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.
Please cite from the article (not “inferences” or other unfounded “context”) the IMPERATIVE that you claim the article makes. As you claim: must, need. Because you are lying. And I am reporting your comments because you are lying about the article, saying that the original users claim about “without consequence” is somehow factually supported in the article itself.
Then, please cite from the article (not “inferences” or other unfounded “context”) how they believe Iran is not allowed to retaliate.
Both of these claims require sources, and since the claim is being made about the article itself, you should be able to quote it directly. Not twist words in the title to fit your personal opinion. Your inability to do that is all I need to know that your claims are without merit, and further regurgitation of the same personal opinions does not get you closer to the original point (which was talking about the source, btw).
Citation is not needed when you are aware of the subtext. But again, this has been explained to you MULTIPLE times now so what you’re engaging in now is a form of trolling called “Sea Lioning” and I’m sorely tempted to just nuke your whole thread.
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.
No, you aren’t, you’re reporting my comments trying to get them removed while completely missing the fact that I’m one of the moderators here.
I’m explaining to you why another comment you reported was correct and you are absolutely wrong because you cannot draw inferences from stated data.
There are two kinds of people:
Those who can draw conclusions from incomplete data sets.
Please cite from the article (not “inferences” or other unfounded “context”) the IMPERATIVE that you claim the article makes. As you claim: must, need. Because you are lying. And I am reporting your comments because you are lying about the article, saying that the original users claim about “without consequence” is somehow factually supported in the article itself.
Then, please cite from the article (not “inferences” or other unfounded “context”) how they believe Iran is not allowed to retaliate.
Both of these claims require sources, and since the claim is being made about the article itself, you should be able to quote it directly. Not twist words in the title to fit your personal opinion. Your inability to do that is all I need to know that your claims are without merit, and further regurgitation of the same personal opinions does not get you closer to the original point (which was talking about the source, btw).
Citation is not needed when you are aware of the subtext. But again, this has been explained to you MULTIPLE times now so what you’re engaging in now is a form of trolling called “Sea Lioning” and I’m sorely tempted to just nuke your whole thread.