ewls21

joined 1 week ago
sorted by: new top controversial old
How can conflicting claims persist when verifying the truth seems easy? in c/main@hexbear.net
[–] ewls21@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago

Ah, so according to you, Iran did launch missiles after all, regardless of the circumstances under which it did so.

How can conflicting claims persist when verifying the truth seems easy? in c/main@hexbear.net
[–] ewls21@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago (7 children)

How can someone lie so consistently? Lying is usually a tool for achieving short-term goals — a means to an end. But when a person or a side lies shamelessly, and their lies are so transparent that anyone can see through them with minimal effort, it raises a deeper question: what purpose does it serve to lie so openly, so repeatedly? Or is it a sign that truth no longer matters in the game they're playing?

How can conflicting claims persist when verifying the truth seems easy? in c/main@hexbear.net
[–] ewls21@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Fair point. But Iran could still support its claim by inviting third-party verification (e.g. UN observers), sharing radar logs or telemetry from its own systems, or requesting satellite data from neutral countries. Even if indirect, such gestures can strengthen credibility.

29
How can conflicting claims persist when verifying the truth seems easy? (hexbear.net)
 

In the recent Iran–Israel ceasefire situation, both sides publicly declared agreement on a truce. Hours later, Israel claimed Iran had launched missiles, violating the deal. Iran, in turn, denied any such launch ever took place.

What strikes me is how dramatically their statements diverge — and yet neither has offered any solid proof. No satellite imagery, no intercepted communications, no verified video footage. This makes me wonder: when the technical means to confirm or disprove such claims exist (e.g. radar logs, satellite evidence), why would either side risk an outright lie that could be exposed?

Who’s lying — and more importantly, why? Is the goal simply to shape narrative momentum before facts can catch up? Are these statements made for internal audiences rather than international credibility?

I’m curious how others interpret such deliberate ambiguity. Can both sides be bluffing, or are we missing crucial pieces from third-party observers?