Quote:

President Trump's sudden orders to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan — and Defense Secretary James Mattis' subsequent resignation — have left even the most high-ranking U.S. military officials questioning what they should be telling their troops on the ground, the Wall Street Journal reports.
“I don’t think anybody really knows exactly what’s going to happen. I’ve read the same stuff in the newspaper you did, I have a little more knowledge than that, but not a whole lot more.”
— Gen. Robert Neller, commandant of the Marine Corps.

The big picture: Military commanders have reportedly received "no timelines, hard numbers or orders" from the Pentagon — “Nothing formal, just tweets,” said Navy Secretary Richard Spencer. One official told the Journal that the resignation of Mattis was "more devastating" than the withdrawal, while another said that the defense secretary's exit in late February would allow for "adequate continuity." This was, of course, before Trump revealed Sunday that Mattis would be forced out by Jan. 1.

---

SirTripAlot said:

Looks like Afghanistan is being reduced by 50% as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/us/politics/afghanistan-troop-withdrawal.html

---

koods said:

Article on the post today about Assad clearing out his prisons with mass executions. 100k or more.jes

---

krypto2000 said:

No dispute with what you said, but it's hard to take someone seriously that believes the Washington post is the epitome of fake news. Epitome of popular/msm liberal fake news? Maybe, I don't know, but compared to fox news, breitbart, or any of those organizations that commonly outright lie as opposed to simply spin and omit details? No.. just no.

---

krypto2000 said:

So they're less fake because they support your preconceived bias? That very report seams "fake" to me.

---

krypto2000 said:

He didn't say there was no evidence and he sure as hell didn't confirm there wasn't any, he said that when they opened the investigation he did not know if the evidence was credible.

---

Did he say "he did not know if the evidence was credible" or did he even say he had any evidence, or did you just make believe that again?

He said (and this is the actual quote): "We opened them in late July, didn't know whether we had anything.  In fact, when I was fired as director, I still didn't know whether there was anything to it."

He also said:  "Did we have evidence in July of '16 that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired to hack the DNC server? The challenge in answering that is - and please don't take this nonanswer to imply that there is such information - I don't think that the FBI and special counsel want me answering questions that may relate to their investigation of Russian interference during 2016. And I worry that that would cross that line, Mr. Gowdy."

In other words, "please don't take my (non)answer to imply that there is any evidence"


You keep make believing what other people say. 

Quote:

Proof vs. Evidence

Another word that is commonly misused (sadly, sometimes even by scientists, who should know better) is "proof".

What "proof" means in everyday speech:
In casual conversations, most people use the word "proof" when they mean that there is indisputable evidence that supports an idea.

Scientists should be wary of using the term "proof". Science does not "prove" things. Science can and does provide evidence in favor of, or against, a particular idea. In science, proofs are possible only in the highly abstract world of mathematics.

What should scientists say instead of "proof"?
Scientists should use the term "evidence" instead of the word "proof". When we test our hypotheses, we obtain evidence that supports or rejects the hypotheses. We do not "prove" our hypotheses.

While this may seem like a subtle difference, the words we use can subconsciously color our thinking. "Proof" suggests that a matter is completely settled, that we have had the last word on something.

---

krypto2000 said:

We know there was evidence, but your definition of evidence is what most people use to mean proof...

We knoe there was the steel dossier and the australian diplomat off the top of my head. There's a slee of evidence (not proof). You don't start an investigation without evidence.

---

Enlil said:

So you believe the only type of proof is beyond a shadow of a doubt? There's no discussion to be had when you've adopted an absurd standard.

---

Enlil said:

So you believe the only type of proof is beyond a shadow of a doubt? There's no discussion to be had when you've adopted an absurd standard.

---

krypto2000 said:

To point #1 I'm not sure, nor am I sure how that relates.

---

krypto2000 said:

To #2 yes, do you think it's not evidence? Do you think the FBI should have dismissed that as opposed to investigating it? To me even if they think it along with the steel dossier are both fake they should investigate why they were faked.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Enlil said:

So you believe the only type of proof is beyond a shadow of a doubt? There's no discussion to be had when you've adopted an absurd standard.

---

Did krypto or I say that anywhere?

---

Enlil said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Enlil said:

So you believe the only type of proof is beyond a shadow of a doubt? There's no discussion to be had when you've adopted an absurd standard.

---

Did krypto or I say that anywhere?

---

Yes. 

krypto2000 said:

No, it is specifically evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt because evidence is a lower standard than proof. Proof is evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

---

---

Enlil said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Enlil said:

So you believe the only type of proof is beyond a shadow of a doubt? There's no discussion to be had when you've adopted an absurd standard.

---

Did krypto or I say that anywhere?

---

Yes. 

krypto2000 said:

No, it is specifically evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt because evidence is a lower standard than proof. Proof is evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

---

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

krypto2000 said:

We know there was evidence, but your definition of evidence is what most people use to mean proof...

We knoe there was the steel dossier and the australian diplomat off the top of my head. There's a slee of evidence (not proof). You don't start an investigation without evidence.

---

Enlil or krypto:

- Is Hillary claiming she believes she lost the election as a result of Russian interference due to Trump collusion with Russia evidence?
- Is an Austalian diplomat (Alexander Downer) telling American officials that Papadopoulos told him that a British professor (Joseph Mifsud) told him that the Russian ambassador to the U.K. (Alexander Yakovenko) told him that someone in Russia told him they had dirt on Hillary evidence?

PS - I'm on krypto's side regarding the proof vs evidence discussion.

---

koods said:

The criminal act of hacking and releasing the DNC emails changed the outcome of the election. To claim otherwise you would have to argue that less than 1% of democratic voters decided to not vote for hillary or not vote at all. You have to argue that the outrage over DNC corruption expressed within the party had no effect on voters.

---

koods said:

I never understood why Clinton was tarnished by the imaginary corruption of the DNC. The DNC hacks revealed the normal machinations of a political party. Wow they scheduled debates on Saturday and one time hillary found out about a question in a debate.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

krypto2000 said:

To point #1 I'm not sure, nor am I sure how that relates.

---

It relates more to Enlil, as he's argued that Theresa May blaming Russia for the Skripal poisoning is proof enough, since he could think of a make believe motive (that the Russians wanted him dead).  It's the very lowest level of evidence.

krypto2000 said:

To #2 yes, do you think it's not evidence? Do you think the FBI should have dismissed that as opposed to investigating it? To me even if they think it along with the steel dossier are both fake they should investigate why they were faked.

---

That's no more than reasonable suspicion.  If we let Enlil derail this with semantics, there may be some definition somewhere where that counts as proof.

---