Nordstream pipeline sabotage?

[Clayton Bigsby]

It’s a good thing Pulitzer-winning reporters are incapable of making shit up. 

[gearhog]

4 minutes ago, Clayton Bigsby said:

It’s a good thing Pulitzer-winning reporters are incapable of making shit up. 

Of course. Everything that doesn't prop up your worldview is a lie.

[Clayton Bigsby]

2 minutes ago, gearhog said:

Of course. Everything that doesn't prop up your worldview is a lie.

Replying in kind, of course, whatever drivel a reporter conjures to prop up your worldview is gospel truth?

We should ask Brian Williams what really happened, he was probably there setting the charges himself. 

[gearhog]

1 minute ago, Clayton Bigsby said:

Replying in kind, of course, whatever drivel a reporter conjures to prop up your worldview is gospel truth?

We should ask Brian Williams what really happened, he was probably there setting the charges himself. 

So how is it that you ascertain knowledge of anything? Because someone once lied, everyone else is a liar? You're holding so tightly to the narrative "We didn't do this" that you will never publicly admit that your ill-informed gut-feeling that your leaders only act with honor and integrity and aren't capable of such things was wrong. This is obviously going to make some waves, create more questions, and the truth will come out sooner rather than later. So get prepared to cross your arms, dig in your heels, and repeat "Nuh-unh" no matter what further evidence is presented.

[nsplayr]

From the linked story, “…according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.”

The source:

[SurelySerious]

Is substack the reddit of wannabe journalists?

[gearhog]

34 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

From the linked story, “…according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.”

The source:

LOL. It's like some sort of delusional cult. Literally every question, every investigation, every mainstream news article has increasingly pointed toward US involvement and away from Russia since the day of the incident. I wouldn't be wasting my time on this issue if it wasn't completely obvious which way this was going to go. The BALTOPS exercise cover was glaringly evident months ago. It was my first response in this thread. Millions of people are going to pick up on this story, and there will be enormous pressure for some sort of admission from someone involved.

You apparently believe in an alternative story, but there is absolutely nothing out there you can give me to support it with a credibility in the same ballpark as Seymour Hersh. Go waste your time looking for one if you like, but no one has even bothered to even hint that there is evidence Russia did it. Like your photo, it's comic book fantasy.

9 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Is substack the reddit of wannabe journalists?

I know you're just trying to make a dismissive quip without addressing the issue, but if you are intellectually sincere about finding the answer to your question, the author simultaneously published this explanation with regard to substack. I hope you read it.

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/why-substack

"I’ve been told my stories were wrong, invented, outrageous for as long as I can remember—but I’ve never stopped. In 2004, after I published the first stories about the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, a Pentagon spokesman responded by calling my journalism “a tapestry of nonsense.” (He also said I was a guy who “threw a lot of crap against the wall” and “expects someone to peel off what’s real.” I won my fifth George Polk Award for that work.)

That’s where Substack comes along. Here, I have the kind of freedom I’ve always fought for. I’ve watched writer after writer on this platform as they’ve freed themselves from their publishers’ economic interests, run deep with stories without fear of word counts or column inches, and—most importantly—spoke directly to their readers.

What you’ll find here is, I hope, a reflection of that freedom. The story you will read today is the truth as I worked for three months to find, with no pressure from a publisher, editors or peers to make it hew to certain lines of thought—or pare it back to assuage their fears. Substack simply means reporting is back . . . unfiltered and unprogrammed—just the way I like it."

Edited February 8, 2023 by gearhog

[SurelySerious]

I know you're just trying to make a dismissive quip without addressing the issue, but if you are intellectually sincere about finding the answer to your question, the author simultaneously published this explanation with regard to substack. I hope you read it.
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/why-substack
"I’ve been told my stories were wrong, invented, outrageous for as long as I can remember—but I’ve never stopped. In 2004, after I published the first stories about the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, a Pentagon spokesman responded by calling my journalism “a tapestry of nonsense.” (He also said I was a guy who “threw a lot of crap against the wall” and “expects someone to peel off what’s real.” I won my fifth George Polk Award for that work.)
That’s where Substack comes along. Here, I have the kind of freedom I’ve always fought for. I’ve watched writer after writer on this platform as they’ve freed themselves from their publishers’ economic interests, run deep with stories without fear of word counts or column inches, and—most importantly—spoke directly to their readers.
What you’ll find here is, I hope, a reflection of that freedom. The story you will read today is the truth as I worked for three months to find, with no pressure from a publisher, editors or peers to make it hew to certain lines of thought—or pare it back to assuage their fears. Substack simply means reporting is back . . . unfiltered and unprogrammed—just the way I like it."

