The original commenter didn't say they were without context. They simply said that the threats were made, which they were. You were so adamant that they weren't made that when you were shown proof that they were made, you have to reframe it.

permalink
fedilink
source
parent
hideshow 4 child comments

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

That's like, a logical fallacy, or something. I think. 🤔

permalink
fedilink
source
parent

[-] Blursty@lemmygrad.ml -5 points 1 year ago

Then someone provides a list of such events

Didn't happen. These are all responses to threats, not threats themselves.

permalink
fedilink
source
parent
hideshow 2 child comments

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What a weird framing you're taking. They're literally threats. They're contingent threats, but they're still threats. Your claim was that they have not made threats; in reality, they have.

Also: isn't every threat contingent? If the threat is "I will use nukes if X event occurs" it's contingent on X occurring. If the threat is "I will use nukes" then it's still contingent, but the contingency is implied: "I will use nukes if I want to". There is no such thing as a threat that isn't contingent.

In fact, since you asserted that the only threats had come from the US, can you point to any sources from the US that are threats (and let's use your definition of threats here, too: you don't get to point to a contingent threat)?