←back to thread

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

(seymourhersh.substack.com)
688 points hunglee2 | 5 comments | 08 Feb 23 12:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.942s | source
Show context
syzarian ◴[08 Feb 23 13:07 UTC] 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 #
mc32 ◴[08 Feb 23 18:57 UTC] No.34712925[source]▶
If this turns out to be right --and we don't have conclusive evidence, but this would upset the current narrative. Why would Russia be an idiot to shoot itself in the foot (cui bono) and blow up their leverage; though in international affairs the unimaginable is possible, so yeah they may have done it to themselves -though to outsiders it would seem illogical

If true though, it would be as big as the Gulf of Tonkin incident [as in it was us in pursuit of our own interest]

replies(2): >>34713106 #>>34713139 #
1. kibwen ◴[08 Feb 23 19:10 UTC] No.34713139[source]▶
The Gulf of Tonkin involved the US claiming that a US ship was fired upon as a pretense to declare war in retaliation. The idea here is that the US blew up a Russian pipeline in order to... what? Declare war on Russia in retaliation for Russia's own pipeline being destroyed? This makes no sense unless you're accusing Russia of blowing up the pipeline.
replies(2): >>34713352 #>>34713377 #
2. LarryMullins ◴[08 Feb 23 19:21 UTC] No.34713352[source]▶
For completeness, the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident was two alleged incidents. One of them probably happened and the other almost certainly didn't (admitted by Robert McNamara years later.) The first incident, the one that probably happened, was insufficient casus belli for LBJ and then conveniently for the war hawks the second incident, which never actually happened, sealed the deal two days later.

McNamara's tacit admission: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k

3. Tepix ◴[08 Feb 23 19:22 UTC] No.34713377[source]▶
Blowing up the pipeline is an act of war.
replies(1): >>34713504 #
4. kibwen ◴[08 Feb 23 19:29 UTC] No.34713504[source]▶
Please be precise. Who, exactly, are you alleging blew up the pipeline in order to declare war on whom? And then the elephant in the room: nobody declared war on anybody in the wake of this, so how is the possible justification for a war that did not happen being used as evidence that this event was designed to incite a war?
replies(1): >>34715632 #
5. Tepix ◴[08 Feb 23 21:39 UTC] No.34715632{3}[source]▶
From TFA:

The CIA argued that whatever was done, it would have to be covert. Everyone involved understood the stakes. “This is not kiddie stuff,” the source said. If the attack were traceable to the United States, “It’s an act of war.”