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

411–420 of 439 posts

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#411

Post by foverzar »

Analemma_ wrote: post #212
thoeiu4oi234 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about you, but I find these "pro-West" side to be quite specious in their arguments. What idiot really believes that Russia of all people would want to kill their own golden goose ? The argument these geniuses are implicitly making is that either Russians (or more euphemistically "Putin") is a raging lunatic, or that their readers so utterly dim-witted that they'll believe any shit that they'll spin. OTO…

There’s a very straightforward and plausible rationale for Russia (specifically, Putin) to do it: coup-proofing by forced commitment to not turning the oil back on, like breaking your own steering wheel in a game of chicken and throwing it out the window. There are presumably elites in Russia who would like to see the war end and go back to business-as-usual so they can get their assets and incomes back, and blowing…

> There’s a very straightforward and plausible rationale for Russia (specifically, Putin) to do it: coup-proofing by forced commitment to not turning the oil back on, like breaking your own steering wheel in a game of chicken and throwing it out the window.

And there is an even more straightforward debunking of that version:

a) these pipelines have nothing to do with oil, they pipe gas

b) these pipelines are only a fraction of all the gas transportation infrastructure: there is a huge pipeline in Ukraine that dwarfs NS1/2 combined (and Ukraine happily accepts Russian money as a transportation fee, they've even raised it recently), there is a pipeline in Belarus, there is Yamal, and there is TurkStream.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#412

Post by lispm »

foverzar wrote: post #408
lispm wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me add: the blown-up pipelines were three of four newly built. One of the four is not damaged. The damage to the other three pipelines was only in a small area. The pipelines are repairable. The pipeline was mainly a project of Russia and Germany, meant to supply natural gas to German markets (and beyond). The pipelines were not in use, yet. There was zero chance that the pipelines would go in use in the next dec…

> The pipelines are repairable That is really doubtful, especially at this point when they've been full of seawater for so long. > The pipelines were not in use, yet. NS1 was operational for years, and NS2 was technically too: all the equipment was running and the pipe was pressurized - just turn the tap on. > There was zero chance that the pipelines would go in use in the next decade, given the political situation.…

> That is really doubtful, especially at this point when they've been full of seawater for so long.

They have coating inside. This prevents corrosion for some time. Earlier this year there were reports of a cost estimate of $500 million and a time duration of one year for a repair.

One of the pipelines hasn't been damaged, but maybe needs some equipment replaced -> pumps.

> NS1 was operational for years

"Was". It wasn't delivering natural gas when the explosion happened. Russia had stopped the gas transport already. Various reasons were given - technical problems and the sanctions against Russia.

There was never any natural gas delivered via NS2. NS1 was stopped end of August 2022.

If Russia ever wants to sell natural gas (again) via these pipelines , then it should stop their brutal war on the Ukraine NOW.

> I don't think that's fair.

It is. There is zero chance that Germany will take any gas delivered via these pipelines without a full political change in Russia.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#413

Post by dang »

mannerheim wrote: post #403
dang wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could start by editing out swipes, as the site guidelines request. By what logic did you think it was ok to post nastiness like "He's clearly cuckoo for cocoa puffs" and, worse, "time to send him to the nursing home"? That's an outright slur. Please don't do such things on HN. As tptacek correctly pointed out, it also discredits your argument, so it would also be in your interest to edit out. Either way, though,…

Well, I can't really edit that anymore as it's been too long. And I simply used a bit of colourful language to describe relevant points to a discussion of Mr Hersh's trustworthiness: he is senile and old. Now, if you think 'The man is 85, he gets basic facts wrong in his articles, he takes a single anonymous source's word as gospel, and either won't do fact checking or fails to do so competently. He is senile and old…

No, you can't attack someone by putting them down as "senile and old" here. Doing it because you disagree with someone is particularly distasteful.

Please don't do the putdown/name-calling/slur thing on HN at all. You can make your substantive points without any of that.

