How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline

Yes, we know.

When CNN cites unnamed sources, you believe them without question. But when a real journalist with a legendary track record cites them, you become highly skeptical.

Your hypocrisy and double-standards are on display for all to see.

 

If someone with more credibility than you, Seymour, Donald Trump, or the Russian government came out in opposition to what CNN reported, or if anyone responded with actual evidence or credible sources contradicting it, I'd certainly consider it.

Anyway, isn't it funny that you have to try and distract from your own fake news piece with attacks on me and CNN? As if CNN had anything to do with this story and your false claims.

 

Who's "we"? Got an Internet Research Agency in your pocket?

 

Nope.

The Deceits of Seymour Hersh - James Kirchick, Commentary ...
https://www.commentary.org › articles › the-deceits-of-...

Mar 1, 2012 — Hersh—the man described by the Financial Times as “the last great American reporter”—was unfazed. There remains “no definitive evidence of a ...

“The Target is Destroyed” by Seymour Hersh
https://www.commentary.org › articles › angelo-codevilla

Dec 1, 1986 — Seymour Hersh, the famous investigative. ... But Hersh never confronts the issue of how close KAL 007 and Cobra Ball were, for the simple ...

 

Oh, asking for actual facts and evidence is "propaganda" is it? Maybe you should not use words which you clearly do not know the definition of? There is not a single fact, piece of evidence, or verifiable source listed in the fictional writing you linked to and that is a fact.

 

Apologetics is the art of the possible. Had Hersh stated his argument so clearly, it would not stand a chance outside the fever swamps of academe. Neither would the even more direct argument that the Reagan administration not only used the incident as a provocation but actually caused it. Hence Hersh floods the reader with details of the telephone calls the State Department’s Richard Burt received about the crisis while dining with his fiancée, and with a lot of information about U.S. intelligence, nearly all of which is irrelevant, much of which is wrong, and some of which he reveals in what would seem to be direct violation of the federal criminal code (Sec. 798 18 USC). Into this flow—which by itself takes the reader’s eye off the question: what kind of government could authorize such killing of innocents?—Hersh injects interpretations that gradually, as the book moves along, harden into “the facts.” If anyone reads the book closely, he will see through the sham. But it will sway some. That is all one can ask of apologetics—especially considering what a tough row Hersh has to hoe in this case.​

Seems to describe this latest bit of propaganda of his quite well. I guess he's sticking to what works for him.

I wonder if Putin slips him a few bills for his service?

 

Your hypocrisy has been exposed yet again.

 

You still haven't offered a single substantive post in your own thread, including the opening post.

 

You have no problem swallowing the claims of anonymous officials and unnamed sources when they promote the liberal agenda, but when America's greatest living journalist cites an unnamed source, suddenly you demand to see proof. Hilarious.

 

Citing unnamed sources is standard journalistic practice. You posted an article from CNN where they cite unnamed sources in support of their story. So, which one is it? Are unnamed sources substantive or not?

 

Unnamed sources and anonymous officials are great, unless they say something I don't like.

 

Durandal's blatant hypocrisy aside, Hersh does not rely solely upon his source. His story is extremely detailed and full of evidence supporting his case. Reasonable people can decide for themselves if his case is strong enough. But to pretend like Hersh does not provide voluminous evidence in his article is just patently dishonest. That's to be expected from USGOV propagandists, though.

 

It's detailed like a Tom Clancy novel, and equally factual.

 

It's the case of all of these "free thinkers" - they are like little kids, who heard something, did not understand a lot and just repeating what they heard. Thinking process is not happening there, of course he can't argue anything.

 

Unlike you "doesn't present any actual facts or credible sources" Hersh is an award winning journalist .. has won awards for presenting facts and credible sources.

what a fallacious joke of a post .. Who else did the pipeline in any case .. only a few countries with means and motive.

Time to present your facts and credible sources ...

 

What came next was stunning. On February 7, less than three weeks before the seemingly inevitable Russian invasion of Ukraine, Biden met in his White House office with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who, after some wobbling, was now firmly on the American team. At the press briefing that followed, Biden defiantly said, “If Russia invades . . . there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”

Twenty days earlier, Undersecretary Nuland had delivered essentially the same message at a State Department briefing, with little press coverage. “I want to be very clear to you today,” she said in response to a question. “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.”

 

What was he wrong about Jack .. Do tell as your opinion don't mean squat in these parts .. having been wrong so so many times before .. caught just making stuff up that sounds good just today .. claiming that 10-1 artillery ration was "Myth" .. another wrong ...

Last time I read something from Hersh was about the War in Syria ... and he got everything right .. and was one of the first to the poll.

but the floor is yours Jack .. tell us about the time when Hersh got it all wrong before ..

 

The Americans provided one vital element: they convinced the Sixth Fleet planners to add a research and development exercise to the program. The exercise, as made public by the Navy, involved the Sixth Fleet in collaboration with the Navy’s “research and warfare centers.” The at-sea event would be held off the coast of Bornholm Island and involve NATO teams of divers planting mines, with competing teams using the latest underwater technology to find and destroy them.

 

And it did not move forward. It was already shut down.

This is not evidence to support Seymour's silly claims.

 

Still no evidence here, of course. It would also be kind of clumsy to use a publicized military exercise as a front for planting explosives, don't you think? It would make such an operation kind of obvious.

Great time for the Russians to blow up their own pipeline, though, since they can then point to that exercise and blame us. It also serves Russia's purpose of trying to drive a wedge between the US and Europe if they can get Europeans to believe we did it. This would be of no benefit to us, especially since the pipeline was already shut down.

 

In this case I'll go with the liberal hacks. There is not a thread of evidence that the U.S. did this nor is there any logical reason to suspect a motive. The European nations are allies of the U.S. We wouldn't attack them. But of course Sy is entitled to his opinion just as you and I are.

 

Biden admitting that he's going to end the pipeline is not evidence that Biden ended the pipeline?

lol

 

Obviously there are different ways of "ending" a pipeline. It would also be kind of stupid to announce that you're going to blow it up and then blow it up when, again, such an action would only benefit Russia and not us.

 

I really wish the US would cut off all the parasitic eastern European countries that are too weak to stand on their own and who have a collective deathwish that impels them towards a suicidal confrontation with Russia. If you all want to end up like Ukraine, a broken down rump state, then go right ahead. Just pay for it yourselves and leave me out of it. I don't give two shits about your worthless country.