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

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901

Post by thwayunion »

SeanLuke wrote: post #757
thwayunion wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I'd bet my last dollar that at least four nations had "blow up Nord Stream to force continued conflict" contingency plans. Who did it? Germany, Russia, USA, Ukraine, or a curve ball from the one of the Nordic or Baltic states? We'll probably never know, and none of…

Just how many submarines does Ukraine have right now?

You don't need a submarine to blow up a pipeline at 300ft below the surface lol. A master driver or cheap underwater drone, and access to some explosives, will do.

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

#902

Post by uoaei »

dragonwriter wrote: post #779
uoaei wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put a name to this organization, it is called the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) . It is widely understood to be a propaganda arm of the US, developing media presences in countries where the US wishes to increase its power by manipulating narratives around contentious political topics. "Radio Free Europe/Asia/etc." is a common offering of theirs, typically skeptical or outright critical of regimes the US w…

> To put a name to this organization, it is called the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). No, NED is a completely unrelated organization. The 501c3 that runs Radio Free Europe is RFE/RL, Inc. (the name conbining the abbreviations for Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.) > Radio Free Europe/Asia/etc." is a common offering of theirs No, Radio Free Asia is a separate 501c3, which is, like RFE/RL, funded by the Bro…

Turns out the Board at the USAGM is disbanded. It is now controlled by a Senate-confirmed (presumably president-appointed) CEO. Now they are even less accountable than before!

> NED is a completely unrelated organization

Interesting, then what are they involved in, and why the common refrain that they control Radio Free X?

You're right that I misattributed, but it is still fact that both organizations (NED and USAGM) fund propaganda-style campaigns in foreign nations with the goal of changing public opinion toward pro-Western viewpoints.

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

#903

Post by bandyaboot »

vintermann wrote: post #844
bandyaboot wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 destruc…

This reminds me of the old defense of OJ Simpson, that in fact only very few of men who domestically abuse their wives go on to murder them. And yeah, that is true. But when the wife was in fact murdered, then the odds that the known abusive husband did it are very high. Maybe it was a reasonable interpretation that he didn't mean blowing up the pipeline, before the pipeline was blown up.

> men who domestically abuse their wives

> known abusive husband

Not sure what you’re referring to here. If you’re analogizing what Biden said with domestic abuse, that’s just ridiculous. It’s more akin to telling the wife they’re going to need to divorce if she doesn’t stop threatening the children. If you’re saying the US in general has a history of doing things that could be compared to domestic abuse, sure, but so could all parties involved, particularly Russia. So we’re back at square one.

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

#904

Post by subsistence234 »

partiallypro wrote: post #645
LarryMullins wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Project Azorian was a crazy conspiracy theory, and also true. You discredit yourself by using "conspiracy theory" in the "obviously false" sense. Intelligence agencies really do conspire to do things. That's their job.

a) that was never considered "crazy" b) recovering a submarine is not the same as saying, actually Assad is an innocent bystander and the rebels gassed themselves, The CIA worked with Putin and Assad to undermine Obama...also US soldiers raped children and video recorded it, oh and let's not forget that the US planned to fake how OBL was killed in coordinate with Pakistan because stealth helicopters aren't possible (…

Almost every serious recent scandal that goes against dominant hegemonic interests was "a crazy conspiracy theory" until the day when the evidence for it became overwhelming, then it switched instantly into a "nothingburger", "everyone always knew it was true," old news. The most important thing, both before the switch and after, seems to be to prevent people from talking about it.

