Texts disprove Trump admin claim that no bombing plans were sent to reporter
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Anyone who operates in military/government knows that unclassified operational information still falls under Controlled Unclassified Information, which mean it is still to be safeguarded against spill, leak, and distribution to people without "need to know".
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
The journalist, the "they" in that comment, aren't military and don't have clearance. The journalist asked if the information was classified, the official sources said no, that's why they shared the information with the world, and why they are probably in the clear about that information.
Upvote
14
(16
/
-2)
It didn't say anything about rejecting the evidence of the group chat though.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
“That’s not irony that’s poor cutlery management” - John Oliver circa 1998 (or Richard Ayoade - it was a line from a show back in their footlights days).
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Upvote
-4
(0
/
-4)
Why would anybody think this is classified info?
It's December 7, 1941, Honolulu time. Radio Tokyo broadcasts: Flash! Our Pacific carrier fleet just broadcast "Tora, Tora , Tora", the code message telling our High Command that an air strike has been launched against the American fleet at Pearl Harbor.
I'm sure the Japanese high command wouldn't, or at least shouldn't have a problem. It's not like this is the type operational info that they'd want to control.
We have it from the highest authority in the land that this imaginary scenario would not be unacceptable. I guess the Japanese are just too tight assed to understand.
It's December 7, 1941, Honolulu time. Radio Tokyo broadcasts: Flash! Our Pacific carrier fleet just broadcast "Tora, Tora , Tora", the code message telling our High Command that an air strike has been launched against the American fleet at Pearl Harbor.
I'm sure the Japanese high command wouldn't, or at least shouldn't have a problem. It's not like this is the type operational info that they'd want to control.
We have it from the highest authority in the land that this imaginary scenario would not be unacceptable. I guess the Japanese are just too tight assed to understand.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Michael Waltz said:
I'm struck by how incredibly callous this is. It reminds me of the scene from Team America: World Police. "He's headed for the Louvre!"
...except this is with real people and their lives. They collapsed an entire residential building with a missile in order to kill one guy. This is the kind of shit that Israel has been doing that is pissing people off so much. No reasonable person thinks what Hamas did to Israel is remotely OK, but this kind of response, leveling entire buildings (or city blocks in Gaza) is unacceptable.
Over 53 people were killed, including children.
All you folks who didn't vote because you were pissed at the Biden admin rolling over for Israel, you own this shit. I'm pissed at the Biden admin's lack of (public) response too, but this is so much worse.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
Not the best example. The Japanese planned to present Washington with a declaration of war 30 minutes before the attack, and their embassy screwed it up.
Edit: Not that we they would have told us “BTW, attacking Pearl in 30 minutes”. It just means as an example it gets a little asterisk.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
What idiots heard the rhetoric coming out of the Trump campaign about Biden's failure to reign in Israel and thought Trump would do any better? Or that he even cared?
You'd have to be such a collossal idiot to think the openly racist openly islamophobic openly avaricious Trump would be one iota better for the people of Palestine than Biden was.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Right? It's absolutely nonsensical. Not only cutting off your nose to spite your face. More like, "if you won't surrender to our army, we'll all kill ourselves!".
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Yeah, but it was too good to pass up. Besides, we had the intercept translated before the Japanese embassy did. Didn't make much difference.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
If that's the case it's a stupid rule and should be broken. If you tell me something classified and I never swore or attested to be bound be secrecy rules then I have zero obligation to be bound by them. It's also dumb because you could tell me any crazy stuff you made up and I couldn't confirm it.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
They can’t because nothing classified was discussed. Thats also why The Atlantic can freely publish all those unclassified discussions.
Upvote
-11
(0
/
-11)
If it is classified and publishing it causes damage to your country, then you can’t publish it.
Upvote
-13
(0
/
-13)
And our Director of National Intelligence (the oxymorons literally sing, here) Tulsi "But What If Assad Was Cool Tho" Gabbard was in a random airport on her personal phone (and it doesn't feel like a stretch to say that she was using the airport's wifi). So that's great and stuff.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Back when it first came about, it was the same for me. I literally had to say it out loud before my brain decided to get it.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
"The official sources" are the ones I was referring to that had the duty to know that their "unclassified" information fell under CUI at the least.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
From what I understood, he walked into the party like he was walking onto a yacht,George Hamilton is the color of debonair.
His hat strategically dipped below one eye, his scarf it was apricot,
He had one eye in the mirror as he watched himself gavotte...
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Huh???????? The administration puts out false statements and propaganda that MAGA laps up. Its almost every hour at this point.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
You obviously have only been consuming propaganda. You might want to try reviewing the primary sources before you attempt to refute something.
https://time.com/7271504/signal-tulsi-gabbard-john-ratcliffe/
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=75&v=mz1sLlpee80
Upvote
-6
(0
/
-6)
I take your point, but it is not information that is classified, it is documents (and paragraphs, tables etc. within those documents) that are classified, according to the information contained in them. Classification Guides essentially say "if the document contains facts of type X, then they should be classified as Y", where Y is Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret (or Unclassified), but also often including dissemination restrictions (like no foreign dissemination, or releasable to 5 Eyes, etc.) and "compartments" (things that define who has a Need to Know, usually used with highly classified information).
