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 439 posts

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#51

Post by tptacek »

alienicecream wrote: post #50
mannerheim wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The glowies faked the transponders! They faked the satellite imagery too! And they even faked the witnesses and photographers who saw the ship! Case closed.

I don't think it really matters if Hersh's story is correct in all the details, or if it was done in a completely different way. So I don't really understand the zeal which people have to poke holes in it. What matters is motive, means and opportunity and only a few nations, all in NATO, have all three. And no one in NATO is going to do anything like this without making sure they get approval from the US first. That'…

This is a non-statement. NATO is 29 other countries besides the US, all with their own motives, and you can contrive of motives for every other global power with the means to blow up a pipeline; the "opportunity" part of it doesn't even make sense.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#52

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #43
kornhole wrote: post #39

I spent a few days with the chief of special operations of the joint chiefs of staff, and he told me many stories of things they would do to cover their tracks in special ops. For example, they would dismantle an airplane and file off every serial number of every part and then put it back together again. Anyone planning an operation of this scale and significance would have thought to ensure the ship had an alibi. Mo…

According to the same analysis: it doesn't even make sense that they'd require an Alta-class ship from Norway's Navy in the first place; the ship was essentially just a diving platform, and civilian ships operate in those waters with far less need for cover. Moreover, the whole structure of the operation Hersh claims: EC-UBA divers planting C4 charges detonated by a sonobuoy dropped by a Norwegian P8, doesn't make se…

[deleted]

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#53

Post by mannerheim »

alienicecream wrote: post #50
mannerheim wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The glowies faked the transponders! They faked the satellite imagery too! And they even faked the witnesses and photographers who saw the ship! Case closed.

I don't think it really matters if Hersh's story is correct in all the details, or if it was done in a completely different way. So I don't really understand the zeal which people have to poke holes in it. What matters is motive, means and opportunity and only a few nations, all in NATO, have all three. And no one in NATO is going to do anything like this without making sure they get approval from the US first. That'…

I haven't seen any convincing evidence only a state actor could be responsible.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#54

Post by rjsw »

tptacek wrote: post #33
rjsw wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't think he claimed that the OBL raid never happened, just that the backstory about how he was found was wrong.

It's above the fold on his LRB story: he claims that Pakistani ISI captured bin Laden, not the US.

... and then the US staged a raid to pick him up from the ISI.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#55

Post by toss1 »

epistasis wrote: post #3

[flagged]

Yup. Hersh also published bogus claims about the Syrian nerve agent attacks on civilians, claiming they were not done by the Syrian government, but by "outside agents".

Among his claims was that the Sarin was made by "mixing two inert chemicals", which is utter bullsh*t; the synthesis pathways for those deadly chemicals are notoriously difficult and hazardous, including things like hydrofluoric acid, which is extremely corrosive, and a itself a contact poison affecting the nervous system.

But he happily spouts his bullcrap stories, the primary beneficiaries of which are the autocracies of the world.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#56

Post by mcguire »

molopolo24 wrote: post #27

Let us consider that, even if he was fed false-information and his story discredited we can do limited conclusions from it. It might not affirm "the West blew up Nordstream" but it certainly does not affirm "the West NOT blow up Nordstream".

"We cannot disprove it. Therefore, it must be true." :-)

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#57

Post by alienicecream »

tptacek wrote: post #51
alienicecream wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it really matters if Hersh's story is correct in all the details, or if it was done in a completely different way. So I don't really understand the zeal which people have to poke holes in it. What matters is motive, means and opportunity and only a few nations, all in NATO, have all three. And no one in NATO is going to do anything like this without making sure they get approval from the US first. That'…

This is a non-statement. NATO is 29 other countries besides the US, all with their own motives, and you can contrive of motives for every other global power with the means to blow up a pipeline; the "opportunity" part of it doesn't even make sense.

You find it plausible that a global power outside of NATO would commit an act of international terrorism like this, blowing up the critical industrial infrastructure of a NATO member and everyone would just let it slide?

Or that any one of 29 NATO member countries would do this acting all on their own?

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#58

Post by mannerheim »

rjsw wrote: post #54
tptacek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's above the fold on his LRB story: he claims that Pakistani ISI captured bin Laden, not the US.

... and then the US staged a raid to pick him up from the ISI.

And it was directed by Stanley Kubrick.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#59

Post by mcguire »

alienicecream wrote: post #50
mannerheim wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The glowies faked the transponders! They faked the satellite imagery too! And they even faked the witnesses and photographers who saw the ship! Case closed.

I don't think it really matters if Hersh's story is correct in all the details, or if it was done in a completely different way. So I don't really understand the zeal which people have to poke holes in it. What matters is motive, means and opportunity and only a few nations, all in NATO, have all three. And no one in NATO is going to do anything like this without making sure they get approval from the US first. That'…

Yeah, well. Some of us are kind of fond of evidence and not just vibes.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#60

Post by runnerup »

epistasis wrote: post #47
molopolo24 wrote: post #27

Let us consider that, even if he was fed false-information and his story discredited we can do limited conclusions from it. It might not affirm "the West blew up Nordstream" but it certainly does not affirm "the West NOT blow up Nordstream".

For that matter, it certainly doesn't exclude the possibility that the person posting as molopolo24 was personally responsible for the attack! And now that the possibility has been raised, we must all very seriously consider it along with all the other possibilities. This is only fair.

I mean, I personally think its reasonable that the USA blew up the pipeline. Personally I'm at about 75% USA, 20% Russia, 5% someone else.

I just also believe that Hersh's article was really, really, incredibly bad.

Post reply on HN