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

51–60 of 267 posts

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#51

Post by billjings »

pdog wrote: post #46

The sheer number of rhetorical fallacies employed in the opening of this "takedown" inclines me to believe that Hersh's reporting is a largely accurate and truthful account. For example, stating that you could write "an entire post on the reasons why sounds entirely made up by someone with no real grasp of what that suggestion would actually technically entail" is a clear-cut appeal to ridicule [1] fallacy with no fu…

"The criticism is bad, therefore the claim must be true" certainly sounds like a rhetorical fallacy to me. Does it have a name?

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#52

Post by aredox »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #19
macintux wrote: post #9

Earlier 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?

Pacific atolls could be tourism paradise, but many were used Instead to test atom bombs.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#53

Post by mistermann »

htwaterx wrote: post #17

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 a…

At the end of the day it is much more important what people believe than what is true, and people's reactions to specific instances of "nitpicking" varies according to their pre-existing beliefs.

For example "nitpicking" is enthusiastically praised during the investigation of physical matters (ie: science), but it is commonly denigrated (if not outright condemned, even by genuinely smart people) when used during the investigation of metaphysical matters, and this mystery is a combination of both (but is mostly metaphysical to my way of thinking).

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#54

Post by DeLeeuw »

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 agree with you, but I would take Ukraine off the list, although they had a strong motive.

Ukraine's strategic cornerstone is international relations, without which they cannot win the war.

Ukraine would never risk upsetting Germany, the EU's biggest economy, with such a drastic operation.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#56

Post by rexxxmi »

DeLeeuw wrote: post #44
rexxxmi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The US was always opposed to Nord Stream and for good reasons. I'm in fact glad it's gone. Many people already speculated it was the US, because Biden himself literally says "we will bring an end to it": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 With a smirk. Even when pressed how he is going to do it. For me, Hersh' story is the secondary corroboration.

A general criminal law principle known as the corpus delicti rule provides that a confession, standing alone, isn't enough for a conviction.

I am not taking a position. I'm saying no one has presented hard evidence. And until they do, if ever, both sides will play hot potato and nothing will happen.

When someone presents hard evidence for either position I'll listen to them happily.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#57

Post by fakethenews2022 »

rexxxmi wrote: post #35
fakethenews2022 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until someone else takes credit for it, I'll take President Joe Biden's threat as evidence. Video link: https://youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM?feature=share

Like I said, until someone can provide hard evidence, which that is not, I'll continue to hold reservations as any reasonable person would.

Yes. We can continue to hold reservations but that can be considered evidence. It is akin to someone getting killed and someone else prior saying they would kill that person. It doesn't mean they actually did it, but it is suspicion and motive that should lead to further investigations. That Germany and other countries aren't looking into it can also be considered circumstantial evidence.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#58

Post by mynameishere »

DeLeeuw wrote: post #21

Well, somebody blew up that pipeline. And the list of possible suspects is very short. Germany, Denmark and Sweden have not yet blamed Russia.

Everyone knew who did it five seconds after it happened. People are denying it for political reasons only. And that's fine--that's how politics work.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#59

Post by api »

If the US did blow it up, then good work.

It reduces Putin’s energy blackmail ability by just taking some of it off the table. It was kind of like shooting the hostage.

I would not even consider it a scandal. It’s all Europe’s fault for making themselves energy dependents on a dictator.

Re: Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

#60

Post by debacle »

The reality is that we truly live in a post-truth world. Maybe we always have.

When it comes to Ukraine, that means you can't trust anything. Any piece you read will have the taint of Ukrainian, American, or Russian propaganda.

I gave up on trying to figure out what is really going on in this scenario a while back.

Something is going on. There's definitely some deeper exchange happening. But I'll probably never know what.

Post reply on HN