What Hegseth would probably say in this situation is that the documents--posts--he and others put on the Signal app were never classified in the first place. Obviously they should have been run through a classification process, and the likely outcome IMO, if that process had been done correctly, would have been that many of the posts (not all) would have come out as classified. But since they were never classified in the first place--Hegseth is saying--they didn't need to be declassified.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I realize your last line sort of pre-empts what I'm about to say, but there's a bit of incorrect info in your post. Namely, whether a classified document gets shared with the 5 Eyes depends on the classification markings, in particular a dissemination control--markings that are added in addition to the classification markings (the U, C, S, and TS markings). If a document is marked NOFORN (NO FOReigN), then it canNOT be sent to the 5 Eyes (or to any other country, with some of which we have agreements to share some classified information). There are also dissemination controls allowing it to go to only a subset of the 5 Eyes, too.
It was reported that Biden shared some warnings about the ISIS-K terrorist plot against Moscow in March 2024. Putin apparently didn't believe the reports (or worse, wanted the terrorist attacks to happen), because the warnings were not heeded--with the expected consequences. Similarly, during WWII some intel from broken German codes (notably Enigma) was passed to Stalin, but as if it had come from spies; Stalin chose not to believe it.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Some unclassified information is CUI, not all. There's a list of information that is CUI (or the older term, For Official Use Only = FUOU) that is sensitive: health information about individuals, personal identifying information (like names and SSNs, but other stuff as well), some contracts between the government and private companies, and so forth. Documents that contain CUI must be protected, as you say.
The recent publication of documents having to do with the JFK assassination contained CUI (especially SSNs) that should have been redacted, but Trump told the National Archives people not to bother doing that. So he violated the law about CUI, or told them to violate it.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I'm rather partial to the admission of MAGA's plans - punching the American flag and setting it on fire
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Flattening entire residential buildings to kill one guy is a long-standing bipartisan US tradition. Reagan was the first to be able to do it; Bush Sr was the first to televise the capability. Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, Trump, and Biden have each gotten improved technology to do it ever more precisely and for less cost and less risk to US crews. Democrats tend to put in rules of engagement that aim to slightly reduce the risk to civilians, Republicans cancel them, but even with the better ROE it's still a great recruitment letter to the opposition.
Before we got the tech to flatten one specific building to take out one dude in particular, we had the tech to level one entire neighbourhoods to take out one dude, and the US used it. Before that, the US had the tech to level one entire village and used it. We have to go back to when air strikes were literally impossible to find a time the US wasn't killing civilians via air strikes. Back then, it used other means.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Basically no such people exist (not exactly zero, because idiots do exist).
Rather there's a fair number of people who figure that if one party is pro-genocide and the other is going to simply not do much anything about it, then what's the point in engaging in party politics at all? We didn't see a big shift away from the Democrats towards the GOP, we saw a big shift away from the Democrats towards not voting at all.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I don't think it's fair to call the Democrats "pro-genocide". I think for those paying attention Biden was pushing Netanyahu and Israel very hard behind the scenes to get them to dial it way back.
I don't think he pushed them nearly hard enough, and they didn't even criticize Israel in public. We have a lot of leverage we could have used to get the massacre to stop, and we didn't use it, and folks are pissed off about it.
So.. not anti-massacre enough? Definitely.
I don't know why politicians feel like it's not OK to criticize Israel. I know the ADL would call you an anti-Semite, but they throw that around like Trump throws around "loser".
Politicians need to stop being afraid to call Israel out on their bullshit, and the rest of the world needs to call us out on ours.
I understand how difficult it is when Hamas launches rockets and then goes and hides amongst civilians, but Israel (and the US) have to find a way to do better.
Last edited:
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
You flattened two entire cities to supposedly end a war which in all likelihood would've ended shortly anyway, and that was 80-odd years ago.
Upvote
-9
(0
/
-9)
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
That's nowhere near a factual statement. The Pacific War was not on the verge of ending before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Japan was not near surrender. Even with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, they were inclined to fight until the bitter end. The Japanese military was delusionally confident that like Churchill, "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." They were ready to see the Japanese population exterminated rather than consider surrender. The decision of Hirohito to overrule the cabinet and declare surrender was extraordinary and unprecedented, and was due almost completely to the knowledge of the atomic bomb, and the fact that it made Japan's military strategies useless. And even then it was a close-run thing, factions of the Japanese military were determined to kidnap the Emperor and prevent the transmission of the surrender message.
For an excellent discussion on the deliberations of the Japanese cabinet and Hirohito's involvement in the surrender decision, you'd get a lot out of watching this video.
The Unauthorized History of the Pacific War, Episode 440.
If features historian and noted WWII author Jon Parshall, former historian at the National WWII Museum Seth Paridon, and retired Navy Submarine Captain Bill Toy. It relies extensively on the notes of Pulitzer Prize winning historian Herbert Bix, who wrote was is considered the definitive English-language biography of Hirohito.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frLAX8LtoVg
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)