Usually, the path when such revelations comes out is to pillory the messenger as traitors and spies. So who do we blame and shame for this one? Where's the two minute hates about whoever it was revealed their government's latest mis-steps?
Before the event, I commented[1] on the military claiming they could hit back with "overwhelming force" if anyone attacked them:
> is it actually feasible for the U.S. military to hit back with "overwhelming force"?
> The answer to that is a solid "NO!"
> To hit back with "overwhelming force", they need to figure out what they are going hit.
...
> either the U.S. would have to hit Taliban forces that are now dispersed through Kabul thereby killing a whole lot of innocents or they would have to try to go after the leadership. Where are they going to find them? If they are in densely populated in Kabul and they drop a MOAB on them, who's going to be accountable for the civilian lives lost? Besides, neither of this would stop the slaughter at the airport: It would just add to the physical and propaganda victories of the Taliban.
Clearly, I had not imagined them bringing up ISK to distract from the fact that they are dealing with the Taliban, but the notion that they could effectively fight a threat mingled with the population of a large, chaotic city where they had no actual eyes on the ground was a farce. They killed this guy and the little children just so they could look like they were doing something.
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?
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).
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?
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.
It is a challenge, I also wrestle with, ever since I read about a boy getting shot dead for sleeping on his own roof in Iraq.
In the UK a good start would be campaigning to send Tony Blair to the tower as a war criminal.
The problem is no one (other than the ordinary soldiers on the ground) is ever held to account for their crimes.
The majority of those who were killed in the actual airport attack were shot by US soldiers, who in confusion and panic fired indiscriminately into the fleeing crowd. This is by the words of several of those who were present and whom investigated the injuries on the bodies afterwards, as interviewed by bbc reporters. The crowd was packed, and bullet wounds were on the top if their bodies (the soldiers shot them from the towers).
In fact, estimates say about 200 people died in total. But evidence also suggests the bomb may have killed only a few dozen.
>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 being mentioned here is misleading.
Not really, it's just saying, "Someone an outlet like the BBC trusts." Which is to say that while a claim hasn't been confirmed, it has a higher likelihood of being true relative to if you, myself, or any old Joe Schmoe had made the claim. That doesn't necessarily mean we should automatically assume it's true, but it also doesn't necessitate a complete write-off.
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-MSM for such reports for the most part.
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 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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."
> 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.
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 70% chance we stop an attack likely killing hundreds, and 30% chance we just killed a handful of innocents. I don't think we or the NYT knows enough of all the details involved in this incident, but I think this nuance is lost on many.
I agree it's an unrealistic goal to have war happen alongside a civilian population and magically no civilians die. It is a game of chance with international and public opinion as the stakes.
35 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 19.9 ms ] thread> is it actually feasible for the U.S. military to hit back with "overwhelming force"?
> The answer to that is a solid "NO!"
> To hit back with "overwhelming force", they need to figure out what they are going hit.
...
> either the U.S. would have to hit Taliban forces that are now dispersed through Kabul thereby killing a whole lot of innocents or they would have to try to go after the leadership. Where are they going to find them? If they are in densely populated in Kabul and they drop a MOAB on them, who's going to be accountable for the civilian lives lost? Besides, neither of this would stop the slaughter at the airport: It would just add to the physical and propaganda victories of the Taliban.
Clearly, I had not imagined them bringing up ISK to distract from the fact that they are dealing with the Taliban, but the notion that they could effectively fight a threat mingled with the population of a large, chaotic city where they had no actual eyes on the ground was a farce. They killed this guy and the little children just so they could look like they were doing something.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28221077
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?
In fact, estimates say about 200 people died in total. But evidence also suggests the bomb may have killed only a few dozen.
Do you have a link to this report? I can’t find one.
https://twitter.com/SecKermani/status/1431517279859224579
https://twitter.com/paykhar/status/1431572890521120770
https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/1430901536456986625
https://twitter.com/Samiyousafzai/status/1431590453355368450
There are probably more, but atrocities such as these are rarely widely publicized.
The fact remains that these are just tweets and there is no fact checked reporting of it by the BBC or any other journalistic outlet that I can find.
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 being mentioned here is misleading.
Not really, it's just saying, "Someone an outlet like the BBC trusts." Which is to say that while a claim hasn't been confirmed, it has a higher likelihood of being true relative to if you, myself, or any old Joe Schmoe had made the claim. That doesn't necessarily mean we should automatically assume it's true, but it also doesn't necessitate a complete write-off.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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."
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.