Mauro
Senior Member.
Unfortunately, it's also been historically very common.
2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Todd Feinman
Senior Member
Yeah.. Thirty Years' War. Just wow.
deirdre
Senior Member
nah, you only need congress if you want to officially declare war. we can continue to bomb whoever we want if the house and senate flip in November.
fizzBuzz
Senior Member
Amongst all the noise from media/social media/etc. It seems a major theme with this war/operation is that Iran does not pose a threat to the US, therefore, it's illegal/unconstitutional to do what they're doing. And the US is fighting Israel's war.. again.
My opinion - these situations are always borderline illegal/unconstitutional/immoral and both sides have done this for a long time. Also, as stated by Rubio, prior to the strikes, we had intelligence suggesting Iran would strike us (military bases/embassies in the Middle East) if Israel struck them - and that is considered an immediate threat. Will we ever see this evidence? maybe, maybe not. But I think we can all agree that Iran poses a threat to anyone within their reach, and even more so, its own people. So I don't see this as "Israel's war", though they are probably the biggest player. I see this as the US protecting its interests and ally's interests in the Middle East. Rubio also stated the goal is to take out their missile silos, navy, and uranium enrichment facilities. Regime change is not the goal, according to Rubio. That is up to the people of Iran - hopefully, they take advantage. Some talking heads seem to think this will be another forever war and we'll see boots on the ground in Iran. I really hope this isn't the case.
For reference to Rubio's comments, see @deirdre's post above.
My opinion - these situations are always borderline illegal/unconstitutional/immoral and both sides have done this for a long time. Also, as stated by Rubio, prior to the strikes, we had intelligence suggesting Iran would strike us (military bases/embassies in the Middle East) if Israel struck them - and that is considered an immediate threat. Will we ever see this evidence? maybe, maybe not. But I think we can all agree that Iran poses a threat to anyone within their reach, and even more so, its own people. So I don't see this as "Israel's war", though they are probably the biggest player. I see this as the US protecting its interests and ally's interests in the Middle East. Rubio also stated the goal is to take out their missile silos, navy, and uranium enrichment facilities. Regime change is not the goal, according to Rubio. That is up to the people of Iran - hopefully, they take advantage. Some talking heads seem to think this will be another forever war and we'll see boots on the ground in Iran. I really hope this isn't the case.
For reference to Rubio's comments, see @deirdre's post above.
Well, Rubio's presser struck me because his reasons for going to war seem different from the reasons Trump, Hegseth, and Lindsey Graham have articulated.
There are also apparently military commanders telling their troops this is a Christian war and this is all part of God's plan, so don't worry.
fizzBuzz
Senior Member
I'm opposed to religion as much as anyone else here. I also understand that at least some form of religion plays a role in almost every country's political/social landscape. I disagree with most religion-inspired policy, but I feel like I would be overreacting if I got my panties in a wad over some commanders trying to inspire their troops be calling this a "Christian war". This just seems to be searching for reasons to complain. It's as irrelevant and inconsequential as a coach praying with his football team before a game... who cares? Let them be weird...
Mendel
Senior Member.
The record shows that UN weapons inspections have worked well.
Gary C
Senior Member.
Very possibly. Trump thinks in personalities so he may think he can decapitate Iran as he did Venezuela and things will be fine.
Venezuela had been reduced largely to a kleptocratic cult of personality under Chavez who bequeathed it to Maduro who didn't actually have one. A personality that is. His surviving associates who seem to have done a lot of the day-to-day repression, taxed the drug cartels to allow them to continue doing business, and generally governed/stole from the Venezuelan people have taken a lesson from seeing their boss plucked out the house next door and are scrambling to get off/stay off the US regime's radar. So far so good. By the time people realize this has almost no impact on the $100 billion illegal drug markets, Trump will be gone.
Iran has over three times the population and has been building and grooming security forces around the mullah's particular school of Islam and the strategic use of Israel, the US, and the Saudi royal family as external enemies to build internal cohesion since 1979. Together the Army, the IRGC, and Basij have money, weapons, and a few hundred thousand fighting men available at multiple locations both inside and outside Iran.
The fact of Iran's lackluster response so far suggests that Israel and the US together had a very good picture of the the Iranian's Command and Control systems, likely boosted by what they learned during the June 2025 bombing campaign. Whoever survived the initial decapitation strikes is apparently having difficulty getting the surviving forces moving and performing militarily useful operations to either defend Iran or strike the US or Israel.
