Iran may attack Israel if U.S. standoff escalates: Israeli minister

[TU Curmudgeon]

We're being set up for a false flag.

November
Sierra
Sierra

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's stories like this that remind me there's a faction of Christians in the USA who not only think biblical predictions make a war in Israel inevitable, but are actually working to make it happen faster to make the biblical events predicted as a result happen faster.

And they have influence in government.

No they don't.

They have A LOT OF influence in government.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Obama gives Iran 1.7 billion in cash
Donald Trump is right: The U.S. did pay Iran $1.7 billion in cash - Los Angeles Times

Did you actually read the article?

Did you happen to notice that the money was actually Iranian money that the Iranians had paid to the US in return for military hardware that the US government had agreed to sell to Iran and then never delivered?

Did you happen to notice that the money was paid to settle a "decades old" law suit?

Did you happen to notice that the US was on the verge of losing that "decades old" law suit - which would have made the US potentially liable for punitive and exemplary damages as well at the principal amount?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

US: Iran still the top State sponsor of terror
Iran still top state sponsor of terrorism, U.S. report says | PBS NewsHour

Very interesting. Your linked article starts out with " Iran continues to be the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, the Trump administration said ...".

That, of course, provides absolute proof that Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism as Mr. Trump and "team Trump" claim.

PS - Please reset your clocks because it is no longer July of 2017.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Iran was violating the nuke deal from the git-go.

Iran Breaches the Nuclear Deal and UN Resolutions for Third Time | HuffPost

The UN lifted the sanctions because it's a worthless body.

The US is claiming that the Iranians are breaching the JCPOA and proving that assertion by references to US government claims that the Iranians are breaching the JCPOA. The US government provides any factual data to support its claims, but further supports them by making reference to US government claims that the Iranians are breaching the JCPOA.

You might find "Dissecting international concerns about Iran’s missiles" interesting (especially the bit about how Mr. Trump is claiming BOTH that what Iran is doing is in violation of the JCPOA and that the JCPOA does not prevent Iran from doing what Mr. Trump is claiming it is doing).

 

[uptower]

Tell that to the Iranians.

No I'm telling it to the neocons. For all its faults Iran was honoring its responsibilities under the nuclear deal when Trump tore it up. Apart from having its own interests in the region it is doing nothing to provoke America - other than simply being there - that can't be managed. We all get it, the regime are basically d1cks, but it's nothing to go start a war over.

team Trump is having a horrendous month at home - leaks, subpoenas scandals, tax records showing the president to have been the biggest financial loser of his generation of 'businessmen' - and that is why they are rattling sabers at Iran now: they simply need a foreign war to deflect. Everyone can see it, plain as day. So I'm telling it to Bolton, to Trump and to the warmongers who support them. We all see it. They're fooling nobody.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No I'm telling it to the neocons. For all its faults Iran was honoring its responsibilities under the nuclear deal when Trump tore it up. Apart from having its own interests in the region it is doing nothing to provoke America - other than simply being there - that can't be managed. We all get it, the regime are basically d1cks, but it's nothing to go start a war over.

team Trump is having a horrendous month at home - leaks, subpoenas scandals, tax records showing the president to have been the biggest financial loser of his generation of 'businessmen' - and that is why they are rattling sabers at Iran now: they simply need a foreign war to deflect. Everyone can see it, plain as day. So I'm telling it to Bolton, to Trump and to the warmongers who support them. We all see it. They're fooling nobody.

The only problem with cooking up a war with Iran is the problem of keeping that war going on through November of 2020 (so that Mr. Trump can run on the "I Am Defending Freedom. I Am Protecting the United States. Don't Change Presidents In The Middle Of A War" platform).

The actual war probably wouldn't last much more than six months, so don't look for it to start much before this time next year.

 

[apdst]

No I'm telling it to the neocons. For all its faults Iran was honoring its responsibilities under the nuclear deal when Trump tore it up. Apart from having its own interests in the region it is doing nothing to provoke America - other than simply being there - that can't be managed. We all get it, the regime are basically d1cks, but it's nothing to go start a war over.

team Trump is having a horrendous month at home - leaks, subpoenas scandals, tax records showing the president to have been the biggest financial loser of his generation of 'businessmen' - and that is why they are rattling sabers at Iran now: they simply need a foreign war to deflect. Everyone can see it, plain as day. So I'm telling it to Bolton, to Trump and to the warmongers who support them. We all see it. They're fooling nobody.

