15 ms·

Seymour doesn’t provide any proof or any evidence. It’s argument by assertion. What he writes is plausible but without any sources or other corroborating evid

Seymour doesn’t provide any proof or any evidence. It’s argument by assertion. What he writes is plausible but without any sources or other corroborating evidence. I think it more believable that Seymour has been paid to write this by a Russian aligned entity. I don’t know the truth of the matter and Seymour could be right. We just can’t tell from the evidence provided.

avgcorrection 4y ago
Seymour’s evidence: an anonymous source. Your evidence against Seymour: “I think it more believable.” (Based on what? Exactly nothing.) Not to mention that “paid to write” is not even hearsay: you just made it up as a theory, without any hint towards anything happening in the real world.
h2odragon 4y ago
[flagged]
mcphage 4y ago
He has a lot of very specific details and quotes, but he doesn't say where any of them are from. Which ones are actual quotes, and which ones are creative writing?
- syzarian 4y ago
  He has links in the article but those links don’t give any evidence of what he claims. For instance, he has a link to the Gang of Eight but this doesn’t provide any evidence to what he ways. He uses links in a clever way to make it seem like he’s acquired evidence. What the linked information shows is that his assertions are plausible. It’s plausible that the U.S. used the military personnel he claims the U.S. used so that they could avoid Congressional oversight. But where is the evidence they actually used said personnel? He references a source but my source with direct knowledge of Seymour’s work says that Russia paid him to write this. Given Seymour’s work on Russia’s involvement in Syria I’m skeptical of him having credibility on the topic of Nordstream. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-07-22/ty-article-opinion/.premium/why-hasnt-seymour-hershs-syria-genocide-denial-ended-his-career/0000017f-dba8-db5a-a57f-dbea59b80000 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-07-22/ty-article-opinio...
  - Laaas 4y ago
    I find the article confusing/low quality, what false claims has Seymour propagated?
mytailorisrich 4y ago
If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. Of course this is not evidence but this the sort of operation where success means no evidence (at least no evidence available to the public at large as it is possible and, one might hope, likely that neighbouring countries know).
- syzarian 4y ago
  I think it’s plausible that Putin wanted it done. It got Russia out of a contractual obligation and greater isolation of Russian companies makes the oligarchs’ position tied to Putin. The oligarchs can’t go to the West since they’ve been sanctioned and their companies are increasingly barred from doing business in the West. That isolation makes their fortunes tied to Putin’s survival. Think Cortex burning the ships. In a personalist authoritarian regime the rationality of actions sometimes depends on wether or not the dictator is being rational on a given day.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. I disagree. The most logical explanation is tha Russia did it as a capacity demonstration and threat against Baltic Pipe to pressure contries in the region regarding Ukraine, but that, like all their threats against the West over Ukraine policy so far, the threat was hollow.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    The US have been overtly against those pipelines and the close relations between Germany and Russia, including and especially energy dependency. In fact, a major win of the US so far in the Ukraine war has been the Europeans' and especially Germany's shift in gas supplies from Russia to themselves. Russia destroying their own pipelines (both NS 1 and the new NS 2 were sabotaged) looks like them shooting themselves in both feet at once. Like doing 'capacity demonstration' by nuking the Kremlin... They could, but would that be a likely scenario? Many, if not most, expert observers strongly suspect the US for a reason.
LarryMullins 4y ago
Seymour Hersh has a very credible background and reputation. Assuming he is still lucid in his age, hasn't become a senile puppet of a ghost writer, then it would be foolish to write off his claims just because he isn't telling you who his source is.
- syzarian 4y ago
  His reporting on Syria lost him some credibility. It appears from my perspective that he has a bias toward always thinking the U.S. is the culprit. Given the power of the U.S. and it’s history of shenanigans he’ll often times be right. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-07-22/ty-article-opinion/.premium/why-hasnt-seymour-hershs-syria-genocide-denial-ended-his-career/0000017f-dba8-db5a-a57f-dbea59b80000 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-07-22/ty-article-opinio...
  - pphysch 4y ago
    The "Dirty War" over Syria is ongoing (US boots are literally on the ground right now) and there are many documented disinformation campaigns revolving around it from both sides, including from Western intelligence mouthpieces like Bellingcat. To assert that it is "settled" and Hersh is therefore "debunked" is deeply disingenuous. https://mronline.org/2021/10/11/bellingcat-funded-by-u-s-and-uk-intelligence-contractors-that-aided-extremists-in-syria/ https://mronline.org/2021/10/11/bellingcat-funded-by-u-s-and...
    - syzarian 4y ago
