TimHauck

What do I think about the statement, or what do I think you think? It definitely happened, I’m just not sure if you are willing to acknowledge it.

So forgetting some random article that got posted, do you agree that Trump threatened military action against Nigeria if they didn’t stop the “Christian genocide”?

Reuters!! I remember when you said a Reuters camera was Hamas, lol

So you’re just wasting our time with semantics arguments, got it.

So to be clear, do you acknowledge that Trump: “threatened to take military action against Nigeria unless they stopped the Christian genocide” but you’re just saying this particular article doesn’t show where he said that? Because Trump of course did say this: “If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities. I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians! WARNING: THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT BETTER MOVE FAST!” Or is this more semantics and you’re going to say “well that was only a threat against the terrorists and not the country”?

So you agree it’s not about stopping “Christian genocide”?

So you reported him?

Well like most discussions, there’s nuance here. I think there is enough evidence that the government can claim US action in general in Nigeria is “about terrorism,” however as @nobody and the anonymous “official” pointed out, this particular strike didn’t seem to actually do anything. And Nigeria specifically denies that the terrorism in question is targeting Christians. Your argument here feels like semantics to me Jerry. You appear to be focused on the headline that “Nigeria averts unilateral U.S. action by cooperating on airstrike“ But the very first sentence says “By publicly cooperating with the United States on a Christmas Day airstrike, Nigeria's government may have averted humiliating unilateral military action threatened a month ago by President Donald Trump.“ Would you feel it wasn’t a “leftie conclusion” if “may have” was also included in the headline and not just the body of the article? The main “opinion” I see in the article is the very last sentence talking about pandering to evangelicals, which Gutter did not include in his quote. The stuff that he bolded seems like things that can be proven did happen, but it appears you just take issue with the implication that one thing happened because of the other? I would say the article doesn’t necessarily “prove” that Trump “threatened to take military action against Nigeria unless they stopped the Christian genocide” But it does “support” it

Has anyone found out the remaining names on the list of 10 possible co-conspirators?

To clarify, what exactly are you saying is their “leftie conclusion”?

It’s about oil.

That’s cool that you’re guessing, but you keep saying “Christian genocide” when Nigeria “strongly denies” that: While Nigeria has had persistent security challenges, including violence and kidnappings by Islamist insurgents in the north, it strongly denies that Christians are subjected to systematic persecution.

Yes, prices plateauing would probably be best case scenario for Trump

Righties, including DHS, mad that Abrego Garcia made a TikTok. And IANAL but seems like this tweet might violate this supposed gag order.

Not enough to have any impact on home prices