Seymour Hersh's Article on America and Nordstream

[KansasTiger 3,254]

Don't normally post in the political forum, but I thought this was interesting, and not surprisingly, getting no play in any domestic MSM arena. Seymour Hirsh isn't a schlub, he is a Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalist who wrote for the New York Times, New Yorker, and uncovered My Lai in Vietnam and Abu Ghraib. So it's a bit harder to just write this off as someone's crackpot theory.

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream

[homersapien 11,445]

Wow!  

My first reaction is that such an extraordinary and controversial tale requires extraordinary evidence to accept, especially in the "age of conspiracy". 

Having said that, it was remarkably convincing, if not in the unnamed sources, then in the circumstantial evidence and motivational factors.  (I have to admit the article gave me a much greater understanding and appreciation of the latter.)

It also raises a lot more political questions, such as why Germany would accede to this and what would happen there politically if it came out, not to mention global reaction. 

Now - assuming it's true - what to think of it?

It occurs to me that, it all comes back to Putin. Does his Russian expansion (or if you prefer, a recreation of the Soviet Union) - and in particular - the invasion of Ukraine justify such a politically risky operation? 

I am inclined to think yes.  But admittedly, that begs "gaming out" the future.

I can can certainly understand how many might disagree and I am open to their arguments, both pragmatic and moral.

Thanks for posting.  

 

 

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by homersapien

[johnnyAU 3,646]

It was pretty obvious we were responsible from the start.

[homersapien 11,445]

6 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

It was pretty obvious we were responsible from the start.

I certainly had my suspicions (based on motivation), but I'd rather wait for some sort of evidence before deciding. 

Maybe it's the scientist in me.

[johnnyAU 3,646]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

I certainly had my suspicions (based on motivation), but I'd rather wait for some sort of evidence before deciding. 

Maybe it's the scientist in me.

Of course, had it been Trump, you'd have taken it hook, line and sinker like Schiff the fake dossier. 

Regardless, yes, we were by far the most obvious, and even warned about it...even though Biden somehow forgot about that part.    The whole "Putin blew up his own pipeline" story was hilarious though. 

[homersapien 11,445]

13 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Of course, had it been Trump, you'd have taken it hook, line and sinker like Schiff the fake dossier. 

Regardless, yes, we were by far the most obvious, and even warned about it...even though Biden somehow forgot about that part.    The whole "Putin blew up his own pipeline" story was hilarious though. 

Trump would never have agreed to harm his best buddy Putin, much less collaborate with NATO partners to do so.

Edited February 10, 2023 by homersapien

[johnnyAU 3,646]

On 2/10/2023 at 3:46 PM, homersapien said:

Trump would never have agreed to harm his best buddy Putin, much less collaborate with NATO partners to do so.

Had Trump even suggested it, the Dems would have screamed he was trying to provoke WW3

[homersapien 11,445]

2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Had Trump even suggested it, the Dems would have screamed he was trying to provoke WW3

Like I said, Trump would never had suggested it.  So stop with the straw man.

And, Democrats actually support defending Ukraine against Russia, whereas (many) Republicans don't.

[autigeremt 6,688]

A president going around Congress to intervene in a foreign war........who would have thunk it? LMAO 

[AUDub 11,184]

7 hours ago, autigeremt said:

A president going around Congress to intervene in a foreign war........who would have thunk it? LMAO 

I’m not taking this at face value quite yet. This is very heavily uncorroborated. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by AUDub

[AUDub 11,184]

On 2/9/2023 at 2:12 PM, KansasTiger said:

Seymour Hirsh isn't a schlub, he is a Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalist who wrote for the New York Times, New Yorker, and uncovered My Lai in Vietnam and Abu Ghraib. So it's a bit harder to just write this off as someone's crackpot theory.

I don't know how well you've kept up with him lately but there'd definitely been some recent crackpottery in his CV. He denies the Osama bin Laden raid happened and that Assad used chemical weapons probably being the most glaring. 

[KansasTiger 3,254]

21 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I don't know how well you've kept up with him lately but there'd definitely been some recent crackpottery in his CV. He denies the Osama bin Laden raid happened and that Assad used chemical weapons probably being the most glaring. 

Regardless I still think his detailed explanation fits better than Russia blowing up their own lucrative pipeline they invested millions into just to make us look bad.

[AUDub 11,184]

28 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Regardless I still think his detailed explanation fits better than Russia blowing up their own lucrative pipeline they invested millions into just to make us look bad.

It's rich on specifics but that doesn't make it true. There are a lot of easily verifiable errors in those specifics. 

Nordstream was already 100% dead at the time of the explosions. It was a useless paperweight. The one pipe left undamaged was the one that Russia can reopen at a moment's notice.

[KansasTiger 3,254]

6 minutes ago, AUDub said:

It's rich on specifics but that doesn't make it true. There are a lot of easily verifiable errors in those specifics. 

Nordstream was already 100% dead at the time of the explosions. It was a useless paperweight. The one pipe left undamaged was the one that Russia can reopen at a moment's notice.

Doesn't make it untrue either. And with all of Biden and Vicki Nulands talk about making sure Nordstream 2 would never happen just a few months before it blew up, I'm not sure I buy It was as dead as you say. Seeing as most of these detailed facts would have to be verified by the Govt, and if they did blow it up they'd never admit to it, not sure how you'd expect to get believable verification one way or another.

[AUDub 11,184]

13 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

Doesn't make it untrue either.

Shifting the burden of proof? This is a pretty extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

I’m not going to hang my hat on an aging investigative reporter with a recent history of crack pottery and a single anonymous source. Right now we have a single point of failure, an argument from authority from Hersh. Other outlets are certainly digging. Maybe they find something to corroborate.

