Personally I think it’s pretty damned important that journalists and experts report accurately what has happened. A few days ago I was lead to believe that “video evidence showed the execution of James Foley”.
If there is indeed evidence of the execution (perhaps the “still” is enough) then that should be made public and made explicit. If there is no direct evidence but strong reasons to believe then that should be made clear:
“Experts believe that James Foley was executed because [REASONS]”
Anything else is not appropriate, misinformation is misinformation.
But sure, maybe Rigamarole and EasyPhil have been yammering for six pages because they feel some news outlets did not word their headlines precisely enough. I’m sure they’ll explain the nuts and bolts of their objections any day now because these guys are definitely not chickenshit.
What difference does it make if he was killed on camera or off? I asked this days ago:
Unless you think Foley is alive, this is pedantry. “Erm, excuse me, sirs, but he’s not technically beheaded on the video!” As a reality check, you should know that people here will probably be laughing at your CPR dummy theory for years and years.
Well, there is that photo of his body with his severed head lying on it, which you are going to debunk any minute now. Still preparing your presentation, I assume.
Better than your proof he’s still alive. How about explaining just what you think is lacking there, as you’ve been asked, oh, a half-dozen times or so?
Oh FFS. You went on and on about this distinction earlier in the thread, and now you’re pretending it doesn’t exist. They didn’t say the video shows him being killed on camera.
You don’t know that.
You’re pretty sure know the corpse at the end is a CPR dummy even though you don’t seem to know what a CPR dummy looks like. I’m pretty confident in my conclusion. That’s because I have enough experience to know that when the people arguing one side of an issue are total morons who can’t even explain their point, much less provide any real proof, that side is usually wrong.
That is the known evidence, yes, that has been made available to us. You may now discredit the photo as fake, something that your vindicating team of experts has apparently not done, even though any idiot could easily do it. Please proceed. OP, feel free to jump in whenever you like.