Seymour Hersh: How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    4,970
    Reaction score
    2,401
    Location
    Madisonville
    Offline
    The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now

    Screenshot_20230222_174318_Substack Reader.jpg


    The U.S. Navy’s Diving and Salvage Center can be found in a location as obscure as its name—down what was once a country lane in rural Panama City, a now-booming resort city in the southwestern panhandle of Florida, 70 miles south of the Alabama border. The center’s complex is as nondescript as its location—a drab concrete post-World War II structure that has the look of a vocational high school on the west side of Chicago. A coin-operated laundromat and a dance school are across what is now a four-lane road.

    The center has been training highly skilled deep-water divers for decades who, once assigned to American military units worldwide, are capable of technical diving to do the good—using C4 explosives to clear harbors and beaches of debris and unexploded ordnance—as well as the bad, like blowing up foreign oil rigs, fouling intake valves for undersea power plants, destroying locks on crucial shipping canals. The Panama City center, which boasts the second largest indoor pool in America, was the perfect place to recruit the best, and most taciturn, graduates of the diving school who successfully did last summer what they had been authorized to do 260 feet under the surface of the Baltic Sea.

    Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.

    Two of the pipelines, which were known collectively as Nord Stream 1, had been providing Germany and much of Western Europe with cheap Russian natural gas for more than a decade. A second pair of pipelines, called Nord Stream 2, had been built but were not yet operational. Now, with Russian troops massing on the Ukrainian border and the and the bloodiest war in Europe since 1945 looming, President Joseph Biden saw the pipelines as a vehicle for Vladimir Putin to weaponize natural gas for his political and territorial ambitions.

    Asked for comment, Adrienne Watson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email, “This is false and complete fiction.” Tammy Thorp, a spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, similarly wrote: “This claim is completely and utterly false.”

    Two of the pipelines, which were known collectively as Nord Stream 1, had been providing Germany and much of Western Europe with cheap Russian natural gas for more than a decade. A second pair of pipelines, called Nord Stream 2, had been built but were not yet operational. Now, with Russian troops massing on the Ukrainian border and the bloodiest war in Europe since 1945 looming, President Joseph Biden saw the pipelines as a vehicle for Vladimir Putin to weaponize natural gas for his political and territorial ambitions.Biden’s decision to sabotage the pipelines came after more than nine months of highly secret back and forth debate inside Washington’s national security community about how to best achieve that goal. For much of that time, the issue was not whether to do the mission, but how to get it done with no overt clue as to who was responsible.

    There was a vital bureaucratic reason for relying on the graduates of the center’s hardcore diving school in Panama City. The divers were Navy only, and not members of America’s Special Operations Command, whose covert operations must be reported to Congress and briefed in advance to the Senate and House leadership—the so-called Gang of Eight. The Biden Administration was doing everything possible to avoid leaks as the planning took place late in 2021 and into the first months of 2022.

    President Biden and his foreign policy team—National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, and Victoria Nuland, the Undersecretary of State for Policy—had been vocal and consistent in their hostility to the two pipelines, which ran side by side for 750 miles under the Baltic Sea from two different ports in northeastern Russia near the Estonian border, passing close to the Danish island of Bornholm before ending in northern Germany.

    The direct route, which bypassed any need to transit Ukraine, had been a boon for the German economy, which enjoyed an abundance of cheap Russian natural gas—enough to run its factories and heat its homes while enabling German distributors to sell excess gas, at a profit, throughout Western Europe. Action that could be traced to the administration would violate US promises to minimize direct conflict with Russia. Secrecy was essential.



    I know this is from a few weeks ago, but it definitely deserves it's own thread
     
    So, what you are saying is that if you oppose Trump you are a grifter? Well, that’s certainly one way to look at things. Personally, I think if you oppose Trump it means you care about this country.

    You don’t know anything about Tom Nichols and you are deluded if you don’t think Maté has a pro-Putin bias. It’s obvious.

    And, yes, you nailed it, I’m actually a CIA operative. 🤷‍♀️🙈🤷‍♀️🙈🤷‍♀️🙈🤷‍♀️🙈🤷‍♀️🙈🤷‍♀️🙈🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
     
    So, what you are saying is that if you oppose Trump you are a grifter? Well, that’s certainly one way to look at things. Personally, I think if you oppose Trump it means you care about this country.

    You don’t know anything about Tom Nichols and you are deluded if you don’t think Maté has a pro-Putin bias. It’s obvious.

    And, yes, you nailed it, I’m actually a CIA operative. 🤷‍♀️🙈🤷‍♀️🙈🤷‍♀️🙈🤷‍♀️🙈🤷‍♀️🙈🤷‍♀️🙈🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
    I see why you didn't quote my post when you responded to it. I didn't say that just because someone opposes Trump that they are a grifter. That's basically what you do towards anyone who doesn't toe the corporate media narratives.

    Nichols changed his political views and opinions so he could cash in on the anti Trump sentiment. I posted the tweets for you before that showed how his immigration stance did a 180 to where he is now.

    I never claimed or think you are a CIA operative, but you constantly spout CIA talking points like anyone who criticizes the US foreign policy or doesn't go along with the corporate media narratives is a Putin or Russia supporter. That's a CIA talking point. Did you get that from CIA linked Anne Applebaum?
     
