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?
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?