Can someone propose July 9 Iran Gulf strike please?
Can someone propose July 9 Iran Gulf strike please?
2026-07-13 · Polymarket · 148 条相关讨论
Can someone propose July 9 Iran Gulf strike please?
Can someone propose July 9 Iran Gulf strike please?
The U.S. and Iran **__exchanged fire on Wednesday night __**after President Trump said he considered the ceasefire over, a second night of tit-for-tat attacks that marked the largest escalation in fighting since the two sides agreed to a 60-day peace deal last month. [....] Explosions were reported in Bandar Abbas and Sirik, located along the coast framing the waterway, according to Iranian media. **__The U.S. attacks were broader in scope than Tuesday’s__** and included air-defense systems, coastal surveillance assets, naval capabilities and logistics infrastructure, according to Centcom. In a post on social media, **__Trump described Wednesday’s strikes__** as retribution for Iranian attacks on commercial vessels near the strait earlier this week. “If it happens again, it will get much worse!” he said. Later, on his way back to Washington, D.C., from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Ankara, Turkey, Trump said on Air Force One that Iran called him seeking a deal. “They want to make a deal so badly,” he said. “I don’t know that they’re going to honor the deal.” Iran has said nothing about new talks. Iran responded to the strikes by attacking Bahrain and Kuwait, which have accommodated the U.S. military throughout the war. Both countries reported that they were being targeted and asked their citizens to seek safety. Kuwait said on social media that its air defenses were confronting missile and drone attacks. Qatar briefly raised its security threat level to high but later said all was normal. There were no indications that Iran was targeting Qatar, the U.S. official said. **Iran said it hit U.S. bases in Kuwait and Bahrain. The U.S. and allies intercepted most of the attacks, according to U.S. officials. Some of the attacks hit their targets, but they caused no casualties and minimal damage, the officials said.** (WHEN??)
The U.S. and Iran **__exchanged fire on Wednesday night __**after President Trump said he considered the ceasefire over, a second night of tit-for-tat attacks that marked the largest escalation in fighting since the two sides agreed to a 60-day peace deal last month. [....] Explosions were reported in Bandar Abbas and Sirik, located along the coast framing the waterway, according to Iranian media. **__The U.S. attacks were broader in scope than Tuesday’s__** and included air-defense systems, coastal surveillance assets, naval capabilities and logistics infrastructure, according to Centcom. In a post on social media, **__Trump described Wednesday’s strikes__** as retribution for Iranian attacks on commercial vessels near the strait earlier this week. “If it happens again, it will get much worse!” he said. Later, on his way back to Washington, D.C., from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Ankara, Turkey, Trump said on Air Force One that Iran called him seeking a deal. “They want to make a deal so badly,” he said. “I don’t know that they’re going to honor the deal.” Iran has said nothing about new talks. Iran responded to the strikes by attacking Bahrain and Kuwait, which have accommodated the U.S. military throughout the war. Both countries reported that they were being targeted and asked their citizens to seek safety. Kuwait said on social media that its air defenses were confronting missile and drone attacks. Qatar briefly raised its security threat level to high but later said all was normal. There were no indications that Iran was targeting Qatar, the U.S. official said. **Iran said it hit U.S. bases in Kuwait and Bahrain. The U.S. and allies intercepted most of the attacks, according to U.S. officials. Some of the attacks hit their targets, but they caused no casualties and minimal damage, the officials said.** (WHEN??)
how are you confused by this? the article is about the strikes that took place Wednesday night. every single paragraph contains an time anchor that clearly specifies this. do you believe that a news article that is entirely about event will randomly insert a sentence about another event, without specifying that?
how are you confused by this? the article is about the strikes that took place Wednesday night. every single paragraph contains an time anchor that clearly specifies this. do you believe that a news article that is entirely about event will randomly insert a sentence about another event, without specifying that?
Hello Guys what happen on July 12 btw? They clarify?
Hello Guys what happen on July 12 btw? They clarify?
