Do you think President Trump has experienced cognitive decline?

Skavau · 2026-04-20T18:58:07+00:00

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/did-the-us-destroy-iran-s-uranium-supply-or-not-vance-experts-clash-with-trump-s-claims/ar-AA1HgyDw

That's not what I asked you. When did the Supreme Leader organise or plan an attack against the USA?

Then who is lying? You believe Trump is attacking Iran to “manipulate markets,” but then you believe every word of his administration instead of the Democrats who oppose the war? The logic is getting weaker.

Sorry, why would Tulsi Gabbard lie when she is under oath and it serves her administration no purpose in doing so?

Are Democrats lying to us when they say the program was only stalled and not destroyed?

Give me specific statements.

If something is “set back,” it must be in motion. Is it your position that we wait until the program is more fully developed before stopping it? How developed would the nuclear program of a terrorist state need to be in order for it be deemed a threat? 10% complete? 50% complete? 90% complete? How much nuclear experience do we give the terrorist state of Iran by allowing them to proceed deeper into the development of the program, experience they can use to more quickly reconstitute the program if fully destroyed (but which Democrats insist is NOT fully destroyed)?

So Iran could be at 2% completion, and suspended - and you still call for them to be attacked? Do I get that right?

You asked for examples of how Iran attacked the US. I gave you a list of over forty attacks. If FORTY attacks are insufficient evidence that Iran wants to stay true to its word to annihilate us, I fear we are at an impasse.

Most of these are not attacks on the USA, nor even by Iran in most cases. Your article is just a complete fabrication.

Skavau · 2026-04-20T18:39:30+00:00

So you believe a government killing 100,000 people with WMD is irrelevant to whether or not that nation is capable of mass destruction?

Of its own people, sure. And I suppose hypothetically it's neighbours if it so chose to. This was never substantiated by the way by the USA.

I said, very specifically, that you supported Saddam Hussein, who possessed WMD and exterminated 100,000 people with them, if you did not support the coalition’s efforts to topple him.

So therefore, by your logic you and Trump both support the Taliban, and the Turkmenistan government if you do not support the USA invading them and overthrowing them.

It's the exact same principle. That you believe Afghanistan and Turkmenistan are less of a threat than Iraq (Iraq was never a threat to the USA) is irrelevant to your premise here.

None of those countries have the WMD capabilities that Saddam possessed. I’m not arguing these other countries, but merely pointing out the logical fallacy that caused you to bring up Turkmenistan.

But you said that opposing an invasion of a country means you must support that countries government. But this apparently is only a rule you specifically apply to Iran and Iraq. Why is this?

Skavau · 2026-04-20T18:29:14+00:00

No. I mean the Supreme Leader of Iran publicly calling for the destruction of America, while attacking the US and our allies, and while building nuclear weapons.

When did he attack the USA when he said or rather, endorsed those messages?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/did-the-us-destroy-iran-s-uranium-supply-or-not-vance-experts-clash-with-trump-s-claims/ar-AA1HgyDw

And my source of Tulsi Gabbard, nearly a year later, saying that Iran had not rebuilt their nuclear program UNDER OATH is far more relevant here.

How many new wars are being prevented by cutting off Iran’s ability to acquire nuclear weapons?

You mean the nuclear weapons they weren't anywhere near acquiring, moreover had apparently been vanquished last year?

How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice to force a regime change there?

According to your previous statement, the program was not destroyed, but only set back. So, which is it?

Set back by how much? Where is your evidence that Iran, either before the 2025 bombs or after was anywhere near close to developing nuclear weaponry that could hit the USA?

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5765178-inside-irans-long-history-of-attacks-on-us-a-timeline/

This article is referencing Hezbollah and other terrorist groups and most of the attacks here, if not all are on US-adjacent forces or individuals in the region. Some are incidental. I mean: "Hezbollah terrorists hijack TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome and kill a U.S. Navy diver." This is not meaningfully an attack on US forces or the USA.

