The Big, Beautiful Bombs Were A Bust

Well, if the mission was a bust then the u hauls should be headed back to The site and business should resume shortly ... Is that correct? Because Iran says differently... Things have changed thanks That very, very successful mission...
No, not correct. A bust in the sense the result fell far short of "obliterated". Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, time will tell. But Trump didn't know when he bragged about it.
 
Well, if the mission was a bust then the u hauls should be headed back to The site and business should resume shortly ... Is that correct? Because Iran says differently... Things have changed thanks That very, very successful mission...
The planes did a lot of damage, far short of obliteration. You will never get it. Trump's blatant hyperbole is making what the attack did, into a lie. Can you imagine how different it would be now if Trump said, "We did a lot of damage to some of Iran's nuke installations? But he cannot do that. Its true success will be determined in the future.
 
It wasn't a bust, however....I understand that everyone is hung up on "obliterated"...I'd say pretty close to rather than far short however...
That seems to be the general consensus...
I understand that Trump is upset that a reporter reported on the leak

He must remember how the wiki leaks is why Liary Rotten tanked in the polls.
 
The strike did not damage underground facilities.



"A preliminary classified U.S. report says the American bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities but did not collapse their underground buildings, according to officials familiar with the findings.

The early findings conclude that the strikes over the weekend set back Iran’s nuclear program by only a few months, the officials said.

Before the attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had said that if Iran tried to rush to making a bomb, it would take about three months. After the U.S. bombing run and days of attacks by the Israeli Air Force, the report by the Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that the program was delayed less than six months.

Former officials said that any rushed effort by Iran to get a bomb would be to develop a relatively small and crude device. A miniaturized warhead would be far more difficult to produce, and it is not clear how much damage to that more advanced research has taken place..."

Welp. your "big beautiful lie" sure turned out to be a plie of shit.

Are you smart enough to be embarrassed?

Probably not.
 
I understand that Trump is upset that a reporter reported on the leak

He must remember how the wiki leaks is why Liary Rotten tanked in the polls.

Looks like Chris Murphy leaked the low confidence top secret report.

Major embarrassment for the moron left, puming this.

Yes, the three sites were obliterated - confirmed by our CIA, the IAEC, Israel, and the rest of the world..


1751128773813.png
 
Looks like Chris Murphy leaked the low confidence top secret report.

Major embarrassment for the moron left, puming this.

Yes, the three sites were obliterated - confirmed by our CIA, the IAEC, Israel, and the rest of the world..


View attachment 53197

The U.S. hit Hiroshima and then Nagasaki with nukes on August 6 and August 9, 1945. I'll let Wikipedia take it from there:
**
On the night of 9–10 August 1945, Emperor Hirohito announced his decision to accept the terms demanded by the Allies in the Potsdam Declaration. On 15 August, the Emperor communicated this decision to the Japanese people through a speech broadcast on the radio (Gyokuon-hōsō, literally "broadcast in the Emperor's voice"). On 15 August 1945, Japan surrendered, with the surrender documents finally signed at Tokyo Bay on the deck of the American battleship USS Missouri on 2 September 1945, ending the war.
**

Source:

I'd like to make it clear that I am quite glad that Trump didn't nuke Iran. What I'm trying to point out is that the day after the U.S. attacked Iran, Iran definitely didn't surrender. In fact, a few days later, well, I'll let the title of the following article speak for itself:
 
Last edited:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXVvzPJriwo


Poor Marty, your thread did not age well.

From an article by Simplicius, published yesterday. Unfortunately, I don't currently have a paid subscription to his substack, but here's an interesting snippet that appears right before the 'pay to play' cutoff:
**
Some point to the fact that certain Iranian officials have now “admitted” that the strikes were successful. But let’s briefly break this down: figures like FM Araghchi and spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said that ‘serious damage’ was suffered. However, recall the following:

1. The US launched a large Tomahawk missile strike on the surface components of the sites.

2. Other sites not as deeply fortified as Fordow were hit, such as Natanz, which some sources claim was ‘destroyed’ below ground.

This means that Iranian officials can play along with the game and claim ‘serious damage’ was done as a generality, while concealing the fact that Fordow’s underground structures may have remained completely untouched.

Also, it should be noted that Ayatollah Khamenei himself contradicted his foreign ministry, stating that no serious damage was done:

But what’s more is that there seemed to have been a hidden quid-pro-quo wherein Iran allowed US its ‘show strike’ while US in turn removed the sanctions against Iran’s oil trade, as admitted to by Steve Witkoff.

**

Source:
 


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXVvzPJriwo


Poor Marty, your thread did not age well.
He's got his crew out there with the shovels...They should be back in business soon...;)
 
The U.S. hit Hiroshima and then Nagasaki with nukes on August 6 and August 9, 1945. I'll let Wikipedia take it from there:
**
On the night of 9–10 August 1945, Emperor Hirohito announced his decision to accept the terms demanded by the Allies in the Potsdam Declaration. On 15 August, the Emperor communicated this decision to the Japanese people through a speech broadcast on the radio (Gyokuon-hōsō, literally "broadcast in the Emperor's voice"). On 15 August 1945, Japan surrendered, with the surrender documents finally signed at Tokyo Bay on the deck of the American battleship USS Missouri on 2 September 1945, ending the war.
**

Source:

I'd like to make it clear that I am quite glad that Trump didn't nuke Iran. What I'm trying to point out is that the day after the U.S. attacked Iran, Iran definitely didn't surrender. In fact, a few days later, well, I'll let the title of the following article speak for itself:

I'd like to point out that ever intelligence agency on earth and the Iranians themselves confirm the strikes were entirely successful.