The thing is, we saw this in Iraq when the sitting government was picked apart and brushed aside by the US led invasion only to see an array of militant organizations who's only common trait was hating the US presence develop into an intractable security problem. That's how you end up in a quagmire. The Iranian Quds Force and IRGC intelligence services were deeply involved in getting those militias organized and pointed at the US. That's wasn't just a few senior officers you can pick off with a few Tomahawk missiles. Thousand of Iranian personnel were involved and we have to assume that most are still alive and retain the skills they developed fighting US interests twenty years ago.
So the question is, does the Iranian hydra have more potential heads than we have bombs or cruise missiles? One way or another we are going to find out.
My two cents
deirdre
Senior Member
im guessing the angle is more "we arent bombing Iran because they are terrorists who are a threat to us, we are bombing them because we are Islamophobic."
Mendel
Senior Member.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war
I'd say "war for oil" (or other resources) is more common in the past century, and certainly Iran/Iraq/Venezuela/Ukraine can be interpreted as such.External Quote:
and that's before we start characterising countries as "full of religious fanatics", which reduces the numbers quoted above.
NoParty
Senior Member.
So, it took less than 1/2 day for Trump to prove me correct. The Rubio excuse of 3/2 is already trashed by the one who can't stop talking:
"I might have forced their hand," Trump said. "You see, we were having negotiations with these lunatics and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first. They were going to attack if we didn't do it. They were going to attack first, I felt strongly about that, and we have great negotiators, great people, people that do this very successfully and have done it all their lives very successfully. And based on the way the negotiation was going, I think they were going to attack first and I didn't want that to happen."
Trump's comments somewhat differed from Secretary of State Marco Rubio's remarks on Monday about how Israel claimed Iran was planning to attack. Trump appeared to say he had pushed for the strikes instead.
"So if anything I might have forced Israel's hand but Israel was ready, and we were ready, and we've had a very, very powerful impact because virtually everything they have has been knocked out now," Trump said.
https://www.mexc.co/en-NG/news/844703
Bonus quote [today, 3/3/26], for those who still wish to cling to the fantasy that this war of choice has been carefully thought out:
DJT: "I guess the worst case would be we do this and then somebody takes over who's as bad as the previous person, right? That could happen. We don't want that to happen. That would probably be the worst. You go through this and in five years you realize you put somebody in who is no better."
https://www.mediaite.com/media/news...scenario-in-iran-we-dont-want-that-to-happen/
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member
Rubio didnt say that.
US strikes on Iran triggered by Israel's plan to launch attack, Rubio says | US foreign policy | The Guardian https://share.google/Jlx9h9OeYHVpN3QrT
I think what he did say is worse.
deirdre
Senior Member
because israel was planning on attacking iran? yea i havent really been following israel/iran stuff.
but i had read that isreal jumped on intel that a bunch of the head honchos were gonna be in the same location (although Mossad might have 'set up' the head honchos to all gather.. but im not sure how that would happen. im not real up on spy stuff)
anyway they had a chance to take them all out at once so jumped on it.
Article: According to The New York Times, which cited anonymous sources familiar with the operation, the US's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had gathered information about a Saturday morning meeting there that would include Khamenei and the country's senior military cadre. The CIA then shared the information with Israel.
...
It is also unclear why the country's most senior military leaders decided to gather in a predictable location while threats of a US-Israel attack were imminent.
Ann K
Senior Member.
deirdre
Senior Member
1. rubio did not say what No Party claimed he did. so i dont know why you are quoting me.
2. if he "walked back" his prior statements then why didn't you quote what Rubio actually said?
https://www.state.gov/releases/offi...tary-of-state-marco-rubio-remarks-to-press-7/
and dont you want to fact check if Trump really did flatly deny that Israel chose the timing of the attack? Don't get me wrong, i prefer if people interpret it that way. (If our cia told israel when everyone was gathering then technically we kinda did choose the timing.) There's been issues in New York between some of the more 'radical' islamist men and the jews in New York. There's hate crimes against muslims rising in New York too of course. This military operation isnt good for new York tensions.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
here's a theory
Source: https://x.com/adamscochran/status/2028474816446054849
Source: https://x.com/adamscochran/status/2028474816446054849
The F-15 "friendly fire" claim is either *lie* or a US command failure. But something is OFF.
