6 ms·

You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page. Which page are you referring to? Could you please provide a link? a reporter for the Wash

by manarth 10y ago

You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page. Which page are you referring to? Could you please provide a link? a reporter for the Washington Post was able to reconstruct the incident and write a book about it without seeing the video. Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source? If there is a verifiable video, shouldn't the journalist view the video (and decide whether it's verifiable or not), and include that in the article? To deliberately ignore a significant piece of evidence is a significant editorial decision.

pvg 10y ago
Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source? No it isn't because that's not what happened. As to the page, the page about the incident. I'm starting to think you don't really know much about the details and want to debate this from first principles. That's not going to be very fruitful.
- manarth 10y ago
  As to the page, the page about the incident. For my benefit, and the benefit of everyone reading this thread, hoping to gain a greater understanding of the issues, could you please provide the specific URL, rather than alluding elliptically to "the incident"?
  - pvg 10y ago
    You want to argue with me about something you're apparently unfamiliar with and also want me to direct you to basic information about it you can trivially look up yourself? Please, for your benefit and for the benefit of basic politeness, do a bit of the legwork.
    - manarth 10y ago
      I'm still unclear about which particular Wikipedia page you would like to direct me to. You've posted: The incident had been reported and covered by the press, there was no 'government cover up'. The new bit was the video itself. You've then stated: you can just read the wikipedia page You've gone on to say: As to the page, the page about the incident. You've then stated: You want me to direct you to basic information…you can trivially look up yourself At no point have you given any source: neither primary, secondary, or other. It is hard to understand which material you are referring to, when you repeatedly will not source the material which you referring to. Your posts do not seem to contain any source material, so you seem to rely on third-party sources, but so far, you haven't identified any of those sources. It would be great for everyone reading this thread, to understand the material on which you're basing these claims.
      - pvg 10y ago
        You should read the beginning of the thread. Or type 'collateral murder incident' into google. That's all that it would have taken instead of 19 different ways of telling me how you don't know anything about this but I should sort you out. Let's call it a day.
        manarth 10y ago
        You should read the beginning of the thread. Or type 'collateral murder incident' into google. The beginning of the thread references https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/ https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/ which is a wiki leaks URL, rather than a wiki pedia URL, as you suggested when you said "you can just read the wikipedia page". Googling "collateral murder incident" does give a number of results, which does include a Wikipedia page, but it's not one that has been referenced in this discussion. It's important for honest, rational discussion, to cite sources - especially those sources you depend upon. Unless you specifically state your sources, it's hard to understand the argument you're presenting, and the basis for your argument. Without a citation, it's essentially arguing that the Emperor's new clothes really are golden, and we have to believe that, because they really are golden.
        albedoa 10y ago
        I typed "collateral murder incident" into google and it returned the exact Wikipedia page that pvg told you it would return. Further, when I type "Collateral Murder" into the Wikipedia search, it brings me directly to the page about the airstrike that pvg has repeatedly referenced, anchored at the section about the video. Just what are you trying to pull here? which does include a Wikipedia page, but it's not one that has been referenced in this discussion. It has been referenced multiple times in this thread by pvg. For someone who purportedly puts so much stock in honesty, this is incredibly dishonest of you.
        manarth 10y ago
        it returned the exact Wikipedia page that pvg told you it would return Which particular wikipedia page is being so thoroughly referenced in this thread? Which particular post in this thread provides a URL? Perhaps you could post the URL of that Wikipedia page? Is it so terribly hard to copy and paste the URL of the page which is being cited? After all, you have referred to this specific Wikipedia page in your comment, but you have still not provided the URL.

by manarth 10y ago

pvg 10y ago

Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source? No it isn't because that's not what happened. As to the page, the page about the incident. I'm starting to think you don't really know much about the details and want to debate this from first principles. That's not going to be very fruitful.

manarth 10y ago
As to the page, the page about the incident. For my benefit, and the benefit of everyone reading this thread, hoping to gain a greater understanding of the issues, could you please provide the specific URL, rather than alluding elliptically to "the incident"?
- pvg 10y ago
  You want to argue with me about something you're apparently unfamiliar with and also want me to direct you to basic information about it you can trivially look up yourself? Please, for your benefit and for the benefit of basic politeness, do a bit of the legwork.
  - manarth 10y ago
    I'm still unclear about which particular Wikipedia page you would like to direct me to. You've posted: The incident had been reported and covered by the press, there was no 'government cover up'. The new bit was the video itself. You've then stated: you can just read the wikipedia page You've gone on to say: As to the page, the page about the incident. You've then stated: You want me to direct you to basic information…you can trivially look up yourself At no point have you given any source: neither primary, secondary, or other. It is hard to understand which material you are referring to, when you repeatedly will not source the material which you referring to. Your posts do not seem to contain any source material, so you seem to rely on third-party sources, but so far, you haven't identified any of those sources. It would be great for everyone reading this thread, to understand the material on which you're basing these claims.
    - pvg 10y ago
      You should read the beginning of the thread. Or type 'collateral murder incident' into google. That's all that it would have taken instead of 19 different ways of telling me how you don't know anything about this but I should sort you out. Let's call it a day.
      - manarth 10y ago
        You should read the beginning of the thread. Or type 'collateral murder incident' into google. The beginning of the thread references https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/ https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/ which is a wiki leaks URL, rather than a wiki pedia URL, as you suggested when you said "you can just read the wikipedia page". Googling "collateral murder incident" does give a number of results, which does include a Wikipedia page, but it's not one that has been referenced in this discussion. It's important for honest, rational discussion, to cite sources - especially those sources you depend upon. Unless you specifically state your sources, it's hard to understand the argument you're presenting, and the basis for your argument. Without a citation, it's essentially arguing that the Emperor's new clothes really are golden, and we have to believe that, because they really are golden.
        albedoa 10y ago
        I typed "collateral murder incident" into google and it returned the exact Wikipedia page that pvg told you it would return. Further, when I type "Collateral Murder" into the Wikipedia search, it brings me directly to the page about the airstrike that pvg has repeatedly referenced, anchored at the section about the video. Just what are you trying to pull here? which does include a Wikipedia page, but it's not one that has been referenced in this discussion. It has been referenced multiple times in this thread by pvg. For someone who purportedly puts so much stock in honesty, this is incredibly dishonest of you.
        manarth 10y ago
        it returned the exact Wikipedia page that pvg told you it would return Which particular wikipedia page is being so thoroughly referenced in this thread? Which particular post in this thread provides a URL? Perhaps you could post the URL of that Wikipedia page? Is it so terribly hard to copy and paste the URL of the page which is being cited? After all, you have referred to this specific Wikipedia page in your comment, but you have still not provided the URL.