stevenl

It is not the source that is amusing but the inconsistency in your reasoning. But with the end result of the reasoning firmly set in advance that's no surprise.

Lol, you agree numbers are not to be taken seriously, while simultaneously claiming 13000 hamas terrorists were killed. Source IDF I presume.

Again, I must say you're consistent. Claims without backup.

So it should be easy for you to provide the link.

Any thinking person can say: not true.

And again you're talking about Trump.

They can't, hence my post.

Judging by his denial Trump disagrees with you. Strange denial though, the difference between napping and listening with eyes closed are obvious. Like his mouth falling open. Also his friendly media would have defended this already long ago if there was any possible truth to his statement.

Right, one of the people involved in the decision to scrap the agreement that contained Iran is now doubling down on that. His assessment clearly was wrong then and his references to 'Arabs' doesn't install any faith in his opinion this time.

So how has the monarchy prevented British progress in recent years?

So according to you claiming both sources are unreliable as I did means I indicated one of the sources is reliable. You're not making sense at all.

So anyone accused of something and denying the accusation is a reliable source.

So you missed all the DUI posts.

So the invasion was illegal, they raped, killed and plundered all over, are using chemical weapons and have the moral high ground. Strange reasoning you have.

Could be true and could be a lie. IDF as a source is just as unreliable as the earlier, contradictory,source.

Illegal exhausts are a main target at the many traffic checks.

Or responsibility.

One insult after the other. How about the topic, he got fined for violating the gag order again.

15 dead per month, that's been the average for many years now.

Not at all, thanks for your concern.

Yes?

Yes, and?

Yes, plenty of evidence. That's why the impeachment enquiry was able to come up with so much proof and has advanced successfully.

Lol, see Nick's post. But you and many others have always maintained it started October 7. A convenient pov, but not realistic.

For a ceasefire to exist there needs to be a war. You and many others have always stated October 7 was the start of the conflict, but now you're saying there was a war already.