After talking to experienced military sources, here's how we KNOW the reporting is cover:
* Kuwait uses three types of air defense system:
>Patriot
>Improved HAWK
>SHORAD
A SHORAD type air defense would not reliably take down an F-15.
An improved HAWK *could* hit an F-15 BUT because a hawk requires constant radar illumination, the pilot would be alerted to the lock by radar detection, could deploy chaff, activate ECM, and take maneuvers against it. So a hawk striking 3 planes is deeply unlikely.
The Patriot system can reliably strike targets like an F-15, and so we know it's likely this was the system used.
* Patriot systems rely on multiple ID types to engage a target:
>Radar track behavior rules (it only shoots at things that act like a missile)
>IFF signature (a broadcasted automatic signature between fighter craft and ground systems)
>Link-16 (an integrated system for IDing friendlies in the air space, that is shared via integrated command)
>Air tasking order data (the equivalent of an issued flight route)
* F-15 broadcast an IFF that Patriot batteries can detect when the proper encryption key is shared with allies.
* Kuwaiti Patriot batteries support Link-16 integration with US data when properly shared.
* Our agreement with Kuwait to operate regionally requires sharing all Air Tasking Orders in their air space.
* After a single friendly fire joint emergency command orders would need to be shared with Kuwait.
In order for Kuwait to hit 3 F-15 with Patriot friendly fire in one night would require ALL of the following:
* We didn't share IFF encryption keys or ID data with them, or were not broadcasting IFF.
* We did not share Link-16 data with them, or Link-16 broadcast capabilities were destroyed.
* We did not share Air Tasking Orders with them.
* We did not share emergency alerts with them after the first ejection took place.
* The area was under extreme barrage of missiles FAR more than reported.
* There was no AWACS data sharing, or no higher level C2 node integration, or these were damaged.
So either:
1) We made an operational decision to ignore our standard practices and leave an ally in the dark, not share data and risk American lives
OR
2) The Iranian attack was *far* more successful than the US let on, and damaged critical ID and comms infrastructure of US assets in Kuwait.
Either way, we are not getting the real story from the US side here.
People with contacts in Kuwait, or active command, should be asking serious questions about this blunder.
As it likely points to a gaping hole in US defense that puts our service members at serious risk!
After talking to experienced military sources, here's how we KNOW the reporting is cover:
* Kuwait uses three types of air defense system:
>Patriot
>Improved HAWK
>SHORAD
A SHORAD type air defense would not reliably take down an F-15.
An improved HAWK *could* hit an F-15 BUT because a hawk requires constant radar illumination, the pilot would be alerted to the lock by radar detection, could deploy chaff, activate ECM, and take maneuvers against it. So a hawk striking 3 planes is deeply unlikely.
The Patriot system can reliably strike targets like an F-15, and so we know it's likely this was the system used.
* Patriot systems rely on multiple ID types to engage a target:
>Radar track behavior rules (it only shoots at things that act like a missile)
>IFF signature (a broadcasted automatic signature between fighter craft and ground systems)
>Link-16 (an integrated system for IDing friendlies in the air space, that is shared via integrated command)
>Air tasking order data (the equivalent of an issued flight route)
* F-15 broadcast an IFF that Patriot batteries can detect when the proper encryption key is shared with allies.
* Kuwaiti Patriot batteries support Link-16 integration with US data when properly shared.
* Our agreement with Kuwait to operate regionally requires sharing all Air Tasking Orders in their air space.
* After a single friendly fire joint emergency command orders would need to be shared with Kuwait.
In order for Kuwait to hit 3 F-15 with Patriot friendly fire in one night would require ALL of the following:
* We didn't share IFF encryption keys or ID data with them, or were not broadcasting IFF.
* We did not share Link-16 data with them, or Link-16 broadcast capabilities were destroyed.
* We did not share Air Tasking Orders with them.
* We did not share emergency alerts with them after the first ejection took place.
* The area was under extreme barrage of missiles FAR more than reported.
* There was no AWACS data sharing, or no higher level C2 node integration, or these were damaged.
So either:
1) We made an operational decision to ignore our standard practices and leave an ally in the dark, not share data and risk American lives
OR
2) The Iranian attack was *far* more successful than the US let on, and damaged critical ID and comms infrastructure of US assets in Kuwait.
Either way, we are not getting the real story from the US side here.
People with contacts in Kuwait, or active command, should be asking serious questions about this blunder.
