\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

Marco: “We attacked bc Israel told us to.” WSJ: “No you didn’t, goddammi

“The latest mind-meld between the New York Times and t...
Emotionally + Physically Abusive Ex-Husband
  03/04/26
does anyone really think that if they believed iran would at...
Operation AIPAC Fury
  03/04/26


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: March 4th, 2026 10:16 AM
Author: Emotionally + Physically Abusive Ex-Husband (oppose bitchbois)

“The latest mind-meld between the New York Times and the right-wing podcast sphere is that Israel must have dragged President Trump into a war he didn’t want. In our experience Mr. Trump does exactly what he wants, but conspiratorial types have latched onto a comment by Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday.

“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an [Iranian] attack against American forces,” Mr. Rubio said. If the U.S. hadn’t struck first, “we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn’t act.”

Does this mean Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu manipulated Mr. Trump? Slow down.

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth explained Monday why the U.S. attacked: “Iran was building powerful missiles and drones to create a conventional shield for their nuclear blackmail ambitions.” Mr. Rubio said Iran is building some 100 ballistic missiles a month, and accelerating, far outpacing U.S. interceptor production.”

Excerpt From

“Opinion | The Bibi-Made-Trump-Do-It Canard”

The Editorial Board

The Wall Street Journal

https://apple.news/AKHES-WpiRPC8SL4ZaJIbnA

This material may be protected by copyright.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841376&forum_id=2...#49714263)



Reply Favorite

Date: March 4th, 2026 10:24 AM
Author: Operation AIPAC Fury (gunneratttt)

does anyone really think that if they believed iran would attack us forces they wouldn't let that happen so that we could engage in a defensive/retaliatory war that would have much broader public support?

i mean, we're putting americans at risk by *going* to war. why wouldn't we gamble on a military base being attacked?

of course all these preemptive strike justifications are nonsense. i just can't believe so many people that came of age during the 2000s still buy it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5841376&forum_id=2...#49714283)