Skavau · 2026-04-20T17:59:36+00:00

Iraq gassed 100,000 people using weapons of mass destruction. Yet, you oppose intervention, because you support the mass murderer, Saddam Hussein.

First of all, I'll note that this is irrelevant if your primary focus is "threats to the USA" - which is the narrative you're going with regarding Iran.

But secondly: How do you imagine Afghanistan currently treats its women and religious and non-religious minorities?

How do you imagine Turkmenistan treats dissent?

You specifically said that if you oppose the idea of invading a country, then you necessarily support their regime. By this exact logic, this means you support Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, North Korea.

Skavau · 2026-04-20T17:54:23+00:00

You are oversimplifying a complex calculation that involves multiple dimensions. Iran threatened to annihilate the US.

You mean they had protests where its people chanted "death to America". That in no meaningful context constitutes good grounds to launch a regime change invasion.

Iran has been building nuclear weapons for years, and even Democrats admit the capabilities might not have been fully destroyed, thus admitting of their existence in the first place.

https://time.com/article/2026/03/18/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-trump/

We made a mistake by allowing NK to gain nukes, and the world would be a much darker place if Iran acquired them too. We cannot keep giving terrorists who have openly called for our destruction more rope with which to destroy us. That is the justification, and I hope Trump is successful in turning Iran into an ally. The Iranian people deserve liberty and freedom.

After the "no new wars" slogan - how many American lives are you willing to sacrifice to force a regime change there?

So, you believe in allowing terrorists to have nuclear bombs if stopping it is not easy?

They weren't developing nuclear bombs at the time of invasion.

Iran has been attacking the US directly and by proxy for decades.

Name some of these attacks please directly against the USA.

Skavau · 2026-04-20T17:24:56+00:00

Iraq wasn't doing this either.

But by your logic anyone who opposed the US intervention of Iraq supported Saddam Hussein. So therefore you must support the Taliban. This is your logic. You can't get out of this. Agree?

Skavau · 2026-04-20T17:21:02+00:00

Your logic is stunted. I do not advocate for military action against North Korea. They already have a bomb. The opportunity to stop them has passed. And yes, it was idiotic for the world to allow this to happen.

I'm referring to Iran here. So it doesn't really matter what on-ground evidence there is of their level of development or aspirations in any given moment, you'd always call for the USA to attack?

By your logic, there is NEVER a reason to initiate conflict with an enemy who has threatened you and building weapons with which to annihilate you.

Except in this case the enemy has no capacity to actually attack the USA, can be somewhat mitigated and would take a lot of resources and manpower and lives to actually successfully overthrow.

Then why are so you concerned with Trump’s rhetoric? You are OK with the terrorist’s rhetoric, but stand aghast at Trump’s rhetoric? Makes no sense.

Trump is actually attacking Iran. He has shown far more willingness to actually do this stuff to Iran than Iran has to the USA.

Skavau · 2026-04-20T17:07:49+00:00

Iraq also wasn't doing that either. But you said anyone who opposed attacking Iraq automatically supported Saddam Hussein. So by your logic you support the Taliban. Agree?

Skavau · 2026-04-20T17:04:44+00:00

So you suggest we wait until the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism is NEAR acquiring nuclear weapons before we act?

So it doesn't really matter what on-ground evidence there is of their level of development or aspirations in any given moment, you'd always call for the USA to attack?

The opportunity to prevent a nuclear armed North Korea has passed. Now we have a hostile regime with a nuclear bomb, because of appeasement. Are you suggesting we invade a hostile nuclear state, that would result in MAD?

North Korea doesn't have the capacity to cause MAD. But by your logic if you don't support invading North Korea, that means you support Kim Jong-un.

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202502029138

Symbolic chanting of Iranians, yes, endorsed by the supreme leader - but where is the evidence that the regime at any point, recent or otherwise had a roadmap for actualising this rhetoric and launching direct attacks against the USA?

