Fact check on this brand new account?

I read the source he listed and it doesn't say any of that

	▲	ericd 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ah thanks, I think that was added after I commented.

▲

Ms-J 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you spend a moment to verify the info that is the fact check.

No one can do the thinking for you.

▲

ericd 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Did a quick search, didn’t see confirmation that they’re blind/that all radars had been knocked out. Was asking whether others who know more about this topic than me would confirm.

	▲	Ms-J 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You did a reasonable check in my opinion. Perhaps if you had said that you already did search I wouldn't have written the last part. Also if I had an answer to your question I would say it. Hope you are able to find the answer.

▲

refulgentis 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is the second time in 2 weeks I’ve seen a comment like this on HN. 37 years old. Been on here 16 years. Incredibly odd to me. Just announce “can someone else tell me if this is true?”

▲

ericd 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That’s what I was doing, because I don’t think assertions like “CENTCOM is blind” should just sit out there without evidence.

▲

refulgentis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Then go get some! It adds nothing but spam when you to take time from your busy day to tell us what to do

	▲	ericd 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Usually it’s on the person posting assertions to justify them, and looks like they’ve edited in a NYT link since then.
	▲	squeaky-clean 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		And 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"

▲

sethev 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

IMHO, 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.

I 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.

▲

refulgentis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You're so close, just one more step, and it's easy, just have to step away from keeping it hypothetical.

<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>

▲

ericd 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Relax, I was mostly asking whether someone else who already knew about this stuff could comment on its veracity. There’s obviously no obligation.

	▲	refulgentis an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Right (c.f. the thing I am replying to)

▲

sethev 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You'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.

	▲	refulgentis 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		None of the words you have in quotes are in this thread. :/ Not a single one. Nor did I advance this position. I'd wait for your apology, but I'm old enough to know I won't get one.

▲

nujabe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you asking someone to fact check publicly available information for you ? Even NYT reported this

	▲	ericd 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Traveling with kids on spring break, I don’t have time to read all war related news, and it tends to set off my propaganda account alarm when someone registers a new account to drop a bunch of assertions on such a politically divisive topic. So I was asking whether someone could confirm things like “The whole CENTCOM is blind basically, as well as Iron Dome which relied on these radars - all blind now, in addition to long-range early nuke detection to protect CONUS is also blind.” There’s a good reason new accounts are colored green.
	▲	the__alchemist 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		New account that only has politics-adjacent posts; worth being skeptical.