5 ms·

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 re

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.

hedora 4y ago
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?
- ravi-delia 4y ago
  It claims that the info came from someone "with direct knowledge of the operational planning"
  - AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
    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.
    - ravi-delia 4y ago
      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
      - somat 4y ago
        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-transit-soars/ https://www.rt.com/business/570805-russia-ukraine-eu-gas-tra...
      - peppermint_gum 4y ago
        > 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.
- apnew 4y ago
  > 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.
  - ajross 4y ago
    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.
    - newsclues 4y ago
      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.
      - ajross 4y ago
        > 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.
strangattractor 4y ago
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.
beebmam 4y ago
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_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Criticism_and_co...
- GAN_Game 4y ago
  > 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.
  - beebmam 4y ago
    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-claims-bin-laden-narrative-is-not-true/ https://dailycaller.com/2013/09/27/hersh-slams-us-media-clai...
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      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.
AlbertCory 4y ago
> 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."
- garbagecoder 4y ago
  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.

hedora 4y ago

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?

ravi-delia 4y ago
It claims that the info came from someone "with direct knowledge of the operational planning"
- AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
  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.
  - ravi-delia 4y ago
    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
    - somat 4y ago
      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-transit-soars/ https://www.rt.com/business/570805-russia-ukraine-eu-gas-tra...
    - peppermint_gum 4y ago
      > 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.
apnew 4y ago
> 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.
- ajross 4y ago
  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.
  - newsclues 4y ago
    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.
    - ajross 4y ago
      > 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.

strangattractor 4y ago

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.

beebmam 4y ago

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

GAN_Game 4y ago
> 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.
- beebmam 4y ago
  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-claims-bin-laden-narrative-is-not-true/ https://dailycaller.com/2013/09/27/hersh-slams-us-media-clai...
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    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.

AlbertCory 4y ago

> 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."

garbagecoder 4y ago
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.