3 ms·

>other than that one random, implausibly-well-informed anonymous person told Hersh There is no reason to believe that Hersh is working off a single source. If

by scythe 4y ago

>other than that one random, implausibly-well-informed anonymous person told Hersh There is no reason to believe that Hersh is working off a single source. If he were, it would be extremely stupid, and certainly unbefitting a journalist with his level of experience, to admit it, since it would make it far easier to determine who the leaker was — it narrows the list of candidates dramatically. It seems like the whole justification for the "single source" smear is coming from a few times when Hersh said "my source" in the essay, which may simply be good practice in ensuring he doesn't accidentally reveal which claims came from one source and which came from multiple, since that could also (unlikely, but not impossible) help the intelligence services find one of the leakers. >remote underwater detonation is a routine operation performed in the civilian oil and gas industry. Remote underwater detonation with an unidentifiable signal is not. Using a normal sonar detonator would probably increase the chance of detection.

tptacek 4y ago
Detection of what? It's not a secret that somebody blew up the pipeline. Do we have a clear theory of what exactly the conspirators were attempting to conceal?
- scythe 4y ago
  Obviously, detection of who blew up the pipeline. If you can detect the means, then you have a lead for the culprit. What kind of question is this? All it does is make me think you're being intentionally obtuse. Anyone who blew up the pipeline — or committed any other crime —would try to cover their tracks, unless they were planning to take credit (which they weren't). That's how you always commit crimes!
  - tptacek 4y ago
    How exactly does detecting a remote detonation give you attribution? Google this: a lot of different entities do underwater remote detonation. The one thing you wouldn't want to do is to park a big, beaconing Alta-class minesweeper precisely over the thing you later blow up!
    - scythe 4y ago
      It doesn't immediately give you attribution, but like any other clue, it could contribute to an evidence base that eventually leads to a suspect. Again, this is basic criminology, and you're a security researcher. Why are you suddenly unable to make these connections?

by scythe 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago

Detection of what? It's not a secret that somebody blew up the pipeline. Do we have a clear theory of what exactly the conspirators were attempting to conceal?

scythe 4y ago
Obviously, detection of who blew up the pipeline. If you can detect the means, then you have a lead for the culprit. What kind of question is this? All it does is make me think you're being intentionally obtuse. Anyone who blew up the pipeline — or committed any other crime —would try to cover their tracks, unless they were planning to take credit (which they weren't). That's how you always commit crimes!
- tptacek 4y ago
  How exactly does detecting a remote detonation give you attribution? Google this: a lot of different entities do underwater remote detonation. The one thing you wouldn't want to do is to park a big, beaconing Alta-class minesweeper precisely over the thing you later blow up!
  - scythe 4y ago
    It doesn't immediately give you attribution, but like any other clue, it could contribute to an evidence base that eventually leads to a suspect. Again, this is basic criminology, and you're a security researcher. Why are you suddenly unable to make these connections?