      What is settled is Russia’s crimes in Syria and their indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Seymour lost credibility by disregarding these facts in his reporting. The U.S. is still involved there and the U.S. hardly can take the moral high ground when it comes to the Middle East but neither can Russia and Seymour acts as if they can.
      - pphysch 4y ago
        The US is actively occupying Syria, facilitating the theft of its natural resources including oil to (also occupied) Northern Iraq, while backing AQ-affiliated terrorists like Abu Mohammad al-Jolani to advance its goal of overthrowing the legal Syrian government. US state media literally aired a puff piece for Jolani, including interviews from top DoD officials. It is staggering [1]. These are all undisputed facts which I can supply primary evidence to support. Russia is doing nothing of the sort. Some civilians possibly died as collateral as Russia targeted extremist strongholds in extremist-controlled Idlib. In fact, outside the West, Russia is credited with preventing Syria from turning into an Iraq/Libya-style disaster. [1] - https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/the-jihadist/transcript/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/the-jihadist/...?
mc32 4y ago
If this turns out to be right --and we don't have conclusive evidence, but this would upset the current narrative. Why would Russia be an idiot to shoot itself in the foot (cui bono) and blow up their leverage; though in international affairs the unimaginable is possible, so yeah they may have done it to themselves -though to outsiders it would seem illogical If true though, it would be as big as the Gulf of Tonkin incident [as in it was us in pursuit of our own interest]
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  Russia would be an idiot to start a war with Ukr…oh wait a minute
  - mc32 4y ago
    Robbing a bank is stupid... and people do it. But one usually does not use one's own check to write the hold-up note. Sure, it happens, but not typically.
- kibwen 4y ago
  The Gulf of Tonkin involved the US claiming that a US ship was fired upon as a pretense to declare war in retaliation. The idea here is that the US blew up a Russian pipeline in order to... what? Declare war on Russia in retaliation for Russia's own pipeline being destroyed? This makes no sense unless you're accusing Russia of blowing up the pipeline.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    For completeness, the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident was two alleged incidents. One of them probably happened and the other almost certainly didn't (admitted by Robert McNamara years later.) The first incident, the one that probably happened, was insufficient casus belli for LBJ and then conveniently for the war hawks the second incident, which never actually happened, sealed the deal two days later. McNamara's tacit admission: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k
  - 4y ago
twoquestions 4y ago
My thoughts exactly. If this is true and more evidence comes out, the usual suspects will be screaming it from the rooftops, if not this narrative will die in obscurity. There's been a lot of misinformation about this war, and a bunch of people who for a variety of reasons want to blame the US for it and are willing to believe some incredible things if they support that narrative.
- pillefitz 4y ago
  It's really not far fetched to believe the US did it - or any Eastern European country, for that matter.
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    Polish GROM could easily do it
  - ROTMetro 4y ago
    It's really not fat fetched to believe the US didn't do it. Check and mate to your powerful argument.
    - pillefitz 4y ago
      I assumed people read the article or any of the comments. In short: Become the EU's main supplier of gas, while weakening Russia. What's not to like? All other actors' benefits pale in comparison. Hell, the US killed millions in for-profit wars, which is a generally accepted fact. Still think it's far-fetched?
  - Animatronio 4y ago
    Yup, Hungary Navy Seals are most definitely behind this.
qwertox 4y ago
The story is credible. Is it true? This is not enough information to decide that, because, as you say it, there are no sources or other corroborating evidence. But it does host a starting point for future discussion due to the fact that it offers relatively detailed pieces of information. Now it's up to others to come out and say "this is true, that is not", people who actually do have provable information. It offers them a story to share their information on. This story didn't exist previously in the public discourse.
- hedora 4y ago
  The story doesn't even claim it is credible. It claims the White House says the rest of the article is fiction, and provides no counterargument or evidence that contradicts the White House's statement.
jerome-jh 4y ago
Funnily enough, the article could just as well be commissioned/suggested by an American organization or person. The USA could easily shoulder the responsibility even if they did not do it, and the goals would be: - show how firm they have been "back then": an interesting narrative in light of recent events (the balloon) - deflect fire from the allied or friendly country who actually did it: Sweden, Poland who boldly supported Ukraine right from the start of the war? Seymour could also have been trapped by a source he previously knew at the CIA and who decided to play its own game. Anyway the article lacks credibility on several aspects raised by weatherlight and erentz. The existence of said source just a few monthes after the events is in itself suspicious.