I’m not certain anyone will though. This tale, while it’s rich on specifics, is pretty loaded with fanciful notions right out of a Tom Clancy novel. I mean he accused Jens Stoltenberg of being a CIA asset since the Vietnam war. Stoltenberg was 16 when Saigon fell. 

13 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

And with all of Biden and Vicki Nulands talk about making sure Nordstream 2 would never happen just a few months before it blew up, I'm not sure I buy It was as dead as you say.

Aside from the anonymous source and lack of falsifiability nor explanation of rationale behind liminal warfare design (why would US act above detection threshold but below response), motive for overt attack in this section of pipeline (closer to Germany) especially right as another pipeline opened and remains and in damaged and no gas was being piped nor likely to in the future…

I guess it makes sense.

13 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

Seeing as most of these detailed facts would have to be verified by the Govt, and if they did blow it up they'd never admit to it, not sure how you'd expect to get believable verification one way or another.

For something that what was so highly secretive, there are a lot of people involved. If it happened, someone will talk and corroborate. 

[KansasTiger 3,254]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

Shifting the burden of proof? This is a pretty extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

I’m not going to hang my hat on an aging investigative reporter with a recent history of crack pottery and a single anonymous source. Right now we have a single point of failure, an argument from authority from Hersh. Other outlets are certainly digging. Maybe they find something to corroborate.

People have used anonymous sources to claim things I'm sure you have more readily believed. But when that happens, it's just mostly in conjunction with backing up established MSM talking points, so it's more accepted.

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

Aside from the anonymous source and lack of falsifiability nor explanation of rationale behind liminal warfare design (why would US act above detection threshold but below response), motive for overt attack in this section of pipeline (closer to Germany) especially right as another pipeline opened and remains and in damaged and no gas was being piped nor likely to in the future…

For no motive, everyone seemed VERY interested in making sure Nordstream 2 was never successful. From Biden, to Nuland, to Ted Cruz, and many more. There's whole super clips out there of people talking about how much of a threat this pipeline was, and how it needed to be stopped at all costs. Then it blows up and we're not the ones that did it? No, the Russians did it to themselves! We're just super happy about the nice stroke of luck, huh. 

Victoria Nuland, "Let me be clear, today. If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nordstream 2 will not move forward"

Joe Biden, "If Russia invades [...], then there will be no longer be a Nordstream 2, we will bring an end to it" (I had to cut out all the Biden gibberish)
Reporter, "How will you do that exactly? Since the project, and control of the project, is in Germany's control?"
Joe Biden, "I Promise you, we will be able to do it" (Smiles)

First off, doesn't sound like they don't care about the pipeline. Sounds like they consider it a threat. Secondly, doesn't take a first grader to see the subtext in those statements. Especially in hindsight to what actually happened.

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

For something that what was so highly secretive, there are a lot of people involved. If it happened, someone will talk and corroborate. 

LOL. So it's ok for anonymous sources when it comes to incriminating Trump (to be clear, I'm not a supporter of either party), but a highly secretive act of industrial sabotage you expect people to come out publicly and corroborate? This is ridiculous. The best you'll ever get on this is anonymous sources, especially in a day and age where if you want to say or publish anything against the almighty narrative, you end up blackballed, if you're lucky.

I'm inclined to say we won't agree and leave it at that. I wanted to leave this as a thought provoking piece of information for those that might want to look past the repetitive garbage drivel the MSM pumps out and see that maybe there's more to what's going on than what you're being told. If you don't agree, to each their own.

ITM for those that know. And back to the sports forum!

[johnnyAU 3,646]

[aubiefifty 16,905]

i could not read the article. big advertisement covering the center of and most of the page wanting me to subscribe and the page was dark.

[aubiefifty 16,905]

nevermind i got it to work somehow............

[AUDub 11,184]

3 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

People have used anonymous sources to claim things I'm sure you have more readily believed. But when that happens, it's just mostly in conjunction with backing up established MSM talking points, so it's more accepted.

I have a healthy sense of skepticism when it comes to anonymous sources without further corroboration. 

 

3 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

For no motive, everyone seemed VERY interested in making sure Nordstream 2 was never successful. From Biden, to Nuland, to Ted Cruz, and many more. There's whole super clips out there of people talking about how much of a threat this pipeline was, and how it needed to be stopped at all costs.

First, I said motive for overt attack. That's an important distinction. The US certainly has an interest in a pipeline not being there. 

But the political pressure was working. As I said the lines were paperweights and the remaining undamaged one (that is capable of carrying the capacity of NS1's lines combined) will be for the foreseeable future.

3 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

Then it blows up and we're not the ones that did it? No, the Russians did it to themselves! We're just super happy about the nice stroke of luck, huh. 

Wouldn't be the first time Putin has false flagged his own infrastructure.

Russia has a storied history of doing this, by the way. One good example was the shelling of one of their own villages as casus belli for the Winter War. 

3 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

Victoria Nuland, "Let me be clear, today. If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nordstream 2 will not move forward"

Joe Biden, "If Russia invades [...], then there will be no longer be a Nordstream 2, we will bring an end to it" (I had to cut out all the Biden gibberish)
Reporter, "How will you do that exactly? Since the project, and control of the project, is in Germany's control?"
Joe Biden, "I Promise you, we will be able to do it" (Smiles)

First off, doesn't sound like they don't care about the pipeline. Sounds like they consider it a threat. Secondly, doesn't take a first grader to see the subtext in those statements. Especially in hindsight to what actually happened.

I'm not saying I would be surprised if we did it. We clearly had a motive and means.

But this fanciful story rich on detail but lacking in every other aspect does not evidence make, my friend. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Certainly fits the pattern of foreign policy actions that seem to reflect no values other than American dominance over the world.

I believe the CFR gets whatever policy/actions they want.