N gang is trying to cuck July 9 on the Iran Gulf Strike market, but it should be proposed Y soon
N gang is trying to cuck July 9 on the Iran Gulf Strike market, but it should be proposed Y soon
What do we think about the 12 market ?
What do we think about the 12 market ?
There is no way it doesn’t resolve as a yes
There is no way it doesn’t resolve as a yes
<@940487785029185589> you think that "wedsnday night" automatically translates into July 9 arab time lmao?
<@940487785029185589> you think that "wedsnday night" automatically translates into July 9 arab time lmao?
the line doesn't have that time anchor
the line doesn't have that time anchor
bahrain is resolution source and they say everything was intercepted
bahrain is resolution source and they say everything was intercepted
GOV sources only talks of intereception for july 9, while they just condemn the attacks on july 8. No clear time reference from the only source confirming the strike (us official to WSJ). Easy no
GOV sources only talks of intereception for july 9, while they just condemn the attacks on july 8. No clear time reference from the only source confirming the strike (us official to WSJ). Easy no
For the 12 market we have Kuwaiti army confirmation and video evidence for the strake and media reporting If it doesn’t resolve as a yes Somthing is seriously wrong with these markets
For the 12 market we have Kuwaiti army confirmation and video evidence for the strake and media reporting If it doesn’t resolve as a yes Somthing is seriously wrong with these markets
It's just super weird to me how July 9 has been proposable on both sides for over 12 hours now, yet there has been no resolution. 🤷♀️
It's just super weird to me how July 9 has been proposable on both sides for over 12 hours now, yet there has been no resolution. 🤷♀️
If you own the evidence you can share it here and market will shoot up to 95c and maybe proposed, but that's do not seem to be the case
If you own the evidence you can share it here and market will shoot up to 95c and maybe proposed, but that's do not seem to be the case
If someone is down to resolve the 12 market i am ready to provide all the evidence for Kuwait strike
If someone is down to resolve the 12 market i am ready to provide all the evidence for Kuwait strike
12? no reason to dispute 12th
12? no reason to dispute 12th
Can i propose or do i have to be whitelisted
Can i propose or do i have to be whitelisted
I think that the fact we haven't had strike market for while made you forgot how this works
I think that the fact we haven't had strike market for while made you forgot how this works
what is best evidence for july 9 strike?
what is best evidence for july 9 strike?
WSJ article
WSJ article
Which Iranian attacks on Bahrain and Kuwait took place on July 8?
Which Iranian attacks on Bahrain and Kuwait took place on July 8?
I can provide a dozen more sources but I think this is sufficient to prove strikes also happened on july 8 ast
I can provide a dozen more sources but I think this is sufficient to prove strikes also happened on july 8 ast
yep, i still cant see consensus for statement from US official. jordan official, reuter, aljazeera, time,...etc all reported missiles be intercepted and the impact target that US official said maybe from Falling debris > Jordan’s armed forces said they had intercepted eight Iranian missiles in its airspace after sirens sounded across the country. Falling debris did not cause any casualties or material damage, it added.
yep, i still cant see consensus for statement from US official. jordan official, reuter, aljazeera, time,...etc all reported missiles be intercepted and the impact target that US official said maybe from Falling debris > Jordan’s armed forces said they had intercepted eight Iranian missiles in its airspace after sirens sounded across the country. Falling debris did not cause any casualties or material damage, it added.