No, Iran wasn't honoring the deal.

 

[SCrider]

No, Iran wasn't honoring the deal.

Got any proof of that? The rest of the world seemed to be believing they were.
No, Trump's tweets are not proof of anything.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Still struggling to read or at least be able to comprehend what you read I see.


Did I say that any of the money was in boxes or barrels. Or that trump was correct for saying that. The answer is no I never did. You would know that if you could understand the things you were reading.

All I said was that your own article disagreed with your claim that there were no pallets of money. Which is undeniable fact.

So maybe try reading a bit slower next time. It might help keep you from looking so foolish next time.

It wasn't palleted, boxed, barreled, or what have you. No need for that in the age of electronic bank transfers.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No, Iran wasn't honoring the deal.

Quite right. The only people who thought that Iran was honouring the deal were Iran, all the parties to the JCPOA except the USA, the inspectors from the other parties to the JCPOA, and the UN inspectors.

As absolute **P*R*O*O*F** that Iran was NOT honouring the JCPOA we have Mr. Trump's unsupported statements, the (equally unsupported) statements of the members of "Team Trump" repeating Mr. Trump's statements, and the chorus of Mr. Trump's supporters (who would believe that the current year was 1950 if Mr. Trump said it was) which also echoed Mr. Trump's unsupported statements.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Got any proof of that? The rest of the world seemed to be believing they were.
No, Trump's tweets are not proof of anything.

When he re-posts the same thing twice more that will prove that it is true because everyone knows that if you say something three times then it is true.

 

[uptower]

No, Iran wasn't honoring the deal.

Trump is lying to you. Fox is lying to you. The Republicans are lying to you.

 

[braindrain]

It wasn't palleted, boxed, barreled, or what have you. No need for that in the age of electronic bank transfers.

so now you are disagreeing with your own link.

It's sad really.

Perhaps you should actually know something about a topic before running your mouth about it. And it's quite clear that as far as this topic is concerned you know nothing.

Or just continue looking foolish. The choice is totally yours.

 

[apdst]

Trump is lying to you. Fox is lying to you. The Republicans are lying to you.

Is Huffpo lying?
http://https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9977768/amp

 

[apdst]

Trump is lying to you. Fox is lying to you. The Republicans are lying to you.

Looks like you're the one being lied to...

http://https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9977768/amp

 

[3leftsdoo]

I'm glad that I don't have to take the word of a card carrying Nazi as to what my choices are, particularly since that Nazi is unable to describe the differences between a "dissident right" (is that the Alt-Right) and Trump.

Also, this mythical dissident right is apparently "dissident" because ... why? Is it the dissident right because they feel Trump isn't far enough to the right? That would be YOUR side, yes?

So in effect you're saying I either have to choose to side with actual Nazis or settle for a crypto Nazi like Trump.

I think it's awesome that people can call other people Nazis here.

 

[3leftsdoo]

The only problem with cooking up a war with Iran is the problem of keeping that war going on through November of 2020 (so that Mr. Trump can run on the "I Am Defending Freedom. I Am Protecting the United States. Don't Change Presidents In The Middle Of A War" platform).

The actual war probably wouldn't last much more than six months, so don't look for it to start much before this time next year.

If by 6 months you mean 30+ years, I concur.

But Trump has made two things repeatedly clear:

1) Bolton is pushing him to go to war

2) He does NOT want to go to war

I hope some semblance of sanity and decency regarding a hot war prevails; the sanctions are terroristic enough.

 

[AlphaOmega]

What'd President Trump do?

He won an election.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Is Huffpo lying?
http://https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9977768/amp

Interesting link.

Unfortunately "Page Not Found" isn't all that informative.

Possibly you were referring to THIS ARTICLE from 2017 which included these statements:

• “Iran has been caught in multiple violations over the past year and a half.”;

• “There are hundreds of undeclared sites that have suspicious activity that they (the IAEA) haven’t looked at.”;

• “Iranian leaders…have stated publicly that they will refuse to allow IAEA inspections of their military sites. How can we know Iran is complying with the deal, if inspectors are not allowed to look everywhere they should look?”;

• “The deal [Obama] struck wasn’t supposed to be just about nuclear weapons. It was meant to be an opening with Iran; a welcoming back into the community of nations.”;

and

• “We should welcome a debate over whether the JCPOA is in U.S. national security interests. The previous administration set up the deal in a way that denied us that honest and serious debate.”;

Were you?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If by 6 months you mean 30+ years, I concur.

