https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116365796713313030

https://xcancel.com/PressTV/status/2041646648506437903#m

https://xcancel.com/DropSiteNews/status/2041647382090108974#m

🚨 US PRESIDENT TRUMP: “I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks” – a “double sided CEASEFIRE.”

🔸Trump says he will pause planned strikes on Iran for two weeks after talks with Pakistan’s leadership, conditioning the move on Tehran reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
▫️The pause is contingent on the “COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz.”

🔸Trump claims the U.S. has “met and exceeded all Military objectives.”

🔸Says a “10 point proposal from Iran” is now a “workable basis” for a broader deal.

🔸Adds the sides are “very far along with a definitive Agreement” on long-term peace.

🔸He described the two-week window as time to “finalize and consummate” a wider agreement to end the war.

:kelly: Taco Tuesday

  • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    27 days ago

    It honestly feels like you’re having a disagreement with someone else, not me. Please quote me in the future if you’re going to say what my position is.

    I dont enjoy exponentially expanding quote-replies. I’m not gonna ndividually quote every line of your comments, that’s too much work frankly.

    You said in the first thing I replied to,

    Only material forced dearmament can provide security for them against the empire and its entity. Those two don’t follow agreements and they don’t stop constantly escalating pressure.

    I understood this as an absolutist point of view that overstated the wrongness of agreements.

    I’m not engaging with the rest of your comment. No anger I just don’t have energy for this kind of back and forth.

    • Chana [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      27 days ago

      I dont enjoy exponentially expanding quote-replies. I’m not gonna ndividually quote every line of your comments, that’s too much work frankly.

      Well you have repeatedly mischaracterized what I’ve said so maybe get over it? You’ve gotta put in work on one side or the other: reading less of your own bias into my words or quoting me.

      Otherwise there is really not a conversation happening here at all, is there?

      I understood this as an absolutist point of view that overstated the wrongness of agreements.

      It means agreements don’t provide security against those who break them constantly, including literally between the exact same parties. It is the material basis - like forced disarmament, the actual destruction of imperialist military assets, the control of the strait, and so on - that provide the security.

      It means… the thing I said. Not your change of terminology and exaggeration.

      I’m not engaging with the rest of your comment. No anger I just don’t have energy for this kind of back and forth.

      Okay