This is the article I am talking about.
Every circumstantial evidence and common sense argument would suggest that the US was to gain the most from this attack. But deranged liberals of all ranks, from mainstream “journalists” to the rabid NATO defenders of lemmy.ml, tried to gaslight you into thinking that at best the jury was still out on who did it and at worst accused Russia for doing it even though they stood to lose the most because of the outcome.
Seymour Hersh is clearly just spewing Russian talking points here. No, I didn’t read the article, because it’s obviously written by a Kremlin agent and I don’t want to engage with Russian propaganda. I don’t even have to read it – it’s obvious that Seymour Hersh is a Putin puppet, because if he wasn’t, he wouldn’t have written this article. NATO is a defensive organization. Slobber o’ crayon
I notice they’re all extremely quiet now
Well, the White House has said that the accusation is “extremely false” and you know that they would never lie about something like this.
“We investigated outselves and found nothing wrong!”
Even now I get liberals saying that Hersh is now just a hack who publishes clickbait.
I guess reputation and integrity only count when they support your extant beliefs.
i even have friends who 3 months ago said it was* russia now saying it wasnt russia
Rub in in for them. They need to suffer, otherwise it doesn’t stick.
I’m pretty sure they’re still gonna claim that Russia did it. Libs stay stuff based on feels
My oldest brother is one of those libs that says “omg Russia is so dumb they don’t realize that nothing they do will get people on their side, they really just bombed their own Nord Stream for people to hopefully rile up against the US and NATO meanwhile nobody cares and realized Russia did it, it makes no sense lol” it’s tough to explain because my older brother and I both fully recognize that the US told Norway to put bombs on the Nord Stream
The article sets forth an interesting case, and the idea that the mines were planted during BALTOPS 22 is compelling.
However, the author uses a top-secret source that conveniently has a birds-eye view of the issue, personally participated in different secret meetings at different points of the process, and is knowledgeable in multiple key areas. With so many specific details, it should be easy for this source to be identified by the other people involved.
This is an extraordinary source that is perfect for this piece. Accepting an extraordinary source requires extraordinary evidence. The source chooses to remain anonymous - and that is sensible - but without supplying any evidence to validate the source’s claims the author won’t earn the trust of many of us.
When accepting whether to trust a piece of information or not - ask yourself: would I believe equally-sourced claims of the opposite? For example, if a journalist claims that Putin personally ordered the attack - and the evidence provided for the claim is “a close source to Putin told me”, followed by a cohesive and sensible story of why Putin would want to do that, would you believe that right away? If the answer is “no”, but you do find yourself trusting this source immediately, then you are experiencing a confirmation bias.
Seymour has a track record though, he broke the My Lai massacre story and he’s won several journalistic prizes. He was also among the first to cover the Abu Ghraib abuses.
He is a very respectable journalist. I was not familiar with his work, but I have looked at some summaries and excerpts and it is for sure fantastic work. His fame and prestige is absolutely enough of a reason to listen to him and take him seriously, but no amount is enough to accept what is attributed to an “unnamed source” says as gospel. You have to trust him, his ability to pick a reliable source, and the source itself - without identifying the source! It is quite a bit to ask for such a claim that is as important as this one.
I am not a court of law. I can have biases when information is incomplete. I am not ashamed of these biases and I will change my stance if I am presented evidence against my beliefs.
The journalist in question has consistently provided coverage of the US’ acts of wars and war crimes. I don’t find it difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt.
if a journalist claims that Putin personally ordered the attack - and the evidence provided for the claim is “a close source to Putin told me”
If the same journalists that have told me ten times that Kim Jong Un has died, I would not believe them. Guess I am just biased.
Kim Jong Un did die ten times though. The first time was for our sins, the other nine he was just flexing his Arch Lich magic.
Don’t forget all the times he stood on a high metal roof during the thunderstorm and yelled “FUCK YOU, GOD! SMITE ME!”
We all have biases. I am not trying to say that a “bias” is necessarily “wrong”. Biases can be very helpful - perhaps even necessary to stay sane. Imagine trying to live a perfectly un-biased life!
What is important is to be aware of our own biases - and also to think of how the biases of the “other side” will manifest themselves.
In this case, you have said:
But deranged liberals of all ranks, from mainstream “journalists” to the rabid NATO defenders of lemmy.ml, tried to gaslight you into thinking that at best the jury was still out on who did it and at worst accused Russia for doing it even though they stood to lose the most because of the outcome.
And I take this to mean that this article will once and for all settle the question of who was responsible. But using a secret source is not going to be enough to settle the question - those biased in favor of the US will claim that the source is a lie, some of those without much of a vested interest either way might think "Alright, great story, but what’s the evidence? "
Answering this question is going to require a lot more than “Someone told me. Trust me. I won a Pulitzer”.
Answering this question is not going to require anything. As far as I am concerned it has already been answered. The President of the US has already said in front of cameras that the empire that he is part of will end the NordStream pipelines if they needed to which is what they ended up doing. This is the kind of stuff that is being overlooked by the deranged liberals that I mentioned.
This is not a question that required being put to bed in the first place. In the mind of every sane person not brainwashed with settler-colonial propaganda the burden of proof of innocence lies on the empire which is known to commit covert acts of wars like the one in question. I am sure that the smol bean intelligence agencies that can almost overthrow governments at will and assassinate their own president can furnish proof of their innocence if they have it. As I said neither I nor this forum is a court of law. My mind is made up due to the enormity of circumstantial evidences and it will be changed only when I am presented hard evidence against the contrary.
Ok, that’s fair. I understand.
I think it will be interesting if in the coming months or years if some Norwegian sailor puts two and two together, “hey we were there just before the line blew”. Because I doubt the Norwegian sailors even knew the implications of putting the buoy down. I think that would definitely confirm it for even the most people.
The title of this post currently appears to be truncated, ending with “I am reminded of the b”. What are you reminded of, OP?
Anyway, the jury is still out. The US remains the most likely perpetrator imo, but Hersh’s substack post based on information from a single anonymous source is hardly conclusive.
Maybe it is a federation problem:
In light of Seymour Hersh’s exposé of the US bombing of NordStream pipelines, I am reminded of the brain deprived insane liberals that constantly alleged that Russia did it
bedtimes
Antianarchistisch Aktion - mandatory bedtimes for liberals.
