Iran informed the US that it would refrain from responding to the airstrike in which senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders were killed in Damascus if a ceasefire in Gaza is reached, Jadeh Iran reported on Sunday.
The news outlet cited an anonymous Arab diplomatic source, saying the source spoke to the news outlet two days ago. The source added that “If America succeeds in containing the situation, it will be a great success for the Biden administration and we can build on that.”
Iran has enough conventional bombs to flatten Israel as well and there’s nothing Israel can do to stop it. Launching nukes is beyond stupid.
Germany certainly isn’t able to supply Israel with F35 parts and bombs if America blocks it.
Linkerbaan,
Yo do this a lot but I don’t think it’s intentional. You play these word games of seeing the forest for the trees because you’re so entrenched in your position nothing will change your mind (or maybe it’s a language thing? Is English a 2nd language? I mean this candidly and not intended to offend). Here is an example:
I say something like “there on the hill are some trees.”
and you go: "No, that’s a forest. "
Then I say: “Yes, but there are trees in the forest.”
And then you reply: “Nop. It’s a forest”.
What exactly is being discussed here? does Israel have enough artillery to defend itself against ww3 or does it have enough artillery to wipe out Gaza and turn the whole peninsula into glass? Can you repeat back my initial point?
It’s definitely intentional. That account gives some plausibility to horseshoe theory.
I have the same exchange with this person every time:
Me: water is wet.
Linkerbaan: well no, beer is not water.
Me: water is H20, and it’s also wet. Here are some sources.
Linkerbaan: also, vodka is not water and it’s made from grain. Here is a quote by a dude that says that vodka is made from grain.
Me: …
Your quote
Me: Proves you are completely wrong
You:
IDF projection and lying doesn’t work on actual non israelis sadly. Especially when anyone can scroll up and read the conversation.
Two points.
1
Let me get this straight: one off quotes from politicians are what counts for your standard evidence? Is that right? I want to hear you admit this is your standard of evidence.
Quotes from politicians are proof
Because if this is your de facto standard for evidence, which by the way in absolute no way negates what I said. This is all you’ve provided. A statement by Netanyahu.
Can you also point out which goal posts specifically was moved?
2
Does Netanyahu’s request for munitions negate what arsenal they already have?
This is simple English. Address my points please.
Isn’t it funny how the Prime Minister of israel gets reduced to “a politician”. When proof gets linked you just move the goalpost. “Netanyahu, who’s that even? He’s not important”.
Fine. The prime minister of Israel: Benjamin Netanyahu (the most important person in Israel). Let me hear you say it:
A statement of the prime minister is the minimal standard of evidence required for proof.
Which goal post was moved? I don’t think you know what that means.
In order to move your goal post I have to first accept your evidence and pivot to a new point. I did not accept your evidence. We are still at step 1.