Polymarketw/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>
Splunks参与话题 10消息总数 1061
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 1061 条，显示第 1-50 条holy cuckery dude
holy cuckery dude
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
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>
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...
someone should make a dispute crowd funding site 😭
someone should make a dispute crowd funding site 😭
#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.
you think it's california's timezone?
you think it's california's timezone?
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
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
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."
when it wednesday night ET converted to AST?
when it wednesday night ET converted to AST?
Why?
Why?
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"
"**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. "
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?
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?
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?
<:ICANT:1306491472417263636> LIES
<:ICANT:1306491472417263636> LIES
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
also the second paragraph literally contains the jordan thursday strike statement
also the second paragraph literally contains the jordan thursday strike statement
is that some big own lmao
is that some big own lmao
the "us official statement"?
the "us official statement"?
different* paragraph from what?
different* paragraph from what?
no its not?
no its not?
when was the second wave of attacks?
when was the second wave of attacks?
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?
what else could they POSSIBLY be talking about?
what else could they POSSIBLY be talking about?
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
the truth shall prevail
the truth shall prevail
I didn't say they did?
I didn't say they did?
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.
and no im not talking about the night time footage
and no im not talking about the night time footage
There's no conflict with Bahrain imo, we have no explicit "intercept all" statement, we have a US claim that targets were hit wednesday night ET time (early July 9th AST time), we have strike and smoke footage of early morning at the exact bahrain base where IRGC claimed hits and a timesequence from launch to video footage of impacts.
There's no conflict with Bahrain imo, we have no explicit "intercept all" statement, we have a US claim that targets were hit wednesday night ET time (early July 9th AST time), we have strike and smoke footage of early morning at the exact bahrain base where IRGC claimed hits and a timesequence from launch to video footage of impacts.
we have the original source lol
we have the original source lol
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
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
exactly this is the actual statement
exactly this is the actual statement
where's the actual official statement, not some paraphrasing?
where's the actual official statement, not some paraphrasing?
ok ANAList
ok ANAList
don't waste your time
don't waste your time
rhetoric like this doesn't work btw
rhetoric like this doesn't work btw
there's strike footage from early morning, not night
there's strike footage from early morning, not night
I know we don't have the neat little smoking gun package you guys want, but putting it all together makes it pretty clear
I know we don't have the neat little smoking gun package you guys want, but putting it all together makes it pretty clear
you'll see it in UMA thread
you'll see it in UMA thread
so? point is there's no conflict with Bahrain
so? point is there's no conflict with Bahrain
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
Bahrain didn't claim full interception explicitly
Bahrain didn't claim full interception explicitly
it doesn't conflict with Bahrain's reports
it doesn't conflict with Bahrain's reports
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
第 1 / 22 页
下一页 →