6 ms·

Let us consider that, even if he was fed false-information and his story discredited we can do limited conclusions from it. It might not affirm "the West blew

Let us consider that, even if he was fed false-information and his story discredited we can do limited conclusions from it. It might not affirm "the West blew up Nordstream" but it certainly does not affirm "the West NOT blow up Nordstream".

epistasis 4y ago
For that matter, it certainly doesn't exclude the possibility that the person posting as molopolo24 was personally responsible for the attack! And now that the possibility has been raised, we must all very seriously consider it along with all the other possibilities. This is only fair.
- runnerup 4y ago
  I mean, I personally think its reasonable that the USA blew up the pipeline. Personally I'm at about 75% USA, 20% Russia, 5% someone else. I just also believe that Hersh's article was really, really, incredibly bad.
  - floxy 4y ago
    I haven't followed any of this really at all, but is there a compelling reason why Ukraine isn't at the top of everyone's list? Seems like they would have the motive to prevent Germany from giving-in to Russian demands to keep gas flowing and at the same time hurt Russia. It doesn't seem like it was a highly technical or expensive operation that would have prevented a smaller player from accomplishing it, and in fact there are signs that it wasn't a highly coordinated job. My completely uninformed analysis starts the odds at 75% Ukraine, 10% U.S., 10% some Russian faction, 5% other.
    - runnerup 4y ago
      Maybe! I feel everything Ukraine does is under a microscope and they’d be hesitant to upset the USA or risk losing intl support by going rogue on something like this.
      - floxy 4y ago
        That doesn't seem like going rogue. The pipeline was already off. Sanctions are in effect. This just seems like ensuring the status quo is kept in place.
        callmetom 4y ago
        The pipeline was voluntarily disused by the Germans, not under sanction. Whoever blew up the pipeline (come-on, it was obviously the US) attacked critical infrastructure co-owned by Germany, Russia, and some minority interests. That would seem a little ungrateful, wouldn't it, directly attacking your sponsors? The US, on the other hand, has a long list of incentives for doing so.
    - simplicio 4y ago
      I think the 2 reasons people don't suspect Ukraine is that: a) it seems kinda implausible they have ability to blow up the pipe-line, nevermind to do so without being detected in what has to be the most cloesly monitored body of water on the planet. b) Germany was already backing them. Blowing up the pipeline might make Germany marginally less likely to backslide, but if Ukraine were caught blowing up the pipeline, Germany would almost certainly turn against them. The risk/reward doesn't really make sense. (FWIW, I think the most likely suspect is the one that doesn't usually get mentioned, that Germany blew it up to demonstrate their resolve regarding Russian sanctions).
      - hutzlibu 4y ago
        (FWIW, I think the most likely suspect is the one that doesn't usually get mentioned, that Germany blew it up to demonstrate their resolve regarding Russian sanctions) This is very unlikely, the german government simply never would have the balls to do anything remotely drastic. But they likely would close their eyes, if someone else would do it.
        fishnchips 4y ago
        Funny, as a Pole my 1st reaction was "damn our spooks finally did a good job". I was (and still am) very surprised nobody was even considering Poland as a perpetrator.
        jdougan 4y ago
        I know, right. Historical beefs with both Germany and Russia, a history of competent intelligence organizations, a quality military, and obvious current motivations. Yet, every time I bring up Poland as an option, usually I just get ignored. The time I do get a response, it is usually some story about how only the US has the capability, which is total BS.
        fishnchips 4y ago
        Historical grievances aside, no middleman likes being cut out.
mcguire 4y ago
"We cannot disprove it. Therefore, it must be true." :-)
- molopolo24 4y ago
  The reading comprehension has fallen to an abysmal level. Who said it is true? It's just a possibility and in my opinion a very reasonable one. Does it advance the economic war against Russia? Check. Does it galvanize European support for US and not Russia? Check
zackees 4y ago
[dead]
julianeon 4y ago
You can't draw conclusions of any kind from false information; that's the problem with false information.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  Of course you can, you now have valid information about the source of that false information - and can make hypothesis about the motives.
  - andrewflnr 4y ago
    Only if you're very lucky do you actually know any of these things. There's generally a very wide space of things that could have happened, and knowing that exactly one of them is wrong narrows things down very little. The space of motives for people to muddy the water is similarly wide, so you probably don't know anything new about the source.
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      "Only if you're very lucky do you actually know any of these things." No, if someone is spreading false information, then this gives the solid information, that this source is tainted. And everything else is speculation, yes.
      - andrewflnr 4y ago
        You mean you know the outlet is unreliable, if they do it enough times. By "source" I assumed you meant the source of the story, about whom we still know nothing.
        hutzlibu 4y ago
        I was refering literally to this statement. "You can't draw conclusions of any kind from false information; that's the problem with false information." My point simply being, that you get information from false information, regarding the source of the false information. Philosophical and apparently out of place.
karaterobot 4y ago
> it certainly does not affirm "the West NOT blow up Nordstream". Well yeah, but only because that's included in the statement "we know nothing more than we did before he wrote the article."