Oh absolutely, but I honestly didn’t know what it was.

[Longhorn15]

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

You apparently believe in an alternative story, but there is absolutely nothing out there you can give me to support it with a credibility in the same ballpark as Seymour Hersh. Go waste your time looking for one if you like, but no one has even bothered to even hint that there is evidence Russia did it. Like your photo, it's comic book fantasy.

I know you're just trying to make a dismissive quip without addressing the issue, but if you are intellectually sincere about finding the answer to your question, the author simultaneously published this explanation with regard to substack. I hope you read it.

Actually read the article.  After years of being lied to by the MSM and their "sources" I don't see a reason to give this article any credibility.  I can make up how anyone would've accomplished this and cite an anonymous source to attempt to bolster the point.  

No one in the media knows who did this.  Until someone has some real evidence or credible sources willing to go public, it will remain that way.

I find the US unlikely due to Biden's past timidity.  Don't forget Biden is the one who didn't want to risk going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden.  It doesn't seem likely that he would risk fracturing NATO via-a-vis Germany by cutting off a potential gas supply that might be needed during winner.

Russia would risk little if this was found to be them, as it is their property.  It does play well into the Russian domestic narrative that they are under attack by NATO.  It could also drive a wedge between NATO countries.  Does that mean they did it?  Nope, it just means it may have been them.

[gearhog]

9 minutes ago, Longhorn15 said:

Actually read the article.  After years of being lied to by the MSM and their "sources" I don't see a reason to give this article any credibility.  I can make up how anyone would've accomplished this and cite an anonymous source to attempt to bolster the point.  

No one in the media knows who did this.  Until someone has some real evidence or credible sources willing to go public, it will remain that way.

I find the US unlikely due to Biden's past timidity.  Don't forget Biden is the one who didn't want to risk going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden.  It doesn't seem likely that he would risk fracturing NATO via-a-vis Germany by cutting off a potential gas supply that might be needed during winner.

This guy is not mainstream media, and for good reason. He is blatantly critical of MSM. Instead of using the argument that because MSM lied to you, this guy must also be lying... why don't you critique the man alone and his archive of work? You're merely repeating what someone else said an hour before you. He's been around since Viet-Nam, surely you can find something.

The US was likely not involved because of Biden's "timidity". Well, at least that's an original take. No one else is using that as a defense. LOL

 

23 minutes ago, Longhorn15 said:

Does that mean they did it?  Nope, it just means it may have been them.

Do you know the definition of the word "equivocating"? It's a sure sign of a weak argument.

[nsplayr]

Here’s how I see it:

Occam’s razor, Russia did it because they are giant assholes and at war in Europe currently.

If Hersh has evidence the US did it, counter to the simplest explanation above, publish the actual hard evidence and the name of the source. Hell, there should be a plethora of sources for something this big.

Go public! What a groundbreaking story that would be! Probably could get another Pulitzer.

You can’t just say “an anonymous senior official blah blah blah” and then fill in whatever else you want after that and be believed. Especially given his history making up other stuff re: bin Laden raid and etc.

Until that happens he’s just some guy online with an opinion, and opinions are like assholes; we all have them and they all stink.

[gearhog]

34 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Here’s how I see it:

Occam’s razor, Russia did it because they are giant assholes and at war in Europe currently.

Here's how I see it.

Your contention is that Russians are "assholes" and are at war and probably did it because of some cliche theory you slapped on the situation. How can you possibly expect me, or anyone else, to take you seriously? You spent 5 seconds and zero critical thinking on your assessment. No evidence, no reasonable explanation, no references, no nothing.

On the other hand, a multiple award winning author and journalist spends months putting together a story with multiple sources obviously illegally communicating the truth with him at great risk to themselves and their career and you're critical because you don't know their names. If he had documents, you'd be complaining he was publishing secrets. What was his motivation? To damage the country he lives in? Turning a profit by publishing a free story on substack?

How are you even serious? You have zero to offer. At least create some semblance of a plausible story explaining how and why Russia did it with half as much detail.

