planet are people who claim to have been part of some secret military operation and have inside knowledge in great detail, hinting that they played a major role in the planning and execution. Anyone who served in the military knows this because these elaborate confabulations are the jam of a certain kind of military person. Seymour Hersh is older than my father (85). My father doesn't suffer from any brain diseases but he has definitely declined in mental acuity. Has Mr. Hersh considered retiring? Or can he back up his claims?
I say this as someone who wouldn't be surprised if America was involved
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Russia dismisses the accusations, claiming they are not going to invade Ukraine.
https://www.rt.com/russia/540121-russia-denies-plans-invade-...
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov:
“We have repeatedly said that the movement of our armed forces on our own territory should be of no concern to anyone. Russia poses no threat to anyone.”
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#26I 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.
Seymour Hersh's sources for My Lai gave their names and went on the record. The soldiers who revealed it went on TV and testified before Congress. I'm pretty sure that he had additional anonymous sources, but to get it published he had to be able to back it up.
Abu Ghraib was uncovered by Amnesty International and the international Red Cross and they had tons of photos.
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
For what it's worth, the Washington Post at least doubts it was Russia (december 2022): https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/21/...
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
[deleted]
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#29Cui prodest? That's the only question that matters, the one people writing articles like this want you to ignore.
Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
And he got exactly the same reaction when he published the Abu Ghraib story. The Pentagon called it nonsense.