3 ms·

It's a plausible theory, and it does at least go some way to explaining some of the oddities. For example, why such a large distance between the breaks in the

by Lazare 4y ago

It's a plausible theory, and it does at least go some way to explaining some of the oddities. For example, why such a large distance between the breaks in the NS1 and NS2 pipelines? The detail about the Minerva Julie are suggestive. How true is it? Or perhaps better, how likely is it that it's true? That I couldn't say. I'd tentatively say it's more likely than Hersh's story, but that's a low bar.

brutusborn 4y ago
What makes you doubt Hersh's story?
- jcranmer 4y ago
  Relying very heavily on a single anonymous source is a massive red flag.
- Lazare 4y ago
  It doesn't make a lot of sense (ie, if you accept the premise is true, would you expect the plot to play out as Hersh claims?), it includes several details that are clearly incorrect, it isn't particulary supported by open source intel, and it relies, by it's own admission, on a single anonymous source. So the situation is essentially "Hersh claims that someone told him a story that we know is at least slightly untrue." Is it possible that the rest of it is true? Absolutely! ...but there's nothing I've seen to suggest that it's likely the rest of it is true. It's just another theory, of which there are many.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    What details are clearly incorrect? Also he only quotes a single anonymous source. He has stated before that he verifies info from multiple sources, and goes to great lengths to protect sources, so it is very likely that there are more but that he cannot give details without endangering them. https://twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/1626289757020880896?s=20&t=WmBlXo3rqaIqltrWjX-EPQ https://twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/162628975702088089...
    - nl 4y ago
      It's difficult to argue in circumstances where some elements of his story that appear to make it less likely are said to be untrue in order to defend that story. Notably there doesn't appear to be any reason for him to claim it was a single source when he could equally have claimed he verified it with multiple sources (even if there was only one additional source. It's no less untrue, right?) I think in these circumstances you can only look at Hersh's record. Since the turn of the millennium it really isn't very good. With the exception of the Abu Ghraib story (which he wasn't alone in breaking) I don't think any of his major stories have turned out to be true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh (He was also very lucky to avoid publishing forged claims about Kennedy in the late 1990's).
      - brutusborn 4y ago
        It's definitely very murky territory. I don't think he claimed it was all from a single source, he just quoted a single source. It's interesting you question his record, I thought Hersh's record was excellent; which major stories are you referring to? With the kind of reporting he does, I would have expected many more major mistakes to be made but he seems to make them very rarely.
        nl 4y ago
        > I thought Hersh's record was excellent; which major stories are you referring to? I linked Wikipedia, but to summarize some of his questionable claims: * There were plans under consideration in 2006 for a nuclear first strike on Iran. * Osama bin Laden wasn't killed by US Forces in a raid in Pakistan * The Syrian gas attack wasn't done by Syrian government forces * "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11" * That the Skripal poisoning wasn't done by Russian forces. Lots of these views have significant backers amongst conspiracy theorists. But unlike some of his other stories (say in the same time frame) there has been very little to no evidence showing he is anything like correct. Basically, post 2000 the only one of his stories which has turned out to be well supported was Abu Ghraib.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  asking his readers to trust him and his single source, with no hard facts presented
- tptacek 4y ago
  * Single anonymous source. * That source is implausibly well informed. * Operational details make little sense (using a warship as a diving platform for US divers, elaborate sonobuoy remote detonation, etc) * OSINT details don't check out (all the implicated ships are accounted for, etc) * Errors/contradictions in the story (the Norwegian Navy doesn't operate any P8s, etc) * Long, unbroken track record, going back to 2006, of Hersh writing lurid, discredited stories like this * No media outlet in the world --- not just in the US but anywhere in Europe --- being willing to run this. Important caveat that disbelieving Hersh doesn't mean that the US wasn't behind the incident; it just means there's nothing to learn about the incident from Hersh's writing.

by Lazare 4y ago

brutusborn 4y ago

What makes you doubt Hersh's story?

jcranmer 4y ago
Relying very heavily on a single anonymous source is a massive red flag.
Lazare 4y ago
It doesn't make a lot of sense (ie, if you accept the premise is true, would you expect the plot to play out as Hersh claims?), it includes several details that are clearly incorrect, it isn't particulary supported by open source intel, and it relies, by it's own admission, on a single anonymous source. So the situation is essentially "Hersh claims that someone told him a story that we know is at least slightly untrue." Is it possible that the rest of it is true? Absolutely! ...but there's nothing I've seen to suggest that it's likely the rest of it is true. It's just another theory, of which there are many.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  What details are clearly incorrect? Also he only quotes a single anonymous source. He has stated before that he verifies info from multiple sources, and goes to great lengths to protect sources, so it is very likely that there are more but that he cannot give details without endangering them. https://twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/1626289757020880896?s=20&t=WmBlXo3rqaIqltrWjX-EPQ https://twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/162628975702088089...
  - nl 4y ago
    It's difficult to argue in circumstances where some elements of his story that appear to make it less likely are said to be untrue in order to defend that story. Notably there doesn't appear to be any reason for him to claim it was a single source when he could equally have claimed he verified it with multiple sources (even if there was only one additional source. It's no less untrue, right?) I think in these circumstances you can only look at Hersh's record. Since the turn of the millennium it really isn't very good. With the exception of the Abu Ghraib story (which he wasn't alone in breaking) I don't think any of his major stories have turned out to be true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh (He was also very lucky to avoid publishing forged claims about Kennedy in the late 1990's).
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      It's definitely very murky territory. I don't think he claimed it was all from a single source, he just quoted a single source. It's interesting you question his record, I thought Hersh's record was excellent; which major stories are you referring to? With the kind of reporting he does, I would have expected many more major mistakes to be made but he seems to make them very rarely.
      - nl 4y ago
        > I thought Hersh's record was excellent; which major stories are you referring to? I linked Wikipedia, but to summarize some of his questionable claims: * There were plans under consideration in 2006 for a nuclear first strike on Iran. * Osama bin Laden wasn't killed by US Forces in a raid in Pakistan * The Syrian gas attack wasn't done by Syrian government forces * "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11" * That the Skripal poisoning wasn't done by Russian forces. Lots of these views have significant backers amongst conspiracy theorists. But unlike some of his other stories (say in the same time frame) there has been very little to no evidence showing he is anything like correct. Basically, post 2000 the only one of his stories which has turned out to be well supported was Abu Ghraib.
jjtheblunt 4y ago
asking his readers to trust him and his single source, with no hard facts presented
tptacek 4y ago
* Single anonymous source. * That source is implausibly well informed. * Operational details make little sense (using a warship as a diving platform for US divers, elaborate sonobuoy remote detonation, etc) * OSINT details don't check out (all the implicated ships are accounted for, etc) * Errors/contradictions in the story (the Norwegian Navy doesn't operate any P8s, etc) * Long, unbroken track record, going back to 2006, of Hersh writing lurid, discredited stories like this * No media outlet in the world --- not just in the US but anywhere in Europe --- being willing to run this. Important caveat that disbelieving Hersh doesn't mean that the US wasn't behind the incident; it just means there's nothing to learn about the incident from Hersh's writing.