Should I improve my english? yeah. Are you wasting thousands without even knowing Bahrain was target multiple times on July 8 and 9? yeah. Will you learn that we need undeniable evidence of impact during the qualifying time window? most likely
Should I improve my english? yeah. Are you wasting thousands without even knowing Bahrain was target multiple times on July 8 and 9? yeah. Will you learn that we need undeniable evidence of impact during the qualifying time window? most likely
cool, with time stamps of impact? I'm not denying that targets have been struck. I'm arguing we can't tell when did it happen
cool, with time stamps of impact? I'm not denying that targets have been struck. I'm arguing we can't tell when did it happen
The fact that you can't even tell it's hilarious
The fact that you can't even tell it's hilarious
thing is there's actually a decent amount of footage that can't be debunked, so it's not lookin good N boys
thing is there's actually a decent amount of footage that can't be debunked, so it's not lookin good N boys
why everybody is ignoring timing on a daily strike market wtf
why everybody is ignoring timing on a daily strike market wtf
are yall retarted
are yall retarted
Begotten, analista, you guys are fighting *valiantly* **__against reality__,** *I applaud the dedication*. __Unfortunately this is going **yes**.__
Begotten, analista, you guys are fighting *valiantly* **__against reality__,** *I applaud the dedication*. __Unfortunately this is going **yes**.__
The fact that the gulf has been on fire over the past few days and we are here acting that nothing happened is even more hilarious
The fact that the gulf has been on fire over the past few days and we are here acting that nothing happened is even more hilarious
How many N shares do you have on July 9
How many N shares do you have on July 9
maybe because there is no evidence of impact on the 9th?
maybe because there is no evidence of impact on the 9th?
when you combine with US officials, lock down the time, and video evidence trail, it looks Yes
when you combine with US officials, lock down the time, and video evidence trail, it looks Yes
have you seen the conflicting reports clause?
have you seen the conflicting reports clause?
it doesn't conflict with Bahrain's reports
it doesn't conflict with Bahrain's reports
if the only definitive proof is some irgc statement, that won't count since bahrain claims the opposite
if the only definitive proof is some irgc statement, that won't count since bahrain claims the opposite
Bahrain didn't claim full interception explicitly
Bahrain didn't claim full interception explicitly
really hard to explain strike footage (that appears no where else) + multiple footage of smoke from the fleet base after the strikes
really hard to explain strike footage (that appears no where else) + multiple footage of smoke from the fleet base after the strikes
Well they surely do not claim hits explicitly, which is what we need
Well they surely do not claim hits explicitly, which is what we need
so? point is there's no conflict with Bahrain
so? point is there's no conflict with Bahrain
can you send the most valuable piece of evidence you saw please
can you send the most valuable piece of evidence you saw please
Can't wait to see a night time video of a strike and people claiming that it must be july 9
Can't wait to see a night time video of a strike and people claiming that it must be july 9
there's strike footage from early morning, not night
there's strike footage from early morning, not night
This is the yes side people
This is the yes side people
ok ANAList
ok ANAList
wasnt joker on no until yesterday?
wasnt joker on no until yesterday?
The undisputed goat. You will know when time comes
The undisputed goat. You will know when time comes
here's a source citing bahrain report and interpreting it in favor of N
here's a source citing bahrain report and interpreting it in favor of N
looks like you're out of arguments
looks like you're out of arguments
where's the actual official statement, not some paraphrasing?
where's the actual official statement, not some paraphrasing?
have you not seen the statement? how come you claimed it doesn't explicitly claim interceptions? my point here is that a credible source interpreting it is more valuable than a trader interpreting it
have you not seen the statement? how come you claimed it doesn't explicitly claim interceptions? my point here is that a credible source interpreting it is more valuable than a trader interpreting it
https://x.com/BDF_Bahrain/status/2074816445666476227?s=20
https://x.com/BDF_Bahrain/status/2074816445666476227?s=20
exactly this is the actual statement
exactly this is the actual statement
credible source says all strikes were intercepted
credible source says all strikes were intercepted
**The resolution sources for this market will be official information from the governments and militaries of Iran and the relevant Gulf States and a consensus of credible reporting.** i cant see any direct missile report from gulf governments for July 9, N side only provide statement from Us official without specific date, without consensus
**The resolution sources for this market will be official information from the governments and militaries of Iran and the relevant Gulf States and a consensus of credible reporting.** i cant see any direct missile report from gulf governments for July 9, N side only provide statement from Us official without specific date, without consensus
which is the only valuable interpretation we have at hand
which is the only valuable interpretation we have at hand
trader interpreting it using google translate isn't credible
trader interpreting it using google translate isn't credible
lol, no translation is gonna have it saying "all strikes" explicitly, they said they destroyed several attacks. Not all
lol, no translation is gonna have it saying "all strikes" explicitly, they said they destroyed several attacks. Not all
again, you're just denying the fact that a credible report interprets it in favor of N
again, you're just denying the fact that a credible report interprets it in favor of N
im not denying it at all, it's just not a strong case
im not denying it at all, it's just not a strong case
there are conflicting reports, it's evident
there are conflicting reports, it's evident
we have the original source lol
we have the original source lol
Dude the Kuwaiti army confirmed the strikes on 12 July and that it casued damages (wasn’t intercepted) yet no one has the balls to resolve it
Dude the Kuwaiti army confirmed the strikes on 12 July and that it casued damages (wasn’t intercepted) yet no one has the balls to resolve it
I agree, but burden of proof is Y, and we have conflicting reports on paper
I agree, but burden of proof is Y, and we have conflicting reports on paper
can you shut up if not providing anything valuable to the actual conversation we'r having?
