• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump's Second Term

Second, the two week timeline is for us to attack, it is not the timeline for them to get nuclear weapons. If you had read Rubio's interview in full, you would understand the logic of that claim. You can argue the claim is wrong, but you either don't understand or are misrepresenting what the claim is. Because it isn't that Iran was about to get nuclear weapons.
Are you claiming that if you hadn't attacked during this crucial two-week window, Iran would have crossed some sort of rubicon that would have led to them inevitably having nuclear weapons at some indeterminate point in the future?

Or are you claiming that attacking in this two-week window will prevent Iran from ever having nuclear weapons?
 
Last edited:
Iran or the US? The US has been meddling in Iran since at least 1953. Iran is the only country that has been subject to attack by WMD since 1945, by a US puppet.

Pretty sure the words mote and beam or pot and kettle fit here.
And I bet you were OK with Obama (D-Kenya), sending the mullahs $1.7 billion dollars. What kind of person supports a regime that kills children en masse, develops nuclear weapons, bombs their neighbors, casually violates international law, and uses "holy texts" to continually expand their borders -- all at the expense of the American taxpayer. The meddling must stop: Iran needs to get out of Iran.
 
Apparently the world's shipping companies will swap Lloyds underwriters for the bankrupt casino guy who prides himself on never paying his bills.

Trump called Britain "uncooperative" from the Oval Office, then replaced Lloyd's of London as the insurer of the Strait of Hormuz — breaking 300 years of Crown control over global energy in one day.
@SJKokinda breaks it all down. Watch

 
Last edited:
And I bet you were OK with Obama (D-Kenya), sending the mullahs $1.7 billion dollars. What kind of person supports a regime that kills children en masse, develops nuclear weapons, bombs their neighbors, casually violates international law, and uses "holy texts" to continually expand their borders -- all at the expense of the American taxpayer. The meddling must stop: Iran needs to get out of Iran.
Anyone that supports Israel?
 
First off, that's not a direct quote, it's splices of different parts of his statement. To present it as one continuous quote when it isn't is dishonest. Second, the two week timeline is for us to attack, it is not the timeline for them to get nuclear weapons. If you had read Rubio's interview in full, you would understand the logic of that claim. You can argue the claim is wrong, but you either don't understand or are misrepresenting what the claim is. Because it isn't that Iran was about to get nuclear weapons.
Like a lot of what passes for information with the Trump adminstration, there is no consistency between who said what and it can change from week to week.

Trump said last year that he couldn't spare any weapons for Ukraine because the armed forces were going to be using them soon. Trump often seems to let the cat out of the bag. This war was possibly already planned before the election. Trump was even showing off plans to guests at his golf club.
 
Last edited:
First off, that's not a direct quote, it's splices of different parts of his statement. To present it as one continuous quote when it isn't is dishonest.
Because the full quote is a rambling mash of word salad from a sundowning pedo. We don't need every slurred syllable to get the point.
Second, the two week timeline is for us to attack, it is not the timeline for them to get nuclear weapons.
Ah yes, more Trumpsplaining. And when Trump contradicts that and directly says Iran was in fact 2 weeks from a nuke, how will you translate that?
If you had read Rubio's interview in full, you would understand the logic of that claim.
The logic was Rubio is a broken little simp who is scared of the mob of bigots at the command of the orange pedo.
You can argue the claim is wrong,
Because that would be accurate
but you either don't understand or are misrepresenting what the claim is.
Yes, because the orange pedo and the pedo defenders are well known for consistent logic and coherent points.
Because it isn't that Iran was about to get nuclear weapons.
Then what was the point of killing all these people and further disrupting global stability?
 

Matt Schlapp, the head of the influential Conservative Union, which runs CPAC, suggested that the Iranian schoolgirls who died in an airstrike are better off dead than alive under the current government.

On Wednesday’s edition of Piers Morgan Uncensored, the host suggested that the school may have been hit by Iranian fire.

“I just think you need to get your facts,” Piers Morgan told Peter Beinart, editor-at-large at Jewish Currents and a critic of the war.

“Piers, even if it was an Iranian missile that was fired in response to the attack from Israel and the United States, even if it was an Iranian missile, those girls would still be alive today if the United States and Israel had not launched the attack,” Beinart replied. “So, you are right, we don’t know who launched the missile. But we know that if the U.S. and Israel had not attacked a country that poses no serious threat to them – Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, America has thousands – that those girls would be alive.”

“They’d be alive in a burka,” Schlapp interjected. “This is… a barbaric society.”
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom