I see in your posts that you are here (in this thread) to prove yourself/Israel right and others, who disagree with you, wrong.
I am here to post information. If people reply to me with a question or a challenge, I will reply. That is the purpose of a forum.
Furthermore, you have a tendency to grow rather aggressive rather quickly (you are attacking koxinga for no apparent reason, for example). And so on.
It seems you attempted to deduce tone of speech from written text. I would ask you how one can do that reliably, but you entirely misinterpreted my tone as aggressive and/or argumentative, so perhaps I shouldn't be asking you that.
If I was here just for the sake of argument and nothing else, I wouldn't ignore trolls like
@Perun , regardless of how stupid the things they write.
I do not see a point to this engagement because you have personal vested interest and an extremely strong ideological alignment with the external policies of Israel.
I am both ideological and factual. I do not hide that my worldview is "peace through strength", hard work, and proactivity.
Not necessarily in that order.
Proactivity is not a word that can really be used to describe Israeli foreign policy. Israel only adopted a proactive military approach on September of 2024.
Our biggest disaster in decades, October 7th 2023, was a direct result of absence of proactivity.
I am not at all confident that Israel will maintain its current proactive approach when the war ends.
Nor do I agree with Israel's chronic lack of a foreign policy.
Further, I am near completely ideologically opposed to the current Israeli government, I vote opposition, and had my fair share of anti-government activism.
So while I do ideologically align with some policy decisions, it is impossible to say that I "extremely strongly align".
You demand “logical chain of thought”, yet you come back at me with “gut feeling” to a post that is not hard to follow. Therefore, I have no reason to engage with you when I feel (gut feeling?) the argument is forthcoming, though I am a fairly patient person.
It appears to be a mere comprehension issue.
The term "gut feeling" is often used to describe a decision or idea that is more rooted in instinct than logic.
Here is the direct quote
The American intelligence came up with a different assessment just very recently. I do not believe public revelations by Israeli intelligence. It is clear as day why Israel decided to strike now. There has never been a better time to do so.
You based your argument, that Israel struck because "there has never been a better time to do so", on the sole basis that you do not believe an intelligence assessment because it came from Israel.
I could not care less whether or not you believe any specific intelligence assessment. But that is not a way to structure an argument.
You then proceeded to refuse to elaborate, and when pressed further
@koxinga provided an intelligence report by Tulsi Gabbard. Which you seem to trust, but not trust enough to properly understand that it aligns well with Israel's own intelligence report.
The argument that "there has never been a better time to do so" can be supported by "Trump is more permissive" which you argued. With that I agree.
You then, however, argued that it is also to torpedo US-Iran talks. That is something you actually need to back up. It doesn't stand on its own. It is a feeling, an instinct, not simple logic. A gut feeling.
And your refusal to explain any further and back up your claim, only confirms this. A person convinced of their argument would know how to back it up or reason through it.
No, it’s what I said above. Examples of what you are referring to are like this:
Baier then pressed Netanyahu about his claim that Iran launched two assassination attempts.
“Through proxies, yes.” he said.
“Through, through their intel, yes, they want to kill him,” he added. “He’s enemy number one.”
From here:
Netanyahu says Iran tried to assassinate Trump as he tries to justify air strikes
“Today, it's Tel Aviv. Tomorrow, it's New York. Look, I understand 'America First'. I don't understand 'America Dead'[…]”
From here:
Netanyahu tells ABC he's not ruling out taking out Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei
Reminds me of someone else.
What is your argument or point? That Iran attempted to assassinate Trump?
I am neither familiar with such attempts nor do I see the relevance of that to this discussion, so elaborate please.
Another example, that you refer to as consistency and assert that others should not participate due to their lack of understanding of the matter at hand:
Yes and now you have shown me that you also lack the understanding of the subject, and apparently the ability to read.
I'm sorry but I can no longer regard you as either an honest person or one capable of complex thought if you are so conveniently presented with information yet refuse to learn it. It's not the inability, it's the refusal.
It is physically impossible to have any educated discussion on the subject of Iranian nuclear weapons not without understanding but with refusal to understand what the term "nuclear breakout" means.
Much as you would not argue about gravity with a person who thinks the earth is flat.
Edit: BigZ, I now see your claims of the US supporting the Israeli intel, is there a source for the claims?
On his way back from the G7 summit, he said Iran was very close to a bomb.
t.me