As it likely points to a gaping hole in US defense that puts our service members at serious risk!
NoParty
Senior Member.
Sadly, I think this is mostly correct. Netanyahu may be a slimy little guy, but (like the other slimy little guy: Putin)
Netanyahu has realized just how excruciatingly easy it is to manipulate the childish boy-king.
Since the Defense Intelligence Agency estimated Iran's ability to develop ICBMs capable of reaching the U.S. at ~2035,
it seems that Netanyahu figured he better convince his useful idiot that there was urgency, before Big Macs or dismal
approval ratings deprived him of his gullible Dunning-Kruger puppet.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.dia.mil/Portals/110/Documents/News/golden_dome.pdf
Gary C
Senior Member.
RE: the Kuwaiti friendly fire incident.
Without other information, I suspected an IFF error, either human or technical.
I'd quibble about the radar track rule as the high variety of weapons types in action including manned supersonic and subsonic aircraft, drones, cruise missiles (high subsonic) and ballistic missiles could present the Kuwaitis with flight behaviors hard to distinguish from an F-15 traveling anywhere from 400 to 1400 knots.
Also the aircraft might have been operating outside the engagement envelope of the I-HAWK or that system might have been offline leaving Patriot as the only option.
All of the other safeguards really come down to sharing IFF codes and encryption keys for the operation with the Air Defense forces of every country we overfly and everyone keeping up with new code changes. Without a lot more details you can't say much more than that.
Without other information, I suspected an IFF error, either human or technical.
I'd quibble about the radar track rule as the high variety of weapons types in action including manned supersonic and subsonic aircraft, drones, cruise missiles (high subsonic) and ballistic missiles could present the Kuwaitis with flight behaviors hard to distinguish from an F-15 traveling anywhere from 400 to 1400 knots.
Also the aircraft might have been operating outside the engagement envelope of the I-HAWK or that system might have been offline leaving Patriot as the only option.
All of the other safeguards really come down to sharing IFF codes and encryption keys for the operation with the Air Defense forces of every country we overfly and everyone keeping up with new code changes. Without a lot more details you can't say much more than that.
The logical thing to do then is prevent Israel from striking Iran. Funny how the idea of the US forcing Israel to do anything, or not do something, never seems to come up.
Unlikely except in very small numbers. On the ground to do WHAT is the question. Look at a map of Iran, Tehran is nowhere near the Persian Gulf. Trying to move large numbers of US troops (do we even HAVE large numbers of ground troops anymore?) to Tehran would be a logistical nightmare, then what do they do when they get there? It would be something like Bagdad in the in the early days, endless US casualties and vast numbers of Iranians dead. Then the problem of keeping the population of Iran from starving, keeping the lights on, and so forth. How well did the US do in setting up the Iraqi government? It would be a multi-Trillion dollar a year operation. It's easy to say "just occupy the place", another to actually do so.
NoParty
Senior Member.
So why do you think Rubio's attempt to frame this is soooooooooooo damned different than all the "reasons" Trump has given?
I believe this is what's called "sane-washing":
Ignoring all Trump's crazy shit, to imply that Rubio's less crazy sounding explanation is what's really going on.
NoParty
Senior Member.
I am not happy that ~2.5 days after the horrific slaughter (140-175 mostly school girls) at the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls school,
our government is saying virtually nothing about whether or not they (or their co-attackers, Israel) did it.
Normally, citizens giving the gov the benefit-of-the-doubt would be appropriate, for awhile, because of the fog of war.
But with the sketchy track record of the current administration, one has to wonder if they already know,
but are delaying telling the truth, as it might cost them some of the small percentage percentage of Americans who think
this war of choice is a good idea... Severed arms and legs of innocent little girls are pretty tough optics to sell...
Let's see if Fox News can sell it to MAGA...
ETA: Link to USA Today asking same thing...
"The Pentagon says it is reviewing the incident, but so far it has not publicly committed
to a formal investigation, disciplinary action or other accountability measures."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...chool-attack-human-rights-groups/88949676007/
our government is saying virtually nothing about whether or not they (or their co-attackers, Israel) did it.
Normally, citizens giving the gov the benefit-of-the-doubt would be appropriate, for awhile, because of the fog of war.
But with the sketchy track record of the current administration, one has to wonder if they already know,
but are delaying telling the truth, as it might cost them some of the small percentage percentage of Americans who think
this war of choice is a good idea... Severed arms and legs of innocent little girls are pretty tough optics to sell...
