“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

It's not unsourced, the source is being kept private. That may not seem like a meaningful difference but there is a difference. And that difference is the reason Seymour Hersh's reputation is relevant.

Does it actually say that anywhere?

I read the first half of the article, and skimmed the second. It doesn't claim to be sourced from anywhere, and the only paragraph that discusses sources and fact checking is when they point out the White House says the entire article is a work of fiction. It doesn't present any evidence that it happened (other than that the US has a big swimming pool that the navy trains in), and summarizes itself by saying that it was a perfect plan (presumably meaning it left behind no evidence), except that they actually did it.

What am I missing?

It claims that the info came from someone "with direct knowledge of the operational planning"

And it includes direct quotes from that person in the last paragraphs. It was clearly someone Hersh spoke to directly.

While I am extraordinarily distrustful of news reports using anonymous sources you do have to consider the author here. Ultimately we are deciding if we trust him and, for me personally, he lends a lot of credibility.

The other side of this is, duh, of course America blew up the pipeline. I said at the time that we were the most likely culprit.

There's a very small subset of groups who have the capability to do this and even fewer who have the motivation. It forces Germany/EU to stop buying NG from Russia and start buying LNG from the US (among others) with exceptionally minimal political risk to the US.

The US will just continue to deny that we did it, this article will get no traction in mainstream media. If incontrovertible proof ever did surface the media will just bury the story and if anyone involved is forced to comment they will just spin it as a good and necessary and just thing that they did to help Ukraine with a dose of natural gas bad because of climate change and all will be forgiven.

Most News outlets prefer to have more than one source of info. For the life of me I cannot see how this would be a net plus benefit to the US. The potential to destabilize our allies seems likely. If they find out it is true - some of them would be at minimum very pissed.

> Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.

The third paragraph in the article.

Well yeah, I think Seymour Hersh's reputation is relevant. He's pretty much a conspiracy theorist in this era.[1] Including his claim that the US never killed Osama bin Laden.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Criticism_and_co...

> Seymour Hersh's reputation

Is this satire or what? His reputation is "as a nutcase" nowadays.

Most reputable editors, when given a secret-sources story, either reject it outright, or say "OK, tell me their names and let me talk to them."

If you're Hersh, maybe you get away with saying, "trust me."

> his claim that the US never killed Osama bin Laden

You give a link but it is nowhere in that link. I watched an interview where Hersh talked about how the US killed bin Laden. Hersh has always said this.

Hersh did do reporting that countered parts of the US government story about bin Laden. Namely the idea no high Pakistani army/intelligence/government official knew where bin Laden was in Pakistan. As well as some other things.

The conspiracy theory is believing bin Laden sat in a big compound in Abbottabad with no one important in the Pakistani government knowing this. I guess the US government feels it needs to state this for some diplomatic reason, but it is ludicrous.

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 the whole article. That just... yikes. Maybe it's a typo. Maybe it's something an editor could have cleaned up. But maybe it's also the sort of thing Hersh's editors simply threw out as unpublishable, which is why it's an uneditted substack blog.

Seymour Hersh regarding the Osama bin Laden raid, in which the terrorist leader was killed in 2011: "Nothing's been done about that story, it's one big lie, not one word of it is true".

Later on in 2013, he changed his claim, such that he admitted some of the story is true, that is, that the terrorist leader was killed, after he encountered pushback.

Source: https://dailycaller.com/2013/09/27/hersh-slams-us-media-clai...

That quote doesn't say that the US didn't kill Bin Laden. You're implying that by adding an unnecessary parenthetical "in which the terrorist leader was killed in 2011."

There's nothing simpler and better for your case than typing the quote where he said the thing you say he said. Otherwise, you're actively spreading misinformation on social media, and intentionally using rhetorical games to obscure the lack of evidence you're offering to support it. That's conscious spreading of misinformation.

In an interview with the Guardian he said, as you quote "Nothing's been done about that story, it's one big lie, not one word of it is true".

You take this statement he made and translate it to "his claim that the US never killed Osama bin Laden". The original quote you print is much clearer. I certainly don't translate his quote to what you translated it to.

Speaking of changed claims, both the White House and New York Times walked back claims they made in 2011 about bin Laden. So Hersh's claim of "a lie" and "not true", if you want to call it that, is true by their own admissions.

Incidentally the disputed issues are did anyone high up in the Pakistani government know bin Laden was there, how did the US learn he was there (connected to the first point), was the firefight killing bin Laden a kind of John Wayne/Audie Murphy production or was it more pedestrian etc.

