←back to thread

688 points hunglee2 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
syzarian ◴[] No.34707465[source]
Seymour doesn’t provide any proof or any evidence. It’s argument by assertion. What he writes is plausible but without any sources or other corroborating evidence. I think it more believable that Seymour has been paid to write this by a Russian aligned entity.

I don’t know the truth of the matter and Seymour could be right. We just can’t tell from the evidence provided.

replies(9): >>34707570 #>>34708763 #>>34709046 #>>34710161 #>>34712925 #>>34712963 #>>34715214 #>>34715699 #>>34757270 #
mcphage ◴[] No.34708763[source]
He has a lot of very specific details and quotes, but he doesn't say where any of them are from. Which ones are actual quotes, and which ones are creative writing?
replies(1): >>34708993 #
syzarian ◴[] No.34708993[source]
He has links in the article but those links don’t give any evidence of what he claims. For instance, he has a link to the Gang of Eight but this doesn’t provide any evidence to what he ways. He uses links in a clever way to make it seem like he’s acquired evidence. What the linked information shows is that his assertions are plausible.

It’s plausible that the U.S. used the military personnel he claims the U.S. used so that they could avoid Congressional oversight. But where is the evidence they actually used said personnel? He references a source but my source with direct knowledge of Seymour’s work says that Russia paid him to write this.

Given Seymour’s work on Russia’s involvement in Syria I’m skeptical of him having credibility on the topic of Nordstream.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-07-22/ty-article-opinio...

replies(1): >>34712465 #
1. Laaas ◴[] No.34712465[source]
I find the article confusing/low quality, what false claims has Seymour propagated?