Gromnir

never finished season two, but not 'cause it were bad... just weren't feeling it. dunno. a few o' the cameos is overt ridiculous, celebrities willing to poke fun at themselves, but am gonna admit the ridiculous-bordering-on-bad makes 'em fun. sting, as an example didn't lol, but we couldn't help grinning... a lot. HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* the three years is for a working delivery system. https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/17/politics/israel-iran-nuclear-bomb-us-intelligence-years-away "But US intelligence assessments had reached a different conclusion – not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, it was also up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver one to a target of its choosing, according to four people familiar with the assessment." ... "The International Atomic Energy Agency, a top international watchdog, said last week that Iran had amassed enough uranium enriched at levels just below weapons-grade to potentially make nine nuclear bombs, which it termed “a matter of serious concern.” "The challenge, for Iran, is producing not merely a crude nuclear weapon – which experts say Iran could potentially do within the space of months if it decided to – but also producing a working delivery system, which could take much longer. "As US intelligence officials – and the IAEA – work to assess the damage Israel has caused to Iran’s nuclear architecture, there is some concern that the blitz might cause Iran to do what US officials believe it hasn’t up until now: pursue weaponization." but again, contrary to zor claims, iaea, us intelligence, rand, isis and others all agree that iran does in fact have the infrastructure, materials and know-how to breakout in an extreme short time frame... months. so keep repeating back to us what we has been saying from the start, that iran is not developing a weapon and has not been doing so for at least a decade. moving goalposts? serious? is Gromnir who from the start said it were iran's lack o' will that stopped 'em from moving forward with breakout, which is why israel's excuse for the attack now made little sense, but you didn't pay attention, presumably 'cause you were so distracted by your imagined strawman. literal our first post responding to your logic fail started... "logic failure. the fact iran hasn't developed nukes does not in anyway diminish the possibility that they have been one year away from developing a nuke for over a decade. iran no doubt made the calculation that they have more advantage being on the cusp o' producing a nuclear weapon than the costs o' actual possessing nuclear weapons would entail. iran has possessed the know how for a long time and they got most o' the infrastructure necessary to build a nuclear weapon. all they needed were time and will. iran has chosen nay as 'posed to yay... thus far." we said from the start that israel were disingenuous 'bout their motivation, so any kinda claim that netanyahu said something or other about iranian will is just noise and complete misses the point. one again, for the tenth(?) time, iaea, rand, isis and us intelligence assessments has consistently supported the position that supported that breakout time frames were six months to two years, and those initial estimates were more than ten freaking years past. the more recent isis and iaea predictions has trimmed the time frame a bit, but not much, which again, makes israel's excuse for their attack kinda tough to swallow. you were this guy-- "But you need very, very specific ingredients to build a nuke. Without those ingredients it simply won't work, as a matter of basic physical reality. "Dirty bomb, sure. That however would be extraordinarily disingenuous since New Zealand could build one of those, and we don't even have a reactor. So could Fiji." unfortunate for zor, iran had the "ingredients" in 2011. for cryin' out loud, 'cause o' you all we is doing is spam... In 2010, Iran began enriching to 20% in the PFEP using two centrifuge cascades.57 One cascade enriches 3.5% LEUF6 to roughly 20%. The other cascade is fed the tails assay from the first, which is around 2% U-235, and enriches it to 10%. The 10% product is then fed back into the first cascade at an intermediate point in order to enrich it to 20%. This procedure greatly improves overall efficiency. This is important from a cost perspective in producing fuel for the TNRR, Iran’s stated objective in enriching to 20%. However, it is also a useful way for Iran to improve its breakout capability should it ever choose to attempt a “batch recycling” process to quickly enrich 3.5% LEUF6 to 90% (this process is discussed in more detail in the section on breakout scenarios below). As of May 2012, Iran had produced 110.1 kg of 20% LEUF6 at the PFEP.58 footnote 58: 8 As of May 15, 2012, 43 kg of the 20% LEUF6 Iran has produced has been used to make fuel plates for the TNRR, thereby lowering Iran’s stocks of 20% LEUF6. IAEA, GOV/2012/23, para. 38. iaea, rand, isis, us intelligence is not talking about a dirty bomb. the breakout timeline is months, which comes as zero surprise to anybody 'cause that were the approximate assessment from iaea, rand, isis and us intelligence a decade ago. iran were not active working toward the development o' a weapon, but they already had the essential material and the know how. btw, for any who is genuine interested, as am having mentioned previous, the biggest remaining hurdle were likely an engineering problem as 'posed to a uranium enrichment issue. go to page 27 o' the lined rand report and check out figure 2.1. and "Once the appropriate fissile material is obtained in sufficient quantity, it must be crafted into a functioning warhead. It is assumed here that the Iranians would choose to produce a nuclear warhead with an implosion design, which requires less HEU and is easier to mate to a missile.112 Iran would need to overcome several technical challenges to construct a functioning implosion warhead that could be effectively mated to one of Iran’s ballistic missile designs. The HEUF6 produced in its centrifuges would have to be converted to uranium metal first, then machined into hemispheres for the warhead pit. Iran would need the high-explosive lenses necessary to implode the uranium core, which would have to be shaped into the right configuration so that the pit implodes uniformly. Iran also would need to have an appropriate neutron emitter to act as a trigger. While these are all challenging steps, there is evidence that Iran has already made progress with them, and may have already mastered many or all of them. Still, assembly of a warhead for the first time would be challenging and time consuming, even if the individual steps had been worked out in advance.113 Although the time required to make a weapon once sufficient fissile material has been produced is important, it is excluded from the breakout estimates provided in this section. This is because once sufficient HEUF6 has been produced, it can be removed to a secret location. Therefore, once Iran can produce enough HEU for a bomb, the chances for successful interdiction by the United States and its allies diminishes greatly. Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that it would still require time for Iran to build a weapon, and this time could be substantial." the engineering hurdles described is where the three year estimate comes into play and is not actual part o' traditional breakout analysis. and sadly, is an all too real possibility o' putting a crude weapon on a boat and having it dock in haifa. but go ahead and keep repeating that us intelligence says iran doesn't have a weapons program... in spite o' the fact that time and again we has pointed out that iran weren't pursuing the construction o' a weapon according to iaea, isis, rand and us intelligence. HA! Good Fun! ps almost as fun as watching zor try to extricate himself from his self made quagmire

