Ngrr dating sites Online free flirt meeting dating
The article as of June 2013 had 10 sentences totaling 329 words dealing with the concern over infiltration. (And I would sincerely urge all to read that article, already too long at 5,151 words, and compare its coherence and readability with the current one, which has added 1,238 words in order to shoehorn in various chunks of out-of-place POV material.) Now my revised Background section above would expand the sentences dealing with the infiltration concern to 12 totaling 469 words, more than enough, and thensome.
And please step back and consider the factors, besides fear of infiltrators, that contributed to the No Gun Ri killings and that are not dealt with in this article: I'm not saying we need 1,000 more words on those subjects.
Iryna Harpy, Generalizations Are Bad, Wikimedes, Irondome, Binksternet, Newzild, I hope we can discuss this expeditiously and get on to more challenging matters. I would suggest Mr Hanley provide a copy of the report for all interested parties to evaluate.
Since its a work of the US Gov't it could be uploaded on commons. How about simply acknowledging that we don't need every example we can find of reported infiltration, that two is plenty?
I'm saying 12 sentences dealing with the infiltration concerns are plenty. The report citing the "unconfirmed" reports of civilian-clad infiltrators is actually referring to unconfirmed reports of Nork troops using US uniforms to infiltrate.
After all, a woman with a hidden radio in Yongdong doesn’t justify killing hundreds of women and children at NGR. Hanley (talk) , 9 August 2015 (UTC) At the same time, an Army intelligence report said one daylong search of refugee columns found no infiltrators, and a frontline Pentagon observer team described reports of civilian-clad infiltrators as “unconfirmed,” saying “strong flanking elements” of uniformed enemy troops were penetrating the gaps in U. This would also appear to contradict many other reports from the time frame in questions where Nork troops were found to have hid themselves among refugees.
While some war correspondents/historians have stated the threat was exaggerated others do not.If everyone agrees to the above 3 principles, it might save a lot of time wasted on assumptions of bad faith.Are we all on the same page on these 3 basic principles?Weld Neck (talk) , 10 August 2015 (UTC) The AP version does warrant some level of criticism.The reporters relied heavily on the testimony of Korean witnesses and told the story primarily from the Korean point of view.
Leaving out one part of the argument is a violation POV. Hanley (talk) , 10 August 2015 (UTC)I do have issues with the edit. Hanley (talk) , 10 August 2015 (UTC) This one has gotten off to a rancorous start.