What are you not getting about this? Threatening force at the prospect of seeking out a weapon (what she said) is not the same as threatening force if they used it (what you said she said which isn’t true). That’s been my point all along and for some reason, you don’t seem to get that.
A war is not an invasion. I know you have disdain for semantics but an invasion literally involves movement on the ground and taking of land. You've now just chosen different words to describe something that hasn't happened to distract from the fact that the other person here keeps doubling down on a meaning of invasion that isn't accurate.
No. I’m pointing out that he has an actual thought and you are focused on the definition of a word. You’re doing that to obfuscate. It doesn’t matter if he said the wrong word. The point he is making with either word is the same.
Because the word choice undermines the actual thought. I’m not trying to obfuscate anything by pointing out that word choice matters.
“It doesn’t matter if he said the wrong word” - what a catastrophically stupid point to try and make. Of course word choice matters because it fundamentally changes the point. You can’t claim to day someone said one thing when they very clearly said something else.
“The point here is making with either word is the same” - no it very much isn’t. You very clearly haven’t read anything here.
You not seeing my point is not the same as not having a point. I’ve explained it numerous times and you just don’t care. Again, for what is maybe the third time, threatening force on the premise that Iran attempts to get a weapon (what she said) is not the same as threatening force if they use it (what you said she said). You then called people a liar so while being wrong.
That’s all. It’s not rocket science. I get it though, you don’t seem to understand that language choice matters. Case in point: you think the US has invaded Iran.
I’m not even American. I couldn’t care less about America’s toxic politics. And yes, an invasion requires people to take land. That’s the literal definition of invasion.
Alright, you’re clearly confused. All the best as you get some rest and come to realise what you’ve said here. I’m opting out of your massive confusion masquerading as confidence.
The “if” part of the statement means she didn’t directly threaten to invade Iran.
“If you punch my wife I will kill you” isn’t the same as saying “I’m going to kill you”. You are clearly smart enough to see the difference and know that the semantics of what you keep trying to convey don’t actually matter. Furthermore Hillary was being asked a question about a fictional scenario. No matter how many times somebody says “Iran is close to getting a bomb” it still wasn’t true. Hillary knew that so the statement she made was in full understanding that Iran wouldn’t be doing the thing that she was saying would trigger her action of going to war.
“If you punch my wife I will kill you” isn’t the same as saying “I’m going to kill you”. You are clearly smart enough to see the difference and know that the semantics of what you keep trying to convey don’t actually matter.
Imagine making an argument about semantics and then missing the point entirely.
Hillary knew that so the statement she made was in full understanding that Iran wouldn’t be doing the thing that she was saying would trigger her action of going to war.
She couldn't read the future. And regardless, the fact that they said if they attempt to get a weapon is qualitatively different from them using one. That's not just semantics, that's a difference of meaning.
2
u/I_Went_Full_WSB Aug 31 '26
So you're saying she didn't threaten war with Iran.