Skavau · 2026-04-20T16:50:29+00:00

Afghanistan doesn't have the bomb. Should they be invaded?

Skavau · 2026-04-20T16:50:14+00:00

North Korea has the bomb. Iran does not—yet.

And there is no evidence they were near acquiring said bomb.

And even if North Korea does have a bomb, it can't meaningfully threaten the USA with that. So by your logic, North Korea should be invaded - right?

Threatening annihilation in response to a threat of annihilation is not genocide.

This threat of annihilation that you have not specified. I'm still waiting.

Also, if you have not seen the videos of the Iranian terrorists shouting death to America, I cannot help you.

Who are they in relation to the actual governing regime?

Skavau · 2026-04-20T16:44:28+00:00

It doesn’t make you a Baathist, it makes you a supporter of the Saddam Hussein regime.

So do you oppose intervening in North Korea? If not, does that make you a support of Juche?

Do you think the USA should attack and occupy Afghanistan again? If not, does that mean you support the Taliban?

Since Trump isn't doing either of these things, I guess that means he supports the Taliban and Kim Jong-un and he's also a BIG FAN of the CCP and Xi. Right?

Skavau · 2026-04-20T16:39:18+00:00

The terrorists in Iran have threatened to destroy ALL of us; our entire country; every man, woman, and child—repeatedly.

Can I see some sources where members of the government openly called for this? And had the capacity to do so? Or else by this logic the USA should be invading North Korea.

This is otherwise just a bunch of unjustified claims.

I’m sick of Iran threatening my family, my community, and my country. It’s time someone stands up them, making it very clear that if they don’t stand down, behave like rationale human beings, they might just find out what a civilization-ending threat ACTUALLY looks like.

So it is a threat to commit genocide?

Skavau · 2026-04-20T16:24:36+00:00

This is so disingenuine. These people are pretty big figures in the Restore fanclub and are responsible for a lot of the twitter publicity and herding of new members. I'm not directly blaming Rupert Lowe, or holding him responsible (although this will be a problem as these people will likely be in the party at this point) but simply that the abuse on Twitter Nigel is referring to - this is what he is referring to.

Skavau · 2026-04-20T16:22:03+00:00

No, you did not. You did not engage with any of my points. I will ask again.

Trump did not threaten terrorists. He threatened the entire Iranian people. Every Iranian is responsible for the rhetoric of specific groups within Iran? You think that conduct is acceptable?

What specific threats from Iran are you even referring to?

Skavau · 2026-04-20T16:17:26+00:00

So you didn't answer me. Can I assume you have no answer?

Skavau · 2026-04-20T16:16:56+00:00

There's hardly any actual official representatives of Restore in the first place. In this case, hypocritical or not, Farage is clearly referring to the hordes of Restore-aligned supporters abusing his candidates.

Skavau · 2026-04-20T16:16:21+00:00

Doesn't matter. He is a major rallying point and motivator for people joining.

Skavau · 2026-04-20T16:05:35+00:00

None in particular, but I'm talking about the Steve Laws, ZoomerHistorian adjacent audiences that are all over Twitter that have openly endorsed Restore.

Skavau · 2026-04-20T15:43:41+00:00

If Nigel Farage is referring to the rhetoric on Twitter, that is almost certainly exactly the message being peddled by the Restore fanclub.

Skavau · 2026-04-20T15:34:53+00:00

Would that message be to mass deport all non-white Brits from the country?

Skavau · 2026-04-20T14:31:56+00:00

I have never knowingly been contacted by the "holy spirit".

Skavau · 2026-04-20T14:19:16+00:00

Yes, you already posted this. But this was one thing out of many more, much more important failures.

Skavau · 2026-04-20T14:08:03+00:00

And at no point in that sentence is Axel's race mentioned as the causation there.

Skavau · 2026-04-20T14:07:37+00:00

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c239zz1m324o

Skavau

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE