2 ms·
How do we know they really didn't crucify one of their members and the IT guy just got lazy with pics because the camera phone one was fuzzy? I don't disagree
by hindsightbias 12y ago
How do we know they really didn't crucify one of their members and the IT guy just got lazy with pics because the camera phone one was fuzzy?
I don't disagree with your overall point. My assumption since the invasion of Grenada was every domestic source was trying to mislead me. I listened to RCI, DW shortwave coverage of the invasion for 8 hours before the embargoed US networks mentioned it.
Today, I doubt there's any delta between domestic and foreign sources. RT is a propaganda organ, but I trust it more for US foreign policy coverage than US sources.
- vitd 12y agoThere's a general rule when trying to determine facts. The one making the claim has the burden of proof to prove it true. If you say you crucified someone, it's on you to show that you did that. If you're too lazy to take and release a reasonable photo, it's not on us to believe you actually did it. Same goes for bigfoot, UFOs, and reporting who won the Super Bowl.
- hindsightbias 12y agoIn the west, true. In the salafist world, is it safe to make that same assumption wrt to media claims? Or would one be more suspect? Was Baghdad Bob the norm or an outlier? If (questionably) they have such a lower bar for executing someone, why bother lying? I'm reminded of the fall of Mosul (I think) where they just marched hundreds of locals to a ditch and started shooting. It was weeks of western media questioning whether it was fake or not until better vids/UN testimony appeared. I would guess that was probably because westerners could not conceptualize such a blatant slaughter. Would Iraqis/Syrians be as suspicious?