Trump 2.0 official thread

[iBBz]

???

Are you blind or just stupid? Literally click on your own link and read the article.

View attachment 166170

This part is clearly talking about older incidents. I just googled it and that was from a previous article published in Jan 22nd. Did you really miss this parts in the beginning of the article where it says the items were dual use but no mention of what the items were, or the fact that it was one ship, or the name of the ship and its owner having not been determined, or the fact that the the WSJ reached out to both Iranian and Chinese foreign ministries for comment and got nothing in return?

 

[Wrought]

This part is clearly talking about older incidents. I just googled it and that was from a previous article published in Jan 22nd. Did you really miss this parts in the beginning of the article where it says the items were dual use but no mention of what the items were, or the fact that it was one ship, or the name of the ship and its owner having not been determined, or the fact that the the WSJ reached out to both Iranian and Chinese foreign ministries for comment and got nothing in return?

No, I did not miss that. Since those ships have been going back and forth for about a year now, as widely reported, my assumption was that this is simply the latest example of the aforementioned. There is ample precedent, and the WSJ editors clearly saw fit to frame this latest incident in that context. On the other hand, what evidence or precedent do you have for your assertion that they are Chinese ships and property? Anything at all?

Of course! Do nothing when someone boards your ships and confiscates your property.

 

[manqiangrexue]

This part is clearly talking about older incidents. I just googled it and that was from a previous article published in Jan 22nd. Did you really miss this parts in the beginning of the article where it says the items were dual use but no mention of what the items were, or the fact that it was one ship, or the name of the ship and its owner having not been determined, or the fact that the the WSJ reached out to both Iranian and Chinese foreign ministries for comment and got nothing in return?

1. If you are under the assumption that the ships name and ownership are not known, why are you chimping up and down about how China needs to respond? Where did this assumption come from? "Do nothing when someone boards your ships and confiscates your property."

2. The sentence right under that says, "It isn’t clear if the Chinese government is aware of shipments to Iran’s missile program, which are often carried out by Iranian-controlled vessels and companies."

 

[iBBz]

No, I did not miss that. Since those ships have been going back and forth for about a year now, as widely reported, my assumption was that this is simply the latest example of the aforementioned. There is ample precedent, and the WSJ editors clearly saw fit to frame this latest incident in that context. On the other hand, what evidence or precedent do you have for your assertion that they are Chinese ships and property? Anything at all?

I don't have any evidence that this was a Chinese ship or an Iranian ship, but you carried out the argument in a dishonest manner just so you support the holy book's narrative. That part is clear to me. I guess we won't know now since the foreign ministries of both parties decided to sweep the who incident under the rug as usual.

 

[manqiangrexue]

I don't have any evidence that this was a Chinese ship or an Iranian ship, but you carried out the argument in a dishonest manner just so you support the holy book's narrative. That part is clear to me. I guess we won't know now since the foreign ministries of both parties decided to sweep the who incident under the rug as usual.

You are the one who assumed they were Chinese ships without evidence and used that to mock China's non-response, then when someone else pointed to evidence that strongly suggests they are Iranian and not Chinese, you accused him of being dishonest just because that evidence falls slightly short of concrete proof.

 

[Wrought]

I don't have any evidence that this was a Chinese ship or an Iranian ship, but you carried out the argument in a dishonest manner just so you support the holy book's narrative. That part is clear to me. I guess we won't know now since the foreign ministries of both parties decided to sweep the who incident under the rug as usual.

Buddy, I was replying to you. Your claim right here:

Of course! Do nothing when someone boards your ships and confiscates your property. Release no statements. Pretend it didn't happen. Never stand up for yourself. It's all in the holy book.

You have some nerve to accuse me of dishonesty right after admitting you have zero substantiation for your claim.

 

[GulfLander]

US forces raid ship, seize cargo headed to Iran from China.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It was the first time in recent years that the U.S. military is known to have intercepted cargo with Chinese origins on its way to Iran. The name of the ship and its owner couldn’t be determined

Why cant it be determined?

 

[zyklon]

On Friday the 12th, President Trump proudly announced on Truth Social that Thailand and Cambodia had agreed to return to their ceasefire under his mediation:

. . . a little bit later . . .​

Thai PM Anutin Charnvirakul not only denied Trump's claim of a renewed peace, but openly defied the "Leader of the Free World" in both word and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

Either Charnvirakul learned nothing from

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

before Trump, or he hopes standing up to Daddy Donald will somehow

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.