The ACTUAL war will likely last approximately six months. "Restoring freedom, democracy, and order" is likely to take just a tad longer than that (although I'm not so pessimistic as to believe that the US government would stick to it for 29.5+ years.

But Trump has made two things repeatedly clear:

1) Bolton is pushing him to go to war

2) He does NOT want to go to war

Actually he has made THREE things clear and the third one is that he is NOT going to fire an advisor who keeps on telling him to do something that he want's to do (at lease when that advisor is Mr. Bolton).

I hope some semblance of sanity and decency regarding a hot war prevails; the sanctions are terroristic enough.

I didn't give up hope for "some semblance of sanity and decency" to return to American politics when BOTH Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump were nominated for the office of President, but I did revise my timeline as to when that would happen. As at the airports, the ETA is now listed as "Delayed".

 

[apdst]

Interesting link.

Unfortunately "Page Not Found" isn't all that informative.

Possibly you were referring to THIS ARTICLE from 2017 which included these statements:

• “Iran has been caught in multiple violations over the past year and a half.”;

• “There are hundreds of undeclared sites that have suspicious activity that they (the IAEA) haven’t looked at.”;

• “Iranian leaders…have stated publicly that they will refuse to allow IAEA inspections of their military sites. How can we know Iran is complying with the deal, if inspectors are not allowed to look everywhere they should look?”;

• “The deal [Obama] struck wasn’t supposed to be just about nuclear weapons. It was meant to be an opening with Iran; a welcoming back into the community of nations.”;

and

• “We should welcome a debate over whether the JCPOA is in U.S. national security interests. The previous administration set up the deal in a way that denied us that honest and serious debate.”;

Were you?

Iran Breaches the Nuclear Deal and UN Resolutions for Third Time | HuffPost

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Iran Breaches the Nuclear Deal and UN Resolutions for Third Time | HuffPost

Another interesting post.

Unfortunately the author appears not to have actually read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (which is what Mr. Trump is claiming that the Iranians are breaching. I have. I am sure that you have also. I mean, it's only a mere 159 pages long.

Equally unfortunately the author doesn't appear to have noticed that there is no mention of "banning missiles" in the JCPOA. However I could be wrong, and if I am I'm quite sure that you will provide me with an exact reference to the portion of the JCPOA that deals with "banning missiles".

Equally unfortunately the author doesn't appear to have noticed that the UN acceptance of the JCPOA effectively negated the prior UN resolutions which the author claims that Iran breached (although the JCPOA does specifically state that restrictions on missiles have been suspended. However I could be wrong, and if I am I'm quite sure that you will provide me with an exact reference to the portion of the JCPOA that deals with the continuation of the restrictions which deal with "banning missiles" are to remain in full force and effect.

I am eagerly looking forward to your post setting out exactly which provisions of the JCPOA that Iran is breaching and the factual evidence that supports those claims.

 

[apdst]

Another interesting post.

Unfortunately the author appears not to have actually read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (which is what Mr. Trump is claiming that the Iranians are breaching. I have. I am sure that you have also. I mean, it's only a mere 159 pages long.

Equally unfortunately the author doesn't appear to have noticed that there is no mention of "banning missiles" in the JCPOA. However I could be wrong, and if I am I'm quite sure that you will provide me with an exact reference to the portion of the JCPOA that deals with "banning missiles".

Equally unfortunately the author doesn't appear to have noticed that the UN acceptance of the JCPOA effectively negated the prior UN resolutions which the author claims that Iran breached (although the JCPOA does specifically state that restrictions on missiles have been suspended. However I could be wrong, and if I am I'm quite sure that you will provide me with an exact reference to the portion of the JCPOA that deals with the continuation of the restrictions which deal with "banning missiles" are to remain in full force and effect.

I am eagerly looking forward to your post setting out exactly which provisions of the JCPOA that Iran is breaching and the factual evidence that supports those claims.

Who ever told you that Iran hasn't violated the deal, lied to you.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Who ever told you that Iran hasn't violated the deal, lied to you.

I said

I am eagerly looking forward to your post setting out exactly which provisions of the JCPOA that Iran is breaching and the factual evidence that supports those claims.
​

and I thank you for providing exactly what I expected you to provide.