Second video is talking about that. I should have specified. But I should have specified.
I am still on the fence how supposedly the US knew in advance and they were quick to say it was not their faults.
Ah, I couldn't understand that one.
As for US intelligence, my first guess would be the same way they usually are: SigInt. There's a chance at HumInt, but that's rarer. There's simply no one better at SigInt than the US though, and IS-K being stupid enough about it would be enough for a warning. Likely they were good enough about it that no solid warning could be given, otherwise Russia would have stopped it (this attack doesn't help them). But now the US gets to claim that Russia's incompetent because it's correct warning wasn't responded to well.
Also, my
guess (Note what follows is a guess, not something I know to be true, but something I think is likely true) is that there are actually a ton of countries warning a ton of other countries about a lot of possible terrorism, and some of those warnings end up not being correct (not lies, just the info is wrong). This is the same thing with Israel getting some warnings of an attack and not stopping it on October 7th.
Basically there are warnings ("we think something might happen") and Warnings ("X is going to do Y soon, using people in these pictures"). The first type get tossed around a bunch, and if an attack happens anyway, the countries that don't like each other say "I told you, why didn't you listen?"