Taliban Taking Over Afghanistan - Does anyone care?

Do you care?

  • No

    Votes: 41 23.6%

  • Hell No

    Votes: 48 27.6%

  • Yes, we should invade and send in Troops

    Votes: 25 14.4%

  • I like Pie

    Votes: 60 34.5%
  • Total voters
    174
#4,551
#4,551
clarksvol00 said:
I never said I don't consider this particular leaked cable to be accurate. There can be anonymous sources that eventually get verified as well.
Click to expand...

I give up - a document is tangible, what someone tells someone else isn't. The document can be examined, the anonymous source cannot. The document is an actual recording of thoughts, the anonymous source can be opinion or interpretation. The document is direct evidence, the anonymous source is hearsay.

They are different
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85, InVOLuntary and W.TN.Orange Blood
#4,553
#4,553
volinbham said:
I give up - a document is tangible, what someone tells someone else isn't. The document can be examined, the anonymous source cannot. The document is an actual recording of thoughts, the anonymous source can be opinion or interpretation. The document is direct evidence, the anonymous source is hearsay.

They are different
Click to expand...
The document's provenance is up for debate when it comes from an anonymous source. If I get some DOD letterhead, type a letter from the SECDEF, then give it to a reporter it doesn't make it legit.
 
#4,554
#4,554
clarksvol00 said:
I guess if I hand you some paper documents you might be able to tell what kind of copier I used.
Click to expand...

one more try - do you think a news outlet has more faith information obtained 1) directly from an internal document they obtain or 2) what someone who's inside tells them about the same situation?

I'm pretty sure the news organization would take the document over the source any day of the week thus they don't view them as the same but for some reason we are supposed to
 
#4,557
#4,557
Our couple of remaining guys will be out by this Friday.

At this point it’s hard to figure what is truth and what isn’t with numbers left. But if I’m a commander on the ground I’m telling my troops to start taking grids of where the Taliban guys are coming from and marking buildings for air strikes should they try any shenanigans after the 31st. JMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel and kiddiedoc
#4,558
#4,558
volinbham said:
one more try - do you think a news outlet has more faith information obtained 1) directly from an internal document they obtain or 2) what someone who's inside tells them about the same situation?

I'm pretty sure the news organization would take the document over the source any day of the week thus they don't view them as the same but for some reason we are supposed to
Click to expand...
I think it depends on how they got the document and how they can verify its provenance. When I'm told leaked document or anonymous source I have no idea on the background of either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#4,559
#4,559
rjd970 said:
Our couple of remaining guys will be out by this Friday.

At this point it’s hard to figure what is truth and what isn’t with numbers left. But if I’m a commander on the ground I’m telling my troops to start taking grids of where the Taliban guys are coming from and marking buildings for air strikes should they try any shenanigans after the 31st. JMO.
Click to expand...
They should do it on the way out anyway.... assuming we aren't leaving anyone behind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Plano Vol
#4,562
#4,562
Just catching up on some of the news. CIA meeting with Taliban.... The optics have been terrible here and just seem to get worse.

We need leadership and the well appears to be dry.
 
#4,564
#4,564
clarksvol00 said:
I think it depends on how they got the document and how they can verify its provenance. When I'm told leaked document or anonymous source I have no idea on the background of either.
Click to expand...

you are not the news organization - they know the source and have ways of verification. more importantly if they run a story with just anonymous sources they may get burned and they can't show the evidence they used for the story. if they run a story based on leaked documents they can produce the documents as back up.

as a consumer of news I'll have more faith in the leaked document than the anonymous source since there is a tangible item that can be examined.

the source of the document is largely irrelevant as it can be validated or invalidated in other ways - the public at large can never validate the anonymous source
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#4,565
#4,565
clarksvol00 said:
I feel it's legitimate. With a leaked cable the reporter is giving the same information on where it came from as the reporter would an anonymous source.
Click to expand...

I see for you it's become an argument over tit for tat stuff. Huff argues over little tit for tat stuff that means nothing really. I think we answered your question but you still have a counter point which has to be made. You want be able to sleep tonight unless you get the last word.
 
#4,566
#4,566
volinbham said:
you are not the news organization - they know the source and have ways of verification. more importantly if they run a story with just anonymous sources they may get burned and they can't show the evidence they used for the story. if they run a story based on leaked documents they can produce the documents as back up.

as a consumer of news I'll have more faith in the leaked document than the anonymous source since there is a tangible item that can be examined.

the source of the document is largely irrelevant as it can be validated or invalidated in other ways - the public at large can never validate the anonymous source
Click to expand...
Let's say its a security clearance only doc and cannot be obtained by a FOIA request... how can the document be verified?
 
#4,567
#4,567
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
I see for you it's become an argument over tit for tat stuff. Huff argues over little tit for tat stuff that means nothing really. I think we answered your question but you still have a counter point which has to be made. You want be able to sleep tonight unless you get the last word.
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned if you feel I'm acting like another poster. Provided it isn't past my bedtime, I'll be happy to respond to legitimate arguments you have against the points I've made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#4,568
#4,568
clarksvol00 said:
Let's say its a security clearance only doc and cannot be obtainef by a FOIA request... how can the document be verified?
Click to expand...

just as documents can in instances be fakes and sources in instances can be liars in general documents are more reliable records and more easily verifiable and can be examined by the public.

I have no problem putting more faith in a leaked document reported by a news agency than an unnamed source from a news agency. Neither can merit 100% faith but that doesn't mean one cannot be more faith inducing than the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#4,570
#4,570
volinbham said:
just as documents can in instances be fakes and sources in instances can be liars in general documents are more reliable records and more easily verifiable and can be examined by the public.

I have no problem putting more faith in a leaked document reported by a news agency than an unnamed source from a news agency. Neither can merit 100% faith but that doesn't mean one cannot be more faith inducing than the other.
Click to expand...

I'll consider them both to be equally anonymous unless I get the background on where the information came from.
 
#4,571
#4,571
clarksvol00 said:
I feel it's legitimate. With a leaked cable the reporter is giving the same information on where it came from as the reporter would an anonymous source.
Click to expand...

this is the disconnect. with the anonymous source we have to take the word of the reporter as to what was said and that it comes from a person both fully knowledgeable of the situation and fully truthful. with the leaked document we can see (in most cases) the actual information and where it came from. the "source" is just transferring the document which becomes the real source (eg. according to this internal memo...vs according to this unnamed person who is knowledgeable about the situation).

IOW - the true source of the information (the document) is not anonymous.
 
#4,572
#4,572
volinbham said:
this is the disconnect. with the anonymous source we have to take the word of the reporter as to what was said and that it comes from a person both fully knowledgeable of the situation and fully truthful. with the leaked document we can see (in most cases) the actual information and where it came from. the "source" is just transferring the document which becomes the real source (eg. according to this internal memo...vs according to this unnamed person who is knowledgeable about the situation).

IOW - the true source of the information (the document) is not anonymous.
Click to expand...

You still have never explained how you confirm the document is legitimate.
 
#4,575
#4,575
clarksvol00 said:
You still have never explained how you confirm the document is legitimate.
Click to expand...

one more try then I'm out. The recipient of the document knows the source of the leaked document. They bear the responsibility to validate. Sure, a bogus document can get through but the news org faces considerable risk by not doing their due diligence on the document. Once it passes their muster and they take it public the document becomes the source and who delivered it is largely irrelevant. It is no longer information generated by an anonymous source, it is a known source in the form of emails or memos or reports or whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top