|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 11 2026 00:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2026 00:04 dyhb wrote:On April 10 2026 21:28 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 23:18 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 16:18 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 14:12 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 08:12 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 07:45 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 07:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 08 2026 23:21 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Who is declaring a victory? Me? I'm not fighting a war. Rubio? Link.
I agree with the 11 of the leaked, if legitimate, points that hold Iran to not being a regional and world threat.
At the moment the US has clearly been winning soundly. The two sides through Pakistan have agreed to a 2 week ceasefire. That means at the end of two weeks, if the US doesn't like how things are progressing, meaning Iran's not serious about meeting enough of those, they can have a "resumefire." Think of it as a pause button for negotiations. And, unfortunately, Trump has already violated the terms of the ceasefire... three times. In less than one day! Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, accused the U.S. on Wednesday of violating the two-week ceasefire agreement.
“The deep historical distrust we hold toward the United States stems from its repeated violations of all forms of commitments — a pattern that has regrettably been repeated once again,” Ghalibaf said in a statement posted on social media.
Three parts of Iran’s 10-point ceasefire proposal have been violated, Ghalibaf said. The violations are Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon, the entry of a drone into Iranian airspace, and the denial of the Islamic Republic’s right to enrich uranium, he said. ...
Ghalibaf’s statement comes less than a day after Trump said he agreed to halt attacks for two weeks in exchange for Iran allowing ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz during that period. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/08/ceasefire-iran-war-lebanon.html And since it's Iran, not Trump, we have to believe them! (I beg you to have the barest form of common sense when it comes to the world's largest state funder of terrorism. Just because they say Trump agreed to force Israel to end its attacks in Lebanon, cease all drone overflights, and tolerate uranium enrichment, doesn't mean anything of the kind was agreed upon prior to the ceasefire. The opposite of trusting Trump is not declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump.) Well, Iran has a recent history of just not agreeing to a ceasefire, and the US has a (less) recent history of attacking Iran during negotiation or breaking a ceasefire. Doesn't seem to me like a case of 'declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump' and more of a case of 'believing the side that has acted more credibly in this totally-not-war'. You seem to show a recency-bias on your thinking patterns without justifying yourself. I'd simply call it ignoring history. Year after year of absolutely lying to the IAEA on their nuclear development, sanitizing locations, stopping inspectors. Denying assistance to the Houthis, in the past also to Hezbollah, among other routine attempts to deny assistance to their proxies. That and the fact that if Iran didn't want a ceasefire and just wanted to keep the strait closed, then they had no incentive to agree to one in the first place given their stated, and well justified, distrust of US 'negotiation'.
That and there is the distinct possibility that there is only an agreement in principle to a ceasefire, and noone has actually agreed to actual terms. So both sides just operate under what think they can and can't do, and will accuse the opposition of violating what they think shouldn't be done.
We could just be watching in real time, both sides discover that they don't actually have terms both sides can agree to for a ceasefire. I say both sides, because I have a hard time believing Israel even want a ceasefire, so it's really only the US and Iran negotiating. They certainly want one on their terms, since agreeing to a ceasefire that only binds their opponents and still allows them threats or tolls on passing ships is a win-win. I don't claim to know precisely what was agreed to in principle. I know enough that stating Iran's *claims about what happened* as absolute fact (that the US violated the ceasefire) is ignorance or indifference to truth. It could be that the framework was simply that the US and Iran stop their attacks/threatened attacks on the country and civilian vessels while negotiations continue to how to make it last two weeks. Doesn't seem to me like a case of 'declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump' and more of a case of ' believing the side that has acted more credibly in this totally-not-war'Oh no, I'm showing recency bias, when talking about conduct during a war that just got hot a little over a month ago. I mean, what that source is claiming, is not very far fetched. Israel has verifiably continued its attacks in Lebanon. It's difficult to imagine a world where the US said 'go ahead on your nuclear program', we don't know about the drone, but again... not exactly farfetched that a drone flew over Iranian airspace. The source did not even claim that the US agreed to these conditions, in fact the phrasing is their '10-point ceasefire proposal'. While I'm not sure calling this 'Trump violating the ceasefire' is very accurate, do you have any reason to doubt 'Iran's *claims about what happened'? Given one of his points is verifiably true, one would be difficult to imagine being untrue, and the third being not really an extraordinary claim. I'd say it's more of a case that this ceasefire had very few terms and conditions to begin with, let alone any they actually agree on and we are just seeing two sides confirm there is little common ground for a ceasefire to actually take effect. You just gotta hand it to the bloodthirsty state sponsors of terrorism that kill 30,000 of their own people: they just run the most credible wars. The wars where they're attacking non-parties with missiles, you know. Very credibleSorry, it reeks of bias. Particularly, calling their habit of lying in support of their regime as not germane to their credibility, and a strange excluded-middle fallacy that both sides simply can't be lying through their teeth. Two final things, since you've strayed from the post I wrote in ways that muddy up the issue. First, I gather you now agree with me that "Trump has already violated the terms of the ceasefire" is inaccurate? Remember, it's a positive statement of fact. That you both know what the terms were, and know that Trump violated them, simply because Iran told you. If you never disagreed with my post, just tell me. Second, why on earth does one side's penchant for lying mean you have to downrate the other's penchant for lying? I expect both to lie in their self-interest. That makes the search for the truth of it more difficult. My posts have never been to agree with DPB's assertion that Trump has violated the ceasefire, I said as much when I that this conclusion does not actually follow from the source he is quoting. I didn't even think there were enough terms discussed (much less agreed to) for a ceasefire beyond both sides vaguely agreeing there exist a list of demands for each side where they would agree to stop fighting if such demands are met. Subsequent statements by Sharif frankly seem to suggest they did seem to indicate agreement to some terms. My assertion was always just that Iran's statements about this war have been remarkably straight-foward and accurate. They have stated right from the beginning that they were prepared to weather a considerable amount of decapitation of their leadership structure, they warned they were going to close the Hormuz strait. They warned they were going to strike regional US allies. I say remarkably straight forward, because I don't expect this level of directness of any country engaged in, or about to engage in a war. They have communicated (threatened really) a clear strategic approach, then executed it. In contrast, the US communications during the war seem to suggest even THEY don't know what their strategic approach is. It's difficult to be credible when you are making 180 degree turns on goals and grand strategy every few days. Trump has also repeatedly claimed that Iran have either: initiated negotiations, already conducted good talks etc, while Iran have repeatedly denied this. Look, I don't care who the two parties are, if one side is claiming there are productive talks between the two sides, while the other side shows complete disinterest, I'm believing the complete disinterest. So when it comes to statements on where they think they stand in this war in terms of what they are going to do next, their receptiveness to negotiation, or in this case, whether they consider themselves still in and bound by a ceasefire. Iran has been far more credible. To your point on past Iranian dishonesty: Firstly, to use your own words "a strange excluded-middle fallacy that both sides simply can't be lying through their teeth." I don't find either side to be of a particularly (or even generally) honest nature. I don't need them to be. Despite whatever dishonesty, Iranian statements about about the goings on of this war have a remarkable (again, in the literal sense, not that they are all true, just that they overall tell a pretty accurate story) conformity to reality in a way US statements do not. I'm interested in knowing, to the best available information what's going on and where each side stands, not an emotional investment in the 'our honest good guys' being more virtuous than the 'their dishonest bad guys'. There are frankly here at least three sets of 'dishonest bad guys' and I hope they all lose. In the meantime I'm going to give more credence to statements from one that has consistently stood up better to reality over the course of this war. Then you agree with me on the only points I sought to make to DarkPlasmaBall, and the only reason I replied to his post. Trump did not violate the ceasefire, as far as we know, and we can't take Iran's word that he did. You made me think you believed otherwise when you wrote "believing the side that has acted more credibly," since now you elaborate that you believe neither. Sorry to jump in for a second, but: It's not just Iran's word vs. Trump's word. As explained multiple times earlier, I'm also acknowledging the statement from the mediator (the Pakistani prime minister) who agreed that Trump and Israel were at least violating the terms of the ceasefire by changing their minds about Lebanon being off limits. If you think the Pakistani PM can't be trusted (oBlade dismissed the PM's words as "Iranian propaganda", despite the PM being Pakistani and oBlade not providing any evidence for the dismissal), that's fine, but it appears to be Iran *and a neutral third-party mediator* on one side vs. Trump and Israel on the other, in terms of the Lebanon violation.
