That’s what I was doing, because I don’t think assertions like “CENTCOM is blind” should just sit out there without evidence.
replyThen go get some! It adds nothing but spam when you to take time from your busy day to tell us what to do
replyUsually it’s on the person posting assertions to justify them, and looks like they’ve edited in a NYT link since then.
replyAnd it's worse than spam when someone is posting incorrect things and people are downvoting people questioning it. As another user has already posted, the Iron Dome does not use the same radar they are talking about and is not "blind"
replyIMHO, people making claims should provide the evidence for them. One link is behind a paywall and the other clearly states that it is making informed speculations.
replyI could make all sorts of claims on the spot here. It doesn't create a duty for people reading this thread to go investigate them.
You're so close, just one more step, and it's easy, just have to step away from keeping it hypothetical.
reply<SPOILER> Then it certainly does not create a duty for people to go investigate, when the only difference is "someone replied telling someone to fact check" </SPOILER>
Relax, I was mostly asking whether someone else who already knew about this stuff could comment on its veracity. There’s obviously no obligation.
replyYou're the one in this thread claiming people are responsible for "going and finding the evidence" of other people's unsourced claims. You could have just not replied since you didn't have something to contribute.
reply