can you shut up if not providing anything valuable to the actual conversation we'r having?
and no im not talking about the night time footage
and no im not talking about the night time footage
we don't have any US claim with time reference. can you please provide the IRGC source?
we don't have any US claim with time reference. can you please provide the IRGC source?
US official do not claim any specific base either so wtf are you talking about
US official do not claim any specific base either so wtf are you talking about
basically, supposing that IRGC has definitive time reference, there are 2 reports conflicting one another
basically, supposing that IRGC has definitive time reference, there are 2 reports conflicting one another
I mean you ahve zero debunk for the US official claim. The entire article is about July 9th strikes, nothing about the article suggests its any other time.
I mean you ahve zero debunk for the US official claim. The entire article is about July 9th strikes, nothing about the article suggests its any other time.
I didn't say they did?
I didn't say they did?
video footage isn't a resolution source unless accompanied by a statement with credible report
video footage isn't a resolution source unless accompanied by a statement with credible report
the truth shall prevail
the truth shall prevail
you're just filling the time reference gap. it doesn't exist, you made it up
you're just filling the time reference gap. it doesn't exist, you made it up
no? The article references "Second wave" of attacks, it references the attacks on jordan which only happened on the 9th, directly above that it states the strikes were wednesday night, Idk why you are acting like its this crazy stretch
no? The article references "Second wave" of attacks, it references the attacks on jordan which only happened on the 9th, directly above that it states the strikes were wednesday night, Idk why you are acting like its this crazy stretch
what else could they POSSIBLY be talking about?
what else could they POSSIBLY be talking about?
the paragraph which talks about bahrain and kuwait strikes. it has 0 time reference. the paragraph is contextual, providing context of what happened in the past
the paragraph which talks about bahrain and kuwait strikes. it has 0 time reference. the paragraph is contextual, providing context of what happened in the past
strikes happened july 8 also, tell me 1 reason it cannot possibly be about july 8?
strikes happened july 8 also, tell me 1 reason it cannot possibly be about july 8?
begotten, what does "a second wave of attacks" mean to you? No time reference lol?
begotten, what does "a second wave of attacks" mean to you? No time reference lol?
when was the second wave of attacks?
when was the second wave of attacks?
it's a different paragraph. why can't the next paragraph be a context to the second wave of attacks?
it's a different paragraph. why can't the next paragraph be a context to the second wave of attacks?
different* paragraph from what?
different* paragraph from what?
the "us official statement"?
the "us official statement"?
is that some big own lmao
is that some big own lmao
also the second paragraph literally contains the jordan thursday strike statement
also the second paragraph literally contains the jordan thursday strike statement
Wait I don't understand, Bahrain's Defence Force said they intercepted Drones and Missiles target at them, so did Kuwait. ISW also came out saying this true why are people arguing YES?
