Seymour Hersh: A Year of Lying About Nord Stream
Seymour Hersh: A Year of Lying About Nord Stream
The Biden administration has acknowledged neither its responsibility for the Nord Stream pipeline bombing nor the purpose of the sabotage.
You're viewing a single thread.
Hmmm… seems like Lenny has been discovered…
Check out these sources, folks.
I actually took the time to read through the article, now I wish I hadn't. The whole thing reads like a spy novel conspiracy theory so I had to look up the site... and sure enough, they are actually rated as very low on factual reporting based on their frequent conspiracy theories. I do find it interesting that their rating is also "Far-Left Biased",makes me feel like this whole article was an attempt to shift that back towards center.
Then again, it was also expected. OP posts at least one article a day weakly attempting to bash the Biden administration, so this is par for the course.
The author appears to be credible: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh
The theory in the article isn't even a new one, and hasn't been strongly dismissed.
Just because Biden is better than Trump doesn't mean he's a holy Saint. It's fair to be open to discussions even if you don't like what's being discussed.
He was credible, back in the day. Unfortunately, sometimes people go crazy, get bought, convert to evil cults, or otherwise become not-credible-anymore.
He's been considered crazy after pretty much every article he has written.
Evidence of heinous acts by government typically doesn't surface until years later.
Hahaha "he was credible" until he said something you peopel don't like of course. Don't kid yourself, back in the day you would say exactly this about every other thing he said.
I'd use the same argument as you, had I not seen a person loose all the credibility very recently.
There was a respected molecular geneticist in czechia. She was not only the head of a private lab, but acted as a forensic expert for the court. When the covid hit, her lab has developed a new, unique way, to test for it. Then there was a conflict with the government, who temporarily banned her lab from conducting the tests. (Governments banning private labs from testing for covid was a thing in europe for some reason)
All of a sudden she started to claim sars-cov2 was artificially made, without providing any relevant evidence. The disinformation media outlets quickly took notice, decided to take advantage of her reputation, and made her a posterchild for all the covid related conspiracy theories. Things progressed very fast from this point on.
Long story short, she's been a guest in an interview conducted by a religious cult recently, in which she has shunned her entire professional life, and proceeded to explain how our reality is just a simulation, and we have to steer clear from the bad aliens, trying to prevent us from increasing our vibrations, to enter the 5th dimension.
It took 2,5 years for her to go from a respected scientist to publicly shilling for a literal cult.
So, based on your anecdotal evidence of completely unrelated person you will discredit just Hersh or every other human writing anything too?
If you can't extrapolate one situation from another, we can't help you.
How the hell it is even extrapolating? The guy said that one woman he know went into some rabbit hole and this is somehow EVIDENCE that completely different person who just happens to be the person that guy wanted to discredit is the same case?
Thats not even anecdotal evidence that's complete non seqitur (and bizarre tier of slander).
Idon’t necessarily agree with him, but I can follow his point and the example that was provided.
This is feeling like an argument in bad faith. 
This is feeling like an argument in bad faith.
Yes, from him. If he want to discredit Hersh, he should provide an argument against Hersh. Instead he wrote anecdote of how completely unrelated person got "corrupted" and on a basis of that single anecdote he probably wanted to prove everyone can be "corruptible", so Hersh too.
I hope you can see how that are not one but two galaxy wide leaps. From specific person to generalisation for entire humanity, to another specific and unrelated person. I could as well "prove" that since some guy i know in Poland started doing drugs and alcohol, it's a proof that you personally did the same.
attempting to bash the Biden administration
Attempting? This is the worst regime your loser country has had in a long time. Child poverty skyrocketing, aswell as child labour. A demented lifetime racist and misogynist figurehead pretending to run the place who doesn't want children "growing up in a racial jungle", a guy with a slew of very credible sexual assault allegations to his name.
The author's evidence is that he has none, therefore it's the perfect operation. Assertions presented without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It's fair to be critical of Hersh's use of anonymous sources, but it was those same anonymous sources that enabled him to cover the so-called "weapons of mass destruction" and "nuclear materials" used to justify the invasion of Iraq. It's not like this article is coming from a journalistic non-entity. Hersh has a pretty stellar record as far as journalism uncovering government corruption.
And the torture of prisoners in Iraq, as well.
It is an article by Seymour Hersh. They adapted it verbatim from his substack: https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/a-year-of-lying-about-nord-stream
He has won multiple journalistic awards including Pulitzer. Not a good look for you that your immediate reaction on reading something that upsets you is to immediately hop on to a garbage website like mediabiasfactcheck to vindicate your fairytale biases without engaging in any critical analysis.
Oh the article upset me? Wow I'm glad you let me know, or I would have missed that! I actually said at the time that while it was a nice theory that Russia was trying to sway public opinion towards themselves, I didn't actually think they could pull off something like that. Keep in mind I never said the idea was crazy, just that I don't trust either the website nor the style in which this was written.
I am sorry. I genuinely thought you were upset that the OP posts articles that besmirch the veritable Biden administration since you jumped to grasping at straws like the writing style and the mediabiasfactcheck report instead of assessing the original source and author of the article which are usually much better indicators of reliability.
You should just do what I do and block lemmygrad. I don't see authoritarian drivel, and neither should you!
I'm trying to piece together your suggestion, but I'm not sure about "lemmygrad"? Is that a reference to the server this was posted on, the server the OP is from, or something else I'm missing?
The server the poster is from, and their comments are hosted. Authoritarians that like the color red congregate there, and with them comes bad faith arguments and consternation. Depending on your browser/app you can ban their instance from reaching you.
Gotcha. I haven't blocked a whole instance before, but yeah I'm starting to consider it. I've noticed a few different nicks posting constant trash lately -- most of them get downvoted pretty quickly but a few of them get some traction, and I guess that's WHY these things keep getting posted.
They adapted it verbatim
🤔
Tell me you're young without telling me you're young.
Mint press is the publisher. The author is the important bit here. Sy Hersh is responsible for breaking lots of stories, and you should recognize his name.
He's probably the last of the independent journalists.
And Sy Hersh has been criticized by a number of journalists for falling down a conspiracy rabbit hole in recent years, with his reporting on the nordstream attack being a major example.
I remember the same criticisms coming out when the torture story came out.
And then the images came out.
When you criticize the US, there are a lot of people that will insist that you're wrong, and crazy for thinking the US could ever do bad stuff.
Wow, talk about circular reasoning. You can't trust this because the guy has a history of being untrustworthy and your evidence is the thing in question. You're not even trying.
No need for ageism.