    When I post what I think, you call it CIA talking points. As if I have any idea what those are and you don’t either. My remark was sarcastic. Which is indicated by all the emojis.

    When someone changes their opinion on anything you call them a grifter. Tom Nichols is a principled man, he isn’t “cashing in” - he recognizes a true threat to the U.S. in Trump, and isn’t afraid to state his case.

    He has openly discussed the evolution of his opinions on a couple issues and you could follow along if you chose to do so. It’s far easier to throw out hate and accusations though, isn’t it?

    He doesn’t agree with a lot of things that liberals believe. If he were grifting, wouldn’t he be all in? Right now he’s have fights with liberals on Twitter who believe that Reagan was in on the alleged Connolly negotiations with Iran during Carter’s presidency to delay freeing the hostages.

    I never said anyone who criticizes US foreign policy supports Putin, that’s a strawman argument and not a very good one. Only the people who actually support Putin. That happens to include a whole bunch of idiotic Rs, including Trump, Tucker Carlson, and a handful of R representatives and a couple R senators.
     
    please note that Russia is fully promoting what is called here the Hersh BS. So if you note who else is fully promoting it, that should give you a clue who is fully aligned with Russia and who is thinking for themselves.




    Please note that Micheal Weiss is a member of the Atlantic Council who is funded by the UAE, NATO, Goldman Sachs, The State Department to name a few.
    20230319_181339.jpg



    He wrote this article with someone from the UK spy contractor Bellingcat:

    Micheal Weiss is not someone who should be trusted based off of his connections to governments and the intelligence community and he has mountains of conflicts of interest. He also has a bad reputation from his work from the Iraq War.
     
    Last edited:
    SFL, what a joke. You cannot refute what he says so you decide that he can’t be trusted. You are doing what you accuse me of doing, you do it constantly.

    Did you ever stop to think why people want you to completely distrust everyone and anyone who has ever worked in government in any capacity? Why would people want you to think that way? Who benefits when you think that way?

    I’m not under any delusion that you will do any self-reflection or answer the above questions. But you really should.

    A healthy skepticism is fine, but what we see from you isn’t that.
     
    SFL, what a joke. You cannot refute what he says so you decide that he can’t be trusted. You are doing what you accuse me of doing, you do it constantly.

    Did you ever stop to think why people want you to completely distrust everyone and anyone who has ever worked in government in any capacity? Why would people want you to think that way? Who benefits when you think that way?

    I’m not under any delusion that you will do any self-reflection or answer the above questions. But you really should.

    A healthy skepticism is fine, but what we see from you isn’t that.
    I don't trust anyone who gets funding from NATO, our government, UAE, the military industrial complex, or the intelligence community to give unbiased information. That's huge conflicts of interests that he's reporting on the subjects that cover who funds him. Do you take what the CIA would say at face value?

    This isn't about someone working for the government. It's about someone with huge conflicts of interest reporting on subjects that are directly related to the funding he gets.

    Look into the Atlantic Council. The receive funding from a lot of shady sources including undemocratic countries as well as the department of defense, the CIA, & NATO. The Atlantic Council is also involved in policing misinformation/ disinformation. Why in the world would anyone want governments especially undemocratic countries and the CIA telling us what is true and what isn't?

     
    So you trust everyone else? Lol. You trust Russia? Iran? China? North Korea?

    You didn’t refute what I said: there’s healthy skepticism and then there’s what you do. It’s not the same thing.

    You seem to think that people are cartoonishly either good or evil. They’re not, and people who might not tell the truth in one area might be a reliable source in another area.

    If you immediately discard all of those people you named, you do realize you leave yourself open to other folks with agendas, right? Wouldn’t it be better to weigh every situation individually and then decide what makes the most sense?

    Very often the simplest explanation is true, in my experience. But I’ve never been one to look for conspiracies everywhere. 🤷‍♀️
     
    So you trust everyone else? Lol. You trust Russia? Iran? China? North Korea?

    You didn’t refute what I said: there’s healthy skepticism and then there’s what you do. It’s not the same thing.

    You seem to think that people are cartoonishly either good or evil. They’re not, and people who might not tell the truth in one area might be a reliable source in another area.

    If you immediately discard all of those people you named, you do realize you leave yourself open to other folks with agendas, right? Wouldn’t it be better to weigh every situation individually and then decide what makes the most sense?

    Very often the simplest explanation is true, in my experience. But I’ve never been one to look for conspiracies everywhere. 🤷‍♀️

    What's infintile about his arguments are that they're straight out of the litany of NWO international something, something is evil.

    READ MORE

    What makes it so infintile, is that these conspiracies always paint the CIA, FBI, IMF, as all evil and conspiring against anything good. Most rational people don't view institutions through such a simplistic lens. For example, I can see where the FBI has done some fairly horrible things, but recognize that institutions are only is effective as their people and processes.

    There's really no hope for reasoning with any of this nonsense, because the goal posts will just keep moving as these blanket assertions will just be made without any thought or evidence.

    And there will be absolutely no regard for irony or consistency when all of a sudden one of these institutions (THE CORPORATE MEDIA!) will be good, just, right, etc. when it fits whatever narrative or conspiracy being woven at the time.
     
    Yeah, the inconsistency is obvious to most people who follow him at all, but evidently it never occurs to him. 🤷‍♀️
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom