4 ms·

Just to play devil's advocate: We don't really know much about this situation. Just what Snowden (and the press) have decided to tell us. This could be "Collat

Just to play devil's advocate: We don't really know much about this situation. Just what Snowden (and the press) have decided to tell us. This could be "Collateral Murder" all over again, a decidedly one sided view of the situation (after all, it's a bit far fetched to think the NSA is monitoring basically all US Internet traffic through some backdoor program that would be difficult to implement secretly). If you buy that we can't possibly know the whole story, his character and motivation is definitely worth exploring.

jessaustin 13y ago
In what way was Collateral Murder, "a decidedly one sided view of the situation"? Were an unarmed Good Samaritan and his unarmed children not shot? Did the Good Samaritan and the unarmed injured man he was attempting to save not die as a result of the shooting?
- stinkytaco 13y ago
  It's one sided because it was edited by someone with an obvious bone to pick with no context. Frankly, the name itself is editorialized. What's sad is that we could be looking at a terrible incident, but that fact that it was released out of context with an obvious political motive (and name) discredits it.
  - namdnay 13y ago
    This argument is shot down by the fact that they released the unedited video at exactly the same time on the same website.
    - stinkytaco 13y ago
      That doesn't make the edited version, or the name, any less unconscionable for an organization that wanted to find the truth. To quote Stephen Colbert, it was "emotional manipulation". If they wanted to address a point they should have put out the 39 minute version as is or release to to a news organization. Instead they decided to selectively highlight things, give it an inflammatory name and try to drum up some donations from it. That makes it suspect in my eyes and hopefully the eyes of reasonable people everywhere. Doesn't mean that I think what happened was right or than I'm trying to defend those soldiers (we can have that argument elsewhere), but that as a reasonable person the editing and name should raise a giant red flag that makes me ask further questions. I feel the same about this situation. The dramatic talk ("they might render me") and the fact that we're looking at this in a very narrow, uninformed context means we should question everything, including his credibility.
      - angusangus 13y ago
        > they should have put out the 39 minute version as is As the previous commenter said, they did. Wikileaks' stated journalistic method has always been to provide editorialized/pre-digested material along with complete unedited sources.
        stinkytaco 13y ago
        >Wikileaks' stated journalistic method has always been to provide editorialized/pre-digested material along with complete unedited sources. That's not a "journalistic method". I don't know that I have a name for it, but it's not journalism. I said "put out the 39 minute version as is". If I wasn't clear, that means there should have been no need for an editorialized version at all.
        DominikR 13y ago
        Journalists don't expect that most people are willing to watch several 40 minute long pieces of unedited material in the evening news. That's why you will usually see editing. It is great that Wikileaks also released the unedited material for those that are interested.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    Talk about "one sided". When innocent people die from gunshot then it isn't "editorializing" to call it "murder". There is no reasonable definition of murder that does not include that incident. It's pretty clear where your loyalties lie, and you aren't going to convince reasonable people to doubt Snowden's account with this namby-pamby whinging about his choice of idiom. Neither will reasonable people believe you're prepared to be "sad" about "a terrible incident" that you wish had been kept secret.
    - stinkytaco 13y ago
      >that you wish had been kept secret. At what point did I say that? At what point did I defend anyone involved? It was a battle. People were shooting at each other. Of course there is a reasonable definition that doesn't include this incident. Ones in which there is not a battle going on, for example. There are at least 20 minutes of footage that are not available to us. All I'm asking is that we get rid of the idiom and see the information. I don't need the words "Collateral Murder" to be outraged by this. I'm smarter than that. Incidentally, at no point in this discussion did I ever resort to a personal attack on you or question your motivations or loyalties. At no point did I ever say anything about you personally and I'm offended that you have decided to tell me what I think. That's a shameful way to have an argument.
      - foobarqux 13y ago
        Can you explain the argument of how the killing of the man in the bongo truck is not murder and a war crime?
      - jessaustin 13y ago
        That's a shameful way to have an argument. Boo-fuckin-hoo. Get a grip, Nancy.
- drzaiusapelord 13y ago
  The title alone is editorializing and arguable the editing decisions and the lack of any context (Rules of Engagement, etc) really make the piece pretty politicized.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    I had three questions. Why don't you take your shot at the latter two?
  - michaelbuddy 13y ago
    ignoring the real questions. nice job. Of course it was politicized. It's a political issue. don't be stupid.
zevyoura 13y ago
> it's a bit far fetched to think the NSA is monitoring basically all US Internet traffic It may be far-fetched, but this was actually revealed in 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
- stinkytaco 13y ago
  Yes, but the slides specifically reference "Stored Comm". There's a difference between a huge wiretap (which Room 641A was) and being able to search and access basically every communication everyone has for a budget of 20 million dollars.
  - sillysaurus 13y ago
    The 20M figure doesn't necessarily refer to a budget. It likely refers to the cost of making sure the traffic passes through their collection sites. If you re-read the slides, you'll see that it's talking about things like "the data travels along the cheapest path, not the shortest path" etc.
    - stinkytaco 13y ago
      Reread the, what, 4 slides? That's my point. We don't have nearly enough information to make any sort of judgement here. We should be asking questions.
      - sillysaurus 13y ago
        Yes, re-read the 4 slides. If we don't have enough information, then you shouldn't speculate that $20M refers to the total cost of the operation any more than I should speculate that it doesn't.
        stinkytaco 13y ago
        Fair enough. But it still means that we're lacking so much information about this that referring to speculating on the sources credibility as a "smear campaign" is unfair to citizens who are asking legitimate questions. I don't know enough about this to even know what the numbers mean, but I'm ready to skewer people over it? We need to fill in these gaps before we start shaping public policy on the issue and examining a sources credibility is part of that process.

jessaustin 13y ago

In what way was Collateral Murder, "a decidedly one sided view of the situation"? Were an unarmed Good Samaritan and his unarmed children not shot? Did the Good Samaritan and the unarmed injured man he was attempting to save not die as a result of the shooting?

stinkytaco 13y ago
It's one sided because it was edited by someone with an obvious bone to pick with no context. Frankly, the name itself is editorialized. What's sad is that we could be looking at a terrible incident, but that fact that it was released out of context with an obvious political motive (and name) discredits it.
- namdnay 13y ago
  This argument is shot down by the fact that they released the unedited video at exactly the same time on the same website.
  - stinkytaco 13y ago
    That doesn't make the edited version, or the name, any less unconscionable for an organization that wanted to find the truth. To quote Stephen Colbert, it was "emotional manipulation". If they wanted to address a point they should have put out the 39 minute version as is or release to to a news organization. Instead they decided to selectively highlight things, give it an inflammatory name and try to drum up some donations from it. That makes it suspect in my eyes and hopefully the eyes of reasonable people everywhere. Doesn't mean that I think what happened was right or than I'm trying to defend those soldiers (we can have that argument elsewhere), but that as a reasonable person the editing and name should raise a giant red flag that makes me ask further questions. I feel the same about this situation. The dramatic talk ("they might render me") and the fact that we're looking at this in a very narrow, uninformed context means we should question everything, including his credibility.
    - angusangus 13y ago
      > they should have put out the 39 minute version as is As the previous commenter said, they did. Wikileaks' stated journalistic method has always been to provide editorialized/pre-digested material along with complete unedited sources.
      - stinkytaco 13y ago
        >Wikileaks' stated journalistic method has always been to provide editorialized/pre-digested material along with complete unedited sources. That's not a "journalistic method". I don't know that I have a name for it, but it's not journalism. I said "put out the 39 minute version as is". If I wasn't clear, that means there should have been no need for an editorialized version at all.
        DominikR 13y ago
        Journalists don't expect that most people are willing to watch several 40 minute long pieces of unedited material in the evening news. That's why you will usually see editing. It is great that Wikileaks also released the unedited material for those that are interested.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Talk about "one sided". When innocent people die from gunshot then it isn't "editorializing" to call it "murder". There is no reasonable definition of murder that does not include that incident. It's pretty clear where your loyalties lie, and you aren't going to convince reasonable people to doubt Snowden's account with this namby-pamby whinging about his choice of idiom. Neither will reasonable people believe you're prepared to be "sad" about "a terrible incident" that you wish had been kept secret.
  - stinkytaco 13y ago
    >that you wish had been kept secret. At what point did I say that? At what point did I defend anyone involved? It was a battle. People were shooting at each other. Of course there is a reasonable definition that doesn't include this incident. Ones in which there is not a battle going on, for example. There are at least 20 minutes of footage that are not available to us. All I'm asking is that we get rid of the idiom and see the information. I don't need the words "Collateral Murder" to be outraged by this. I'm smarter than that. Incidentally, at no point in this discussion did I ever resort to a personal attack on you or question your motivations or loyalties. At no point did I ever say anything about you personally and I'm offended that you have decided to tell me what I think. That's a shameful way to have an argument.
    - foobarqux 13y ago
      Can you explain the argument of how the killing of the man in the bongo truck is not murder and a war crime?
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      That's a shameful way to have an argument. Boo-fuckin-hoo. Get a grip, Nancy.
drzaiusapelord 13y ago
The title alone is editorializing and arguable the editing decisions and the lack of any context (Rules of Engagement, etc) really make the piece pretty politicized.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  I had three questions. Why don't you take your shot at the latter two?
- michaelbuddy 13y ago
  ignoring the real questions. nice job. Of course it was politicized. It's a political issue. don't be stupid.

zevyoura 13y ago

> it's a bit far fetched to think the NSA is monitoring basically all US Internet traffic It may be far-fetched, but this was actually revealed in 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

stinkytaco 13y ago
Yes, but the slides specifically reference "Stored Comm". There's a difference between a huge wiretap (which Room 641A was) and being able to search and access basically every communication everyone has for a budget of 20 million dollars.
- sillysaurus 13y ago
  The 20M figure doesn't necessarily refer to a budget. It likely refers to the cost of making sure the traffic passes through their collection sites. If you re-read the slides, you'll see that it's talking about things like "the data travels along the cheapest path, not the shortest path" etc.
  - stinkytaco 13y ago
    Reread the, what, 4 slides? That's my point. We don't have nearly enough information to make any sort of judgement here. We should be asking questions.
    - sillysaurus 13y ago
      Yes, re-read the 4 slides. If we don't have enough information, then you shouldn't speculate that $20M refers to the total cost of the operation any more than I should speculate that it doesn't.
      - stinkytaco 13y ago
        Fair enough. But it still means that we're lacking so much information about this that referring to speculating on the sources credibility as a "smear campaign" is unfair to citizens who are asking legitimate questions. I don't know enough about this to even know what the numbers mean, but I'm ready to skewer people over it? We need to fill in these gaps before we start shaping public policy on the issue and examining a sources credibility is part of that process.