What the democrats and their propaganda corps did was illogical. Let's say that CNN was successful and had tricked the American people into thinking the strikes failed, does anyone think that the Iranian nuclear would magically be back? The sites are destroyed - no amount of lies and disinformation will change that.

Chris Murphy committed treason for what? To try and fail to embarrass Trump for a day - pending release of the after action reports?

Has a sitting U.S. Senator ever been executed for treason? Maybe Murphy can be the first.
 
From an article by Simplicius, published yesterday. Unfortunately, I don't currently have a paid subscription to his substack, but here's an interesting snippet that appears right before the 'pay to play' cutoff:
**
Some point to the fact that certain Iranian officials have now “admitted” that the strikes were successful. But let’s briefly break this down: figures like FM Araghchi and spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said that ‘serious damage’ was suffered. However, recall the following:

1. The US launched a large Tomahawk missile strike on the surface components of the sites.

2. Other sites not as deeply fortified as Fordow were hit, such as Natanz, which some sources claim was ‘destroyed’ below ground.

This means that Iranian officials can play along with the game and claim ‘serious damage’ was done as a generality, while concealing the fact that Fordow’s underground structures may have remained completely untouched.

Also, it should be noted that Ayatollah Khamenei himself contradicted his foreign ministry, stating that no serious damage was done:

But what’s more is that there seemed to have been a hidden quid-pro-quo wherein Iran allowed US its ‘show strike’ while US in turn removed the sanctions against Iran’s oil trade, as admitted to by Steve Witkoff.

**

Source:

That's a lot of words just to cry "NUHN UHN."

Do you think this disinformation campaign of your's will make the Iranian sites any less destroyed? Really?
 
That's a lot of words just to cry "NUHN UHN."

From an article by Simplicius, published yesterday. Unfortunately, I don't currently have a paid subscription to his substack, but here's an interesting snippet that appears right before the 'pay to play' cutoff:
**
Some point to the fact that certain Iranian officials have now “admitted” that the strikes were successful. But let’s briefly break this down: figures like FM Araghchi and spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said that ‘serious damage’ was suffered. However, recall the following:

1. The US launched a large Tomahawk missile strike on the surface components of the sites.

2. Other sites not as deeply fortified as Fordow were hit, such as Natanz, which some sources claim was ‘destroyed’ below ground.

This means that Iranian officials can play along with the game and claim ‘serious damage’ was done as a generality, while concealing the fact that Fordow’s underground structures may have remained completely untouched.

Also, it should be noted that Ayatollah Khamenei himself contradicted his foreign ministry, stating that no serious damage was done:

But what’s more is that there seemed to have been a hidden quid-pro-quo wherein Iran allowed US its ‘show strike’ while US in turn removed the sanctions against Iran’s oil trade, as admitted to by Steve Witkoff.

**

Source:
That's a lot of words [snip]

It is, for some people. If you take the time to read them, you may learn interesting things, but I know that there are many who, upon seeing a paragraph or 2, like saying TLDR. That stands for "Too Long, Didn't Read" in case you're wondering.
 
Patrick Lawrence wrote a good article on the U.S. bombing of Iran that I thought was quite good. For those who don't like reading "a lot of words", it may not be for them, but for those who don't mind, it's here:
 
Patrick Lawrence wrote a good article on the U.S. bombing of Iran that I thought was quite good. For those who don't like reading "a lot of words", it may not be for them, but for those who don't mind, it's here:
Interesting website. Disagree with the article due to choice of verbiage and far Left opinions.

They are very pro-Palestinian, pro-Iranian and very anti-West and anti-Israel.


LEFT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information reporting that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

  • Overall, we rate Consortium News Left Biased based on story selection and advocacy that strongly favors the left. We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reporting due to one-sided opinion-based reporting that is difficult to verify.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT (7.5)
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL (4.1)
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating:
MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
 
Interesting website. Disagree with the article due to choice of verbiage and far Left opinions.

They are very pro-Palestinian, pro-Iranian and very anti-West and anti-Israel.


LEFT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information reporting that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

  • Overall, we rate Consortium News Left Biased based on story selection and advocacy that strongly favors the left. We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reporting due to one-sided opinion-based reporting that is difficult to verify.



Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT (7.5)
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL (4.1)
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating:
MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

I agree that Scheerpost is generally left wing, but not always. Patrick Lawrence is a good example of the "not always" bit. When Trump came into power on his second term, he was much more positive about him. That's clearly changed at this point. Anyway, as to mediabiasfactcheck, I've found them to be only marginally credible. I actually started a thread about them over at AbovePlainPolitics getting into why. It can be seen here:
 
Back
Top