Iran was an IQ test. You favorite pundits flunked.
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
I like Razor and his content, but there's plenty I disagree with him on, and this is some of it. I don't know his personal stance on the issue, or if he qualifies as a "Zionist," but I know he's cozy with some.
I'll take the people in the thumbnail - Tucker, MTG, Alex Jones, Candace Owens, Massie, Bannon - over the "Trust the Plan" retards, or the people who flipflopped as things changed. Orange Man Bad, no Orange Man Actually 4D Chess.
Sorry, but no. I hope this doesn't go any further, and if it doesn't, yeah, I'm still on Team Trump. But I won't support this action. It was completely needless, and pushes things in a bad direction, even if nothing more comes of it at the moment.
It's also way too soon to celebrate, and all the people praising Trump for "bringing peace" after needlessly bombing Iran for the heck of it, look super silly in my opinion.
I don't agree with them on everything, but I'm highly suspect of people who attack Massie or Tucker. They're some of the best out there. Bannon seems solid too, although I'm not as familiar with all of his stuff.
And did Razor really just say they're making "inapplicable comparisons to the Iraq war and WMDs?"
He isn't addressing their argument, he's just calling them grifters. And, sure, they definitely do also care about engagement and attention.
Iran and Iraq are both on the fucking seven countries list, Iran is the last. The same people who wanted Iraq and the rest gone, really, really, really want Iran gone too.
There's PLENTY of connections here to be made.
It’s an inapplicable comparison because Netanyahu didn’t speak before congress saying Iraq had WMDs… oh wait. Well it’s inapplicable because AIPAC didn’t lobby for the Iraq war… oh wait.
How could he? Do you think this is the result of 100 hours of reading (which is still not a whole lot to try to understand things), or did he watch a few segments on television and decide to point out a grifting video?
I'll still be here any time you all want to admit you were gaslit into panicking and freaking out over nothing. Again.
Again, it's not even over, but keep patting yourself on the back.
I don't think I ever sad war was guaranteed (and if I did, I massively misspoke), and I know I said it wasn't guaranteed multiple times.
But yeah, bombing a foreign country, and in the Middle east no less, for no reason, with bullshit propaganda as justification, is NOT GOOD.
I'm not apologizing for being wrong, because my arguments were sound, that this was needless and COULD spark larger conflict. I didn't say would, I said could.
There was no reason to bomb Iran. Well, not one in American interests at least.
Call me a "panican" (cute new term everyone's using) all you want, but I don't support bombing anyone without a REALLY good reason. And there wasn't one here.
Not backing down. As I said since the very beginning, I continue to hope this ends about where we are right now.
And I agree that there was no good reason for it. There was also no good reason for the entire "new right" anti-intelligentsia to immediately turn the World War III talk up to 11. For, as Razor points out, at least the third time. What exactly was the last thing Candace Owens or Nick Fuentes were right about?
A few said WW3. Most were saying another forever war in the sandbox. Which it looked like, and still could turn into.
I don't follow either super closely, and Fuentes not at all, but Candace is pretty sharp. She's on it on a lot of things.
What about the lack of sovereignty talk? It seems like RazorFist is taking advantage of some people going full WW3 to ignore the real problem.
Why are you hanging on every word of some indoors sunglasses-wearing douchebag who doesn't know the first thing he's talking about? We really are in idiocracy.
I don't care for either homosexual virgins or Candace. What was the last thing David Frum and Bill Kristol were right about? The arguments you're making are just preposterous - they're not even arguments.
The guy gaslit into panicking and freaking out over nothing, namely non-existent Iranian WMDs, is accusing others of needlessly panicking and freaking out over the absurd and disastrous war that he supported.
Where did I ever freak out over Iranian WMDs? I'm not one of the "bombs away" neocons. My entire point is that everyone who immediately jumped on the Trump-started-WW3 train has egg on their face.
This war was started under the false pretext of nukes that did not exist.
As opposed to the retards who were gaslit into panicking and demanding that we bomb a country that we weren't at war with?
On a pretext that, "they're gonna get a bomb and once they have a bomb they're going to blow us all up because they're psychopaths!" and then after the bombing, rather than full scale retaliation that they would have been 100% entitled to and justified in, they coordinated with our own military so that their retaliation wouldn't result in any loss of life? 'Cuz they're such unrepentant bloodthirsty psychopaths.
Yeah, it's definitely us "panicans" who got played. Fucking idiot.
That's different!
Because reasons.
IRAN ALMOST NUKED US! REEEEE.
It's almost funny how many of you are unable to argue my point about the right-wing overreaction without accusing me of being a warmongering neocon, which is a position I never expressed on here or anywhere else. It's like you can't conceive that there are more than two possible positions to take on this issue. No, I did not support the military action in Iran. I just never seriously thought that it was going to snowball into full-scale war. On this issue, with Trump's track record, it's very much a "nothing ever happens" scenario, and the doom-mongering about it in these spaces is frankly annoying. And also a distraction.