@Mott-The-Hoople said"Shoe fits. wear it" seems an appropriate response here.
That’s old hat for queers to accuse you of what they are to try to dodge responsibility
It explains your constant fixation on this board with homosexuality, bringing it up in virtually every thread though it is rarely relevant.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidCoPilot said :
Who took out Iran’s nukes this past June?
*********************************
The forum thread you’re viewing is using provocative language, but there was no event in June where Iran’s nuclear program was “taken out.” That phrasing is rhetorical, not factual.
Here’s the context:
Real incidents of sabotage: Iran has accused Israel of covert attacks on its nuclear facilities, such as the April 2021 explosion and blackout at Natanz, which Tehran labeled “nuclear terrorism.” Israel has not officially confirmed responsibility, though many reports attributed it to Israeli intelligence operations.
No June strike: In June 2025 or June 2026, there were no credible reports of Iran’s nuclear facilities being destroyed or neutralized. Iran’s program remains under international scrutiny, but no verified military action occurred.
Forum framing: The thread title “If Trump had waited? Iran missiles would be nukes!!” is a political argument. It suggests that Trump’s earlier decisions (like withdrawing from the nuclear deal) prevented Iran from advancing nuclear weapons. The “who took out nukes” line is a rhetorical flourish, not a reference to an actual June event.
So, the answer is: no one “took out Iran’s nukes this past June.” The page is a debate post using speculative language, not reporting a real incident.
Would you like me to build you a concise timeline of the actual sabotage operations against Iran’s nuclear program (Natanz 2010, 2020, 2021, etc.) so you can see the real events versus the speculative claims?
***************************************
@no1marauder saidYou’re out of context. But, if one if them was a pacifist like you are, and support of of Madoro and the Iranians, I would call them what they are. I’d be nice and stop short with ‘you are a pansy, be a man”.
Next time you're sitting at a coffee table with other people, call a man a "pansy" or a "fairie" or a "queer" if he doesn't agree with your worship of Donald Trump and everything he does.
Hope mommy and daddy can afford the dental and hospital bills.
@AverageJoe1 saidYou'd quickly find out I'm not a pacifist or a supporter of Maduro or Iran's tyrannical government, little boy.
You’re out of context. But, if one if them was a pacifist like you are, and support of of Madoro and the Iranians, I would call them what they are. I’d be nice and stop short with ‘you are a pansy, be a man”.
@no1marauder saidThen say so. Trump was right to remove the criminal from leading Venezuela.
You'd quickly find out I'm not a pacifist or a supporter of Maduro or Iran's tyrannical government, little boy.
Say that it was worth the attack today to end the threat of Nuclear weapons, which could destroy an entire nation, which would begin with Israel in a year of so.
Kahmani would push a button in 2027 that wipes out Israel.
Then, death to America, including your grandchildren.
Say it.....Or, don't say it.
You won't.
Why not? Contrarianism difficult to get away from? Or are you in favor of Maduro and against today's killing of Khameini?
2 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidIt's useless talking to a brainwashed idiot like yourself.
Then say so. Trump was right to remove the criminal from leading Venezuela.
Say that it was worth the attack today to end the threat of Nuclear weapons, which could destroy an entire nation, which would begin with Israel in a year of so.
Kahmani would push a button in 2027 that wipes out Israel.
Then, death to America, including your grandchildren.
Say it. ...[text shortened]... difficult to get away from? Or are you in favor of Maduro and against today's killing of Khameini?
But I'll try one more time to get through the fog that the MAGA echo chamber you exclusively rely on has left you in.
I am not a pacifist; I believe that force can be used in self-defense or by the People in a nation to remove a government that is violative of their rights.
I also believe in law, including international law. For almost two centuries, that law has used what is called the Caroline test to define when a nation may strike another nation first:
"The terms "anticipatory self-defence", "preemptive self-defence" and "preemption" traditionally refers to a state's right to strike first in self-defence when faced with imminent attack.[3] In order to justify such an action, the Caroline test has two distinct requirements:
The use of force must be necessary because the threat is imminent, and thus pursuing peaceful alternatives is not an option (necessity);
The response must be proportionate to the threat (proportionality).[4]
In Webster's original formulation, the necessity criterion is described as "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation". This has come to be referred to as "instant and overwhelming necessity".[5][6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_test
This test was confirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and incorporated into the UN Charter. It is binding on all nations.
