• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

Ziggurat said:
In other words, even though the report presents no real evidence, it matches what you expect, therefore you believe it.
Click to expand...

Again this is the question of credibility of unnamed sources.

But NBC is pretty reliable on factual reporting, so I believe that three current and one former official have told NBC about this video habits.

You can't seriously make the argument that it is appropriate to have the commander in chief treat the war as an implausible 80s action movie where only the baddies get killed.
 
jimbob said:
I notice you haven't disagreed with the news report, just the summary.
So here is the first part



What good reason is there for the Commander in Chief to get such video shorts apart from "entertainment" and feeling important?

What would you have said about if Obama did that for Afghanistan?

It shows that the commander in chief lacks the concentration to understand the situation. And this is a commander in chief who is particularly keen on claiming to take command and design decisions where other presidents would have delegated to experts.

Does that previous sentence remind anyone of any famous 20th century leader?
Click to expand...

I could also mention being obsessed with architectural vanity projects, although I concede that the bunkers he's spent most time in are on golf courses
 
many south Asian countries are having a very hard time coping with the lack of oil, declaring extra holidays and telling government employees to stay home.
Tens of millions of people relying on propane for cooking have nothing to cook with.

Geopolitically, this is probably the point at which these countries will decide to pivot to China and away from the US, which is not causing this amount of pain for nothing but selfish reasons.
 
jimbob said:
Again this is the question of credibility of unnamed sources.

But NBC is pretty reliable on factual reporting, so I believe that three current and one former official have told NBC about this video habits.

You can't seriously make the argument that it is appropriate to have the commander in chief treat the war as an implausible 80s action movie where only the baddies get killed.
Click to expand...
Zigg's defence to every factually true accusation "you don't have the evidence!"

Very creationist in its way.
 
this war will not be allowed to stop until the key mission objective, the reason why the fighting started, has been achieved:

a Pardon for Netanyahu.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Reports? Good to see their infosec is up to the high standards set by the Secretary of Killing. Did he post it to his kids' school PTA chat by mistake?
Click to expand...
Probably polymarket, where he's found a nice Russian gentleman to bet that the USS Abraham Lincoln is not in a set of coordinates. The Russian gentleman is a complete fool because he seems very happy when he loses the bet.
 
All highlighting is mine.

Ziggurat said:
Why didn't you link to the actual story?

And what does that story consist of? Anonymous sources who have "concerns" about what they think might be the case. These anonymous sources are not actually privy to what intelligence Trump is getting, they have no first-hand knowledge and don't even claim to . Other than the fact that it flatters your preconceptions, why should anyone take these rumors seriously?
Click to expand...
According to the article linked above, the anonymous sources are
  • "three current U.S. officials and a former U.S. official"
  • "two of the current officials and the former official" said "the video briefing is fueling concerns among some of Trump’s allies that he may not be receiving — or absorbing — the complete picture of the war"
  • "one of the current U.S. officials and the former U.S. official" said "the videos are also driving Trump’s increasing frustration with news coverage of the war", because that news coverage "doesn't emphasize what he's seeing" in his video briefings
These anonymous but credibly reported sources are disputed by @Ziggurat, who is an anonymous and less credible non-source. They are also disputed by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, an identifiable source whose credibility would have to improve quite a bit before it could match @Ziggurat's.

As for why anyone should take these rumors seriously: Everyone who's been paying attention is aware that President Donald Trump doesn't like to read and has the attention span of a goldfish. He is "known not to read" the briefing documents that are prepared for him five days a week. Early in his second term, Trump's "daily" intelligence briefings were held once every two weeks; after a couple of months, those "daily" briefings became once-a-week events. (Dick Cheney criticized Obama for taking in-person briefings only twice a week, but Obama and Biden actually read the written documents that were prepared for them.) It is well established that Trump is "more responsive to graphics, maps and a more storified approach to recounting the intelligence."

Finally, Trump himself has, on multiple occasions, described the pleasure he takes in watching video of Iranian assets being blown to smithereens.

All of the above is why reports of Trump's video briefings are taken seriously.

Ziggurat said:
You are confused about where the burden of proof lies. I'm not the one making the positive claim here.
Click to expand...
@Ziggurat made the two positive claims I highlighted above:
  • that the three current and one former official are "not actually privy to what intelligence Trump is getting"
  • that the three current and one former official "have no first-hand knowledge"
@Ziggurat has presented no evidence for those two positive claims. None whatsoever.

jimbob said:
Again this is the question of credibility of unnamed sources.

