RE: LeoThread 2025-04-30 22:13

In a cautious approach, proper paperwork should have been completed first.

Regarding the risk claimed from publishing an attack schedule on Signal, it's important to weigh that against ensuring that key leaders were informed ahead of any imminent violence. It appears to have been a calculated decision.

Government-issued secure phones lack a chat feature, making it impractical to convene all these leaders in secure rooms for regular voice calls throughout the day.

There is a tendency to conflate potential (hypothetical) scenarios with actual events; the evidence suggests nothing untoward occurred.

While there is no indication that any hostile group managed to breach the Signal app or the phones involved, one can’t entirely dismiss the possibility of interference from nations like Russia, China, or Iran.

Still, any rapid defensive move by such groups would likely have been noticed within a short time frame.

If any of those nations had infiltrated government communications on Signal, they would have jeopardized their valuable access by alerting adversaries.

Such a revelation would be counterproductive from their perspective, meaning warnings to opponents were unlikely. In many corporate settings, progress can depend on selectively bending internal rules that obstruct beneficial actions.

When employees strictly adhere to every rule—often driven by dissatisfaction—they can stall progress. One wonders if the same logic applies within military operations.

In this case, the decision to bypass some formal steps and use an imperfect platform to keep leaders informed appears calculated.

Despite bending established procedures, the expected outcomes in terms of operational timing and coordination were achieved.