Here's a question for you: Without any acknowledgment or consideration of who may or may not be responsible, was it wrong to blow up the pipeline?

Edited February 8, 2023 by gearhog

[gearhog]

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Another thought I had regarding the picture you posted:

Who watches the Watchmen?

[Longhorn15]

Do you know the definition of the word "equivocating"? It's a sure sign of a weak argument.

It’s not an argument, it’s a possibility.

If the writer is so anti-MSM why is he using anonymous sources with no corroborating evidence? You know, the exact reason no one trusts the MSM. Being against liars and propagandists doesn’t automatically make you a beacon of truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

Just now, Longhorn15 said:

It’s not an argument, it’s a possibility.

If the writer is so anti-MSM why is he using anonymous sources with no corroborating evidence? You know, the exact reason no one trusts the MSM. Being against liars and propagandists doesn’t automatically make you a beacon of truth.

You really have to think this through. Do you think you're the first one to every wonder why journalists would keep their sources anonymous?  Reporter's Privilege and Confidential Sources have been long established practice and you and I should be thankful. Would we ever get revelations into crime and corruption if every whistleblower feared retribution for speaking out?

[ClearedHot]

4 hours ago, gearhog said:

I.

Told.

You.

So.

Seriously? You are hanging your hat on Seymour Hersh?  Really?  I am kind of without words.

He may be famous for uncovering the 1968 My Lai massacre and the mid-2000s Abu Ghraib but he has more conspiracy theories than the flat earth society.  

Among his claims:

1.  "Bin Laden was a “prisoner” of the Pakistani intelligence service in his Abbottabad compound since 2006; the United States learned of Bin Laden’s whereabouts through a former Pakistani intelligence officer; Saudi Arabia was “financing Bin Laden’s upkeep”; and Pakistan’s military helped Washington plan the raid."

2.   "Top leaders of the Pentagon deliberately subverted American policy toward Syria, sabotaging US efforts to aid Syrian rebels and even sending US intelligence to Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad."

And my personal favorite:

3.  In January 2011 he spoke at Georgetown University’s branch campus in Qatar, where he gave a bizarre and rambling address alleging that top military and special forces leaders are "all members of, or at least supporters of, Knights of Malta.… many of them are members of Opus Dei."

[gearhog]

14 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Seriously? You are hanging your hat on Seymour Hersh?  Really?  I am kind of without words.

He may be famous for uncovering the 1968 My Lai massacre and the mid-2000s Abu Ghraib but he has more conspiracy theories than the flat earth society.  

Among his claims:

1.  "Bin Laden was a “prisoner” of the Pakistani intelligence service in his Abbottabad compound since 2006; the United States learned of Bin Laden’s whereabouts through a former Pakistani intelligence officer; Saudi Arabia was “financing Bin Laden’s upkeep”; and Pakistan’s military helped Washington plan the raid."

2.   "Top leaders of the Pentagon deliberately subverted American policy toward Syria, sabotaging US efforts to aid Syrian rebels and even sending US intelligence to Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad."

And my personal favorite:

3.  In January 2011 he spoke at Georgetown University’s branch campus in Qatar, where he gave a bizarre and rambling address alleging that top military and special forces leaders are "all members of, or at least supporters of, Knights of Malta.… many of them are members of Opus Dei."

How are those outlandish? You don't think Pakistan and Saudi benefited from playing both sides against the middle? I haven't spent any time on this, but at first glance, I'm not outright dismissing it just because it doesn't jive with the narrative you and I've been fed for 22 years. You do realize we spent hundreds of billions hunting Bin Ladin. Maybe people like money.

You could fill encyclopedias with the shit the US has been doing under the radar. I posted the other day regarding Wesley Clark inadvertently revealing we had plans to escalate conflicts in Syria. We sent ships full of arms from Libya to Syria after Libya unexpectedly erupted in chaos and fell. https://www.businessinsider.com/obama-admin-admits-to-covertly-sending-heavy-weapons-to-syrian-rebels-2012-12

Knights of Malta? Never heard of them, but the F cares if they were? They're an aid organization from I can tell. https://www.orderofmalta.int/

I hoped you of all would realize I am only goading people into committing to a position knowing full well what the eventual outcome will be. Nearly all of the elements to this story were posted here by people here on this forum long before the story was published. The Baltic Exercise, Victoria Nuland, Biden's Anti-Nordstream Speeches, etc. 75% of the pieces were already there, Hersch just finished the puzzle.