yep, good point. this also happened when the bombing campaign started February 28. The mediator and the Iranian sides agreed on a narrative/perspective/status of negotiations that contradicted whatever head canon Trump was spewing as his rationale starting up a war.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1257 Posts
It does make me wonder if any Israeli representatives were even present at the mediation.
I don't know how either side, or the mediator for that matter, thought anyone had any chance to reign in the IDF.
Did they just all say 'fuck it, Israel is going to do whatever it's going to do, but everyone actually here can have their own ceasefire'? Doesn't really explain why Sharif considers their present actions are against the ceasefire.
Or maybe the US decided to speak for Israel, with no actual plan to get Israel to play along.
Or maybe there was an Israeli representative, who agreed to some kind of deal with no intention to follow through, or simply didn't have the clout to bind the Israeli regime/IDF to their commitments.
I'm honestly baffled how they came to any sort of agreement on this ceasefire apparently including Lebanon, despite surely forseeing this exact outcome.
|
On April 11 2026 00:54 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
I'm honestly baffled how they came to any sort of agreement on this ceasefire apparently including Lebanon, despite surely forseeing this exact outcome.
because they don't really want a ceasefire? they have to appear to want a ceasefire.
|
Northern Ireland26533 Posts
On April 11 2026 00:04 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2026 21:28 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 23:18 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 16:18 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 14:12 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 08:12 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 07:45 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 07:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 08 2026 23:21 oBlade wrote:On April 08 2026 23:13 Billyboy wrote:
oBlade is just not an authentic person. I doubt if he believes a quarter of what he says. He is just playing the role of MAGA super fan because what he loves to do is argue. Actual MAGA people have actual positions on things.
Remember way back to a week ago when oBlade was saying that they needed to accomplish Rubios 15 points. They failed them miserably and he is declaring victory. He is just doing it to irk people. You will never convince him of anything no matter how good your facts and logic is because he only exists to argue.
By all means take your shots for cathartic reasons, but don’t waste any actual time or energy in trying to have a good faith discussion. It’s not possible. Who is declaring a victory? Me? I'm not fighting a war. Rubio? Link. I agree with the 11 of the leaked, if legitimate, points that hold Iran to not being a regional and world threat. At the moment the US has clearly been winning soundly. The two sides through Pakistan have agreed to a 2 week ceasefire. That means at the end of two weeks, if the US doesn't like how things are progressing, meaning Iran's not serious about meeting enough of those, they can have a "resumefire." Think of it as a pause button for negotiations. And, unfortunately, Trump has already violated the terms of the ceasefire... three times. In less than one day! Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, accused the U.S. on Wednesday of violating the two-week ceasefire agreement.
“The deep historical distrust we hold toward the United States stems from its repeated violations of all forms of commitments — a pattern that has regrettably been repeated once again,” Ghalibaf said in a statement posted on social media.
Three parts of Iran’s 10-point ceasefire proposal have been violated, Ghalibaf said. The violations are Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon, the entry of a drone into Iranian airspace, and the denial of the Islamic Republic’s right to enrich uranium, he said. ...
Ghalibaf’s statement comes less than a day after Trump said he agreed to halt attacks for two weeks in exchange for Iran allowing ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz during that period. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/08/ceasefire-iran-war-lebanon.html And since it's Iran, not Trump, we have to believe them! (I beg you to have the barest form of common sense when it comes to the world's largest state funder of terrorism. Just because they say Trump agreed to force Israel to end its attacks in Lebanon, cease all drone overflights, and tolerate uranium enrichment, doesn't mean anything of the kind was agreed upon prior to the ceasefire. The opposite of trusting Trump is not declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump.) Well, Iran has a recent history of just not agreeing to a ceasefire, and the US has a (less) recent history of attacking Iran during negotiation or breaking a ceasefire. Doesn't seem to me like a case of 'declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump' and more of a case of 'believing the side that has acted more credibly in this totally-not-war'. You seem to show a recency-bias on your thinking patterns without justifying yourself. I'd simply call it ignoring history. Year after year of absolutely lying to the IAEA on their nuclear development, sanitizing locations, stopping inspectors. Denying assistance to the Houthis, in the past also to Hezbollah, among other routine attempts to deny assistance to their proxies. That and the fact that if Iran didn't want a ceasefire and just wanted to keep the strait closed, then they had no incentive to agree to one in the first place given their stated, and well justified, distrust of US 'negotiation'.
That and there is the distinct possibility that there is only an agreement in principle to a ceasefire, and noone has actually agreed to actual terms. So both sides just operate under what think they can and can't do, and will accuse the opposition of violating what they think shouldn't be done.