Let's see if Fox News can sell it to MAGA...
ETA: Link to USA Today asking same thing...
"The Pentagon says it is reviewing the incident, but so far it has not publicly committed
to a formal investigation, disciplinary action or other accountability measures."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...chool-attack-human-rights-groups/88949676007/
Last edited:
Giddierone
Senior Member.
Exactly it's infuriating.
As for ensuring the administration is quoted fully, I like the approach this account takes using his exact words but without his voice. It really highlights the insanity / absurdity.
Source: https://x.com/DecodingFoxNews/status/2029019755772862785?s=20
Gary C
Senior Member.
[my bold]
"Conservative" media as segmented in the modern infotainment space means not broadcasting content that might reflect badly on the GOP or the current administration. Fox, OAN and other partisan outlets are likely to devote little to no air time to this particular story. MAGA will never see it as they are among the audience segments most prone to self-select media resources that reinforce their world view. Rush Limbaugh would be nodding his head at this.
fizzBuzz
Senior Member
What if the US wanted to strike Iran and blaming it on Israel is the best way to justify it (to the rest of the world)? Both countries have been longing for reasons to take out the current regime. This seemed like the best opportunity to do that.
Gary C
Senior Member.
Ascribing emotional states to entire countries is problematic at best. Doing so for societies as politically polarized as Israel or the US is particularly fraught. The fact that barely half of registered Republicans support the war in the most recent polls suggests "longing for reasons to take out the current regime" only affects those closest to the Neo Conservatives in the US while somewhat more people in Israel would probably agree as many have lost friends and family in the course of multiple Iranian attacks since the Oct 7 attack.
My sense is that @MapperGuy is on the right track as to 'why now' - https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2026-israeli–united-states-strikes-on-iran.14770/post-364300
deirdre
Senior Member
3.5 days. well right now its 4 days.. but 3.5 when you posted.
fizzBuzz
Senior Member
Because Trump exaggerates almost everything. He boasts. I've said this several times in similar threads. I trust Rubio's words on things like this.
Why do you all of a sudden take Trump at his word? You think Trump is giving you the truth here and Rubio is the one sugar-coating?!?!
I thought you think Trump lies all the time. No? But then you claim I'm "sane-washing" for "ignoring Trump's crazy shit"? You can't have it both ways. You're cherry-picking a situation just to win some thumbs-up. Not going to work with me.
deirdre
Senior Member
obviously he is talking about the people in power to make those decisions. That's like suggesting that when people say things like "Iran kills its own people by the thousands", they mean the people being killed are approving of themselves being killed.
Gary C
Senior Member.
If that is so I'm sure he'll let us know. However, when a politician proclaims to know what "the American people want" they are engaging in just the behavior I've alluded to. We just need to remind ourselves of that periodically to avoid going down our own rabbit holes.
deirdre
Senior Member
he doesnt just exaggerate, he brings up everything under the sun that happened last week, last month, last year, his last term, some random thought that occurred to him last night while he was watching Everybody Loves Raymond...
Hell with Merz he was asked about an evacuation plan he responded with a spiel that included a speech about Biden giving away missiles to ukraine but now we're making the EU pay for them, how he rebuilt the military in his first term, then how the ukraine war wouldnt have ever happened if he was president.
I do believe most people deliberately try to misunderstand him and twist his words and meanings, but he certainly makes it easy for them. (to be fair a lot of people did the same to Kamala..who also made it easy)
NoParty
Senior Member.
Now I remember why I needed to stop wasting time, responding to your posts!
First, google "Rubio backtracks" to see that virtually everyone realizes that he changed his position radically after Trump contradicted him.
So, when you say: "I trust Rubio's words on things like this," are you saying you trust Monday Rubio (3/2) or Tuesday Rubio (3/3)?
Secondly, your attempted straw man, claiming that somehow my post could--in some alternate universe--be interpreted to mean that I
"all of a sudden take Trump at his word"
is beyond absurd. Trump does exaggerate almost everything, and he also lies and gaslights(blatantly & so incompetently that his lies are revealed every day!) constantly. Saying whatever he thinks will improve his image is his
default mode...truth is entirely unimportant, relative to flogging his fragile ego. I would be genuinely surprised if he has any grasp of the truth, at this point...as it absolutely never matters to him. That he has already given 6 or 8 conflicting (and, in some cases, mutually exclusive)
"explanations" for starting this war of choice, is 100% proof that some, most or all of the excuses are false.