epistasis 4y ago

For that matter, it certainly doesn't exclude the possibility that the person posting as molopolo24 was personally responsible for the attack! And now that the possibility has been raised, we must all very seriously consider it along with all the other possibilities. This is only fair.

runnerup 4y ago
I mean, I personally think its reasonable that the USA blew up the pipeline. Personally I'm at about 75% USA, 20% Russia, 5% someone else. I just also believe that Hersh's article was really, really, incredibly bad.
- floxy 4y ago
  I haven't followed any of this really at all, but is there a compelling reason why Ukraine isn't at the top of everyone's list? Seems like they would have the motive to prevent Germany from giving-in to Russian demands to keep gas flowing and at the same time hurt Russia. It doesn't seem like it was a highly technical or expensive operation that would have prevented a smaller player from accomplishing it, and in fact there are signs that it wasn't a highly coordinated job. My completely uninformed analysis starts the odds at 75% Ukraine, 10% U.S., 10% some Russian faction, 5% other.
  - runnerup 4y ago
    Maybe! I feel everything Ukraine does is under a microscope and they’d be hesitant to upset the USA or risk losing intl support by going rogue on something like this.
    - floxy 4y ago
      That doesn't seem like going rogue. The pipeline was already off. Sanctions are in effect. This just seems like ensuring the status quo is kept in place.
      - callmetom 4y ago
        The pipeline was voluntarily disused by the Germans, not under sanction. Whoever blew up the pipeline (come-on, it was obviously the US) attacked critical infrastructure co-owned by Germany, Russia, and some minority interests. That would seem a little ungrateful, wouldn't it, directly attacking your sponsors? The US, on the other hand, has a long list of incentives for doing so.
  - simplicio 4y ago
    I think the 2 reasons people don't suspect Ukraine is that: a) it seems kinda implausible they have ability to blow up the pipe-line, nevermind to do so without being detected in what has to be the most cloesly monitored body of water on the planet. b) Germany was already backing them. Blowing up the pipeline might make Germany marginally less likely to backslide, but if Ukraine were caught blowing up the pipeline, Germany would almost certainly turn against them. The risk/reward doesn't really make sense. (FWIW, I think the most likely suspect is the one that doesn't usually get mentioned, that Germany blew it up to demonstrate their resolve regarding Russian sanctions).
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      (FWIW, I think the most likely suspect is the one that doesn't usually get mentioned, that Germany blew it up to demonstrate their resolve regarding Russian sanctions) This is very unlikely, the german government simply never would have the balls to do anything remotely drastic. But they likely would close their eyes, if someone else would do it.
      - fishnchips 4y ago
        Funny, as a Pole my 1st reaction was "damn our spooks finally did a good job". I was (and still am) very surprised nobody was even considering Poland as a perpetrator.
        jdougan 4y ago
        I know, right. Historical beefs with both Germany and Russia, a history of competent intelligence organizations, a quality military, and obvious current motivations. Yet, every time I bring up Poland as an option, usually I just get ignored. The time I do get a response, it is usually some story about how only the US has the capability, which is total BS.
        fishnchips 4y ago
        Historical grievances aside, no middleman likes being cut out.

mcguire 4y ago

"We cannot disprove it. Therefore, it must be true." :-)

molopolo24 4y ago
The reading comprehension has fallen to an abysmal level. Who said it is true? It's just a possibility and in my opinion a very reasonable one. Does it advance the economic war against Russia? Check. Does it galvanize European support for US and not Russia? Check

zackees 4y ago

[dead]

julianeon 4y ago

You can't draw conclusions of any kind from false information; that's the problem with false information.

hutzlibu 4y ago
Of course you can, you now have valid information about the source of that false information - and can make hypothesis about the motives.
- andrewflnr 4y ago
  Only if you're very lucky do you actually know any of these things. There's generally a very wide space of things that could have happened, and knowing that exactly one of them is wrong narrows things down very little. The space of motives for people to muddy the water is similarly wide, so you probably don't know anything new about the source.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "Only if you're very lucky do you actually know any of these things." No, if someone is spreading false information, then this gives the solid information, that this source is tainted. And everything else is speculation, yes.
    - andrewflnr 4y ago
      You mean you know the outlet is unreliable, if they do it enough times. By "source" I assumed you meant the source of the story, about whom we still know nothing.
      - hutzlibu 4y ago
        I was refering literally to this statement. "You can't draw conclusions of any kind from false information; that's the problem with false information." My point simply being, that you get information from false information, regarding the source of the false information. Philosophical and apparently out of place.

karaterobot 4y ago

> it certainly does not affirm "the West NOT blow up Nordstream". Well yeah, but only because that's included in the statement "we know nothing more than we did before he wrote the article."