We could just be watching in real time, both sides discover that they don't actually have terms both sides can agree to for a ceasefire. I say both sides, because I have a hard time believing Israel even want a ceasefire, so it's really only the US and Iran negotiating. They certainly want one on their terms, since agreeing to a ceasefire that only binds their opponents and still allows them threats or tolls on passing ships is a win-win. I don't claim to know precisely what was agreed to in principle. I know enough that stating Iran's *claims about what happened* as absolute fact (that the US violated the ceasefire) is ignorance or indifference to truth. It could be that the framework was simply that the US and Iran stop their attacks/threatened attacks on the country and civilian vessels while negotiations continue to how to make it last two weeks. Doesn't seem to me like a case of 'declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump' and more of a case of ' believing the side that has acted more credibly in this totally-not-war'Oh no, I'm showing recency bias, when talking about conduct during a war that just got hot a little over a month ago. I mean, what that source is claiming, is not very far fetched. Israel has verifiably continued its attacks in Lebanon. It's difficult to imagine a world where the US said 'go ahead on your nuclear program', we don't know about the drone, but again... not exactly farfetched that a drone flew over Iranian airspace. The source did not even claim that the US agreed to these conditions, in fact the phrasing is their '10-point ceasefire proposal'. While I'm not sure calling this 'Trump violating the ceasefire' is very accurate, do you have any reason to doubt 'Iran's *claims about what happened'? Given one of his points is verifiably true, one would be difficult to imagine being untrue, and the third being not really an extraordinary claim. I'd say it's more of a case that this ceasefire had very few terms and conditions to begin with, let alone any they actually agree on and we are just seeing two sides confirm there is little common ground for a ceasefire to actually take effect. You just gotta hand it to the bloodthirsty state sponsors of terrorism that kill 30,000 of their own people: they just run the most credible wars. The wars where they're attacking non-parties with missiles, you know. Very credibleSorry, it reeks of bias. Particularly, calling their habit of lying in support of their regime as not germane to their credibility, and a strange excluded-middle fallacy that both sides simply can't be lying through their teeth. Two final things, since you've strayed from the post I wrote in ways that muddy up the issue. First, I gather you now agree with me that "Trump has already violated the terms of the ceasefire" is inaccurate? Remember, it's a positive statement of fact. That you both know what the terms were, and know that Trump violated them, simply because Iran told you. If you never disagreed with my post, just tell me. Second, why on earth does one side's penchant for lying mean you have to downrate the other's penchant for lying? I expect both to lie in their self-interest. That makes the search for the truth of it more difficult. My posts have never been to agree with DPB's assertion that Trump has violated the ceasefire, I said as much when I that this conclusion does not actually follow from the source he is quoting. I didn't even think there were enough terms discussed (much less agreed to) for a ceasefire beyond both sides vaguely agreeing there exist a list of demands for each side where they would agree to stop fighting if such demands are met. Subsequent statements by Sharif frankly seem to suggest they did seem to indicate agreement to some terms. My assertion was always just that Iran's statements about this war have been remarkably straight-foward and accurate. They have stated right from the beginning that they were prepared to weather a considerable amount of decapitation of their leadership structure, they warned they were going to close the Hormuz strait. They warned they were going to strike regional US allies. I say remarkably straight forward, because I don't expect this level of directness of any country engaged in, or about to engage in a war. They have communicated (threatened really) a clear strategic approach, then executed it. In contrast, the US communications during the war seem to suggest even THEY don't know what their strategic approach is. It's difficult to be credible when you are making 180 degree turns on goals and grand strategy every few days. Trump has also repeatedly claimed that Iran have either: initiated negotiations, already conducted good talks etc, while Iran have repeatedly denied this. Look, I don't care who the two parties are, if one side is claiming there are productive talks between the two sides, while the other side shows complete disinterest, I'm believing the complete disinterest. So when it comes to statements on where they think they stand in this war in terms of what they are going to do next, their receptiveness to negotiation, or in this case, whether they consider themselves still in and bound by a ceasefire. Iran has been far more credible. To your point on past Iranian dishonesty: Firstly, to use your own words "a strange excluded-middle fallacy that both sides simply can't be lying through their teeth." I don't find either side to be of a particularly (or even generally) honest nature. I don't need them to be. Despite whatever dishonesty, Iranian statements about about the goings on of this war have a remarkable (again, in the literal sense, not that they are all true, just that they overall tell a pretty accurate story) conformity to reality in a way US statements do not. I'm interested in knowing, to the best available information what's going on and where each side stands, not an emotional investment in the 'our honest good guys' being more virtuous than the 'their dishonest bad guys'. There are frankly here at least three sets of 'dishonest bad guys' and I hope they all lose. In the meantime I'm going to give more credence to statements from one that has consistently stood up better to reality over the course of this war. Then you agree with me on the only points I sought to make to DarkPlasmaBall, and the only reason I replied to his post. Trump did not violate the ceasefire, as far as we know, and we can't take Iran's word that he did. You made me think you believed otherwise when you wrote "believing the side that has acted more credibly," since now you elaborate that you believe neither. I would describe some of your characterizations as Iran being transparent about their aims. It's not that remarkable given their strategic situation. They had one strategic card to play (would have been 2 if they got nuclear weapons) and they played it. They are obviously unwilling to surrender that bargaining chip for a ceasefire, since their enemy is vulnerable to the economic effects of disrupted trade. They have less vulnerability. Many of their leaders are willing to die to achieve their political/religious goals. Both the US and Iran have a high rate of dishonesty (in the pursuit of their interests) in this conflict that exceeds my willingness to talk about their truthfulness relative to each other. I say this particularly because there's no leaked audio/transcript or signed document to judge in an absolute sense. The international situation, or the local military situation, or the domestic political situation shifts and suddenly the incentives change and dictate behavior. Show nested quote +On April 10 2026 05:26 Dan HH wrote:
Opening the strait went so well that they had to send Melania to hold a press conference about Epstein and bring him back to the top of the headline pile I hope the new meme is that Trump does everything to distract from Iran instead of Trump does everything to distract from Epstein. The old one was getting stale. Show nested quote +On April 10 2026 17:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The US will really change the day people stop thinking that sending someone to jail for 18 years for a petty crime is ok, or that firemen should be a collective service and not ignore your burning house when you haven’t paid your little subscription. Two bad examples that only serve to show a lack of knowledge about what the US believes "is ok." You'll need broad, national examples and polling to make the point about "the US" and not cherry-picked examples with missing context that could be provided to make the opposite point better.
I mean polling is all well and good, but if x thing exists, and has existed for decades+, I think it’s broadly OK to say there’s some tacit acceptance of that status quo being exemplified.
Weight of sentiment does come into it as well, I mean an issue can be split 50/50 in favourability, but in this hypothetical if one group really cares about x issue, and the other much less, it’s not really a 50/50 in reality.
The US has many such ‘quirks’ rather alien to us other ANZACs or Euros, plenty of which either a high minority or majority of Americans think are undesirable, end of the day they’re still there.
From cursory (non-exhaustive) Googling, I mean take healthcare. There’s a majority in favour in the States for some form of nationalised healthcare, but like 20-30% lower than in places like the UK that I had a gander at. It also drops when tax bumps are added into the question, into minority favourability. Same with public healthcare supplanting and not supplementing people’s private care.