Edited February 8, 2023 by gearhog

[gearhog]

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

Here's a question for you: Without any acknowledgment or consideration of who may or may not be responsible, was it wrong to blow up the pipeline?

@nsplayr, did you miss this?

[nsplayr]

I’m just heavily anti-conspiracy as a person. Saying everything is a conspiracy is like saying the stock market is about to crash it it’s about to rain. I mean, technically you’re right sometimes, but not enough to be believed all the time.

Yes, the Russian government is controlled by assholes. Yes, they are at war in Europe after invading Ukraine. Simplest explanation is they did it. Not to totally rule out anything else, but in the absence of exculpatory evidence, that’s what I think happened.

Hanging your hat on one guy who has peddled false conspiracies before, sourcing an anonymous “senior official” without anything else concrete is…not what I think anyone should do.

[nsplayr]

3 minutes ago, gearhog said:

@nsplayr, did you miss this?

No. I do have a life sometimes despite my posting history 😅

Yea sure, intentionally destroying things is bad. Hell, war is a policy failure at its core because you’re destroying rather than building and killing rather than flourishing.

Not sure what you’re looking to have me say here or why my opinion matters that much to you. 🤷‍♂️

Edited February 8, 2023 by nsplayr

[gearhog]

2 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

I’m just heavily anti-conspiracy as a person. Saying everything is a conspiracy is like saying the stock market is about to crash it it’s about to rain. I mean, technically you’re right sometimes, but not enough to be believed all the time.

Yes, the Russian government is controlled by assholes. Yes, they are at war in Europe after invading Ukraine. Simplest explanation is they did it. Not to totally rule out anything else, but in the absence of exculpatory evidence, that’s what I think happened.

Hanging your hat on one guy who has peddled false conspiracies before, sourcing an anonymous “senior official” without anything else concrete is…not what I think anyone should do.

Your tactic here is to generalize everything I may say as a conspiracy and dismiss it all. Stay on topic. We're talking about a single incident. Re-read this thread from the beginning and see if the evidence presented is in alignment. I still don't understand how you can say "in the absence of evidence... Russia did it." Wouldn't the reasonable thing to say be "In the absence of evidence... I don't know."?

You're copying and pasting what ClearedHot said as using it as your own, phraseology and all. Awkward.

7 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

No. Yea sure, intentionally destroying things is bad. Hell, war is a policy failure at its core because you’re destroying rather than building and killing rather than flourishing.

Not sure what you’re looking to have me say here or why my opinion matters that much to you. 🤷‍♂️

How can you not be sure? Isn't it evident that when you answer blowing up the pipeline is bad, you cannot amoralize and rationalize the act after the culprit is revealed?

[nsplayr]

My thoughts are my own but clearly shared by others. Maybe they’re reasonable!

Russia is a known malign actor in Europe, they recently started an aggressive war against their neighbor, and the country is run by an asshole dictator who has wantonly murdered civilians and ordered his forces to commit a variety of war crimes.

In the absence of evidence that someone else did it, I’m inclined to believe it was them.

I’m all ears for actual, real evidence to the contrary, feel free to post some!

Edited February 8, 2023 by nsplayr

[gearhog]

29 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

I’m all ears for actual, real evidence to the contrary, feel free to post some!

Ok. To any conscientious listener, it is blatantly obvious what they're saying here. I think they were actually winking at one another during this Senate hearing.

Victoria Nuland: "I was gratified to have a chance to go through some of those specific measures in the classified session yesterday, but going beyond that in this open session, I think doesn't... um... help us get from here to there but we every everything is on the table I would say if if that is helpful."

Senator Ron Johnson: "One thing that i believe...certainly the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is pretty unified on it... (may not be unanimous) was our support for sanctions against Nordstrom 2 pipeline. And that I think we were all, many of us, were very disappointed that those sanctions were not fully implemented and the construction continued.

I can't think of a more powerful way to punish Russian aggression than by rolling back what progress has been made and if, at all possible, uh... prevent the  Nordstream 2 from ever being completed.

Is that something that is being discussed with allies? Is that something that's being contemplated?"