If it's not pedantic that Hersh telling the interviewer "not one word of it is true" was hyperbole, when at least one word of the White House story was true, then you have a point on that statement. But it still does not automatically translate as you said. The original statement is more clearly what he said.

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying here. You're saying that I'm spreading misinformation when I stated that: Seymour Hersh, with respect to an article about the Osama bin Laden raid, said that not a single word in it was true. He then later went on to admit that indeed, some of those words were true, that Osama bin Laden was indeed killed.

Would you be willing to explain how a strictly historical truth, that is, a direct quote from the individual in question, is misinformation?

now you mention it, it is odd they never produced a body.

You took a completely literal reading of a one sentence quote from an interview as his full opinion on the matter, and ignored that he immediately said that one sentence was not an accurate representation of his entire view. The Guardian even corrected the initial interview adding his further clarification. That seems like misinformation to me.

I don't have a problem with people who change their claims, and willingly admit that their claims have changed. This is what I'd expect from decent humans and respectable journalists.

I do have a problem with people who change their claims and then deny that they changed their claims, like Seymour Hersh did, with respect to Osama bin Laden and stating that not a single word from the White House was true. That's disingenuous and it makes his credibility questionable, especially if he's going to rely on anonymous sources for his claims.

To address your claim that perhaps he was being hyperbolic in his statement: fine, but at least admit to that. He hasn't. He denied that he said it in the first place, which is a lie.

The Guardian did not issue a correction about Hersh's words. There was nothing to correct about them: the quote from Hersh is accurate. The Guardian issued a footnote/amendment (in their words), and here it is from the Guardian that you're referring to, as context:

> This article was amended on 1 October 2013. The original text stated that Hersh sold a story about the My Lai massacre to the New York Times for $5,000 when in fact it was the Times of London. Hersh has pointed out that he was in no way suggesting that Osama bin Laden was not killed in Pakistan, as reported, upon the president's authority: he was saying that it was in the aftermath that the lying began. Finally, the interview took place in the month of July, 2013.

Note that from this footnote that Seymour Hersh does not admit that he misspoke. He claims that he never suggested that Osama bin Laden was not killed. This is plainly a straight lie, given his claim that the White House's statement did not contain one word that was true.

If he wants to state that he misspoke in this interview: fine, then he should do it. But to state that he didn't make this claim is itself misinformation.

Edit: You're accusing me of bad faith. Can you please explain how my argument is deceptive or a lie? If anything, Seymour Hersh has acted in bad faith in this ordeal, lying about his own statements. And people should be suspect of him for that.

Saying an amendment isn't a correction seems silly.

When your entire argument is "this one sentence when taken literally with no context can be considered crazy," I don't think you're arguing in good faith.

When it happened it was clear that the US, Russia, and Poland were likely the only suspects, except they're all really weird! The US absolutely has not made return on investment, which was obviously going to happen because shipping it over is much more expensive than the pipeline, and in the meantime Biden has to deal with increased gas prices. His incentives go the other way on this. But why the fuck would Russia do it? Poland is like...there, which is why they're worth a mention, but they don't have the same operational capacity and also do not benefit from it at all. But I mean come on, we know it was sabotaged deliberately. Such a weird thing

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 spill the beans and write a book/movie script.

> 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.

Ukraine? I am not sure if they have the means, but they have the motive, the nord stream pipelines bypass the Ukraine pipeline.

My knowledge on this is very, very sketchy, but my understanding is the there is still a large amount of Russian gas transiting the Ukraine pipelines, Europe needs the gas so they buy it, Ukraine needs the transit money to defend against Russia so they keep the operation running. and Russia needs the gas money to attack Ukraine so they keep the operation running.

Honestly if true it is one of the weirdest situations I have ever heard about in the middle of a war.

I deliberately used an RT link because it is probably full of Russian propaganda and yet says basically the same thing as other articles. I originally learned about it via the Perun youtube channel(the best place to start if you want actual information not propaganda) but am unable to find the episode where it is mentioned.

https://www.rt.com/business/570805-russia-ukraine-eu-gas-tra...

> But why the fuck would Russia do it?

Why do so many people act as if it's so unlikely that Russia did it? They had the least to lose, their relations with the west were already ruined at that point and such an incident couldn't make them any worse.

What would be their motive? Before the explosion, Russia had illegally shut down the pipeline. Now that the pipeline has exploded, they have plausible deniability and they can say it's not their fault the gas isn't flowing. Because of that, they won't have to pay additional fines when the economic relations with the west are restored.

And don't forget that one pipe of NS2 was left intact and, unlike NS1, there was no contractual obligation to pump gas through it.

