Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
Hopes.N.Dreams
Det klart mitt förra inlägg är spekulationer, men det är hållbar spekulation till skillnad från ditt resonemang om att regimen inte låg bakom det och lämna alla omständigheter som talar emot orörda.
Seymour Hersch är trovärdig så länge han kan ange sina källor för det han påstår. I annat fall är han lika världelös som vilken journalist som helst. Han spekulerar och hänvisar till "anonyma källor". Han resonemang är inte falsifierbar och det i sig är ju ett oerhört sammanträffande som tjänar honom.
Om du frågar Die Welt snällt så kanske du kan få titta på Herchs källor så att du kan falsifiera hans utsagor. Men jag tvivlar på att du skulle lyckas. Åtminstone inte med "tankeläsaren" Aron Lund som källa:
Citat:
As has been the case so often in his professional life, Hersh was harshly criticized for his most recent stories about Syria, about Obama, and about bin Laden. Many say he goes too far and relies too heavily on anonymous sources. Crucially, though, no source who is actively working for a government can reveal classified information “on the record” without incurring considerable personal risk. That holds true in Germany as well.
As has always been his practice, Hersh has told Welt am Sonntag the identities of all the sources he quotes anonymously in his story about Trump's retaliatory strike against Syria. The paper was thus able to speak independently to the central source in the U.S.
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165906452/The-Fog-of-War.html
Edit:
Ett klargörande från Hersch själv om hans källor:
Citat:
/.../Asked, if government lies still make him as angry as in his first days of his career, Hersh replied: „It is more than being upset about lying – it’s about the reluctance of us in the press to hold the men and women who run the world's governments to the highest possible standards. We have a President in America today who lies repeatedly about the most meaningless of information, but he must learn that he cannot lie about the intelligence relied upon before authorizing an act of war. There are those in the Trump administration that understand this, which is why I learned the information I did. If this story creates even a few moments of regret in the white house it will have served a very high purpose.“
(Ibid.)