6 ms·

Until someone else can corroborate Hersh's story, or Hersh provides hard evidence, this is whole thing is a nothing burger.

fakethenews2022 4y ago
Until someone else takes credit for it, I'll take President Joe Biden's threat as evidence. Video link: https://youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM?feature=share https://youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM?feature=share
- rexxxmi 4y ago
  Like I said, until someone can provide hard evidence, which that is not, I'll continue to hold reservations as any reasonable person would.
  - fakethenews2022 4y ago
    Yes. We can continue to hold reservations but that can be considered evidence. It is akin to someone getting killed and someone else prior saying they would kill that person. It doesn't mean they actually did it, but it is suspicion and motive that should lead to further investigations. That Germany and other countries aren't looking into it can also be considered circumstantial evidence.
    - quonn 4y ago
      It‘s not evidence because the pipeline wasn‘t that important anymore. They also looked into it. And finally any of them could have done it themselves as well. Nothing points to the US specifically. For the US such an operation would have a huge amount of risk and they have to gain nothing until the war is over and even after that very little or nothing. (Potentially they can sell their gas - but others as well.) So why do it? On the other hand, Germany had to gain a bit (shutting down the voices calling for it being opened) and Russia had to gain a lot (sowing distrust within NATO; forcing a change from NS1 to the remaining NS2; as a show of power and a threat; making a strategic change impossible to shut down future opposition within the power structure of Russia) or just to complete their shift to trade with China now instead. The NS2 project was already dead.)
      - nostromo123 4y ago
        The US runs no risk at all in doing something like this. They've been doing war and killing innocents ("collateral damage", sorry...) for decades, all in the name of some doubtful "freedom and democracy", and what has happened to them? Nothing whatsoever.
      - fakethenews2022 4y ago
        Did any other nation threaten to take out the pipeline? Was any other nation thanked for taking out the pipeline?
  - mistermann 4y ago
    Your original claim, which was an opinion stated in the form of a fact, was that it is a Nothing Burger. Stating one's opinions on social media is generally fine, but stating them in the form of facts is dangerous in that it can cause other agents in the system to have incorrect state, which can have very serious causal consequences, up to and including death, which most people claim to be "a big deal". It is counterintuitive to think in this way, but many useful things are counterintuitive.
- sdwr 4y ago
  A (moving) picture is worth 1000 words! I'll take that little smirk as evidence any day of the week
- abracadaniel 4y ago
  He said that in the context of sanctions, and which did end up shutting it down long before it was blown up. It only appears to be a threat of destruction retroactively because it was later blown up. There were no articles claiming he was threatening to blow it up at the time. Everyone knew the context was with regards to sanctions at the time.
  - marcusverus 4y ago
    > He said that in the context of sanctions Do you have a different transcript or something? There's nothing in the video that provides such a context. Regardless, "There will be no more Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it" is a weird way to threaten sanctions, don't you think?
    - abracadaniel 4y ago
      You're looking at a youtube short that explicitly cuts out any semblance of context. The entire world had been discussing nothing but Russian sanctions for weeks at that point. And no, it wasn't a weird way to threaten sanctions, and no one at the time thought any differently, otherwise there would've been a flurry of articles saying Biden threatened to blow it up. But that never happened.
      - marcusverus 4y ago
        You're looking at a youtube short that explicitly cuts out any semblance of context. > Lol. Here's the video.[0] The 'context' you're arguing for was a question posed to someone else. The question she asked to Biden--the immediate context for his comment--clearly strengthens the argument that this was a threat against the pipeline. > The entire world had been discussing nothing but Russian sanctions for weeks at that point. I don't even know where to start with this one. > And no, it wasn't a weird way to threaten sanctions, and no one at the time thought any differently, Listen to the lady in the video above. Why's she so flabbergasted after Biden's answer? How does her follow-up question make sense if she thought he was talking about sanctions? > otherwise there would've been a flurry of articles saying Biden threatened to blow it up. Articles like this[1]? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKoPA3M7x2o&t=610s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKoPA3M7x2o&t=610s [1] https://theweek.com/joe-biden/1009898/biden-warns-there-will-be-no-longer-a-nord-stream-2-if-russia-invades-ukraine https://theweek.com/joe-biden/1009898/biden-warns-there-will...
DeLeeuw 4y ago
The US was always opposed to Nord Stream and for good reasons. I'm in fact glad it's gone. Many people already speculated it was the US, because Biden himself literally says "we will bring an end to it": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 With a smirk. Even when pressed how he is going to do it. For me, Hersh' story is the secondary corroboration.
- rexxxmi 4y ago
  A general criminal law principle known as the corpus delicti rule provides that a confession, standing alone, isn't enough for a conviction. I am not taking a position. I'm saying no one has presented hard evidence. And until they do, if ever, both sides will play hot potato and nothing will happen. When someone presents hard evidence for either position I'll listen to them happily.
  - marcusverus 4y ago
    It may not be sufficient for a conviction in criminal court, but it goes a long way in the court of public opinion. As well it should.
- aredox 4y ago
  Yes, it overtly said he would do it. Even though it was a very secret operation that had to be hidden from Congress'gang of eight. Totally how Biden rolls. Oh, and they forgot to blow one of the pipes. Whoopsy!
- smcl 4y ago
  Seems to me equally likely he's saying they'd pressure Germany to not use it or introduce sanctions (to bring an end to Nordstream 2, as a source of foreign currency for Russia and as leverage over the EU). Additionally wasn't Nordstream 2 not yet operational, and mostly Nordstream 1 that was sabotaged?
  - kcplate 4y ago
    “Put an end to it” seems to carry a bit more finality then “we are going to encourage to not use it, or introduce sanctions to not use it”. Especially in light of the damn thing actually being destroyed…and an end being put to it. The action that was taken, even though it’s not acknowledged, has brought weight to the statement.

fakethenews2022 4y ago

Until someone else takes credit for it, I'll take President Joe Biden's threat as evidence. Video link: https://youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM?feature=share https://youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM?feature=share

rexxxmi 4y ago
Like I said, until someone can provide hard evidence, which that is not, I'll continue to hold reservations as any reasonable person would.
- fakethenews2022 4y ago
  Yes. We can continue to hold reservations but that can be considered evidence. It is akin to someone getting killed and someone else prior saying they would kill that person. It doesn't mean they actually did it, but it is suspicion and motive that should lead to further investigations. That Germany and other countries aren't looking into it can also be considered circumstantial evidence.
  - quonn 4y ago
    It‘s not evidence because the pipeline wasn‘t that important anymore. They also looked into it. And finally any of them could have done it themselves as well. Nothing points to the US specifically. For the US such an operation would have a huge amount of risk and they have to gain nothing until the war is over and even after that very little or nothing. (Potentially they can sell their gas - but others as well.) So why do it? On the other hand, Germany had to gain a bit (shutting down the voices calling for it being opened) and Russia had to gain a lot (sowing distrust within NATO; forcing a change from NS1 to the remaining NS2; as a show of power and a threat; making a strategic change impossible to shut down future opposition within the power structure of Russia) or just to complete their shift to trade with China now instead. The NS2 project was already dead.)
    - nostromo123 4y ago
      The US runs no risk at all in doing something like this. They've been doing war and killing innocents ("collateral damage", sorry...) for decades, all in the name of some doubtful "freedom and democracy", and what has happened to them? Nothing whatsoever.
    - fakethenews2022 4y ago
      Did any other nation threaten to take out the pipeline? Was any other nation thanked for taking out the pipeline?
- mistermann 4y ago
  Your original claim, which was an opinion stated in the form of a fact, was that it is a Nothing Burger. Stating one's opinions on social media is generally fine, but stating them in the form of facts is dangerous in that it can cause other agents in the system to have incorrect state, which can have very serious causal consequences, up to and including death, which most people claim to be "a big deal". It is counterintuitive to think in this way, but many useful things are counterintuitive.
sdwr 4y ago
A (moving) picture is worth 1000 words! I'll take that little smirk as evidence any day of the week
abracadaniel 4y ago
He said that in the context of sanctions, and which did end up shutting it down long before it was blown up. It only appears to be a threat of destruction retroactively because it was later blown up. There were no articles claiming he was threatening to blow it up at the time. Everyone knew the context was with regards to sanctions at the time.
- marcusverus 4y ago
  > He said that in the context of sanctions Do you have a different transcript or something? There's nothing in the video that provides such a context. Regardless, "There will be no more Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it" is a weird way to threaten sanctions, don't you think?
  - abracadaniel 4y ago
    You're looking at a youtube short that explicitly cuts out any semblance of context. The entire world had been discussing nothing but Russian sanctions for weeks at that point. And no, it wasn't a weird way to threaten sanctions, and no one at the time thought any differently, otherwise there would've been a flurry of articles saying Biden threatened to blow it up. But that never happened.
    - marcusverus 4y ago
      You're looking at a youtube short that explicitly cuts out any semblance of context. > Lol. Here's the video.[0] The 'context' you're arguing for was a question posed to someone else. The question she asked to Biden--the immediate context for his comment--clearly strengthens the argument that this was a threat against the pipeline. > The entire world had been discussing nothing but Russian sanctions for weeks at that point. I don't even know where to start with this one. > And no, it wasn't a weird way to threaten sanctions, and no one at the time thought any differently, Listen to the lady in the video above. Why's she so flabbergasted after Biden's answer? How does her follow-up question make sense if she thought he was talking about sanctions? > otherwise there would've been a flurry of articles saying Biden threatened to blow it up. Articles like this[1]? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKoPA3M7x2o&t=610s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKoPA3M7x2o&t=610s [1] https://theweek.com/joe-biden/1009898/biden-warns-there-will-be-no-longer-a-nord-stream-2-if-russia-invades-ukraine https://theweek.com/joe-biden/1009898/biden-warns-there-will...

DeLeeuw 4y ago

The US was always opposed to Nord Stream and for good reasons. I'm in fact glad it's gone. Many people already speculated it was the US, because Biden himself literally says "we will bring an end to it": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 With a smirk. Even when pressed how he is going to do it. For me, Hersh' story is the secondary corroboration.

rexxxmi 4y ago
A general criminal law principle known as the corpus delicti rule provides that a confession, standing alone, isn't enough for a conviction. I am not taking a position. I'm saying no one has presented hard evidence. And until they do, if ever, both sides will play hot potato and nothing will happen. When someone presents hard evidence for either position I'll listen to them happily.
- marcusverus 4y ago
  It may not be sufficient for a conviction in criminal court, but it goes a long way in the court of public opinion. As well it should.
aredox 4y ago
Yes, it overtly said he would do it. Even though it was a very secret operation that had to be hidden from Congress'gang of eight. Totally how Biden rolls. Oh, and they forgot to blow one of the pipes. Whoopsy!
smcl 4y ago
Seems to me equally likely he's saying they'd pressure Germany to not use it or introduce sanctions (to bring an end to Nordstream 2, as a source of foreign currency for Russia and as leverage over the EU). Additionally wasn't Nordstream 2 not yet operational, and mostly Nordstream 1 that was sabotaged?
- kcplate 4y ago
  “Put an end to it” seems to carry a bit more finality then “we are going to encourage to not use it, or introduce sanctions to not use it”. Especially in light of the damn thing actually being destroyed…and an end being put to it. The action that was taken, even though it’s not acknowledged, has brought weight to the statement.