21–30 of 36 posts
Honestly a lot of asymmetric war sounds like the trolley problem. You hear rumors of an attack and soon after there it is killing many. You start hearing more rumors and you look for data. There must be a lot of scenarios where you can't be sure of things on the ground, it developing fast and chaotic. Obama has spoken on how most of the decisions you make as president are just weighing probabilities, i.e., there's a…
Honestly a lot of asymmetric war sounds like the trolley problem. You hear rumors of an attack and soon after there it is killing many. You start hearing more rumors and you look for data. There must be a lot of scenarios where you can't be sure of things on the ground, it developing fast and chaotic. Obama has spoken on how most of the decisions you make as president are just weighing probabilities, i.e., there's a…
I’m so tired of these stories. Yes, it’s horrible. I’ll be outraged for an evening. But what can I ultimately do against the bloodthirsty behemoth that is the US government? If it’s something like Amazon I can choose not to give them my money. But if I’m disillusioned with the entire way one (or maybe all) of the largest countries on the earth operate, what can I do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Even if they do report for the BBC at other times, they aren’t reporting for the BBC in this tweet. Right, hence the use of the phrase, "bbc reporters" and not, "the BBC". Given how common it is for reporters to tweet like this these days, that's a natural assumption one could - and should - be making when they read phrases like that. That was the very assumption that I made when I first read the comment. >The BBC b…
> "Someone an outlet like the BBC trusts." The BBC clearly has not trusted these reports. Nor has any other journalistic outlet. They are literally just the tweets of any old Joe Schmoe. It doesn’t matter who they work for, since the BBC is not taking any responsibility for the reports. Journalism has fact checkers and editors for a reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Even if they do report for the BBC at other times, they aren’t reporting for the BBC in this tweet. Right, hence the use of the phrase, "bbc reporters" and not, "the BBC". Given how common it is for reporters to tweet like this these days, that's a natural assumption one could - and should - be making when they read phrases like that. That was the very assumption that I made when I first read the comment. >The BBC b…
> "Someone an outlet like the BBC trusts." The BBC clearly has not trusted these reports. Nor has any other journalistic outlet. They are literally just the tweets of any old Joe Schmoe. It doesn’t matter who they work for, since the BBC is not taking any responsibility for the reports. Journalism has fact checkers and editors for a reason.
Nobody said they did. :)
>Nor has any other journalistic outlet.
False. Googling "us soldiers shot civilians airport kabul" brings up a number of articles about it, albeit not from Western outlets. I can provide links, if you'd like, but they show up in the first two pages of results.
Please note that this is not me endorsing the validity of those articles.
>They are literally just the tweets of any old Joe Schmoe. It doesn’t matter who they work for, since the BBC is not taking any responsibility for the reports.
We don't know why these claims haven't appeared in the BBC, or if they even bothered to look into them at all. That's also a pretty disingenuous take on the credentials and credibility of reporters. Again, I never said that what they claimed was true, just that it holds relatively more (even if it's just an ever-so-tiny-bit more) weight than if Joe Schmoe made a similar claim. Surely you'd agree that someone with actual knowledge and experience in a certain area is more trustworthy than someone with none at all? That's all I'm getting at.
Aren't grey areas fun? :)
>Journalism has fact checkers and editors for a reason.
Yep!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Someone an outlet like the BBC trusts." The BBC clearly has not trusted these reports. Nor has any other journalistic outlet. They are literally just the tweets of any old Joe Schmoe. It doesn’t matter who they work for, since the BBC is not taking any responsibility for the reports. Journalism has fact checkers and editors for a reason.
>The BBC clearly has not trusted these reports. Nobody said they did. :) >Nor has any other journalistic outlet. False. Googling "us soldiers shot civilians airport kabul" brings up a number of articles about it, albeit not from Western outlets. I can provide links, if you'd like, but they show up in the first two pages of results. Please note that this is not me endorsing the validity of those articles. >They are li…
Please share a link to one you trust.
> Surely you'd agree that someone with actual knowledge and experience in a certain area is more trustworthy than someone with none at all? That's all I'm getting at.
That’s obviously false. We have examples of people being untrustworthy at every level of expertise in every domain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Someone an outlet like the BBC trusts." The BBC clearly has not trusted these reports. Nor has any other journalistic outlet. They are literally just the tweets of any old Joe Schmoe. It doesn’t matter who they work for, since the BBC is not taking any responsibility for the reports. Journalism has fact checkers and editors for a reason.
Your argument doesn't hold water here, since it assumes that the BBC regularly makes official reports on NATO war crimes in Afghanistan. This is something they do voluntarily very, very rarely, if ever - esp. not recent ones. The BBC would have acted the same way had the reports been true or not. It's not verified because they made no attempt to verify it. We have to rely on individual journalists, wikileaks and non-…
It holds water perfectly.
Your argument seems vaguely conspiratorial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument doesn't hold water here, since it assumes that the BBC regularly makes official reports on NATO war crimes in Afghanistan. This is something they do voluntarily very, very rarely, if ever - esp. not recent ones. The BBC would have acted the same way had the reports been true or not. It's not verified because they made no attempt to verify it. We have to rely on individual journalists, wikileaks and non-…
My argument is that these are unverified tweets, and nothing more. It holds water perfectly. Your argument seems vaguely conspiratorial.
In fact, it's your doubt that is conspiratorial thinking, because you think it's more likely that many different sources and media reporters conspire to form a false narrative about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the role the US plays, we do it so they don't have to.
It’s not as if it was possible to just not kill random people for petty politics, right?