Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Times Investigation: In U.S. Drone Strike, Evidence Suggests No Isis Bomb

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: Times Investigation: In U.S. Drone Strike, Evidence Suggests No Isis Bomb

#31

Post by jjulius »

zepto wrote: post #27
jjulius wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> I can provide links, if you'd like, but they show up in the first two pages of results. 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.

>Please share a link to one you trust.

You're shifting goalposts now. All my comment was for was to correct your statement that "no other journalistic outlet" reported on this. True or not (and, again, I make no assertion either way in regards to those articles), it has been reported on in other outlets.

>That’s obviously false. We have examples of people being untrustworthy at every level of expertise in every domain.

And that's a fair point! That said, in regards to how quickly you're writing off those journalists, if that's your logic then everyone offering any kind of advice/input, giving a speech, training, whathaveyou, etc. related to the area in which they work should be ignored and/or assumed to be giving incorrect information to you if they're not doing so with the full endorsement of their employer or some higher authority.

But you and I both know that that's a rather poor way of looking at things, which is why I clearly stated, "that doesn't necessarily mean we should automatically assume it's true, but it also doesn't necessitate a complete write-off."

Re: Times Investigation: In U.S. Drone Strike, Evidence Suggests No Isis Bomb

#32

Post by zepto »

samvega_ wrote: post #29
zepto wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My argument is that these are unverified tweets, and nothing more. It holds water perfectly. Your argument seems vaguely conspiratorial.

No, you're also using the fact that they're unverified as an argument against their credibility. However, that only makes sense if the BBC did make attempts to verify it and would publicize it if true. The fact is that BBC and western MSM hardly if ever cover such news. There's nothing conspiratorial about my argument, it's a simple, practical application of Bayes' rule in probability. In fact, it's your doubt that i…

> No, you're also using the fact that they're unverified as an argument against their credibility.

Yes, a series of unverified tweets are not very credible as news.

If you think tweets should be taken as credible without verification, that certainly isn’t unusual in the population, but I don’t recommend it.

> because you think it's more likely that many different sources and media reporters conspire to form a false narrative about this.

No - that’s your position. The false narrative is your claim that what you are calling ”Nato war crimes” are ignored for some reason by western media.

That’s clearly false. Today for example, New York Times posted an analysis of how the drone attack against isis-k probably just killed the wrong target, and the BBC picked the story up and reported it too.

Your argument rests solely on completely unverified tweets, and your conspiratorial claim that the media isn’t interested in the story.

It’s more likely that the story just isn’t substantiated.

Re: Times Investigation: In U.S. Drone Strike, Evidence Suggests No Isis Bomb

#33

Post by zepto »

jjulius wrote: post #31
zepto wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can provide links, if you'd like, but they show up in the first two pages of results. 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.

>Please share a link to one you trust. You're shifting goalposts now. All my comment was for was to correct your statement that "no other journalistic outlet" reported on this. True or not (and, again, I make no assertion either way in regards to those articles), it has been reported on in other outlets. >That’s obviously false. We have examples of people being untrustworthy at every level of expertise in every domai…

> You're shifting goalposts now. All my comment was for was to correct your statement that "no other journalistic outlet" reported on this. True or not (and, again, I make no assertion either way in regards to those articles), it has been reported on in other outlets.

Fair enough, however let’s note that you haven’t pointed to any journalism that you trust on this matter, so it doesn’t change the credibility implications.

> if that's your logic then everyone offering any kind of advice/input, giving a speech, training, whathaveyou, etc. related to the area in which they work should be ignored and/or assumed to be giving incorrect information to you if they're not doing so with the full endorsement of their employer or some higher authority.

No, this is also obviously not true.

There are plenty of other ways credibility is established in different fields which are independent of a particular authority.

Even without that, most of what people giving trainings or speeches on can be verified by the receiver independently.

We have none of that in this case.

Re: Times Investigation: In U.S. Drone Strike, Evidence Suggests No Isis Bomb

#34

Post by Aeolun »

sotruesotrue wrote: post #25
Aeolun wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I moved to Japan. Well run is a fair stretch, but at least there’s basically zero chance of them dropping a hellfire missile on anyone’s head (even their actual enemies).

.. but what if Taiwan is up next.

We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. Join China probably, because I strongly doubt the US is coming (or will stay) to help given it’s track record.

Re: Times Investigation: In U.S. Drone Strike, Evidence Suggests No Isis Bomb

#35

Post by trasz »

dariusj18 wrote: post #30
trasz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not as if it was possible to just not kill random people for petty politics, right?

Your comment is nonsensical to the question at hand, but why would you call it petty politics? If the people killed had been what the original target was thought to be, would that really be petty politics?

The original target was making money and winning elections. That’s not petty politics to you?

Re: Times Investigation: In U.S. Drone Strike, Evidence Suggests No Isis Bomb

#36

Post by dariusj18 »

trasz wrote: post #35
dariusj18 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is nonsensical to the question at hand, but why would you call it petty politics? If the people killed had been what the original target was thought to be, would that really be petty politics?

The original target was making money and winning elections. That’s not petty politics to you?

What? Who are you talking about? I think we must be addressing two separate things.
Post reply on HN