But NBC is pretty reliable on factual reporting, so I believe that three current and one former official have told NBC about this video habits.

You can't seriously make the argument that it is appropriate to have the commander in chief treat the war as an implausible 80s action movie where only the baddies get killed.
Click to expand...
That argument cannot be made seriously. It is, however, the argument @Ziggurat is trying to make.

The Great Zaganza said:
According to reports, the target of "100 Iranian Missiles" Trump was talking about was the USS Abraham Lincoln.
Click to expand...
From the actual story cited by @Ziggurat :
“I called the general. I said, ‘General, what’s with the Abraham Lincoln, it looks like it’s burning down?’” ....He said the general told him: “‘No, it’s not burning down. Not a bullet was ever fired at it, sir. They know better.’”

One of the U.S. officials said that the USS Abraham Lincoln has been targeted multiple times since the war began but that the strikes have either failed to reach the ship or have been intercepted.
Click to expand...
@Ziggurat may believe no "bullet" was ever fired at that aircraft carrier. On the other hand, U.S. officials have confirmed that the aircraft carrier was targeted by drones and missiles.

Who should we believe? Trump? Or the (often, but not always anonymous) officials who contradict him?

Here is one of the many examples we have seen of Trump officials who, under oath, have contradicted Trump:
Gabbard and Ratcliffe also testified that the White House received intelligence assessments before the war that, if it was struck, Iran would be likely to retaliate with attacks on energy sites in the Middle East and threaten commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz , with possible fallout for oil prices and the global economy. But Trump suggested last week that Iran’s reaction came as a surprise and that “no expert” predicted such a response.
Click to expand...
That's quoted from the same article that reported on Trump's video briefings.
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
According to the article linked above, the anonymous sources are
  • "three current U.S. officials and a former U.S. official"
  • "two of the current officials and the former official" said "the video briefing is fueling concerns among some of Trump’s allies that he may not be receiving — or absorbing — the complete picture of the war"
  • "one of the current U.S. officials and the former U.S. official" said "the videos are also driving Trump’s increasing frustration with news coverage of the war", because that news coverage "doesn't emphasize what he's seeing" in his video briefings
These anonymous but credibly reported sources are disputed by @Ziggurat, who is an anonymous and less credible non-source.
Click to expand...
First off, nothing I said depends on my personal credibility, so the comparison is ridiculous on its face. This is just an ad hominem.

Secondly, "credibly sourced" is a weird turn of phrase. I do not claim that these anonymous sources aren't who they claim to be (ie, current and former US officials). I'm willing to take NBC's word for that much, just as I'm willing to take NBC's word that these sources said what NBC said they said. But "official" is a really broad category, and it includes people on the periphery who don't actually know much. Also, given that the reports are anonymous, it's easy and consequence free for them to outright lie or even just paint an incomplete or biased picture. It's a very common practice for people to use anonymous leaks to try to exert influence for their own ends, and you should ALWAYS treat anonymous reports with skepticism. It's quite strange that this principle is being actively discarded here. Or maybe not so strange.
W.D.Clinger said:
All of the above is why reports of Trump's video briefings are taken seriously.
Click to expand...
"All of the above" is basically a recitation of why the video briefings don't actually tell us anything new. The videos supposedly give us some insight into Trump's character, but his character isn't a secret. Everyone has already formed their opinions on his character long ago.

The only new thing in the article is the claim that aides may be hiding information from Trump. Strangely (or again, maybe not so strangely) you don't really address that.
W.D.Clinger said:
@Ziggurat made the two positive claims I highlighted above:
  • that the three current and one former official are "not actually privy to what intelligence Trump is getting"
  • that the three current and one former official "have no first-hand knowledge"
@Ziggurat has presented no evidence for those two positive claims. None whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Why are you including the former official here? It should be self-evident that no former official is going to have first hand knowledge of what intelligence any president is currently receiving. Did you actually think about that before you posted?

As for the evidence that the current officials don't know, the NBC article presents the evidence. All one need do is notice it. First off, there are no claims anywhere in the article that any of these officials know what intelligence Trump is getting. Second, NONE of the sources actually make a definitive claim that aides are hiding information from Trump, only that a fear exists that they might be. In other words, the sources do not know what information Trump is getting, and cannot directly evaluate whether it's complete or not. So even if those sources are right (and they only claim to be worried about the possibility), they still don't know what Trump is being briefed on. If they did, then they would know (not worry about) whether information was being kept from Trump, and they would know what that information was.
W.D.Clinger said:
Who should we believe? Trump? Or the (often, but not always anonymous) officials who contradict him?
Click to expand...
False dichotomy, and you should know better than that. You don't actually have to believe either of them.
 