Wait I don't understand, Bahrain's Defence Force said they intercepted Drones and Missiles target at them, so did Kuwait. ISW also came out saying this true why are people arguing YES?
so it also has a time reference, both first and second paragraphs contain time references
so it also has a time reference, both first and second paragraphs contain time references
where exactly do you see the time reference?
where exactly do you see the time reference?
same article btw
same article btw
but nothing can possibly be from july 8, because reasons
but nothing can possibly be from july 8, because reasons
"The U.S. and Iran exchanged fire on Wednesday night after President Trump said he considered the ceasefire over, a second night of tit-for-tat attacks that marked the largest escalation in fighting since the two sides agreed to a 60-day peace deal last month" Does anybody know how newspapers deal with midnight in situations like this. like if they know some strikes occur after midnight, would they have said wednesday nught and thursday morning?
"The U.S. and Iran exchanged fire on Wednesday night after President Trump said he considered the ceasefire over, a second night of tit-for-tat attacks that marked the largest escalation in fighting since the two sides agreed to a 60-day peace deal last month" Does anybody know how newspapers deal with midnight in situations like this. like if they know some strikes occur after midnight, would they have said wednesday nught and thursday morning?
incomprehensibly retarded
incomprehensibly retarded
so you look at an article that is step by step describing the second wave attacks that occured on the 9th and then you conclude that the later paragraphs must be from some other strikes or what?
so you look at an article that is step by step describing the second wave attacks that occured on the 9th and then you conclude that the later paragraphs must be from some other strikes or what?
like multiple paragraphs of describing the second wave attacks, not just the first two, and then suddenly we context jump for no reason?
like multiple paragraphs of describing the second wave attacks, not just the first two, and then suddenly we context jump for no reason?
also, do we have a timeline for the wednesday night US strikes on iran?
also, do we have a timeline for the wednesday night US strikes on iran?
okay, so the article cannot contain context from earlier? it clearly says something that happened on july 8 right after? your argument is not causal
okay, so the article cannot contain context from earlier? it clearly says something that happened on july 8 right after? your argument is not causal
the article itself, somewhere in it, can reference past events, of course. When the paragraph itself refs the kuwait and behrain attacks and directly above it mentions those same targets in the July 9th context, what else could it possibly mean?
the article itself, somewhere in it, can reference past events, of course. When the paragraph itself refs the kuwait and behrain attacks and directly above it mentions those same targets in the July 9th context, what else could it possibly mean?
"**Iran said it hit U.S. bases in Kuwait and Bahrain**. The U.S. and allies intercepted most of the attacks, according to U.S. officials. Some of the attacks hit their targets, but they caused no casualties and minimal damage, the officials said. "
"**Iran said it hit U.S. bases in Kuwait and Bahrain**. The U.S. and allies intercepted most of the attacks, according to U.S. officials. Some of the attacks hit their targets, but they caused no casualties and minimal damage, the officials said. "
Paragraph above it, continuing its description down from July 9th "Iran responded to the strikes by attacking Bahrain and Kuwait, which have accommodated the U.S. military throughout the war. Both countries reported that they were being targeted and asked their citizens to seek safety. Kuwait said on social media that its air defenses were confronting missile and drone attacks"
Paragraph above it, continuing its description down from July 9th "Iran responded to the strikes by attacking Bahrain and Kuwait, which have accommodated the U.S. military throughout the war. Both countries reported that they were being targeted and asked their citizens to seek safety. Kuwait said on social media that its air defenses were confronting missile and drone attacks"
it's bad for Y that the opening sentence of hte artile is that iran and us exchanged fire wednesday night
it's bad for Y that the opening sentence of hte artile is that iran and us exchanged fire wednesday night
Why?