Trump's actions in Venezuela and Iran, besides being illegal under US law, miserably fail the test. There was no imminent threat in either case and no real effort to try peaceful alternatives.
Your scenarios are BS and somewhat hypocritical, since until a couple of weeks ago you were crowing about how Trump had ended any threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons by the attacks of June last year. It's almost amusing how quickly you abandon old positions and adopt the latest propaganda when told to.
I get the feeling Trump doesn't really understand gunboat diplomacy. Commodore Perry did not have to cause regime change in Japan to get what he wanted.
That being said I no longer think Trump is of average intelligence. He's a smart man. I don't like how he applies his intelligence but he does seem to be intelligent in a way most other politicians are not.
@AverageJoe1 saidno1 is right. You are a gullible fool.
“Obliterated’ would not be a big enough word, as Israel would have become a destroyed nation today, if the Iranian missiles were nukes aimed right at Israel
Wonder what our posting would be about? Not Trump, because he would not even have attacked in the first place if those people had nuclear warheads. So I guess we would just let them have the nuclear warhead and ...[text shortened]... lives until they kill all infidels.??
You unrelenting liberals will not give an inch will you?
The anti Iran propaganda is not even any good. Trump said Iran was a threat to the USA which is absurd. And this is after he said Iran nuke sites were obliterated. And you acknowledged Trump lied about that in another thread. And here you are again repeating pro war propaganda points.
Are you incapable of thinking for yourself?
@no1marauder saidIsn't our government tyrannical?
You'd quickly find out I'm not a pacifist or a supporter of Maduro or Iran's tyrannical government, little boy.
Our government invaded more countries than the Nazis.
1 edit
Prior to Trump45, there was a functioning and verifiable treaty in force, which Trump, during his first presidency, shredded, and replaced by… Nothing. If Trump had left that treaty in place at the time, he would not have any excuse now for invading Iran on the pretext of searching for nuclear weapons.
- Joined
- 20 Sep 01
- Moves
- 166579
@AverageJoe1 said"Trump was right to remove the criminal from leading Venezuela."
Then say so. Trump was right to remove the criminal from leading Venezuela.
Say that it was worth the attack today to end the threat of Nuclear weapons, which could destroy an entire nation, which would begin with Israel in a year of so.
Kahmani would push a button in 2027 that wipes out Israel.
Then, death to America, including your grandchildren.
Say it. ...[text shortened]... difficult to get away from? Or are you in favor of Maduro and against today's killing of Khameini?
So
Who is going to remove the criminal from leading America??????
1 edit
@moonbus saidExactly.
Prior to Trump45, there was a functioning and verifiable treaty in force, which Trump, during his first presidency, shredded, and replaced by… Nothing. If Trump had left that treaty in place at the time, he would not have any excuse now for invading Iran on the pretext of searching for nuclear weapons.
Invading Iran was the goal all along. Wesley Clark exposed which countries would be invaded. Note how many countries on that hit list have been invaded. The only countries left on that list are Somalia and Iran, both of which Trump is bombing. Nobody on the corporate news media is allowed to discuss it. Suppressed history.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2003/9/22/us-plans-to-attack-seven-muslim-states
Iran getting a nuke was no threat to the USA or Israel unless they attacked Iran. So attacking Iran was the goal all along. The JCPOA effectively prevented Iran from getting a nuke. That was only to make sure they could not get one before they invaded Iran.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/328996
Then the JCPOA was an obstacle to invading. The old WMD excuse could not be used. As lame as that excuse is many people are gullible. It works for Trump supporters because they want to believe it. Trump wanted to install the Shah's son in power. You know, the son of the last puppet dictator they installed into power in Iran in 1953. It is fairly transparent Trump wanted another dictatorship installed in Iran. The son of the last brutal dictator.
Maybe that could change. Trump wanted Guido to be a puppet dictator in Venezuela when he attempted a coup there in his first term. After he invaded Venezuela he changed his mind. But everyone should consider the possibility Trump wants to install a brutal dictatorship in Iran instead of a democracy.
@AThousandYoung saidAn intelligent president would be concerned with America's best interests, not his own.
I get the feeling Trump doesn't really understand gunboat diplomacy. Commodore Perry did not have to cause regime change in Japan to get what he wanted.
That being said I no longer think Trump is of average intelligence. He's a smart man. I don't like how he applies his intelligence but he does seem to be intelligent in a way most other politicians are not.