A missed analyst remark and disjointed US intelligence databases led to a US missile strike on an Iranian elementary school that killed an estimated 120 children. A Pentagon probe highlights critical flaws in legacy targeting systems used during operations against Iran.
Looking at recent precedent and using that to assess probabilities of current motives and actions is inductive reasoning, not “engaging in false rhetoric.”
And another bit of induction is worthwhile: when someone lies to you tens of thousands of time, what possible reason would you have to assume they’re telling the truth this time, especially when it contradicts their own previous statements and actions, such as changing rules of engagement to disregard civilian casualties when selecting targets, or advocating a policy of killing the families of foreign leaders?