avgcorrection 4y ago

Seymour’s evidence: an anonymous source. Your evidence against Seymour: “I think it more believable.” (Based on what? Exactly nothing.) Not to mention that “paid to write” is not even hearsay: you just made it up as a theory, without any hint towards anything happening in the real world.

h2odragon 4y ago

[flagged]

mcphage 4y ago

He has a lot of very specific details and quotes, but he doesn't say where any of them are from. Which ones are actual quotes, and which ones are creative writing?

syzarian 4y ago
He has links in the article but those links don’t give any evidence of what he claims. For instance, he has a link to the Gang of Eight but this doesn’t provide any evidence to what he ways. He uses links in a clever way to make it seem like he’s acquired evidence. What the linked information shows is that his assertions are plausible. It’s plausible that the U.S. used the military personnel he claims the U.S. used so that they could avoid Congressional oversight. But where is the evidence they actually used said personnel? He references a source but my source with direct knowledge of Seymour’s work says that Russia paid him to write this. Given Seymour’s work on Russia’s involvement in Syria I’m skeptical of him having credibility on the topic of Nordstream. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-07-22/ty-article-opinion/.premium/why-hasnt-seymour-hershs-syria-genocide-denial-ended-his-career/0000017f-dba8-db5a-a57f-dbea59b80000 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-07-22/ty-article-opinio...
- Laaas 4y ago
  I find the article confusing/low quality, what false claims has Seymour propagated?

mytailorisrich 4y ago

If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. Of course this is not evidence but this the sort of operation where success means no evidence (at least no evidence available to the public at large as it is possible and, one might hope, likely that neighbouring countries know).

syzarian 4y ago
I think it’s plausible that Putin wanted it done. It got Russia out of a contractual obligation and greater isolation of Russian companies makes the oligarchs’ position tied to Putin. The oligarchs can’t go to the West since they’ve been sanctioned and their companies are increasingly barred from doing business in the West. That isolation makes their fortunes tied to Putin’s survival. Think Cortex burning the ships. In a personalist authoritarian regime the rationality of actions sometimes depends on wether or not the dictator is being rational on a given day.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> If you look at all the players, their interests, and their capabilities, I think the most logical conclusion is that the US likely did it. I disagree. The most logical explanation is tha Russia did it as a capacity demonstration and threat against Baltic Pipe to pressure contries in the region regarding Ukraine, but that, like all their threats against the West over Ukraine policy so far, the threat was hollow.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  The US have been overtly against those pipelines and the close relations between Germany and Russia, including and especially energy dependency. In fact, a major win of the US so far in the Ukraine war has been the Europeans' and especially Germany's shift in gas supplies from Russia to themselves. Russia destroying their own pipelines (both NS 1 and the new NS 2 were sabotaged) looks like them shooting themselves in both feet at once. Like doing 'capacity demonstration' by nuking the Kremlin... They could, but would that be a likely scenario? Many, if not most, expert observers strongly suspect the US for a reason.

LarryMullins 4y ago

Seymour Hersh has a very credible background and reputation. Assuming he is still lucid in his age, hasn't become a senile puppet of a ghost writer, then it would be foolish to write off his claims just because he isn't telling you who his source is.

syzarian 4y ago
His reporting on Syria lost him some credibility. It appears from my perspective that he has a bias toward always thinking the U.S. is the culprit. Given the power of the U.S. and it’s history of shenanigans he’ll often times be right. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-07-22/ty-article-opinion/.premium/why-hasnt-seymour-hershs-syria-genocide-denial-ended-his-career/0000017f-dba8-db5a-a57f-dbea59b80000 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-07-22/ty-article-opinio...
- pphysch 4y ago
  The "Dirty War" over Syria is ongoing (US boots are literally on the ground right now) and there are many documented disinformation campaigns revolving around it from both sides, including from Western intelligence mouthpieces like Bellingcat. To assert that it is "settled" and Hersh is therefore "debunked" is deeply disingenuous. https://mronline.org/2021/10/11/bellingcat-funded-by-u-s-and-uk-intelligence-contractors-that-aided-extremists-in-syria/ https://mronline.org/2021/10/11/bellingcat-funded-by-u-s-and...
  - syzarian 4y ago
    What is settled is Russia’s crimes in Syria and their indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Seymour lost credibility by disregarding these facts in his reporting. The U.S. is still involved there and the U.S. hardly can take the moral high ground when it comes to the Middle East but neither can Russia and Seymour acts as if they can.
    - pphysch 4y ago
      The US is actively occupying Syria, facilitating the theft of its natural resources including oil to (also occupied) Northern Iraq, while backing AQ-affiliated terrorists like Abu Mohammad al-Jolani to advance its goal of overthrowing the legal Syrian government. US state media literally aired a puff piece for Jolani, including interviews from top DoD officials. It is staggering [1]. These are all undisputed facts which I can supply primary evidence to support. Russia is doing nothing of the sort. Some civilians possibly died as collateral as Russia targeted extremist strongholds in extremist-controlled Idlib. In fact, outside the West, Russia is credited with preventing Syria from turning into an Iraq/Libya-style disaster. [1] - https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/the-jihadist/transcript/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/the-jihadist/...?