We seldom see a clearer example of someone arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. With my highlighting:
Ziggurat said:
As for the evidence that the current officials don't know, the NBC article presents the evidence. All one need do is notice it. First off, there are no claims anywhere in the article that any of these officials know what intelligence Trump is getting. Second, NONE of the sources actually make a definitive claim that aides are hiding information from Trump, only that a fear exists that they might be. In other words, the sources do not know what information Trump is getting, and cannot directly evaluate whether it's complete or not. So even if those sources are right (and they only claim to be worried about the possibility), they still don't know what Trump is being briefed on. If they did, then they would know (not worry about) whether information was being kept from Trump, and they would know what that information was.
Click to expand...
The absence of evidence is highlighted in blue.

@Ziggurat's unsupported conclusion that the blue constitutes evidence of absence is highlighted in pink.

The first sentence, in green, states @Ziggurat's thesis: that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
 
i guess best case you can make is there's a small possibility trump isn't getting these video briefings, no matter how seemingly obviously likely it is. perhaps trump is getting all the major and minor details wrong and botching this whole thing despite getting good and accurate information that they're not turning into a more digestible tik tok style video for him
 
what’s the extraordinary claim:

trump carefully reads the briefings and then listens to his advisors tell him the truth

trump watches 2 minutes of explosions and knows all he needs to while they go around the room and tell him he’s doing the best job ever
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
We seldom see a clearer example of someone arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Click to expand...
Because sometimes it actually is. We should expect sources with first hand knowledge to make the claim that they have first hand knowledge, because that strengthens their case. These aren't people who are reluctantly testifying under compulsion, they want the story out there. So why aren't they making the strongest case they can? Your theory is that they would deliberately downplay their own credibility. While I cannot prove they aren't doing so, the balance of probability is that they aren't doing so.
 
Ziggurat said:
First off, nothing I said depends on my personal credibility, so the comparison is ridiculous on its face. This is just an ad hominem.
Click to expand...
When @Ziggurat disputed the article, he presented essentially no evidence beyond his own personal belief that the article was not to be believed. When someone relies upon his own personal incredulity as the primary evidence for his argument, he invites a comparison between his own personal credibility and the credibility of sources he disputes.

Ziggurat said:
"All of the above" is basically a recitation of why the video briefings don't actually tell us anything new. The videos supposedly give us some insight into Trump's character, but his character isn't a secret. Everyone has already formed their opinions on his character long ago.

The only new thing in the article is the claim that aides may be hiding information from Trump. Strangely (or again, maybe not so strangely) you don't really address that.
Click to expand...
Despite @Ziggurat's disputation of the article, he here admits that almost everything said in the article is true.

The one thing @Ziggurat actually disputes is the rather obvious conclusion to be drawn from the facts @Ziggurat is now conceding: Trump isn't getting a full picture of the war, because Trump's character and mental disabilities (which @Ziggurat does not dispute) have led his aides to give up on trying to get Trump to pay attention to written briefings, and are trying to keep him happy by showing him videos of things being blown up.

W.D.Clinger said:
We seldom see a clearer example of someone arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Click to expand...
Ziggurat said:
Because sometimes it actually is. We should expect sources with first hand knowledge to make the claim that they have first hand knowledge, because that strengthens their case. These aren't people who are reluctantly testifying under compulsion, they want the story out there. So why aren't they making the strongest case they can? Your theory is that they would deliberately downplay their own credibility. While I cannot prove they aren't doing so, the balance of probability is that they aren't doing so.
Click to expand...
With respect to the blue part: Sources with first or second hand knowledge often speak off the record because they don't want to be identified. When there are only a few individuals who would have first hand knowledge, reporting that a source has first hand knowledge would go a long way toward identifying the source. The news article we're discussing does not claim its sources have first hand knowledge, nor does it claim its sources have second hand knowledge, but its prose relies upon the standard locutions that reporters use to avoiding outing an off-the-record source by saying the source has first or second hand knowledge.

@Ziggurat, it seems, would like to interpret the deliberate vagueness of those standard locutions as evidence the sources don't know what they're talking about. That is his prerogative. It is not a reason for others to share his conclusion that absence of evidence for first or second hand knowledge is evidence for absence of such knowledge.

With respect to the pink: @Ziggurat is saying his personal estimation of the balance of probabilities is that the article's sources don't have first or second hand knowledge. That is his prerogative. It is not a reason for others to share his estimation of the balance of probabilities.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom