Banzai

I think it’s safe to say I don’t believe that.

I do not recall the definition of classified information. But I am glad that she said that there was no classified information. I look forward to having the SSCI validate her statement and reassure the public. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5212821-atlantic-editor-suggests-hes-open-to-sharing-hegseths-full-war-plans-texts-publicly/

I do not remember and do not recall.

How about this, let’s take a hypothetical stance that there is totally not enough evidence to believe this is anything other than a fake news smear job. If it comes out as true - which the truth will come out when the reporter is called to testify - will you oppose and denounce the actions taken if targets and timing and/or other classified information were shared?

I just want to confirm you stance. Do you believe that these screenshots are fake? Followed by Or do you believe those are true? What do you think about the national security council saying they appear to be authentic? If you believe they are true then is your belief that in between these texts in this text chain they did not share information on the strikes - and that was entirely fabricated? Do you think it’s possible that the reporter is being truthful in intentionally not sharing what he thinks is classified information? If it is true, do you think he should openly share what he believes is classified information? Or do you think if he believes that it is classified that he should not put it out there? Is your stance that, although much of what was stated by the reporter is backed up by verifiable evidence, that this portion of his article is fake news? If so, what makes you think that?

You’re being intentionally dense. The reporter knew timing and location of when strikes were happening within 15 minutes of TTI. He knew this more than 2 hours before the strikes.

What level are ATOs? You know that timing and location would be classified prior to execution of an attack. Additionally, in the Atlantic article, the editor clearly censored multiple texts. Also, did you “see” any of Hillary’s screenshots? You have to understand you are entirely falling into a double standard because of political affiliation.

Remember, the majority of this forum called for Hillary Clinton to go to prison when folks found out she was hosting a private messaging server for official business. I’m sure that there will be no double standards applied in this case. On the other hand, everyone could just ignore it and raise tenuous points about how this story could be fake news (which has essentially already been done), even though the administration confirmed its veracity.

Whataboutism at its finest.

Oh yeah, give me those talking points harder. You don’t like historical analogies and then go on an ad hominem? That’s minus 1 point, not looking good for you right now.

Oh really? Where? The content of your post isn’t what’s riling. It’s that your argument has no effective warrant.

Go with source, study, or evidence to back up your conjecture that fighters are less important. I would concede that you could make a case we didn’t need fighters from 2001-2021, but how exactly do you do implement doctrinal concepts of “air superiority” or “air supremacy” against peer threats in 2027 or 2035?

You know what else has unique DNA and survives purely based on the hosts body? Cancer.

Hey Occam, thanks for the response, but I still disagree. I fundamentally truly believe that killing a sperm, egg, or using an IUD or birth control to create a prohibitive environment that won’t allow a zygote to adhere to the uterine wall to all be the same outcome as stopping a zygote a few weeks to months later. I do not see why you get to make an arbitrary point that is way too early in the pregnancy the moment life begins (and therefore, the moment you gain control over women’s bodies). To me and many of my friends, an 8 week zygote is little more than a bad sneeze that a woman should be able to decide whether to carry or not. Sorry if that’s too graphic for you, but not everyone agrees with your opinions. Cue outrage. As someone who has had multiple children with my wife (and two “abortions” by this definition), I will say that my personal cutoff is around 20 weeks when I consider life to exist and the gradient to shift where abortion should not be allowed. Actually, if you consider her iud and birth control usage, we’ve probably intentionally killed dozens of zygotes. Finally, I leave you with this. You posit that a human exists at sperm+egg. Let’s go down the developmental path, I’m happy to do it. Is a sperm+egg human if it doesn’t have eyeballs? Is a sperm+egg human if it doesn’t have a functional brain? Is a sperm+egg human if it doesn’t have lungs? Is a sperm+egg human if it’s in your wife’s uterus, but she has an iud (or some forms of birth control) that makes it impossible for the zygote to adhere to her uterine wall? Ultimately, this all comes down to your own opinion as to the value of bodily autonomy vs potential to develop. You believe there should be almost none for a woman (or a man, to be fair, as we have a say in a relationship) even when potential to develop hasn’t been proven. I believe individuals should be able to make financial, emotional, non-emotional, career, life, and pragmatic future decisions in their best interest if it deals with their body much longer than you.

What is life exactly? Do you think sperm is alive? It moves on its own, and it can die if not kept in the right conditions. It has a life span. We develop spermicide to kill it. To die, mustn’t it have some degree of life? It also has genetic makeup and dna of its creator. You’ll see your line is actually arbitrary, even if you wanna call people who disagree with you dumb asses.