but were they not making a comment on the overall situation and not this specific example?
Headline reads (changed after OP posted): “targeting missile sites and boats”
They write: “DID they strike boats and other Iranian sites? Maybe. Who’s to say?”
I appreciate that you’re giving them an (extreme) benefit of the doubt, but they never so much as imply that, and they’re clearly raising doubt about this specific example; even the comment below you is running another line of defense for this specific case – trying to subtly frame it as logical because I didn’t link to the Iranian state media BBC News says reported the sound of explosions. (Of course if I had, or if I link to this article from the AP today, then it would be some other stupid bullshit, because the real problem that I can’t fix is Lemmy’s collective delusion that reading past the headline isn’t a basic expectation when you write a comment like this.)
Lemmy taken overall is persistently intellectually lazy and even more persistently in denial when called out. This is the most basic shit you’d expect of someone running to the comments and screeing about something that’s effectively solved by just reading, and yet pointing out that their comment wouldn’t exist if they’d just done 30 seconds of reading is still controversial.
Ok, here’s the thing. I honestly don’t know if it’s even true or not.
What if Iran just replies with “What attacks? You must have missed.”
Because here’s the thing…the united states government is full of bullshit. You never know if they’re actually basing ANYTHING they say on the truth.
DID they strike boats and other Iranian sites? Maybe. Who’s to say? Are we just going to trust the united states government at this point?
Maybe you’d know if you read the article (read: whose headline) you’re commentating about.
… I might be wrong, but were they not making a comment on the overall situation and not this specific example?
Headline reads (changed after OP posted): “targeting missile sites and boats”
They write: “DID they strike boats and other Iranian sites? Maybe. Who’s to say?”
I appreciate that you’re giving them an (extreme) benefit of the doubt, but they never so much as imply that, and they’re clearly raising doubt about this specific example; even the comment below you is running another line of defense for this specific case – trying to subtly frame it as logical because I didn’t link to the Iranian state media BBC News says reported the sound of explosions. (Of course if I had, or if I link to this article from the AP today, then it would be some other stupid bullshit, because the real problem that I can’t fix is Lemmy’s collective delusion that reading past the headline isn’t a basic expectation when you write a comment like this.)
Lemmy taken overall is persistently intellectually lazy and even more persistently in denial when called out. This is the most basic shit you’d expect of someone running to the comments and screeing about something that’s effectively solved by just reading, and yet pointing out that their comment wouldn’t exist if they’d just done 30 seconds of reading is still controversial.
Source the Iranian state media please.
I like the idea of Tehran just gaslighting the USAF into submission