←back to thread

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

(seymourhersh.substack.com)
688 points hunglee2 | 3 comments | 08 Feb 23 12:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
dang ◴[08 Feb 23 18:31 UTC] No.34712496[source]▶
All: Whether he is right or not or one likes him or not, Hersh reporting on this counts as significant new information (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...), so I've turned off the flags on this submission.

If you're going to comment in this thread, please make sure you're up on the site guidlelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." We don't want political or nationalistic flamewar here, and any substantive point can be made without it.

replies(21): >>34712914 #>>34712943 #>>34712970 #>>34713108 #>>34713117 #>>34713129 #>>34713157 #>>34713159 #>>34713244 #>>34713412 #>>34713419 #>>34713491 #>>34713823 #>>34713938 #>>34714182 #>>34714703 #>>34714882 #>>34715435 #>>34715469 #>>34716015 #>>34724637 #
davesque ◴[08 Feb 23 19:08 UTC] No.34713108[source]▶
I'm honestly really shocked by your stance on this. Regardless of whether or not this information is credible, this seems like text book flame war kindling. In the past, I've thought HN's policy of "you can discuss things like this in other forums" was wise and I've been corrected by it myself many times. Why wouldn't that apply in this case?
replies(2): >>34713177 #>>34713479 #
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF ◴[08 Feb 23 19:12 UTC] No.34713177[source]▶
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.

replies(4): >>34713267 #>>34713599 #>>34713692 #>>34717189 #
1. JumpCrisscross ◴[08 Feb 23 19:39 UTC] No.34713692[source]▶
> it hasn't been reported on before

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

replies(2): >>34715207 #>>34720301 #
2. TechBro8615 ◴[08 Feb 23 21:09 UTC] No.34715207[source]▶
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.

3. nullc ◴[09 Feb 23 06:06 UTC] No.34720301[source]▶
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!