jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,551
Shockingly, he exaggerated (which was obvious). About what do you allege he is not now telling the truth?You think he lied then, but is telling the truth now? Why?
Last edited:
Shockingly, he exaggerated (which was obvious). About what do you allege he is not now telling the truth?You think he lied then, but is telling the truth now? Why?
How about everything?Shockingly, he exaggerated. About what do you allege he is not now telling truth?
Not an answer. (Strike one)How about everything?
Is there any indication that Trump is telling truth about, anything?
Where is the evidence for these claims?Sorry. Got the operations confused. It was June 2025, Operation Midnight Hammer. To repeat: Iran was days from weapons-grade enrichment; months to at most one year from a deliverable bomb.
wrong. there were no real negotiations, because the US decided that it could just force compliance without any concessions.Iran hasn't been willing to actually agree to getting rid of their nuclear programs and letting in objective oversight to ensure their compliance.
Nuclear weapons and funding of terrorist proxies keep being the downfall of negotiations.
How do you know that? Isn't it something that Netanyahu and Trump (both liars) have claimed?Sorry. Got the operations confused. It was June 2025, Operation Midnight Hammer. To repeat: Iran was days from weapons-grade enrichment; months to at most one year from a deliverable bomb.
Iran has always been on the verge of weapons-grade enrichment, according to Israel. And yet they never got there, and even came to an agreement with Barack HUSSEIN Obama, which Trump tore up. So now we are all worse off, in so many ways, and my guess is that Iran by now is highly incentivised to finally do what Trump and Netanyahu keep saying they have already almost done.
But don't worry. Climate change, economic depression, and energy shortages will probably get to us, before the mushroom cloud.
I do hope you mean SI. We've changed it, you know, it's much better, because it isn't artificial, it's super! Superficial Intelligence ftw!Don't forget AI.
My comment was solely in response to Arthwollipot's claim that "righties" extrapolate to things that were never said. That tendency exists regardless of political leaning, and it's something that Arth themself does often enough to be noted.Some inferences are reasonable, some are unreasonable. Thinking that criticising a war of choice that is a strategic disaster for American security equates to wanting Iranian nuclear weapons, is unreasonable and can easily be seen forever the other statements from the posters
I think the world would have been better off if Iran hadn't consistently been funding and backing terrorist organizations, including Hamas, for decades on end.wrong. there were no real negotiations, because the US decided that it could just force compliance without any concessions.
But tell me this: do you think the situation now for the US, Israel, anyone in the Middles East or the World is better than it would have been if the Iran Deal had just been kept intact and Iran had not been attacked ?
Except that his comment was about a particular example in this thread.My comment was solely in response to Arthwollipot's claim that "righties" extrapolate to things that were never said. That tendency exists regardless of political leaning, and it's something that Arth themself does often enough to be noted.
Even though Trump assured us that he had obliterated Iran's weapons capability in June 2025?What kind of ignorant question is that? They had been working on it for years and were days away from producing enough weapons-grade uranium for 11 bombs according to the IAEA, and months to at most one year from turning that uranium into usable bombs.
Therefore nuke Iran so they don't develop nukes?I think the world would have been better off if Iran hadn't consistently been funding and backing terrorist organizations, including Hamas, for decades on end.
I also think that Iran is a bit like WW2 Japan, in that they aren't going to stop until they're hit with overwhelming force. Iran views negotiation as a sign of weakness. I hope very much that someone in charge will come to their senses... but it's only a slim hope.
It doesn't read like it. It reads like a generalized comment about what Arth thinks is a tendency among right wing people:Except that his comment was about a particular example in this thread.
It is, however, a typical extrapolation to words that were never said that is common among the righties.
Where did I say that? Overwhelming force doesn't necessitate nukes.Therefore nuke Iran so they don't develop nukes?