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

#905

Post by naasking »

letrowekwel wrote: post #347
rsync wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You could probably write a similar one with Russia ..." I disagree - there is no credible motive here for Russia and, in fact, the outcome was directly opposed to every outcome they are, or were trying, to achieve. Not only do I, as a US citizen, believe that the US perpetrated this act but further: I believe it is an overtly hostile action against EU citizens and, particularly, Germans, who will suffer the most eco…

As an EU citizen living next to Russia I can assure you, I'm DELIGHTED that people can no longer buy gas from a mass murderer like Putin. Anyone who buys gas from Russia is essentially supporting genocide of Ukrainian civilians, if suffering is what we're talking about. Besides, things are going on pretty okay. Electricity prices are stabilizing and Europe will eventually become greener as well. No matter who did it,…

> Anyone who buys gas from Russia is essentially supporting genocide of Ukrainian civilians, if suffering is what we're talking about.

Recent reports suggest the US and certain European nations sabotaged peace talks between Ukraine and Russia. Are those nations supporting the genocide of Ukrainian civilians?

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

#906

Post by naasking »

peterfirefly wrote: post #667
rsync wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You could probably write a similar one with Russia ..." I disagree - there is no credible motive here for Russia and, in fact, the outcome was directly opposed to every outcome they are, or were trying, to achieve. Not only do I, as a US citizen, believe that the US perpetrated this act but further: I believe it is an overtly hostile action against EU citizens and, particularly, Germans, who will suffer the most eco…

Notice how the Nord Stream explosions were timed with the opening of the Baltic Pipe connection, which makes it possible to send Norwegian (and Danish) gas from the North Sea to Poland (and possibly further to Lithuania). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Pipe Putin was still trying to energy blackmail Europe back then. It is hard to see the explosions as anything else but a threat that the Baltic Pipe could also…

Sorry, but why wouldn't he just blow up the Baltic Pipe then? What use is the threat itself when you admit losing the Nord Stream did cost them something? Seems like a stretch.

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

#907

Post by vintermann »

bandyaboot wrote: post #903
vintermann wrote: post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of the old defense of OJ Simpson, that in fact only very few of men who domestically abuse their wives go on to murder them. And yeah, that is true. But when the wife was in fact murdered, then the odds that the known abusive husband did it are very high. Maybe it was a reasonable interpretation that he didn't mean blowing up the pipeline, before the pipeline was blown up.

> men who domestically abuse their wives > known abusive husband Not sure what you’re referring to here. If you’re analogizing what Biden said with domestic abuse, that’s just ridiculous. It’s more akin to telling the wife they’re going to need to divorce if she doesn’t stop threatening the children. If you’re saying the US in general has a history of doing things that could be compared to domestic abuse, sure, but s…

I knew you would take offense at the comparison.

But it's not a comparison, it's just an example of the same statistical dishonesty.

When the pipeline was in fact blown up, of course we're going to look at vaguely worded threats in another light.

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

#908

Post by iconjack »

trogdor wrote: post #866
Lazare wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seymour Hersh has had a long and storied career, and he has made some very bold claims that later turned out to be correct. He's also, especially recently, made some very bold claims that so far have not turned out to be correct, whether because the truth just hasn't been revealed yet, or because Hersh was wrong or misled by his sources. It's also worth noting that Hersh - as with any journalist - is only as good as…

>If people choose to give him lies and misinformation, he may end up publishing conspiracy theories instead. I am an investigative reporter who covers crime, and my sources often insist on anonymity. There are ways to mitigate the possibility of being lied to. All of my sources know that we have a deal: I promise to do everything that I reasonably can to keep their identity secret, and they promise me the truth. If a…

What are some of your stories?

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

#910

Post by mannerheim »

kubectl_h wrote: post #830
reducesuffering wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually means a lot. Hersh is basing the entire story off one anonymous source. For such a serious implication, he’s unable to even do due diligence on basic verifiable facts. That buries the lede on how much verification he competently did for his source.

It doesn't really. It's the kind of thing that could slip by fact checkers at plenty of publications and result in a fairly innocuous correction.

A single mistake, maybe. An entire paragraph where every single sentence consists of a separate claim that is either outright wrong or unsupported by any evidence? Well, maybe it is par for the course for modern journalism after all.
Post reply on HN