←back to thread

688 points hunglee2 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Khelavaster ◴[] No.34712940[source]
This is the same journalist who broke news about Mai Lai, reported in-depth on Abu Ghraib, and much more. Serious, serious news.
replies(2): >>34713062 #>>34714104 #
zzleeper ◴[] No.34713062[source]
And is the same guy who has been going into crazy conspiracy theories over the last ten years or so
replies(2): >>34713152 #>>34713532 #
pphysch ◴[] No.34713152[source]
Questioning the narratives around the ongoing Syrian Dirty War is not a "crazy conspiracy theory".
replies(1): >>34713328 #
partiallypro ◴[] No.34713328[source]
That's not the only crazy conspiracy theory he has claimed in the past 10-20 years.
replies(2): >>34713464 #>>34713661 #
pphysch ◴[] No.34713464[source]
Go on. Link some examples.
replies(1): >>34713654 #
ceejayoz ◴[] No.34713654[source]
https://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bi...

> According to Hersh's story, Navy SEALs met no resistance at Abbottabad and were escorted by a Pakistani intelligence officer to bin Laden's bedroom, where they killed him. Bin Laden's body was "torn apart with rifle fire" and pieces of the corpse "tossed out over the Hindu Kush mountains" by Navy SEALs during the flight home (no reason is given for this action). There was no burial at sea because "there wouldn’t have been much left of bin Laden to put into the sea in any case."

> The first hints came in the latter years of the Bush administration, when Hersh reported repeatedly that the US was on the verging of striking Iran. These included reports stating that the US might even bomb Iran with a nuclear warhead, and later that the administration had considered using US special forces disguised as Iranians to launch a "false flag" attack as a premise for war.

> The moment when a lot of journalists started to question whether Hersh had veered from investigative reporting into something else came in January 2011. That month, he spoke at Georgetown University's branch campus in Qatar, where he gave a bizarre and rambling address alleging that top military and special forces leaders "are all members of, or at least supporters of, Knights of Malta ... many of them are members of Opus Dei." He suggested that they belong to a network first formed by former Vice President Dick Cheney that is steering US foreign policy toward an agenda of bringing Christianity to the Middle East.

> The next year, in 2012, Hersh reported in the New Yorker that the Bush administration had secretly armed and funded an Iranian terrorist group known as the MEK in 2005. Two sources, neither with direct knowledge, told Hersh that American special forces had flown the Iranians all the way to Nevada to train at a base there. This detail was both spectacular and puzzling: the US has bases throughout the world, including several in the Middle East; why bring terrorists to Nevada?

replies(2): >>34713886 #>>34714757 #
pphysch ◴[] No.34713886[source]
1. Not very interesting. Likely that Pakistan intelligence collaborated with USA. Not really important how bin Laden died or was buried.

2. Not at all implausible. Remember Stuxnet? Washington was evidently going to extreme lengths.

3. This one seems speculative but not implausible. Neoconservatism is closely linked with crazy religious beliefs.

4. It is established fact that the CIA flew Tibetan extremists to Colorado to train them in the 1950s. Nothing puzzling about this.

replies(2): >>34714113 #>>34734019 #
ceejayoz ◴[] No.34714113{3}[source]
"It's possible, therefore it's true" is a bad standard of evidence.

Hersh's big scoops were all corroborated by other news organizations. None of these four have been.

replies(1): >>34714269 #
pphysch ◴[] No.34714269{4}[source]
I never said "It's possible, therefore it's true". All of your "debunks" are relying on the claims being prima facie absurd. I provided some evidence, and can provide more, of historical precedent.

The last one in particular is deeply embarassing and shows the Vox blogger has little grasp of history.

replies(1): >>34716212 #
1. partiallypro ◴[] No.34716212{5}[source]
> I never said "It's possible, therefore it's true". All of your "debunks" are relying on the claims being prima facie absurd.

The burden of proof is on HIM. It isn't up for us to debunk what he's saying (though I'm sure many can), he has to prove it, and he hasn't. No single corroboration from other big sources? Seems odd.