Iran

#21,603
#21,603
SpaceCoastVol said:
It won't last that long. Terrorists gotta be terrorizing. It's like heroin. If they ain't killing somebody they go into withdrawals.

Religion of peace an all...
Click to expand...

I agree, Israel certainly does go into withdrawal when they aren’t bombing city centers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, NashVol11, MercyPercy and 1 other person
#21,604
#21,604
volfanhill said:
I understand what you mean but Iran attacking in response to them being attacked would be a them problem. Now we didn't let it play out that way. It's not Israel's fault that this was the calculus we did. They should have gone if they felt necessary and let the chips fall where they lay. With the heads up we could have pulled out of critical areas. And after attacked the world could STFU regarding our response. Instead we are the aggressors
Click to expand...

How do you know that? My point wasn't about splitting up the blame pie, but since you are definitively absolving them of any blame here, how are you arriving there? What do you know about the intel they fed us? What do you know about the strong-arming and carrot-waving that is potentially happening behind the scenes?

JD Vance does know what's happening behind the scenes and said they were gonna drag us into war with Iran less than a year ago. It then happens. So why do you think it's not Israel's fault at all?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and Ttucke11
#21,609
#21,609
Redleg68 said:
yep, just let them keep building the stuff they are killing you with. Real smart,
Click to expand...
seems like you would want to actually strike at the actual production and not the infrastructure, especially power.

I don't know if you are aware of this but Iran has a lot of oil. oil is good for producing power. especially common with generators that can be used to run the machines. generators that can be moved around to where it is needed making them hard to target with strikes.

assuming there is a peace treaty, the power will come back on. so Iran's capability of making weapons in the future isn't really hurt by hitting their power grid. you take out their actual production, that doesn't HAVE to come back on like power does.

also I am willing to bet any of Iran's hardened military/nuclear facilities aren't relying on the same power grid as the local 7/11. the things actually a threat to us aren't going to be nullified by turning off the lights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and MercyPercy
#21,610
#21,610
Iran has claimed that the US is in breach of its ceasefire agreement even as Donald Trump says the truce is in effect despite fresh explosions rocking America's Arab allies and Tehran stating the Strait of Hormuz is closed.

Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of Iran's parliament, accused the US on Wednesday of violating three terms within the ceasefire agreement.

He said that Israel's attacks on Lebanon, drones breaching Iranian airspace and the White House claim that Tehran will not enrich uranium are all breaches of a 10-point proposal which Trump signed off on.


Karoline Leavitt disputed aspects of the ceasefire terms claimed by Iran hours earlier at a White House press briefing, stating that Trump never agreed to allowing Iran to continue its uranium enrichment.

'The President's red lines, namely, the end of Iranian enrichment in Iran have not changed, and the idea that President Trump would ever accept an Iranian wish list as a deal is completely absurd,' Leavitt said.

She also claimed that the Strait of Hormuz was open despite Iranian media reporting that the vital oil artery had been closed in response to Israel's strikes on Lebanon, a hotbed for Iranian terror proxy Hezbollah.

'We have seen an uptick of traffic in the strait today,' Leavitt said, noting that there was a difference between what Iran said publicly versus privately.

1775679331358.png
Though some ships went through the Strait of Hormuz early on Wednesday, other ships have turned around. Iran state media has announced the strait is currently closed

Two tankers were allowed through the strait this morning as the two-week ceasefire commenced, Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported, though it later said passage had been suspended 'simultaneous with Israel's attacks on Lebanon.'

Ghalibaf claimed that the US is in 'non-compliance with the first clause of the 10-Point Proposal regarding the ceasefire in Lebanon.'

Beirut, the Lebanese capital, was under massive bombardment by Israeli forces.

'Lebanon is not part of the cease fire,' Leavitt said. 'That has been related to all parties involved in the ceasefire.'

Vice President JD Vance told reporters that the Israelis have told US officials they will 'check themselves' in Lebanon.

'That's not because that is part of the ceasefire. I think that's the Israelis trying to set us up for success, and we'll, of course, see how that unfolds in the next few days,' he said.

He also said that he's seen signs that the Strait is beginning to resume normal traffic.

Trump told ABC News on Wednesday morning that he is fine with Iran charging tolls for ships to transit the Strait of Hormuz safely.

The average bill for a single tanker runs to $2 million - and only once payment clears will IRGC patrol boats escort the vessel through the 'tollbooth.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

Iran says Trump BREACHED ceasefire after new strikes rock Middle East

Iran's Parliamentary Speaker is claiming that the US has breached the ceasefire agreement even as Donald Trump says the truce is in effect.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
#21,614
#21,614
MercyPercy said:
From our secretary of state.

"We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action,” he told reporters. “We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”

This implies we wouldn't have been involved at all if not for Israel.
Click to expand...
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, yesterday you told us that Israel was going to strike Iran and that that’s why we needed to get involved. Today the President said that —

SECRETARY RUBIO: No.

QUESTION: — Iran was going to get —

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, your statement’s false. So that’s not what he – I was asked very specifically – were you there yesterday?