Victoria Nuland: "Absolutely. And as, if as you recall from the July US/German statement, that was very much…uh…in that statement that if that any moves Russian aggression against Ukraine… uh… would have a direct impact on the pipeline and that is our expectation and the conversation that we're having so again direct impact is one thing…

 Senator Ron Johnson: "But i'm… i'm literally talking about rolling back the the pipeline, you know, you can loosely define that but i mean taking action that will prevent it from ever becoming operational."

 Victoria Nuland: "I think if President Putin moves on Ukraine our expectation is that the pipeline will be suspended."

Senator Ron Johnson: "Well, I certainly hope that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would take up legislation to go beyond just suspending it but ending it permanently, but anyway, thank you Undersecretary Nuland."

 

Edited February 8, 2023 by gearhog

[Splash95]

I must admit I find it a little crazy that virtually no one on this forum other than gearhog even acknowledges the possibility that the Nord Stream culprit isn't whom the West wants it to be. A couple of questions which will hopefully stimulate some thinking, but instead will likely just get me downvoted and dunked on by the BO.net mainstream:

1. Who stands to gain?

2. If there were anything tying the Russians to this, wouldn't the investigating parties (who, being Western, clearly would want to finger the Russians) have found it or at least "found it" after several months?

3. Hersh is an old man. Considering his My Lai and Abu Ghraib work, and even taking CH's word for it that he has also espoused conspiracy theories at times, his legacy seems secure. Why would he throw it away with an in-depth, elaborate fabrication?

None of these questions mean that I'm convinced of a heterodox explanation for the blasts. They simply represent that, in my mind, it is absolutely valid for American citizens (among others) to have and express doubts, especially since zero explanation has been on offer.

[Prozac]

5 hours ago, gearhog said:

Ok. To any conscientious listener, it is blatantly obvious what they're saying here. I think they were actually winking at one another during this Senate hearing.

Victoria Nuland: "I was gratified to have a chance to go through some of those specific measures in the classified session yesterday, but going beyond that in this open session, I think doesn't... um... help us get from here to there but we every everything is on the table I would say if if that is helpful."

Senator Ron Johnson: "One thing that i believe...certainly the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is pretty unified on it... (may not be unanimous) was our support for sanctions against Nordstrom 2 pipeline. And that I think we were all, many of us, were very disappointed that those sanctions were not fully implemented and the construction continued.

I can't think of a more powerful way to punish Russian aggression than by rolling back what progress has been made and if, at all possible, uh... prevent the  Nordstream 2 from ever being completed.

Is that something that is being discussed with allies? Is that something that's being contemplated?"

Victoria Nuland: "Absolutely. And as, if as you recall from the July US/German statement, that was very much…uh…in that statement that if that any moves Russian aggression against Ukraine… uh… would have a direct impact on the pipeline and that is our expectation and the conversation that we're having so again direct impact is one thing…

 Senator Ron Johnson: "But i'm… i'm literally talking about rolling back the the pipeline, you know, you can loosely define that but i mean taking action that will prevent it from ever becoming operational."

 Victoria Nuland: "I think if President Putin moves on Ukraine our expectation is that the pipeline will be suspended."

Senator Ron Johnson: "Well, I certainly hope that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would take up legislation to go beyond just suspending it but ending it permanently, but anyway, thank you Undersecretary Nuland."

 

The fact that we were so publicly critical of the Nordstream projects means blowing them up would immediately have people pointing the finger at us. Pursuing that option seems like it would’ve been rather daft. Not saying it’s impossible for us to make silly, ill timed decisions, just less probable in this case than other possibilities. I think it’s entirely possible, for instance, that one of our Baltic or Eastern European NATO partners could’ve been the culprit. They have advocated for far more deliberate & direct action against Russia and, given their stated positions in this conflict, I wouldn’t downplay the possibility that perhaps the Latvians or Poles decided to act on their own. Another possibility (and I think a more likely one) is that the Russians did indeed blow up their own pipeline as part of a series of actions to create tension and doubt amongst the Western allies. One of Russia’s primary angles of late has been “yeah, we’re pretty sneaky and nasty, but your so-called democracies are just as corrupt and amoral as us”. Thankfully, most of us can see through that narrative, but it does seem to have taken hold with a certain segment of our population and media. In any case, one article that hasn’t been corroborated by anyone (and written by an octogenarian with a sketchy history) is probably not quite the slam dunk you think it is.