For the other user, could you please cite in the article a statement that supports "without consequence"?
Edit: I can only assume you found the relevant section (I can't), otherwise the claim the other user is making (they're a Washington think tank) is pretty... Unimpactful.
When it comes to Israel vs Palestinians, an organization dedicated to preserving the status quo is precisely who we should ignore.
You're right, I can't find anything supporting these statements.
Ftfy
Edit: also, another citation needed. Don't like what an article says? Simply bad mouth the approved source with unfounded theories. This is substantive discussion.
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.
Edit: I'm claiming that the article states the US and Israel have reason to understand Iran's retaliation (I cite this article). Now, that's all the proof you need right? Are both of our statements equally factual?
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.
Edit: and I think further lying about wording in the article is incredibly shady, especially when it's the title. I would like you to address that, otherwise users may think it's alright to lie about the contents of an article as an argumentative tactic.
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).
Edit: and I do recognize you as a mod (this entire time I knew that, surprise), which should be despicable considering you cannot back your claim.
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.
If I were you, I would nuke it so users don't see how poor of moderation this is receiving. Characterizing this as sea lioning when I've asked for the same evidence to support the same claim throughout this whole thread is a mark on you. You absolutely have given zero evidence towards your claim about what the article says, again, you have to CHANGE THE WORDS so it fits your point. That is lying. You are lying.
If only you could quote the article with a single iota of evidence to support your claim without changing the words (remember how you lied about the title? And everything that you claim it says?), then that would be productive. Instead, you draw conclusions from other sources that also don't support the claims (imperative, right to respond), not even backing up the lies with quotes from the article.
This isn't hard. If the article says something, you can quote it directly. If it doesn't, I guess the alternative to facts is to lie.
Edit: also lol. "Subtext"... You meant to say, "things that don't appear in the article" right?
I'm choosing to leave it for the express purpose of other people seeing the precise definition of sea lioning. You're still getting a temp ban for report abuse.