Rubio trying to clean up Trump's lies may've fooled some dim MAGAs, but I immediately predicted that it would make Rubio look like a fool,
because Trump would almost certainly go off-script soon. And guess what? Yep! Almost immediately Trump contradicted Rubio,
forcing lil' Marco not only to awkwardly try to revise his Monday pronouncements, to fit Trump's contradictions, and then,
of course, because it's this trash Trump Administration, to try to gaslight the American people into believing that his new (Tuesday)
position was actually not new. [see video]
Again, google "Rubio backtracks" and tell us which of his positions it is that you find credible...and why not the other.
(first 32 seconds is all you need of this clip...notice Rubio tries to "Where you there?" the reporter...but, D'oh!! it was same reporter!!)
Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/B18ZBHcm2Eo
deirdre
Senior Member
you mean your clip that says "no, i was asked a very specifically" and then cuts him off?
not that anyone on MB cares but here is Rubios full answer your clip cuts off .starting at timestamp 4:50-5:55
https://www.c-span.org/program/news...e-rubio-speaks-to-reporters-about-iran/674666
c span wont embed.. i clipped the section here: its only a minute so LISTEN to it.
https://www.c-span.org/clip/news-conference/user-clip-rubio-full-answer/5195239
when i first posted about the first rubio speech i even pointed out the "why NOW" question. If i understood the specificity when the speech originally happened, why is it so hard for others to grasp the concept?
it's not rocket science. obviously we wanted to take out Iran's ammunitions etc, WE America. Have we ever NOT wanted to take them out?
https://youtube.com/shorts/LrAmPb_NxgE?si=GUDVe4xnO3cgvU4s
With Merz, trump tells us (and others have told us) that the negotiations were a bust so Trump decided Iran was going to eventually attack israel and he told that to Israel 6 or 7, possible 10 or 11 days ago. THEN either our cia or Mossad (ive heard both) told israel there would be a gathering of all the top military guys in Iran.
The reason we went in on Saturday vs say next month, is that Israel knew all the top military guys were gathering in 1 place on Saturday morning so they were going to take the opportunity to "go now" and take the military top dogs out.
WE need an imminent threat reason to start bombing. and IF israel was going to start bombing, that gave us the imminent threat reason we needed. The threat was that once israel bombed, then iran would attack our bases. To prevent that we had our excuse and joined israel.
We were happy to get the excuse and to bomb the crap out of of iran. Noone is denying that.
Trump was asked at the Merz conference SPECIFICALLY "did iran force your hand? did they drag you into this war?"
Article: 3:59
4:00Mr. President, did Israel Mr. President, did Israel force your hand to launch these strikes against Iran? Did
Netanyahu pull the United States into this war?
No. I might have forced their hand.
what trump said was true. trump was the one who told israel 6-11 days ago iran would eventually attack them. that negotiations failed.
and in Rubios first speech he did say an attack by Americans to take out Irans missiles etc was always going to happen. The reasonit happened on SATURDAY vs next month or 6 months from now.. is [allegedly] israel decided to "go now".
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member
that's how i interpreted it. so what is your premise then, that both men are lying?-be interpreted to mean that I
"all of a sudden take Trump at his word"
if BOTH men are lying then what other explanations are there left?
NoParty
Senior Member.
This is obviously true. With a caveat:
Just as the Right initially tried to blame the shameful Jan. 6 actions of their own traitors, on "antifa,"
until it was too ridiculous,they have already tried to blame Shajareh Tayyebeh on Iran (concocting a yarn: "The regime in Iran has now confessed that the IRGC mistakenly bombed an Iranian school yesterday, killing many children," read one post on X, viewed more than 5,300,000 times) to obfuscate and fool
those who don't pay close attention. Iran made no such confession.
My point is, that if, somehow, we did eventually discover (unlikely, though it is) that Iran was responsible, and not us,
THEN Fox News and OAN etc., would happily bombard their silo'd sheep with as much graphic carnage as they could....
NoParty
Senior Member.
I rarely bother with your posts, for obvious reasons.
But I will take a moment here to admire the amount of effort you're willing to put in,
even if it's just to try to obfuscate and muddy the waters, in what is a plain reversal to almost anyone. Again, google "Rubio backtracks"