I mean how do we parse that? A majority say they’re in favour, but that becomes a minority when it comes to actually doing it, so are they really in favour?
Regardless of my ramblings I assume all Biff meant was that if the US can’t align in certain areas with even merely centrist equivalent contemporary nations, of which I’d class the UK by European standards, they sure ain’t gonna go socialist anytime soon
|
On April 11 2026 01:21 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2026 00:04 dyhb wrote:On April 10 2026 21:28 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 23:18 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 16:18 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 14:12 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 08:12 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 07:45 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 07:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 08 2026 23:21 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Who is declaring a victory? Me? I'm not fighting a war. Rubio? Link.
I agree with the 11 of the leaked, if legitimate, points that hold Iran to not being a regional and world threat.
At the moment the US has clearly been winning soundly. The two sides through Pakistan have agreed to a 2 week ceasefire. That means at the end of two weeks, if the US doesn't like how things are progressing, meaning Iran's not serious about meeting enough of those, they can have a "resumefire." Think of it as a pause button for negotiations. And, unfortunately, Trump has already violated the terms of the ceasefire... three times. In less than one day! Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, accused the U.S. on Wednesday of violating the two-week ceasefire agreement.
“The deep historical distrust we hold toward the United States stems from its repeated violations of all forms of commitments — a pattern that has regrettably been repeated once again,” Ghalibaf said in a statement posted on social media.
Three parts of Iran’s 10-point ceasefire proposal have been violated, Ghalibaf said. The violations are Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon, the entry of a drone into Iranian airspace, and the denial of the Islamic Republic’s right to enrich uranium, he said. ...
Ghalibaf’s statement comes less than a day after Trump said he agreed to halt attacks for two weeks in exchange for Iran allowing ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz during that period. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/08/ceasefire-iran-war-lebanon.html And since it's Iran, not Trump, we have to believe them! (I beg you to have the barest form of common sense when it comes to the world's largest state funder of terrorism. Just because they say Trump agreed to force Israel to end its attacks in Lebanon, cease all drone overflights, and tolerate uranium enrichment, doesn't mean anything of the kind was agreed upon prior to the ceasefire. The opposite of trusting Trump is not declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump.) Well, Iran has a recent history of just not agreeing to a ceasefire, and the US has a (less) recent history of attacking Iran during negotiation or breaking a ceasefire. Doesn't seem to me like a case of 'declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump' and more of a case of 'believing the side that has acted more credibly in this totally-not-war'. You seem to show a recency-bias on your thinking patterns without justifying yourself. I'd simply call it ignoring history. Year after year of absolutely lying to the IAEA on their nuclear development, sanitizing locations, stopping inspectors. Denying assistance to the Houthis, in the past also to Hezbollah, among other routine attempts to deny assistance to their proxies. That and the fact that if Iran didn't want a ceasefire and just wanted to keep the strait closed, then they had no incentive to agree to one in the first place given their stated, and well justified, distrust of US 'negotiation'.
That and there is the distinct possibility that there is only an agreement in principle to a ceasefire, and noone has actually agreed to actual terms. So both sides just operate under what think they can and can't do, and will accuse the opposition of violating what they think shouldn't be done.
We could just be watching in real time, both sides discover that they don't actually have terms both sides can agree to for a ceasefire. I say both sides, because I have a hard time believing Israel even want a ceasefire, so it's really only the US and Iran negotiating. They certainly want one on their terms, since agreeing to a ceasefire that only binds their opponents and still allows them threats or tolls on passing ships is a win-win. I don't claim to know precisely what was agreed to in principle. I know enough that stating Iran's *claims about what happened* as absolute fact (that the US violated the ceasefire) is ignorance or indifference to truth. It could be that the framework was simply that the US and Iran stop their attacks/threatened attacks on the country and civilian vessels while negotiations continue to how to make it last two weeks. Doesn't seem to me like a case of 'declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump' and more of a case of ' believing the side that has acted more credibly in this totally-not-war'Oh no, I'm showing recency bias, when talking about conduct during a war that just got hot a little over a month ago. I mean, what that source is claiming, is not very far fetched. Israel has verifiably continued its attacks in Lebanon. It's difficult to imagine a world where the US said 'go ahead on your nuclear program', we don't know about the drone, but again... not exactly farfetched that a drone flew over Iranian airspace. The source did not even claim that the US agreed to these conditions, in fact the phrasing is their '10-point ceasefire proposal'. While I'm not sure calling this 'Trump violating the ceasefire' is very accurate, do you have any reason to doubt 'Iran's *claims about what happened'? Given one of his points is verifiably true, one would be difficult to imagine being untrue, and the third being not really an extraordinary claim. I'd say it's more of a case that this ceasefire had very few terms and conditions to begin with, let alone any they actually agree on and we are just seeing two sides confirm there is little common ground for a ceasefire to actually take effect. You just gotta hand it to the bloodthirsty state sponsors of terrorism that kill 30,000 of their own people: they just run the most credible wars. The wars where they're attacking non-parties with missiles, you know. Very credibleSorry, it reeks of bias. Particularly, calling their habit of lying in support of their regime as not germane to their credibility, and a strange excluded-middle fallacy that both sides simply can't be lying through their teeth. Two final things, since you've strayed from the post I wrote in ways that muddy up the issue. First, I gather you now agree with me that "Trump has already violated the terms of the ceasefire" is inaccurate? Remember, it's a positive statement of fact. That you both know what the terms were, and know that Trump violated them, simply because Iran told you. If you never disagreed with my post, just tell me. Second, why on earth does one side's penchant for lying mean you have to downrate the other's penchant for lying? I expect both to lie in their self-interest. That makes the search for the truth of it more difficult. My posts have never been to agree with DPB's assertion that Trump has violated the ceasefire, I said as much when I that this conclusion does not actually follow from the source he is quoting. I didn't even think there were enough terms discussed (much less agreed to) for a ceasefire beyond both sides vaguely agreeing there exist a list of demands for each side where they would agree to stop fighting if such demands are met. Subsequent statements by Sharif frankly seem to suggest they did seem to indicate agreement to some terms. My assertion was always just that Iran's statements about this war have been remarkably straight-foward and accurate. They have stated right from the beginning that they were prepared to weather a considerable amount of decapitation of their leadership structure, they warned they were going to close the Hormuz strait. They warned they were going to strike regional US allies. I say remarkably straight forward, because I don't expect this level of directness of any country engaged in, or about to engage in a war. They have communicated (threatened really) a clear strategic approach, then executed it. In contrast, the US communications during the war seem to suggest even THEY don't know what their strategic approach is. It's difficult to be credible when you are making 180 degree turns on goals and grand strategy every few days. Trump has also repeatedly claimed that Iran have either: initiated negotiations, already conducted good talks etc, while Iran have repeatedly denied this. Look, I don't care who the two parties are, if one side is claiming there are productive talks between the two sides, while the other side shows complete disinterest, I'm believing the complete disinterest. So when it comes to statements on where they think they stand in this war in terms of what they are going to do next, their receptiveness