(Edit: I see pvg already made this point, and I don't mean to pile on, but maybe it's important for a moderator to make this clear.)

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#414

Post by alienicecream »

tptacek wrote: post #361
alienicecream wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is not cherry picking to apply relevant heuristics. I'm an average news consumer and I had never heard of your example. I doubt many people have, and probably even fewer care. It's just not as noteworthy as what happened here and that in itself is a factor in analyzing the response to it.

The fact that you hadn't heard of his example is a reason _not_ to trust your own first-principles logic, not a reason to rely on it. I'm still stuck on the idea that we're having this discussion at all, though. It's really hard for people to get past the idea that Hersh can be an absolute kook and whatever their prior beliefs about the Nord Stream incidents can still be valid. It goes in both directions. There's a c…

Yes, I said it was a valid point but you're overestimating it's value. The magnitude of the event matters too in judging it's response, and the Czech story is nothing by comparison.

It's getting kind of tiring seeing you all over every thread in here smearing Hersh as a discredited wacko. I personally don't buy it, much less from someone who seems so invested in spreading it. I don't know what your motivation is, but please refrain from doing that in this comment chain, it's just irrelevant, thanks.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#415

Post by mannerheim »

dang wrote: post #413
mannerheim wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I can't really edit that anymore as it's been too long. And I simply used a bit of colourful language to describe relevant points to a discussion of Mr Hersh's trustworthiness: he is senile and old. Now, if you think 'The man is 85, he gets basic facts wrong in his articles, he takes a single anonymous source's word as gospel, and either won't do fact checking or fails to do so competently. He is senile and old…

No, you can't attack someone by putting them down as "senile and old" here. Doing it because you disagree with someone is particularly distasteful. Please don't do the putdown/name-calling/slur thing on HN at all. You can make your substantive points without any of that. (Edit: I see pvg already made this point, and I don't mean to pile on, but maybe it's important for a moderator to make this clear.)

I didn't do it because I disagreed, I did it because the 'trustworthiness' of Mr Hersh is the very thing in question, and a discussion about a story based entirely off of his word and credibility alone had no other way of ending up. Again, I would love to argue on the merits of the evidence Mr Hersh has presented - but too bad he hasn't given any! Where else could this discussion end up other than whether or not Mr Hersh is credible?

It is not an ad hominem when the entire basis of an argument is 'so-and-so says so'. Well, I think so-and-so is full of shit; why isn't that a valid point of inquiry?

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#416

Post by mannerheim »

pvg wrote: post #405
mannerheim wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I can't really edit that anymore as it's been too long. And I simply used a bit of colourful language to describe relevant points to a discussion of Mr Hersh's trustworthiness: he is senile and old. Now, if you think 'The man is 85, he gets basic facts wrong in his articles, he takes a single anonymous source's word as gospel, and either won't do fact checking or fails to do so competently. He is senile and old…

The whole point is that namecalling/internet diagnosis is not acceptable. You can't 'it's just colourful language' your way out of that.

As I've said elsewhere, the question of whether or not Mr Hersh possesses a sound mind is relevant to the matter as the discussion was already revolving around whether or not he's a trustworthy figure in journalism. And again, this story is based entirely around his credibility in the first place, so there's really no other place for this discussion to end up.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#417

Post by tptacek »

alienicecream wrote: post #414
tptacek wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you hadn't heard of his example is a reason _not_ to trust your own first-principles logic, not a reason to rely on it. I'm still stuck on the idea that we're having this discussion at all, though. It's really hard for people to get past the idea that Hersh can be an absolute kook and whatever their prior beliefs about the Nord Stream incidents can still be valid. It goes in both directions. There's a c…

Yes, I said it was a valid point but you're overestimating it's value. The magnitude of the event matters too in judging it's response, and the Czech story is nothing by comparison. It's getting kind of tiring seeing you all over every thread in here smearing Hersh as a discredited wacko. I personally don't buy it, much less from someone who seems so invested in spreading it. I don't know what your motivation is, but…

* He reported that the Vatican influences USSOCOM.