Why?
when it wednesday night ET converted to AST?
when it wednesday night ET converted to AST?
these things happened on both july 8 and july 9
these things happened on both july 8 and july 9
neither does the paragraph before contain any time anchor
neither does the paragraph before contain any time anchor
the entire article up to that point is talking about July 9th, a paragraph above that one I just quoted: "In a post on social media, Trump described Wednesday’s strikes as retribution for Iranian attacks on commercial vessels near the strait earlier this week. “If it happens again, it will get much worse!” he said."
the entire article up to that point is talking about July 9th, a paragraph above that one I just quoted: "In a post on social media, Trump described Wednesday’s strikes as retribution for Iranian attacks on commercial vessels near the strait earlier this week. “If it happens again, it will get much worse!” he said."
there's no location with the byline, so it's hard to know where it's filed fro--and therefore what timezone the artilce is writing in
there's no location with the byline, so it's hard to know where it's filed fro--and therefore what timezone the artilce is writing in
so just because article was also talking about july 9 it cannot talk about july 8?
so just because article was also talking about july 9 it cannot talk about july 8?
please make this argument 🙏 Please argue that WSJ wasn't talking about US's wednesday night
please make this argument 🙏 Please argue that WSJ wasn't talking about US's wednesday night
WSJ could only work if either Behrain or kuwait govs corroborated by saying that impact have happened.
WSJ could only work if either Behrain or kuwait govs corroborated by saying that impact have happened.
Which they did not
Which they did not
WSJ, a NY publication, speaks in one timezone only unless explicitly saying otherwise
WSJ, a NY publication, speaks in one timezone only unless explicitly saying otherwise
you think it's california's timezone?
you think it's california's timezone?
I can't believe you are trying to push a yes resolution for a strike market without any clear time referenced confirmation of an impact
I can't believe you are trying to push a yes resolution for a strike market without any clear time referenced confirmation of an impact
Arguments for YES side are pretty weak ngl, its all just but "maybe" . Whereas NO has arguments for its side such as reliable sources ISW, the Bahrain Defence Forces and the Kuwait Defence forces coming out and saying they were intercepted .
Arguments for YES side are pretty weak ngl, its all just but "maybe" . Whereas NO has arguments for its side such as reliable sources ISW, the Bahrain Defence Forces and the Kuwait Defence forces coming out and saying they were intercepted .
Sonix would have mogged you 6 months ago
Sonix would have mogged you 6 months ago
why isnt sonix mogging now 🙁
why isnt sonix mogging now 🙁
their problem is that even if we assume 2 things they can't jam any one of the points through
their problem is that even if we assume 2 things they can't jam any one of the points through
it's just 0 evidence
it's just 0 evidence
could anyone propose plz
could anyone propose plz
Can you propose please?
Can you propose please?
so is it july 9 AST? (the rules sorta imply that but don't actually say it)
so is it july 9 AST? (the rules sorta imply that but don't actually say it)
#1 Behrain doesn't claim "all intercepted" they just claim that attacks were intercepted. There's no need for Y to "fight consensus" here. There's no clear statement that beharin intercepted all.
#1 Behrain doesn't claim "all intercepted" they just claim that attacks were intercepted. There's no need for Y to "fight consensus" here. There's no clear statement that beharin intercepted all.
propose with your own money cockroach
propose with your own money cockroach
they do say it
they do say it
propose first then dispute
propose first then dispute
I don't see this resolving to a YES.
I don't see this resolving to a YES.
"This market will resolve to “Yes” if Iran takes a qualifying military action against a Gulf State on the specified date Arabia Standard Time (AST). Otherwise this market will resolve to “No.”"
"This market will resolve to “Yes” if Iran takes a qualifying military action against a Gulf State on the specified date Arabia Standard Time (AST). Otherwise this market will resolve to “No.”"
they said three calendar days AST
they said three calendar days AST
but that's about market closing, not the event itself
but that's about market closing, not the event itself
someone should make a dispute crowd funding site 😭
someone should make a dispute crowd funding site 😭
lol so you’d assume that something hit when they say that they intercepted?
lol so you’d assume that something hit when they say that they intercepted?
no, you assume ambigiouty, maybe all, maybe not all. Then you use other evidence that claims some got through to establish the likely reality. Plus videos of LITERAL SMOKE THE NEXT DAY and missiles minutes before...
no, you assume ambigiouty, maybe all, maybe not all. Then you use other evidence that claims some got through to establish the likely reality. Plus videos of LITERAL SMOKE THE NEXT DAY and missiles minutes before...