to negotiation, or in this case, whether they consider themselves still in and bound by a ceasefire. Iran has been far more credible. To your point on past Iranian dishonesty: Firstly, to use your own words "a strange excluded-middle fallacy that both sides simply can't be lying through their teeth." I don't find either side to be of a particularly (or even generally) honest nature. I don't need them to be. Despite whatever dishonesty, Iranian statements about about the goings on of this war have a remarkable (again, in the literal sense, not that they are all true, just that they overall tell a pretty accurate story) conformity to reality in a way US statements do not. I'm interested in knowing, to the best available information what's going on and where each side stands, not an emotional investment in the 'our honest good guys' being more virtuous than the 'their dishonest bad guys'. There are frankly here at least three sets of 'dishonest bad guys' and I hope they all lose. In the meantime I'm going to give more credence to statements from one that has consistently stood up better to reality over the course of this war. Then you agree with me on the only points I sought to make to DarkPlasmaBall, and the only reason I replied to his post. Trump did not violate the ceasefire, as far as we know, and we can't take Iran's word that he did. You made me think you believed otherwise when you wrote "believing the side that has acted more credibly," since now you elaborate that you believe neither. I would describe some of your characterizations as Iran being transparent about their aims. It's not that remarkable given their strategic situation. They had one strategic card to play (would have been 2 if they got nuclear weapons) and they played it. They are obviously unwilling to surrender that bargaining chip for a ceasefire, since their enemy is vulnerable to the economic effects of disrupted trade. They have less vulnerability. Many of their leaders are willing to die to achieve their political/religious goals. Both the US and Iran have a high rate of dishonesty (in the pursuit of their interests) in this conflict that exceeds my willingness to talk about their truthfulness relative to each other. I say this particularly because there's no leaked audio/transcript or signed document to judge in an absolute sense. The international situation, or the local military situation, or the domestic political situation shifts and suddenly the incentives change and dictate behavior. On April 10 2026 05:26 Dan HH wrote:
Opening the strait went so well that they had to send Melania to hold a press conference about Epstein and bring him back to the top of the headline pile I hope the new meme is that Trump does everything to distract from Iran instead of Trump does everything to distract from Epstein. The old one was getting stale. On April 10 2026 17:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The US will really change the day people stop thinking that sending someone to jail for 18 years for a petty crime is ok, or that firemen should be a collective service and not ignore your burning house when you haven’t paid your little subscription. Two bad examples that only serve to show a lack of knowledge about what the US believes "is ok." You'll need broad, national examples and polling to make the point about "the US" and not cherry-picked examples with missing context that could be provided to make the opposite point better. I mean polling is all well and good, but if x thing exists, and has existed for decades+, I think it’s broadly OK to say there’s some tacit acceptance of that status quo being exemplified. Weight of sentiment does come into it as well, I mean an issue can be split 50/50 in favourability, but in this hypothetical if one group really cares about x issue, and the other much less, it’s not really a 50/50 in reality. The US has many such ‘quirks’ rather alien to us other ANZACs or Euros, plenty of which either a high minority or majority of Americans think are undesirable, end of the day they’re still there. From cursory (non-exhaustive) Googling, I mean take healthcare. There’s a majority in favour in the States for some form of nationalised healthcare, but like 20-30% lower than in places like the UK that I had a gander at. It also drops when tax bumps are added into the question, into minority favourability. Same with public healthcare supplanting and not supplementing people’s private care. I mean how do we parse that? A majority say they’re in favour, but that becomes a minority when it comes to actually doing it, so are they really in favour? Regardless of my ramblings I assume all Biff meant was that if the US can’t align in certain areas with even merely centrist equivalent contemporary nations, of which I’d class the UK by European standards, they sure ain’t gonna go socialist anytime soon One of the “quirks” is federalism. If X state does something, you can’t say the US is ok with it. If Y city or county does something, it doesn’t mean the US is ok with it. The people who aren’t ok with it never made that law, or repealed a law, etc. Because of the great number of things some citizens aren’t ok with, and others are, we adopted limiting lines so we can all coexist.
And then you get into the problem of demonstrating you’re not ok with it through civil protest or taking up arms against your own government. Are you ok with it, or are you just not on board with the steps it would take? Hence, polling.
If you have further, you should really look into the specific cited examples and answer the question, “Do you agree that these are poor examples both for lacking context and aren’t national examples?” I’ve run into some posts that are tangents and not replies. The main points are in total agreement, though unmentioned.
|
On April 11 2026 00:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2026 00:04 dyhb wrote:On April 10 2026 21:28 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 23:18 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 16:18 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 14:12 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 08:12 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 07:45 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 07:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 08 2026 23:21 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Who is declaring a victory? Me? I'm not fighting a war. Rubio? Link.
I agree with the 11 of the leaked, if legitimate, points that hold Iran to not being a regional and world threat.
At the moment the US has clearly been winning soundly. The two sides through Pakistan have agreed to a 2 week ceasefire. That means at the end of two weeks, if the US doesn't like how things are progressing, meaning Iran's not serious about meeting enough of those, they can have a "resumefire." Think of it as a pause button for negotiations. And, unfortunately, Trump has already violated the terms of the ceasefire... three times. In less than one day! Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, accused the U.S. on Wednesday of violating the two-week ceasefire agreement.
“The deep historical distrust we hold toward the United States stems from its repeated violations of all forms of commitments — a pattern that has regrettably been repeated once again,” Ghalibaf said in a statement posted on social media.
Three parts of Iran’s 10-point ceasefire proposal have been violated, Ghalibaf said. The violations are Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon, the entry of a drone into Iranian airspace, and the denial of the Islamic Republic’s right to enrich uranium, he said. ...
Ghalibaf’s statement comes less than a day after Trump said he agreed to halt attacks for two weeks in exchange for Iran allowing ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz during that period. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/08/ceasefire-iran-war-lebanon.html And since it's Iran, not Trump, we have to believe them! (I beg you to have the barest form of common sense when it comes to the world's largest state funder of terrorism. Just because they say Trump agreed to force Israel to end its attacks in Lebanon, cease all drone overflights, and tolerate uranium enrichment, doesn't mean anything of the kind was agreed upon prior to the ceasefire. The opposite of trusting Trump is not declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump.) Well, Iran has a recent history of just not agreeing to a ceasefire, and the US has a (less) recent history of attacking Iran during negotiation or breaking a ceasefire. Doesn't seem to me like a case of 'declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump' and more of a case of 'believing the side that has acted more credibly in this totally-not-war'. You seem to show a recency-bias on your thinking patterns without justifying yourself. I'd simply call it ignoring history. Year after year of absolutely lying to the IAEA on their nuclear development, sanitizing locations, stopping inspectors. Denying assistance to the Houthis, in the past also to Hezbollah, among other routine attempts to deny assistance to their proxies. That and the fact that if Iran didn't want a ceasefire and just wanted to keep the strait closed, then they had no incentive to agree to one in the first place given their stated, and well justified, distrust of US 'negotiation'.
That and there is the distinct possibility that there is only an agreement in principle to a ceasefire, and noone has actually agreed to actual terms. So both sides just operate under what think they can and can't do, and will accuse the opposition of violating what they think shouldn't be done.
We could just be watching in real time, both sides discover that they don't actually have terms both sides can agree to for a ceasefire. I say both sides, because I have a hard time believing Israel even want a ceasefire, so it's really only the US and Iran negotiating. They certainly want one on their terms, since agreeing to a ceasefire that only binds their opponents and still allows them threats or tolls on passing ships is a win-win. I don't claim to know precisely what was agreed to in principle. I know enough that stating Iran's *claims about what happened* as absolute fact (that the US violated the ceasefire) is ignorance or indifference to truth. It could be that the framework was simply that the US and Iran stop their attacks/threatened attacks on the country and civilian vessels while negotiations continue to how to make it last two weeks. Doesn't seem to me like a case of 'declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump' and more of a case of ' believing the side that has acted more credibly in this totally-not-war'Oh no, I'm showing recency bias, when talking about conduct during a war that just got hot a little over a month ago. I mean, what that source is claiming, is not very far fetched. Israel has verifiably continued its attacks in Lebanon. It's difficult to imagine a world where the US said 'go ahead on your nuclear program', we don't know about the drone, but again... not exactly farfetched that a drone flew over Iranian airspace. The source did not even claim that the US agreed to these conditions, in fact the phrasing is their '10-point ceasefire proposal'. While I'm not sure calling this 'Trump violating the ceasefire' is very accurate, do you have any reason to doubt 'Iran's *claims about what happened'? Given one of his points is verifiably true, one would be difficult to imagine being untrue, and the third being not really an extraordinary claim. I'd say it's more of a case that this ceasefire had very few terms and conditions to begin with, let alone any they actually agree on and we are just seeing two sides confirm there is little common ground for a ceasefire to actually take effect. You just gotta hand it to the bloodthirsty state sponsors of terrorism that kill 30,000 of their own people: they just run the most credible wars. The wars where they're attacking non-parties with missiles, you know. Very credibleSorry, it reeks of bias. Particularly, calling their habit of lying in support of their regime as not germane to their credibility, and a strange excluded-middle fallacy that both sides simply can't be lying through their teeth. Two final things, since you've strayed from the post I wrote in ways that muddy up the issue. First, I gather you now agree with me that "Trump has already violated the terms of the ceasefire" is inaccurate? Remember, it's a positive statement of fact. That you both know what the terms were, and know that Trump violated them, simply because Iran told you. If you never disagreed with my post, just tell me. Second, why on earth does one side's penchant for lying mean you have to downrate the other's penchant for lying? I expect both to lie in their self-interest. That makes the search for the truth of it more difficult. My posts have never been to agree with DPB's assertion that Trump has violated the ceasefire, I said as much when I that this conclusion does not actually follow from the source he is quoting. I didn't even think there were enough terms discussed (much less agreed to) for a ceasefire beyond both sides vaguely agreeing there exist a list of demands for each side where they would agree to stop fighting if such demands are met. Subsequent statements by Sharif frankly seem to suggest they did seem to indicate agreement to some terms. My assertion was always just that Iran's statements about this war have been remarkably straight-foward and accurate. They have stated right from the beginning that they were prepared to weather a considerable amount of decapitation of their leadership structure, they warned they were going to close the Hormuz strait. They warned they were going to strike regional US allies. I say remarkably straight forward, because I don't expect this level of directness of any country engaged in, or about to engage in a war. They have communicated (threatened really) a clear strategic approach, then executed it. In contrast, the US communications during the war seem to suggest even THEY don't know what their strategic approach is. It's difficult to be credible when you are making 180 degree turns on goals and grand strategy every few days. Trump has also repeatedly claimed that Iran have either: initiated negotiations, already conducted good talks etc, while Iran have repeatedly denied this. Look, I don't care who the two parties are, if one side is claiming there are productive talks between the two sides, while the other side shows complete disinterest, I'm believing the complete disinterest. So when it comes to statements on where they think they stand in this war in terms of what they are going to do next, their receptiveness to negotiation, or in this case, whether they consider themselves still in and bound by a ceasefire. Iran has been far more credible. To your point on past Iranian dishonesty: Firstly, to use your own words "a strange excluded-middle fallacy that both sides simply can't be lying through their teeth." I don't find either side to be of a particularly (or even generally) honest nature. I don't need them to be. Despite whatever dishonesty, Iranian statements about about the goings on of this war have a remarkable (again, in the literal sense, not that they are all true, just that they overall tell a pretty accurate story) conformity to reality in a way US statements do not. I'm interested in knowing, to the best available information what's going on and where each side stands, not an emotional investment in the 'our honest good guys' being more virtuous than the 'their dishonest bad guys'. There are frankly here at least three sets of 'dishonest bad guys' and I hope they all lose. In the meantime I'm going to give more credence to statements from one that has consistently stood up better to reality over the course of this war. Then you agree with me on the only points I sought to make to DarkPlasmaBall, and the only reason I replied to his post. Trump did not violate the ceasefire, as far as we know, and we can't take Iran's word that he did. You made me think you believed otherwise when you wrote "believing the side that has acted more credibly," since now you elaborate that you believe neither. Sorry to jump in for a second, but: It's not just Iran's word vs. Trump's word. As explained multiple times earlier, I'm also acknowledging the statement from the mediator (the Pakistani prime minister) who agreed that Trump and Israel were at least violating the terms of the ceasefire by changing their minds about Lebanon being off limits. If you think the Pakistani PM can't be trusted (oBlade dismissed the PM's words as "Iranian propaganda", despite the PM being Pakistani and oBlade not providing any evidence for the dismissal), that's fine, but it appears to be Iran *and a neutral third-party mediator* on one side vs. Trump and Israel on the other, in terms of the Lebanon violation. What makes you think Pakistan is doing anything other than accepting Iran’s word for it as you did? They’re a recent entrant, and I’ve seen nothing to indicate that the US and Iran discussed ceasefire with Pakistani representatives also in on the call (or Hezbollah and Israel for that matter).
