President Trump

They question is, can they? If they can't, at least they've de-fanged IRGC to a large degree. It's been a campaign unlike anything we've never seen before. It took guts. When it comes to the Americans they don't just talk the talk they walk the walk, they took meaningful action to address the threat. I don't always agree with it, but when it comes to Iran, the danger is clear and to reduce that danger is a good result. On the other hand, we are sick of war and really need to see this come to an end.

Good lord.
 
Seems we have an official Israeli Government propagandists on the thread.

Those innocent Israelis have nothing to do with the shit going down and anyone that says otherwise will be branded with nasty words to destroy their characters and shut them down.
Self defence from Israel, that's their only crime and fortunately backed by a brave peace prize winning president. People who win those kind of prizes don't want war.
This place is just full of evil Antisemitic posters, they dont even try to hide it any more.

I think that's the general gist :-)
 
A little known fact about Salman Rushdie is that as someone who worked in advertising in the ‘70s he came up with the ‘naughty but nice’ slogan for fresh cream.
Did you know Mr Rushdies second book after the very popular Satanic Verses was titled 'Jesus is a wanker' but for reasons unknown wasn't very well received.
 
Wow.
'There does not need to an imminent threat for the US to act'
Did you actually type that or was it a bot ?

If that statement was true, not one country in the world is safe from Hamericuh.

A fuckin' criminal, in the legal and war criminal sense can attack/bomb/murder anyone he perceives to be a threat.

Seriously?
The reason the US acted in the first place hasn't been made clear. In fact, I think it's been made deliberately unclear.

And to act is fine, but to go straight in with bombs and missiles is not, and especially when it was the US, specifically the Trump Administration that tore up the existing nuclear agreement simply because it had Obama's name on it.
 
The reason the US acted in the first place hasn't been made clear. In fact, I think it's been made deliberately unclear.

And to act is fine, but to go straight in with bombs and missiles is not, and especially when it was the US, specifically the Trump Administration that tore up the existing nuclear agreement simply because it had Obama's name on it.
Its very clear why Trump acted. He wanted regime change. To get that he wanted the population to rise up and over throw the regime.

When they didn't he bombed the shit out of them
 
Its very clear why Trump acted. He wanted regime change. To get that he wanted the population to rise up and over throw the regime.

When they didn't he bombed the shit out of them
I really don't think he wanted regime change. Someone did, but it wasn't him.

He did however get a very welcome distraction from some deep-shit domestic problems he was having...
 
Advisor: Looks like we need another distraction as people are sniffing around the ceasefire deal.

Trump: What have you got?

Advisor: You aren't gonna like this Mr President...Melania is taking to the press right now saying she doesn't know Epstien....

Trump: WTF!?

Getting ahead of something.
 
The reason the US acted in the first place hasn't been made clear. In fact, I think it's been made deliberately unclear.

And to act is fine, but to go straight in with bombs and missiles is not, and especially when it was the US, specifically the Trump Administration that tore up the existing nuclear agreement simply because it had Obama's name on it.
Then tore up their own new agreement because....

Netanyahu said so.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top