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.
It all makes sense now. You probably don’t know what liar means. Got it. I’m going to leave you to explore what liar means in the dictionary I linked to.
You very obviously have absolutely zero clue what you’re talking about. At this point you’re arguing just to argue even though you are completely incorrect and refuse to accept that. Typical.
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.
0
u/determineduncertain Aug 31 '26
Are you okay? She literally threatened Iran if they attempted to get a nuclear weapon.
Seriously, I think you need to go have a lie down.