QUESTION: Yes. I asked a question.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Okay. No, did – were you the one that – because somebody asked me a question yesterday – did we go in because of Israel. And I said – you asked me that, you, that follow up. And I said no. I told you this had to happen anyway. The President made a decision, and the decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ballistic missile program, that Iran was not going to be allowed behind its ability to conduct these attacks. That decision had been made. The President systemically – made a decision to systematically destroy this terroristic capability that they had, and we carried that out. I was very clear in that answer. This was a question of timing, of why this had to happen as a joint operation, not the question of the intent. Once the President made a decision that negotiations were not going to work, that they were playing us on the negotiations, and that this was a threat that was untenable, the decision was made to strike them.

That’s what I said yesterday, and you guys need to play it. And if you’re going to play these statements, you need to play the whole statement, not clip it to reach a narrative that you want to do. All right?
 
#21,615
#21,615
CobbVol said:
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, yesterday you told us that Israel was going to strike Iran and that that’s why we needed to get involved. Today the President said that —

SECRETARY RUBIO: No.

QUESTION: — Iran was going to get —

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, your statement’s false. So that’s not what he – I was asked very specifically – were you there yesterday?

QUESTION: Yes. I asked a question.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Okay. No, did – were you the one that – because somebody asked me a question yesterday – did we go in because of Israel. And I said – you asked me that, you, that follow up. And I said no. I told you this had to happen anyway. The President made a decision, and the decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ballistic missile program, that Iran was not going to be allowed behind its ability to conduct these attacks. That decision had been made. The President systemically – made a decision to systematically destroy this terroristic capability that they had, and we carried that out. I was very clear in that answer. This was a question of timing, of why this had to happen as a joint operation, not the question of the intent. Once the President made a decision that negotiations were not going to work, that they were playing us on the negotiations, and that this was a threat that was untenable, the decision was made to strike them.

That’s what I said yesterday, and you guys need to play it. And if you’re going to play these statements, you need to play the whole statement, not clip it to reach a narrative that you want to do. All right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I know he walked back the truth because he got an earful. It was a lame attempt of political cover because he accidentally told the truth the first time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, NashVol11, Ttucke11 and 2 others
#21,617
#21,617
MercyPercy said:
Yes, I know he walked back the truth because he got an earful. It was a lame attempt of political cover because he accidentally told the truth the first time.
Click to expand...
It was because of the initial meeting where the old man Khamenei and the other 80 terrorist leaders were meeting. Attack could not be passed up. Green lights given.
 
#21,618
#21,618
n_huffhines said:
How do you know that? My point wasn't about splitting up the blame pie, but since you are definitively absolving them of any blame here, how are you arriving there? What do you know about the intel they fed us? What do you know about the strong-arming and carrot-waving that is potentially happening behind the scenes?

JD Vance does know what's happening behind the scenes and said they were gonna drag us into war with Iran less than a year ago. It then happens. So why do you think it's not Israel's fault at all?
Click to expand...
I don't know that happened. That's my reaction to if what Vance reported to have said is true. I dont trust anyone in this admin. However, it can't be ignored that you have been claiming that we do Israel's bidding but then post info saying we left them in the cold during these negotiations. Either we do their bidding or don't. Pick a lane
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#21,619
#21,619
MercyPercy said:
Yes, I know he walked back the truth because he got an earful. It was a lame attempt of political cover because he accidentally told the truth the first time.
Click to expand...
"We were lying back then, but we are telling the truth now"
Bush
Obama
Trump 1
Biden
Trump 2

their argument would hold water if Rubio was the only one who said that particular "lie". Johnson also said pretty much the same thing, and Hegseth has made some comments that weren't straight party line either. well at least what is currently party line, I am sure it will change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, NashVol11, Smokey123 and 2 others
#21,620
#21,620
volfanhill said:
I don't know that happened. That's my reaction to if what Vance reported to have said is true. I dont trust anyone in this admin. However, it can't be ignored that you have been claiming that we do Israel's bidding but then post info saying we left them in the cold during these negotiations. Either we do their bidding or don't. Pick a lane
Click to expand...
its really hard to pick a lane with this admin.

depending on the day and who you talk to you will hear different results. it would be a lot easier on everyone if they had a lane where we can give coherent arguments against. if anything Huff's confusion reflects what we are getting out of the admin.
 
#21,621
#21,621
MercyPercy said:
From our secretary of state.

"We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action,” he told reporters. “We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”

This implies we wouldn't have been involved at all if not for Israel.
Click to expand...
Fair assumption
 
#21,622
#21,622
MercyPercy said:
Yes, I know he walked back the truth because he got an earful. It was a lame attempt of political cover because he accidentally told the truth the first time.
Click to expand...
Here is more information to help you with the timing of the attack and why. Of course, understanding this will force you to pull back from the nutjob notion that we would not be involved if not for Israel.

Two US sources and a US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said confirmation that Khamenei was meeting his top aides triggered the joint Israeli-US operation. The US official said the attack needed to hit Khamenei first to maintain the element of surprise, suggesting concerns that the Iranian leader would go into hiding if he had advance warning. One US source said Khamenei had originally been expected to hold the meeting on Saturday evening in Tehran, but Israeli intelligence detected a meeting on Saturday morning, and the strikes were moved forward.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top