mc32 4y ago

If this turns out to be right --and we don't have conclusive evidence, but this would upset the current narrative. Why would Russia be an idiot to shoot itself in the foot (cui bono) and blow up their leverage; though in international affairs the unimaginable is possible, so yeah they may have done it to themselves -though to outsiders it would seem illogical If true though, it would be as big as the Gulf of Tonkin incident [as in it was us in pursuit of our own interest]

selimthegrim 4y ago
Russia would be an idiot to start a war with Ukr…oh wait a minute
- mc32 4y ago
  Robbing a bank is stupid... and people do it. But one usually does not use one's own check to write the hold-up note. Sure, it happens, but not typically.
kibwen 4y ago
The Gulf of Tonkin involved the US claiming that a US ship was fired upon as a pretense to declare war in retaliation. The idea here is that the US blew up a Russian pipeline in order to... what? Declare war on Russia in retaliation for Russia's own pipeline being destroyed? This makes no sense unless you're accusing Russia of blowing up the pipeline.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  For completeness, the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident was two alleged incidents. One of them probably happened and the other almost certainly didn't (admitted by Robert McNamara years later.) The first incident, the one that probably happened, was insufficient casus belli for LBJ and then conveniently for the war hawks the second incident, which never actually happened, sealed the deal two days later. McNamara's tacit admission: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k
- 4y ago

twoquestions 4y ago

My thoughts exactly. If this is true and more evidence comes out, the usual suspects will be screaming it from the rooftops, if not this narrative will die in obscurity. There's been a lot of misinformation about this war, and a bunch of people who for a variety of reasons want to blame the US for it and are willing to believe some incredible things if they support that narrative.

pillefitz 4y ago
It's really not far fetched to believe the US did it - or any Eastern European country, for that matter.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  Polish GROM could easily do it
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  It's really not fat fetched to believe the US didn't do it. Check and mate to your powerful argument.
  - pillefitz 4y ago
    I assumed people read the article or any of the comments. In short: Become the EU's main supplier of gas, while weakening Russia. What's not to like? All other actors' benefits pale in comparison. Hell, the US killed millions in for-profit wars, which is a generally accepted fact. Still think it's far-fetched?
- Animatronio 4y ago
  Yup, Hungary Navy Seals are most definitely behind this.

qwertox 4y ago

The story is credible. Is it true? This is not enough information to decide that, because, as you say it, there are no sources or other corroborating evidence. But it does host a starting point for future discussion due to the fact that it offers relatively detailed pieces of information. Now it's up to others to come out and say "this is true, that is not", people who actually do have provable information. It offers them a story to share their information on. This story didn't exist previously in the public discourse.

hedora 4y ago
The story doesn't even claim it is credible. It claims the White House says the rest of the article is fiction, and provides no counterargument or evidence that contradicts the White House's statement.

jerome-jh 4y ago

Funnily enough, the article could just as well be commissioned/suggested by an American organization or person. The USA could easily shoulder the responsibility even if they did not do it, and the goals would be: - show how firm they have been "back then": an interesting narrative in light of recent events (the balloon) - deflect fire from the allied or friendly country who actually did it: Sweden, Poland who boldly supported Ukraine right from the start of the war? Seymour could also have been trapped by a source he previously knew at the CIA and who decided to play its own game. Anyway the article lacks credibility on several aspects raised by weatherlight and erentz. The existence of said source just a few monthes after the events is in itself suspicious.