If you have anything speaking to that, I urge you to cite and link. Or if Pakistan reviewed a signed document or a recording/transcript of the ceasefire negotiation, same request. That would certainly change things.
|
On April 11 2026 00:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2026 20:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 10 2026 18:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2026 17:43 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 10 2026 16:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2026 14:16 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 10 2026 05:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 10 2026 05:12 KwarK wrote:
GH is aware that so far his plan hasn’t achieved anything but he sees nothing wrong with the plan and won’t accept any criticism of it. It’ll remain the same and the reasons it failed in the past will also remain but we can’t talk about that and if you do you’re a counterrevolutionary. I have never understood who is supposed to do the revolution GH advocates. The chances the Americans of all people are interested in any of that socialist new world is exactly zero. They can’t even take the public transports. There have been numerous examples of revolutionaries confronted with the fact the people they were supposed to represent didn’t want anything to do with their ideas, and it’s never finished very well. Saving America from itself has never been about making a revolution, it would require to change an entire culture and people’s mentalities drastically. That’s less fun and exciting and requires much more patience. The last time I had this particular conversation with GH he said that it wasn't necessary to make the positive case and convince the people because Americans will just follow their leaders or something along those lines. This is also why I think he believes that shitting on the Dems at every turn is advancing towards his goals. This is a "random gaming forum with ~10 people in the US" or whatever. Me being critical of Dems is just one of the ways I enjoy this space like most people enjoy shitposting about oBlade, baal's gambling, and Area 51 or whatever. You all have made it abundantly clear that advancing political goals isn't something anyone wants to happen here. So I take it you are still not bothered about convincing the American population that a socialism is the best option for them? Do you still think that this is unimportant because Americans will just follow their leaders? Do you have a link to what you're talking about or are we supposed to rely on your memory and trust your interpretation? If I had to guess it was something about you not actually needing a majority to change things. If we look at the abolition of chattel slavery (~1% of the population were abolitionists in 1861, many of which were women that couldn't vote) and universal background checks (~80-90%+ voter support for decades ) and just the logistics of what either requires, there's clearly more to all this than just "convincing the Americans" to vote right or whatever. Trying to make this simple without being too reductive: How things actually change is that a large enough (note this can vary extremely widely) group of people/circumstances make it less tolerable to give them what they demand/change than to maintain the status quo and/or deny them. That's sorta the basic equation for all significant political change and then we humans (and the universe or whatever) can mess with the variables depending on what's changing. You can basically pick any major political "progress" moment and see this is how it works. It's not this recently propagandized idea of steady political party focused movement building aimed at electing the right politicians (or convincing a majority of people to do the right thing through reason really). That's just not actually how it has ever worked. Diamonds for engagements, Pink being a girl color, Blue for boys, this elections based theory of change, and plenty of other stuff are relatively recent things that basically came out of propaganda agencies studying how the Nazis manipulated people to do what they did. Post-war consumerism taught people that identity is something you buy or wear rather than something you do through collective action. We all know the diamond engagement ring is basically like one of the most successful early "in game skins" where the desire is almost entirely manufactured for profit at the expense of peoples critical faculties and yet... So I don't actually think most people will be disabused of their political diamond engagement rings through reason because they basically never have/rarely do (like 1 out of 100). The good news is that we can get stuff done regardless. So is that a 'yes, we need to get people on board to enact meaningful political change' or 'no, we just have to make it politically unviable + Show Spoiler + to the current leadership until they give in, because it doesn't matter what people think, it's the leadership that matters'? I said: Show nested quote +How things actually change is that a large enough (note this can vary extremely widely) group of people/circumstances make it less tolerable to give them what they demand/change than to maintain the status quo and/or deny them.
That's sorta the basic equation for all significant political change and then we humans (and the universe or whatever) can mess with the variables depending on what's changing. It's both (of what I said, not your version). The balance of which is dependent on many factors. So I said: Show nested quote +You can basically pick any major political "progress" moment and see this is how it works. It's not this recently propagandized idea of steady political party focused movement building aimed at electing the right politicians (or convincing a majority of people to do the right thing through reason really). That's just not actually how it has ever worked. Diamonds for engagements, Pink being a girl color, Blue for boys, this elections based theory of change, and plenty of other stuff are relatively recent things that basically came out of propaganda agencies studying how the Nazis manipulated people to do what they did. Post-war consumerism taught people that identity is something you buy or wear rather than something you do through collective action.
We all know the diamond engagement ring is basically like one of the most successful early "in game skins" where the desire is almost entirely manufactured for profit at the expense of peoples critical faculties and yet... So I don't actually think most people will be disabused of their political diamond engagement rings through reason because they basically never have/rarely do (like 1 out of 100). The good news is that we can get stuff done regardless. If you still don't understand, you can pick just about any "major political progress" moment and I'll show you what I'm talking about.
Not all that keen to discuss diamond or clothes. If you want to make the case for something, then make it. Please dumb it down for me, ideally including the context on how this helps to get critical mass to get socialism going in America, because I didn't get what you're getting at.
|
On April 11 2026 02:23 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2026 00:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 11 2026 00:04 dyhb wrote:On April 10 2026 21:28 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 23:18 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 16:18 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 14:12 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 08:12 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 07:45 dyhb wrote:And since it's Iran, not Trump, we have to believe them! (I beg you to have the barest form of common sense when it comes to the world's largest state funder of terrorism. Just because they say Trump agreed to force Israel to end its attacks in Lebanon, cease all drone overflights, and tolerate uranium enrichment, doesn't mean anything of the kind was agreed upon prior to the ceasefire. The opposite of trusting Trump is not declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump.) Well, Iran has a recent history of just not agreeing to a ceasefire, and the US has a (less) recent history of attacking Iran during negotiation or breaking a ceasefire. Doesn't seem to me like a case of 'declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump' and more of a case of 'believing the side that has acted more credibly in this totally-not-war'. You seem to show a recency-bias on your thinking patterns without justifying yourself. I'd simply call it ignoring history. Year after year of absolutely lying to the IAEA on their nuclear development, sanitizing locations, stopping inspectors. Denying assistance to the Houthis, in the past also to Hezbollah, among other routine attempts to deny assistance to their proxies. That and the fact that if Iran didn't want a ceasefire and just wanted to keep the strait closed, then they had no incentive to agree to one in the first place given their stated, and well justified, distrust of US 'negotiation'.
That and there is the distinct possibility that there is only an agreement in principle to a ceasefire, and noone has actually agreed to actual terms. So both sides just operate under what think they can and can't do, and will accuse the opposition of violating what they think shouldn't be done.
