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

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

seymourhersh.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#741

Post by newsclues »

hajile wrote: post #630
indymike wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is that weird? Assuming this is true, there would be rather many people with such knowledge. One of them may feel the need to talk. The level of detail about the operation is basically, some divers from the US Navy attached bombs to the pipeline during a military drill that were detonated with magical sonobouy signals according to some professor who said that might work. Another red flag: The vast majority of t…

A US amphibious warship USS Arlington[0] was sailing near the nordstream location. It left a Swedish island in the middle of the Baltic Sea 6 September 2022. Meanwhile, the US controversially transferred SEALS to Germany earlier in October 2022[1]. USNS William McLean left a German port 5 September 2022[3] (there are also port call records) and headed to meet the USS Arlington on 10 Sept 2022[2] to transfer cargo. US…

I think the P8 flight was also confirmed on flight trackers online.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#742

Post by elif »

mmastrac wrote: post #97

It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents as the key players and be just as convincing. The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story. What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears…

It's certainly a better story than the one told by Washington, of an unknown coincidental accident with unknown actors.

I would be surprised if anyone outside the US media sphere even gives that implausible happenstance a serious consideration.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#743

Post by bandyaboot »

slantedview wrote: post #612
drewda wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seymour Hersh has decades of credibility from reporting the My Lai Massacre to the abuses at Abu Graib. But he does often rely on sources who remain anonymous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Use_of_anonymous... I did find it interesting in that Wikipedia article to read that The New Yorker's editor insists on knowing the identify of all of the anonymous sources that Hersh has used when his reporting is p…

Biden stated last year: "If Russia invades [Ukraine] there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." [1] This was a clear threat, clear as day, that the US could destroy Nordstream. It should surprise nobody that the US was involved. Since Nordstream was destroyed amidst public pressure from US energy companies who wanted to takeover the European energy market, the US has become the world's lead…

> This was a clear threat, clear as day, that the US could destroy Nordstream [2]. It should surprise nobody that the US was involved.

Or you could take a breath and realize that Nordstream 2 was not yet complete. It was an ongoing, non-operational project. In that context, “bringing it to an end” could easily mean not completing it. In fact, that’s the far more reasonable interpretation—-the literal physical destruction interpretation is only made by someone who wants to believe that.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#744

Post by jkalpt »

judahmeek wrote: post #739
htrgh wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If there's a lot of facts that discredit a narrative, then people simply stating those facts are not a part of a "concentrated effort". Your contrarian logic is going to take you down a very sorrowful & dimly lit path in life.

[flagged]

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#745

Post by ablob »

bnralt wrote: post #368
karaterobot wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does strike me as odd that (by my reading) there's only a single, unnamed source for all these claims. Hersh's reputation as a journalist is significant and worth considering, but for me it makes it stranger that there's so little evidence in this piece which, as it notes, alleges an act of war.

> but for me it makes it stranger that there's so little evidence in this piece which, as it notes, alleges an act of war. It makes it less surprising to me. Back in 2006 I believed Hersh when he reported that the U.S. had troops inside Iran laying the groundwork for an imminent American attack. This was also based on anonymous sources. After the attack failed to materialize, I learned to take such reporting with a l…

When he reported on it before the alleged attack happened, it could always have been called of for one reason or another. I don't know how likely or possible such an effort would be, but at least on a small scale it checks out: If I wanted to poison someone, and someone credible enough to be believed in stated that I was going to do just that, who's to say that I can't just change my mind at that very moment? Without finding the poison it would be nigh impossible to prove.

This is something that will always be problematic when reporting on something that hasn't happened yet. As the future hasn't been written, there's always room for all actors to adapt and change their plans.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#746

Post by ajross »

newsclues wrote: post #738
ajross wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, that doesn't really even make sense. If you had direct knowledge only of the planning , then what's the source for the execution? I don't think anyone would be surprised that there was a plan for doing this. The US plans lots of stuff. Why did "planning" even appear in that sentence? Why not "a source with direct knowledge of the operation"? Again, there's a huge weasel word right there in the only sourcing for…

Someone plans to blow something up. And then it blows up. Makes a lot of sense to connect the dots given that it's a covert activity. Often planning is done by senior members, who get out of the military more frequently (especially recently) and the younger people who are operational stay quiet. The people who were on the operation, aren't going to talk right now, because they are still operating and aren't ready to…

> Makes a lot of sense to connect the dots given that it's a covert activity.

"Makes a lot of sense" is hardly the standard for legitimate journalism though. Did it happen or not? How do you know? Does your source know that it happened or just that it was planned? Do you make that clear? Hersh really does not.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#748

Post by dralley »

This story requires one to believe that, on one hand, the mission was so secret that US Special Operations could not be used, because then the "Gang of Eight" in Congress would need to be notified, and according to Hersh that would have been a problem.

But on the other hand, Norway and other countries were invited to be intimately involved in the planning and execution.

This strikes me as rather unlikely.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#749

Post by jjoonathan »

htrgh wrote: post #720
marianatom wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The substack was created today, then Russian outlet Sputnik ran the story hours later. Then a hacker news account with pro CCP content submitted this substack. Why is this rubbish on top of hacker news?

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#750

Post by jjoonathan »

klrls wrote: post #731
bandyaboot wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen the White House refutation somewhere other than in the piece which is the subject of the questioning you’re responding to? If not, that’s a null point.

Yes, and it is trivial to find: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-house-says-blog-post-... Are people try to derail this story by flooding the submission with innocent questions?

No, but the green accounts are sure out in force to pump it.
Post reply on HN