* He reported that the US faked the Syrian Sarin attack.

* He reported that Jewish money was behind an effort to start WW3 in Iran.

* He reported that Pakistan staged the bin Laden raid.

* And now he's reported an elaborate conspiracy between the US and (checks notes) Norway to blow up a pipeline, none of the details of which hold up or even make sense.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#418

Post by pvg »

mannerheim wrote: post #416
pvg wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point is that namecalling/internet diagnosis is not acceptable. You can't 'it's just colourful language' your way out of that.

As I've said elsewhere, the question of whether or not Mr Hersh possesses a sound mind is relevant to the matter as the discussion was already revolving around whether or not he's a trustworthy figure in journalism. And again, this story is based entirely around his credibility in the first place, so there's really no other place for this discussion to end up.

the question of whether or not Mr Hersh possesses a sound mind is relevant

It's not. It's just a rationalization for the name calling. No attempt to elevate it into some reasoned point about the article is going to make it not-name calling.

there's really no other place for this discussion to end up.

Whatever the place is, it's just not here because you just can't go 'story I don't believe' -> 'mentally deficient person'. It's a completely straightforward thing to not do.

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#419

Post by mannerheim »

pvg wrote: post #418
mannerheim wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I've said elsewhere, the question of whether or not Mr Hersh possesses a sound mind is relevant to the matter as the discussion was already revolving around whether or not he's a trustworthy figure in journalism. And again, this story is based entirely around his credibility in the first place, so there's really no other place for this discussion to end up.

the question of whether or not Mr Hersh possesses a sound mind is relevant It's not. It's just a rationalization for the name calling. No attempt to elevate it into some reasoned point about the article is going to make it not-name calling. there's really no other place for this discussion to end up. Whatever the place is, it's just not here because you just can't go 'story I don't believe' -> 'mentally deficient per…

I haven't said it's not name calling, but only that it is not an ad hominem, as the very thing in question is Mr Hersh's credibility.

Is it wrong to suggest someone who has made a number of outlandish claims in recent years and is quite elderly is suffering from a degraded mental state, as we all know is wont to happen to the elderly?

If, say, Linus Pauling published in the 90s something along the lines of 'I've discovered the secret to immortality, and no, I won't provide any verifiable evidence for it, you just have to trust me' after decades of passing off Vitamin C as a cure for cancer, and everybody was saying 'well Linus Pauling is one of the greatest biochemists of our time, he's won the Nobel Prize', is it out of bounds to say, well, maybe at one point, but the man is 90 now and clearly lost his marbles some years ago?

Re: Blowing holes in Seymour Hersh’s pipe dream

#420

Post by pvg »

mannerheim wrote: post #419
pvg wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the question of whether or not Mr Hersh possesses a sound mind is relevant It's not. It's just a rationalization for the name calling. No attempt to elevate it into some reasoned point about the article is going to make it not-name calling. there's really no other place for this discussion to end up. Whatever the place is, it's just not here because you just can't go 'story I don't believe' -> 'mentally deficient per…

I haven't said it's not name calling, but only that it is not an ad hominem, as the very thing in question is Mr Hersh's credibility. Is it wrong to suggest someone who has made a number of outlandish claims in recent years and is quite elderly is suffering from a degraded mental state, as we all know is wont to happen to the elderly? If, say, Linus Pauling published in the 90s something along the lines of 'I've disc…

Is it wrong to suggest someone who has made a number of outlandish claims in recent years and is quite elderly is suffering from a degraded mental state, as we all know is wont to happen to the elderly?

That's not actually the thing you are getting all this flak for - we don't have to decide or agree if it's 'wrong' on some broad scale or whether or not it constitutes a logical fallacy. It's corrosive to the notion of a (however imperfect and irritating) internet forum that aims for interestingness and curious conversation. Which is why it's in the written guidelines, the reams of mod comments, the mod-scolding you got earlier. Globally wrong or not, you can't do it on HN because it would kill HN.

Post reply on HN