No holders are trying to scam their way through this one lol
No holders are trying to scam their way through this one lol
oh but I'm sure it was just "debris smoke" or something <:ICANT:1306491472417263636>
oh but I'm sure it was just "debris smoke" or something <:ICANT:1306491472417263636>
> **__The occurrence, attribution, and timing of a qualifying military action will be primarily determined based on a consensus of information available from the resolution sources. __** > > Where multiple sources conflict regarding the occurrence, attribution, or timing of a relevant military action, this market will remain open until the earlier of: > > i) the confirmation of the occurrence, attribution, and timing of the action based on a consensus of information available from the resolution sources or > > ii) 3 full calendar days (AST) from the date of the first credibly reported evidence of the action. If this period would extend past the end date, this market will remain open to allow for 3 full calendar days to pass. > > If, at the end of the third calendar day, conflicting reports remain as to the occurrence, attribution, or timing of the action, this market will resolve based on the **__totality of information available__** **__from the resolution sources at that time__**. **__No single statement__**, denial, or presentation of evidence **__will govern where it is contradicted by the totality of information.__** > totality of information is: Behrain gov talks about interception on July 9 Kuwait gov stateted the same, even more clearly. The single statement: US officials confirming to WSJ that some targets hit the base without clear time reference on whether this happened during the first (july 8) or second wave of attacks. I really can't understand where the yes argoument is.
> **__The occurrence, attribution, and timing of a qualifying military action will be primarily determined based on a consensus of information available from the resolution sources. __** > > Where multiple sources conflict regarding the occurrence, attribution, or timing of a relevant military action, this market will remain open until the earlier of: > > i) the confirmation of the occurrence, attribution, and timing of the action based on a consensus of information available from the resolution sources or > > ii) 3 full calendar days (AST) from the date of the first credibly reported evidence of the action. If this period would extend past the end date, this market will remain open to allow for 3 full calendar days to pass. > > If, at the end of the third calendar day, conflicting reports remain as to the occurrence, attribution, or timing of the action, this market will resolve based on the **__totality of information available__** **__from the resolution sources at that time__**. **__No single statement__**, denial, or presentation of evidence **__will govern where it is contradicted by the totality of information.__** > totality of information is: Behrain gov talks about interception on July 9 Kuwait gov stateted the same, even more clearly. The single statement: US officials confirming to WSJ that some targets hit the base without clear time reference on whether this happened during the first (july 8) or second wave of attacks. I really can't understand where the yes argoument is.
credible report interprets it in favor of N. you're interpreting it in whatever way using google translate. it's up to you to judge which one is a real argument from these 2 interpretations
credible report interprets it in favor of N. you're interpreting it in whatever way using google translate. it's up to you to judge which one is a real argument from these 2 interpretations
Not a bad idea at all lol
Not a bad idea at all lol
what video? is that a resolution source?
what video? is that a resolution source?
I was planning to do so but I think it's not doable due to the whitelist stuff no?
I was planning to do so but I think it's not doable due to the whitelist stuff no?
I'm sorry, if we had a time dated video of a strike hitting a gulf state base, you would say "erm not a resolution source" lmao
I'm sorry, if we had a time dated video of a strike hitting a gulf state base, you would say "erm not a resolution source" lmao
holy cuckery dude
holy cuckery dude
you can make a contract with someone that's wl
you can make a contract with someone that's wl
N does not prove that it is or isn't
N does not prove that it is or isn't
w/e, I think it all together paints a clear picture. <:Shrug:1389797062878691478>
w/e, I think it all together paints a clear picture. <:Shrug:1389797062878691478>
Timing is the only issue here
Timing is the only issue here
if you have it then post it and propose Y please
if you have it then post it and propose Y please
"I think"
"I think"