“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

One thing that makes this distinct from much of said kindling is that it hasn't been reported on before. This isn't someone coming into an unrelated comment thread and commenting "9/11 was an inside job!"

I would encourage any who disagree to consider truly why this reporting upsets them.

I get really upset when claims are made without evidence to support them. It might be a moral failing of mine, but for some reason I really loathe when assertions are made without evidence.

One thing to keep in mind is that counter assertions have been made without evidence.

> Asked for comment, Adrienne Watson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email, “This is false and complete fiction.” Tammy Thorp, a spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, similarly wrote: “This claim is completely and utterly false.”

"This is ... complete fiction." is a claim that the story was fabricated. I think it's worth examining who would be doing that fabrication and what they would have to gain, especially considering who is making the counter-claim and what they would have to gain from that.

>One thing to keep in mind is that counter assertions have been made without evidence.

Are you familiar with Christopher Hitchens? That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Until the author provides evidence of their claims, there's nothing required to dismiss them.

Maybe it's because I see a distinction between "dismiss" and "deny". Where someone might dismiss ("There is no evidence to back up these claims") there are instead denials ("They made this up"). Anyway, I don't mean to change your mind, just to provide a different perspective.

> I think it's worth examining who would be doing that fabrication and what they would have to gain

Sure. Russia and geopolitical destabilization

> who is making the counter-claim and what they would have to gain from that

This part doesn't make sense to me - the accused party naturally is the one making the "counter-claim", and naturally they will make "counter assertions" without evidence - how do you disprove an unfalsifiable claim?

I overall don't think your comments really align. "The US has done bad things in the past" doesn't mean "all accusations of bad things pointed at the US should be treated with credibility and have to be disproved with an ironclad case by the US to not garner further suspicion"

I'm sure there are countless examples of "breaking" stories that were appropriately shot down by the flagging system. What I don't understand is why that flagging system should be short circuited in this case. HN users often flag stories like this because political discussions almost always devolve into useless flame wars. Again, I don't see why a conversation about this story would be any different. And I'm especially surprised to see this take by @dang, who seems to be forgetting his years of forum moderating experience in this case.

HN is not in a position to determine the success of breaking news and this story fits the mold of things that are usually flagged. Let other credible media sources start picking up on the story if it turns out to amount to anything. Before then, let this one die just as the others like it do on HN.

I assert that you are a Russian agent personally appointed by Vladimir Putin, paid $250,000 through a bank in the Cayman Islands, tasked with sowing discord in the US by posting fictitious stories on Hacker News.

Care to comment?

> it hasn't been reported on before

Wasn't the U.S. being behind the bombing a leading alternative hypothesis when the news broke?

You are obviously wrong, because I have a source saying it was bitcoin and to cover it up the agent conspiered with other exchanges to take down FTX.

I think there's a trivial semantic difference between the two terms. The assertion that someone made up a story is the logical conclusion to the assertion that there is no evidence to back up their claims.

I don't see the difference as so trivial. Using my previous statements, "There is no evidence to back up these claims" is an observation which allows for the listener to draw their own conclusion and "They made this up" is a conclusion that's being asserted.

> The assertion that someone made up a story is the logical conclusion to the assertion that there is no evidence to back up their claims.

It is a logical conclusion. One might still arrive at a different logical conclusion.

I'm not even sure it's an "alternative" hypothesis - it's sort of the obvious conclusion, in terms of means, motive and opportunity, that the US sabotaged the pipeline. I bet a poll of US citizens would show a clear majority believe the US to be the culprit, but a minority have a problem with it. And so you get this situation where everyone kind of accepts the truth but different people have varying levels of enthusiasm for publicly arguing about it.

Even extending to the international community (which is generally a reflection of American politics, much to the chagrin of Europeans who are unwilling to admit it), there is mixed levels of enthusiasm for getting to the truth. The countries are all anti-Russia, and so the pipeline sabotage is generally seen as a "good thing" except by the countries with direct profit motive for it. However, those countries aren't about to publicly accuse US intelligence of carrying out the operation, because their relationship with US intelligence is too important to lose, especially given all the weapons and intelligence they provide.

Amusing you should say that given that the author is literally a 9/11 truther (truther light maybe, but still)[0]. Hersh has clearly become a gullible mark the past decade or so who lets otherwise justified skepticism of US policy curdle into useful idiocy.

[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/seymour-hersh-...

I was extremely mystified by a BBC world report on it a day after making no mention of the US but instead theorizing about russian sabotage.

It just seemed inexplicable to me at the time because of Biden's prior remarks. In that light I can't see how anyone wouldn't immediately assume the US didn't do it-- the US hadn't even denied it at the time!

> That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Until the author provides evidence of their claims, there's nothing required to dismiss them.

Maybe you're not familiar with the practice of journalism where anonymous sources are routine, and have successfully uncovered a great deal of misconduct by governments. Reserve skepticism of course, but dismissal of a routine practice with a proven track record is not justified.

I see. For instance, it might not have been them who made it up, it could have been someone else.

However, given all of the information known at the time, there's little evidence to suggest that anyone aside from them was responsible for the assertions without evidence, which again leads to the same logical conclusion.

This seems to be an Appeal to Ethos. I don't think that would be justified. Additionally, making unsupported claims is just that. Anyone could anonymously claim anything, but we don't give the same credence to every claim. There's many different ways to support a claim, telling who exactly told you isn't the only path towards supporting a claim.

> Additionally, making unsupported claims is just that. Anyone could anonymously claim anything, but we don't give the same credence to every claim

Right, and these claims are being made by an award winning journalist with a proven track record who has a source. That deserves more credence than just "anyone" making any claim. Not enough to accept it as truth, but far more than claims that can be outright dismissed as you initially claimed.