We could just be watching in real time, both sides discover that they don't actually have terms both sides can agree to for a ceasefire. I say both sides, because I have a hard time believing Israel even want a ceasefire, so it's really only the US and Iran negotiating. They certainly want one on their terms, since agreeing to a ceasefire that only binds their opponents and still allows them threats or tolls on passing ships is a win-win. I don't claim to know precisely what was agreed to in principle. I know enough that stating Iran's *claims about what happened* as absolute fact (that the US violated the ceasefire) is ignorance or indifference to truth. It could be that the framework was simply that the US and Iran stop their attacks/threatened attacks on the country and civilian vessels while negotiations continue to how to make it last two weeks. Doesn't seem to me like a case of 'declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump' and more of a case of ' believing the side that has acted more credibly in this totally-not-war'Oh no, I'm showing recency bias, when talking about conduct during a war that just got hot a little over a month ago. I mean, what that source is claiming, is not very far fetched. Israel has verifiably continued its attacks in Lebanon. It's difficult to imagine a world where the US said 'go ahead on your nuclear program', we don't know about the drone, but again... not exactly farfetched that a drone flew over Iranian airspace. The source did not even claim that the US agreed to these conditions, in fact the phrasing is their '10-point ceasefire proposal'. While I'm not sure calling this 'Trump violating the ceasefire' is very accurate, do you have any reason to doubt 'Iran's *claims about what happened'? Given one of his points is verifiably true, one would be difficult to imagine being untrue, and the third being not really an extraordinary claim. I'd say it's more of a case that this ceasefire had very few terms and conditions to begin with, let alone any they actually agree on and we are just seeing two sides confirm there is little common ground for a ceasefire to actually take effect. You just gotta hand it to the bloodthirsty state sponsors of terrorism that kill 30,000 of their own people: they just run the most credible wars. The wars where they're attacking non-parties with missiles, you know. Very credibleSorry, it reeks of bias. Particularly, calling their habit of lying in support of their regime as not germane to their credibility, and a strange excluded-middle fallacy that both sides simply can't be lying through their teeth. Two final things, since you've strayed from the post I wrote in ways that muddy up the issue. First, I gather you now agree with me that "Trump has already violated the terms of the ceasefire" is inaccurate? Remember, it's a positive statement of fact. That you both know what the terms were, and know that Trump violated them, simply because Iran told you. If you never disagreed with my post, just tell me. Second, why on earth does one side's penchant for lying mean you have to downrate the other's penchant for lying? I expect both to lie in their self-interest. That makes the search for the truth of it more difficult. My posts have never been to agree with DPB's assertion that Trump has violated the ceasefire, I said as much when I that this conclusion does not actually follow from the source he is quoting. I didn't even think there were enough terms discussed (much less agreed to) for a ceasefire beyond both sides vaguely agreeing there exist a list of demands for each side where they would agree to stop fighting if such demands are met. Subsequent statements by Sharif frankly seem to suggest they did seem to indicate agreement to some terms. My assertion was always just that Iran's statements about this war have been remarkably straight-foward and accurate. They have stated right from the beginning that they were prepared to weather a considerable amount of decapitation of their leadership structure, they warned they were going to close the Hormuz strait. They warned they were going to strike regional US allies. I say remarkably straight forward, because I don't expect this level of directness of any country engaged in, or about to engage in a war. They have communicated (threatened really) a clear strategic approach, then executed it. In contrast, the US communications during the war seem to suggest even THEY don't know what their strategic approach is. It's difficult to be credible when you are making 180 degree turns on goals and grand strategy every few days. Trump has also repeatedly claimed that Iran have either: initiated negotiations, already conducted good talks etc, while Iran have repeatedly denied this. Look, I don't care who the two parties are, if one side is claiming there are productive talks between the two sides, while the other side shows complete disinterest, I'm believing the complete disinterest. So when it comes to statements on where they think they stand in this war in terms of what they are going to do next, their receptiveness to negotiation, or in this case, whether they consider themselves still in and bound by a ceasefire. Iran has been far more credible. To your point on past Iranian dishonesty: Firstly, to use your own words "a strange excluded-middle fallacy that both sides simply can't be lying through their teeth." I don't find either side to be of a particularly (or even generally) honest nature. I don't need them to be. Despite whatever dishonesty, Iranian statements about about the goings on of this war have a remarkable (again, in the literal sense, not that they are all true, just that they overall tell a pretty accurate story) conformity to reality in a way US statements do not. I'm interested in knowing, to the best available information what's going on and where each side stands, not an emotional investment in the 'our honest good guys' being more virtuous than the 'their dishonest bad guys'. There are frankly here at least three sets of 'dishonest bad guys' and I hope they all lose. In the meantime I'm going to give more credence to statements from one that has consistently stood up better to reality over the course of this war. Then you agree with me on the only points I sought to make to DarkPlasmaBall, and the only reason I replied to his post. Trump did not violate the ceasefire, as far as we know, and we can't take Iran's word that he did. You made me think you believed otherwise when you wrote "believing the side that has acted more credibly," since now you elaborate that you believe neither. Sorry to jump in for a second, but: It's not just Iran's word vs. Trump's word. As explained multiple times earlier, I'm also acknowledging the statement from the mediator (the Pakistani prime minister) who agreed that Trump and Israel were at least violating the terms of the ceasefire by changing their minds about Lebanon being off limits. If you think the Pakistani PM can't be trusted (oBlade dismissed the PM's words as "Iranian propaganda", despite the PM being Pakistani and oBlade not providing any evidence for the dismissal), that's fine, but it appears to be Iran *and a neutral third-party mediator* on one side vs. Trump and Israel on the other, in terms of the Lebanon violation. What makes you think Pakistan is doing anything other than accepting Iran’s word for it as you did? They’re a recent entrant, and I’ve seen nothing to indicate that the US and Iran discussed ceasefire with Pakistani representatives also in on the call (or Hezbollah and Israel for that matter). If you have anything speaking to that, I urge you to cite and link. Or if Pakistan reviewed a signed document or a recording/transcript of the ceasefire negotiation, same request. That would certainly change things.
The Prime Minister of Pakistan was literally a mediator / facilitator / broker of the dialogue between Iran's side and the side of Trump and Israel, as I've already cited/linked during my recent conversation with oBlade. The PM was in the room when/where it happened, so to speak. There is a corroborating first-hand neutral source vouching for Iran's statement over Trump's. The PM's agreement with Iran's version provides additional evidence that Trump (and Israel) violated the ceasefire in regards to Lebanon. If the opposite were true - if the PM had said "I was there and Trump is telling the truth while Iran is not" - then I would believe Trump and Israel on the topic of Lebanon's protection vs. exception.
|
Made it through 2 years of the term. Is there anything left to fuck up in other countries that Bibitrump could fuck up?
Maybe a tactical nuke on the vatican ? More cryptomobsters ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
