That's a copout and you know it. You're focusing on the 'unnamed' part; I'm focusing on the 'representative of an administration that lies constantly and brazenly' part.
Noted Rationalist responds to a question about a first strike scenario with "I need to think about it" instead of "of course we'd launch the missiles, are you kidding?" and everyone here seems to think this is somehow unbelievable.
You're still dancing around the point. Person A said X; person B said not X; we have no concrete evidence either way. Person A is an anonymous representative of a group that has no norms against dishonesty, and a track record of telling frequent, shameless lies. X doesn't need to be 'unbelievable' for me to ask, again, what positive reason do you have for believing it?
That's a copout and you know it. You're focusing on the 'unnamed' part; I'm focusing on the 'representative of an administration that lies constantly and brazenly' part.
Noted Rationalist responds to a question about a first strike scenario with "I need to think about it" instead of "of course we'd launch the missiles, are you kidding?" and everyone here seems to think this is somehow unbelievable.
You're still dancing around the point. Person A said X; person B said not X; we have no concrete evidence either way. Person A is an anonymous representative of a group that has no norms against dishonesty, and a track record of telling frequent, shameless lies. X doesn't need to be 'unbelievable' for me to ask, again, what positive reason do you have for believing it?