The US and Israel now feel Iran has no right to have responded to being attacked
Is not supported by the article. I noticed there is no quote from the article to support this about the US, Israel, or the Atlantic Council (which is the original claim, so no it is not sound). I find that is indicative that the claim lacks factual backing.
If you can cite the article (not broadly claim “context”) or anything else related to the Atlantic councils view as the above user said, that would lend itself to the claim (about the Atlantic council).
A attacks B.
B attacks A.
A and C: “Look at this guy over here, what are we gonna do with him?”
The inherent implication is B had no right to respond to A, and the inherent implication of that is that A should be allowed to do what they want and B should just take it.
These are basic inferences anyone can draw from the events and the articles linked.
As ignored again, this is being levied against the Atlantic council publication. None of the implications (uncited) indict the Atlantic council of feeling like the US/Israel can act militarily without consequence, nor support that there was any notion of there being no rights to respond. This is unsourced opinion that is used to bad mouth the Atlantic council publication.
If you can claim “context” without a citation then my “context” is just as good (and trumps yours). See why we need sources for our claims? Because this is not substantive discussion. It’s aimed to dissuade readers from going through the information in the article, claiming the Atlantic council is “batshit insane” to cite another user.
I’m understanding you are unable to back up your claim with factual information from the article. Even what you wrote requires editorialization to meet what you claim. The title makes no mention of rights to attack, and I can see you as well are unsuccessfully trying to defend the idea that the atlantic council holds these views, or that they’re even represented in the article.
Perhaps your point would find a better home with the user claiming they’re “batshit insane” since they both assume the exact same level of evidence.
The authors of the article believe that the US and Israel must respond to Iran. That’s directly stated in the headline.
The headline: Iran is trying to create a new normal with its attack. Here’s how Israel and the US should respond.
Again, objectively false. You even correct yourself in the next paragraph:
To that end, they outline exactly how they believe Israel and the US should respond to Iran.
And then, crown jewel:
The reason they believe they must respond to Iran is because Iran is not allowed to defend itself.
Massive citation needed. If you are inferring from the article, please cite the relevant sections from the Atlantic council article (which you have so far been unable to do).
We know this because if they believed Iran WAS allowed to defend itself, they wouldn’t be asserting that the US and Israel need to respond.
I don’t “know” whatever it is you know, this is presupposition as there is nothing in the article stating a “need” which you again choose to insert over what the article claims. Further, your hot take on what would and wouldn’t happen would benefit from sources.
It’s what the ENTIRE article is saying.
I don’t think you read past the headline. I’ve also italicized words you inject on your own to form opinions you (unfoundedly) claim the article to have.
Reading comprehension… Look how far we’ve come from “without consequence” to this…
The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.
You, and everyone else, have failed to bring forth evidence supporting the article’s position you claim (from the article itself, mind you), even going to such lengths as to change words in the title of all places. You should be ashamed of how poorly you argued this.
And I’m disproving you with the ENTIRE article (but I’m right, not you). See why you need a citation from the article? As long as you’re using “your opinion™” and not the article to defend your point, the claim remains unproven. Burden of proof is on you, the one making the claim.
Thank you for responding, however:
Is not supported by the article. I noticed there is no quote from the article to support this about the US, Israel, or the Atlantic Council (which is the original claim, so no it is not sound). I find that is indicative that the claim lacks factual backing.
If you can cite the article (not broadly claim “context”) or anything else related to the Atlantic councils view as the above user said, that would lend itself to the claim (about the Atlantic council).
Follow the logic:
A attacks B.
B attacks A.
A and C: “Look at this guy over here, what are we gonna do with him?”
The inherent implication is B had no right to respond to A, and the inherent implication of that is that A should be allowed to do what they want and B should just take it.
These are basic inferences anyone can draw from the events and the articles linked.
As ignored again, this is being levied against the Atlantic council publication. None of the implications (uncited) indict the Atlantic council of feeling like the US/Israel can act militarily without consequence, nor support that there was any notion of there being no rights to respond. This is unsourced opinion that is used to bad mouth the Atlantic council publication.
If you can claim “context” without a citation then my “context” is just as good (and trumps yours). See why we need sources for our claims? Because this is not substantive discussion. It’s aimed to dissuade readers from going through the information in the article, claiming the Atlantic council is “batshit insane” to cite another user.
Again, it’s right there in the headline:
“Here’s how Israel and the US should respond.”
In other words:
“Iran isn’t allowed to respond to an Israeli attack, here’s how to teach them a lesson.”
I’m understanding you are unable to back up your claim with factual information from the article. Even what you wrote requires editorialization to meet what you claim. The title makes no mention of rights to attack, and I can see you as well are unsuccessfully trying to defend the idea that the atlantic council holds these views, or that they’re even represented in the article.
Perhaps your point would find a better home with the user claiming they’re “batshit insane” since they both assume the exact same level of evidence.
It’s called an inference. It’s part and parcel of basic reading comprehension.
The authors of the article believe that the US and Israel must respond to Iran. That’s directly stated in the headline.
To that end, they outline exactly how they believe Israel and the US should respond to Iran. That’s pretty much the ENTIRE article.
The reason they believe they must respond to Iran is because Iran is not allowed to defend itself.
We know this because if they believed Iran WAS allowed to defend itself, they wouldn’t be asserting that the US and Israel need to respond.
It’s what the ENTIRE article is saying.
The headline: Iran is trying to create a new normal with its attack. Here’s how Israel and the US should respond.
Again, objectively false. You even correct yourself in the next paragraph:
And then, crown jewel:
Massive citation needed. If you are inferring from the article, please cite the relevant sections from the Atlantic council article (which you have so far been unable to do).
I don’t “know” whatever it is you know, this is presupposition as there is nothing in the article stating a “need” which you again choose to insert over what the article claims. Further, your hot take on what would and wouldn’t happen would benefit from sources.
I don’t think you read past the headline. I’ve also italicized words you inject on your own to form opinions you (unfoundedly) claim the article to have.
Reading comprehension… Look how far we’ve come from “without consequence” to this…
Edit: here is why your arguments fail:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
You, and everyone else, have failed to bring forth evidence supporting the article’s position you claim (from the article itself, mind you), even going to such lengths as to change words in the title of all places. You should be ashamed of how poorly you argued this.
Again, the proof is the ENTIRE article.
Why should the US and Israel bother responding?
They go to great length to say HOW they should respond, the WHY is the inference.
Because Iran isn’t allowed to defend itself.
If Iran were allowed to defend itself, there’s no reason why Israel and the US should respond.
The inherent premise is Israel and the US SHOULD respond and here’s how.
And I’m disproving you with the ENTIRE article (but I’m right, not you). See why you need a citation from the article? As long as you’re using “your opinion™” and not the article to defend your point, the claim remains unproven. Burden of proof is on you, the one making the claim.