←back to thread

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

(seymourhersh.substack.com)
688 points hunglee2 | 9 comments | 08 Feb 23 12:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
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 #
swader999 ◴[08 Feb 23 19:28 UTC] No.34713491[source]▶
Why even question Hersh on this when Biden publicly admitted they would put an end to it? https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8
replies(3): >>34713727 #>>34714055 #>>34714602 #
ceejayoz ◴[08 Feb 23 19:42 UTC] No.34713727[source]▶
Because "put an end to it" can easily (and more plausibly) encompass approaches like "sanction Nord Stream AG into the ground".
replies(1): >>34713874 #
swader999 ◴[08 Feb 23 19:52 UTC] No.34713874[source]▶
"There will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
replies(3): >>34713919 #>>34713990 #>>34719204 #
1. ceejayoz ◴[08 Feb 23 19:59 UTC] No.34713990[source]▶
There is no longer an Enron, either. No one blew up their headquarters to do it.
replies(2): >>34714108 #>>34714257 #
2. swader999 ◴[08 Feb 23 20:06 UTC] No.34714108[source]▶
The original enron pipelines are still moving product. They still 'be'. Biden wasn't talking about Gazprom. His words are very clear and direct. They are congruent with his body language and tone. He looked down at his notes before speaking.
replies(1): >>34714153 #
3. ceejayoz ◴[08 Feb 23 20:09 UTC] No.34714153[source]▶
Don't be disingenous. "We will put an end to x" does not mean "we will blow x up", and is common political rhetoric.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=5567609899962902 "We will put an end to Abbott's attacks on educators, raise teacher pay, improve their retirement benefits, and fully fund our classrooms."

https://larson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/larson-... "we will put an end to the decades of price gouging"

Again, "we'll bankrupt them with sanctions" easily falls under "we will put an end to them".

replies(1): >>34714438 #
4. hef19898 ◴[08 Feb 23 20:14 UTC] No.34714257[source]▶
Enron's accounting department kind of did, not physically but still.
replies(1): >>34714287 #
5. ceejayoz ◴[08 Feb 23 20:16 UTC] No.34714287[source]▶
> not physically but still

That's precisely the point, isn't it?

"We will put an end to X" does not mean "we will physically blow up X". Pretending Biden had an "oops, we're gonna do a terrorist attack against Russian and German infrastructure and I said it out loud at a press conference!" moment and that there's no other legitimate explanation for the statement is just goofy.

replies(1): >>34714511 #
6. swader999 ◴[08 Feb 23 20:24 UTC] No.34714438{3}[source]▶
Nobody uses that rhetorical construct in regard to physical entities. Your anologies are disingenuous.
replies(1): >>34714665 #
7. swader999 ◴[08 Feb 23 20:29 UTC] No.34714511{3}[source]▶
It wasn't an oops moment, it was scripted. Watch the video carefully. He consulted his notes before saying it. This public announcement removed the requirement to notify Congress. Genius imo.

The other tell is that in the follow-up, Biden was pressured to explain what he meant but he refused to comment. Sanctions could have been mentioned here without repercussions but they weren't.

8. ceejayoz ◴[08 Feb 23 20:38 UTC] No.34714665{4}[source]▶
Governor Abbott is not a physical entity? I suspect this is news to him.
replies(1): >>34714951 #
9. swader999 ◴[08 Feb 23 20:54 UTC] No.34714951{5}[source]▶
You quoted "governor Abbott's attacks". Are you seriously trying to suggest a group threatened the governor himself? You're working too hard on this angle.