politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
And... This is over our highly compromised cell tower communications? Not through an app like signal? Not through some proprietary military app? We really just SMSing war plans..?
For real???
...
...what?!? This makes no sense. It is both Malice and incompetence.
Edit: okay there is mention of an invite to a signal group chat but it's unclear about the original message...
Edit2: y'all seriously lack basic reading comprehension skills and are out here telling me to read the article is adorable.
Paragraph 6, first sentence:
Next paragraph:
Next paragraph:
Paints a a pretty clear picture. Author got a signal connection request, which he accepted. The article intuits that no communication between the author and the signal user ID'd as Michael Waltz between the connection request and the author's addition to the signal group.
Nothing I have read is ambiguous in how the communication occurred, so I'm at a loss at what you're seeing that says differently.
You're reading into the article more than it actually says. Yes, it notes a connection request on Signal and later a group chat invite - but it never explicitly states that the connection request was the first contact. If that were clear, the article would have just said “the first message came through Signal.” It didn’t.
The sequence is vague enough to raise the question. If you think that ambiguity is settled by implication, cool - but don’t conflate inference with certainty.
Your claim: communication occurred between the author and at last one or more of the individuals noted in the article over unencrypted methods.
Your clam is debunked by the article simply with the quotes I set out in my previous message. Comments about first message being signal or not is not relevant to the meat of the article, namely that the group of individuals listed were communicating about classified/top secret information on the Signal app and had (likely inadvertently) added the journalist
Addressing your comments about stated facts:
All connection requests to connect via signal happen through signal. The connection request must be the first contact, no messages can be transmitted before the connection request is approved.
The only thing missing here is weather or not the author received any messaging in the 2 day lapse between the connection request and the notice that he was being added to the signal chat group. While possible that they did communicate with the individual identified as Michael Waltz, it has no bearing on the content of the article nor the assumption you made about unencrypted communications being held.
I recommend getting familiar with the software being used (signal in this case). While I appreciate pedantic individuals like yourself that get into the details and phrasing of messaging in order to discern the truth or intent of the author, that has to be tempered with a larger understanding in general.
See https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007459591-Signal-Profiles-and-Message-Requests#message_requests for information about signal and message requests.