rationalskepticism.org

willhud9 wrote:

HomerJay wrote:

Weaver wrote:

Nor have I said that people shouldn't be able to challenge facts - but I have said that opinion which is NOT based on facts is pretty much worthless.

We can only speculate as to what you mean here:

Weaver wrote:You have no meaningful way to compare the two classes - valid enemy vs innocent civilian - because that information simply isn't available to you - nor should it be.

Now, we might gather from that, that you mean information shouldn't be released by the military but YOU HAVEN'T QUALIFIED IT AT ALL.

You simply stated that relevant facts, facts that you believe the worth of an opinion should be based on, should not be available to people.

You've stated that facts people need to challenge the official narrative should not be made available to them (from the unqualified way you've phrased it, you suggest the inofrmastion shouldn't availabel to people at all, let alone via , military sources).

The US Military has been shown to have lied about the effects of aerial strikes time and time again, the UN, NGOs, the Afghan Government, the Pakistani government have all produced credible counter narratives to those advanced by the military. Even your post-strike analysis, which is an opportunity for you guys to fess up and demonstrate a commitment to building trust, has been shown on occasion to be completely false in regard to civilian casualties.

This is why there is no credibility in you advancing the position that since you work in the military you have special knowledge that disproves what others say.

I would like

specific sources

please HomerJay of these credible "lies" the US Military has "time and time again" been known to tell. Please, specific links and credible sources. Thanks