That’s why he’s useful. Enough people associate his name with his wins and either don’t know he’s lost his mind or think it’s just the usual hit pieces.

But either he’s being fed this by someone with an agenda or he shares that agenda.

Conspiracy thinking ironically always includes blind credulity, just of other things.

>. Can you please explain how my argument is deceptive or a lie?

You condensed an entire book/section of a book that Hersh wrote into one sentence and then attacked it as if it were the argument he presented. It's not. It's something he said offhand in an interview about the book, and which he immediately clarified was not meant in the way people were taking it.

You're taking the worst possible interpretation of what he said and arguing he clearly meant that. Hence, not arguing in good faith.

Someone was killed, but he may not have been ObL. This seems far-fetched, until one realizes that the entire war against Afghanistan was justified on the idea of capturing ObL, who is documented to have left Afghanistan less than a month into the war, which lasted another twenty years. Nothing makes sense, about any of this.

This is a frustratingly common technique that I've seen from those who have strong political affiliations.

It's much easier to make a strong claim, and to repeat it, than it is to read through articles and debunk those claims. Frequently, as soon as you've done it, there are several more of these strong claims made, and the discussion becomes impossible.

I think it's rooted in the desire to "win".

I know I get a little excited when I see a comment I've made get upvoted.

I think about it when I'm writing and I've found it affects what I write and my phrasing.

I think this is an unintended consequence of self-moderated discussions - it seems to devolve into a zero-sum game.

The person you're talking to is arguing in bad faith.

That's not the definition of a bad faith argument. Here's a definition of bad faith according to Wikipedia: "Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is a sustained form of deception which consists of entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings while acting as if influenced by another. ... Some examples of bad faith include: ... a prosecutor who argues a legal position that he knows to be false" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith

I have not engaged in deception in the statements I've made in this thread a single time. However, it is important to point out that Seymour Hersh has indeed engaged in bad faith in his statements about Osama bin Laden, by refusing to acknowledge that he either originally misspoke, or he changed his claim about the White House's statement. In either case, he is being deceptive in his statements as I've demonstrated above, exactly what it means to argue in bad faith.

And now you're making your rebuttal hinge on the exact definition of a term I never used.

You aren't arguing in good faith. You aren't trying to be fair, open, and honest. Like your repeated claim that Hersh saying he in no way was suggesting that bin Laden was not killed in Pakistan is him refusing to acknowledge he misspoke. Or your constant ignoring of anything Hersh has said on the matter besides the one sentence you object to. Neither of those things are fair, or honest about his argument.

How do you prove that which the powerful government keeps secret?

>They had the least to lose, their relations with the west were already ruined at that point and such an incident couldn't make them any worse.

>Now that the pipeline has exploded, they have plausible deniability and they can say it's not their fault the gas isn't flowing.

How the hell thinking they have nothing to lose and also worried about a contract at the same time sound or consistent?

Okay, so if I'm understanding you right, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are claiming that your definition of "bad faith" differs from Wikipedia's definition. Is that correct? Would you be willing to offer a definition of what you mean by "not in good faith"?

I said you aren't arguing in good faith, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith

Maybe you aren't being intentionally deceptive, I can't say. But as I pointed out you are not being fair and honest about Hersh's argument, which is more nuanced than the one sentence.

This is a misrepresentation of my argument. I'm not addressing Hersh's other argument about the other specifics of the Osama bin Laden raid, and therefore fairness or dishonesty to that part of his argument is not relevant. I'm addressing his quote, the quote in which he claimed that all words in the White House report/statement were lies. He denied that he made this claim; he didn't say he misspoke or that he's amending his original statement. To say that I'm being unfair or dishonest about Hersh's argument by misrepresenting my argument is itself unfair and/or dishonest.

As for the reason why Hersh did this, I cannot say, a person's intention is a black box. But this kind of behavior amounts to some amount of dishonesty. It's not much more complicated than that.

> Hersh has pointed out that he was in no way suggesting that Osama bin Laden was not killed in Pakistan, as reported, upon the president's authority: he was saying that it was in the aftermath that the lying began

Is saying he misspoke. His words were interpreted in a way he did not intend them to be.

Addressing only the quote itself is unfair, as again that does not represent his actual argument.

I'm done with this.

> The US absolutely has not made return on investment, ...

Umm, the US has made a terrific return on investment. EU supplies have shifted dramatically away from Russia to Norway and the United States following the end of Nordstream.

As I wrote in my comment, the contractual obligations will matter in the future, when (if) the economic relations are normalized. Settlement of the outstanding financial disputes will be a prerequisite for that.