selective quoting and misreading. this is the quoted part from US intelligence: “undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so.” the first half is ap added. yes, as observed by many sources, iran has maintained and further developed their capacity to quickly achieve breakout. contrary to zor claims, iran has the necessary infrastructure. they got the necessary material. they got the know how. iran is not developing a nuclear weapon and they haven't been active developing a weapon for decades... which is our freaking point. what iran has done is maintained their capacity (infrastructure, material and know how) while working on breakout capacity. is not that iran has "yet to begin"... they began a long time ago and advanced such efforts aggressive until 2003, after which their goals changed to maintaining their program levels and advancing their capacity for breakout. is precisely why the estimated time for breakout has changed little relative little since 2015, but hasn't diminished neither and has in fact accelerated if not by a heck o' a lot. and as for the guy misreading iaea, Iran’s relations with the West entered a period of greater tension in November 2011 after the IAEA released a report providing an unprecedented level of detail about Iran’s past nuclear weapon-related activities. Although nearly all of these activities had previously been publicly known or suspected, the IAEA’s report gave them greater significance and credibility, and offered new evidence to support previous claims. The report came shortly after U.S. accusations of Iranian involvement in a plot to assassinate a top Saudi diplomat had already soured Iran’s relations with the United States and its allies. and In 2010, Iran began enriching to 20% in the PFEP using two centrifuge cascades.57 One cascade enriches 3.5% LEUF6 to roughly 20%. The other cascade is fed the tails assay from the first, which is around 2% U-235, and enriches it to 10%. The 10% product is then fed back into the first cascade at an intermediate point in order to enrich it to 20%. This procedure greatly improves overall efficiency. This is important from a cost perspective in producing fuel for the TNRR, Iran’s stated objective in enriching to 20%. However, it is also a useful way for Iran to improve its breakout capability should it ever choose to attempt a “batch recycling” process to quickly enrich 3.5% LEUF6 to 90% (this process is discussed in more detail in the section on breakout scenarios below). As of May 2012, Iran had produced 110.1 kg of 20% LEUF6 at the PFEP.58 footnote 58: 8 As of May 15, 2012, 43 kg of the 20% LEUF6 Iran has produced has been used to make fuel plates for the TNRR, thereby lowering Iran’s stocks of 20% LEUF6. IAEA, GOV/2012/23, para. 38. iaea reports made it possible to recognize just how short were the breakout timeline. again, nobody is contesting that iran weren't working to produce a nuclear weapon, so your quotes which reinforce that point reveal nothing. regardless, am unsurprised by the reditt approach to this issue. cherry pick a date, quote or a report and pretend as if the totality o' info disappears into the ether... but what should we expect from an individual who has not actual been arguing with Gromnir or addressing our posts, but clear trying to refute some imagined strawman. and again, unbeknownst to zor, for the past few pages we have been criticizing israel's stated justification for attacking iran as well as their continued war criming in gaza, but zor somehow missed? such efforts also ignore your intransigence, hoping we would forget? we will do you no favour bringing us back on point-- the fact iran has not active worked toward developing a weapon since 2003 in no way diminishes the possibility that iran is extreme close to breakout, same as were the case in 2011, 2012, 2015 and today. try and make this a nomenclature debate is ridiculous and pretends as if nobody is smart enough to go back and look at your posts from yesterday. "**First occurrence I could find of "Iran imminently going to have nuclear bomb" from Bibi is from... 1998. The first estimate I could find from US intelligence was that they could have one by 2000. "Iran nukes and cold fusion, perpetually just a little longer away." your ineffectual efforts to change the script notwithstanding, this were a discussion about breakout capacity and not whether iran were active pursuing the development of a weapon, 'cause again, we keep repeating, ad nauseum, that iran ain't been working to build a weapon. *chuckle* now that we are on the same page, we all agree, based on iaea, isis, rand and us intelligence, that the past decades o' iran not working to produce a nuke in no way reduce their capacity to breakout quickly, right? eye back on the ball? abandoning such development for decades don't in any way translate into proof that iran lacks the capacity to produce a weapon in a relative short period o' time, as is the conclusions o' iaea, us intelligence, rand and isis. you gonna once again try and convince us iran's breakout timeline ain't relative short? give it a shot, 'cause watching you struggle is amusing. but again, so as to be clear, the fact iran weren't working to develop a weapon for more than a decade makes israel's stated reason for attacking iran now less than convincing. breakout timeline in 2012 were six to nineteen months. now? is only a difference o' a few months less. so why now? am calling bs. looks like regime change, but that is an ugly label, so israel went for their own version o' wmd, but one much easier to prove 'cause it has been a relative uncontested conclusion since at least 2011 that in a matter o' months, iran could produce a weapon if they so chose. israel flips reasonable on its head... ignores the fact that iran has willing chosen not to develop a nuke in spite o' their relative brief breakout timeline, and sudden claims that iran's nuke program poses an existential threat. such a claim is only slight more coherent than zor's posts. HA! Good Fun!

Appeals Court Seems Skeptical of California’s Case Against National Guard Deployment am not gonna even try and read tea leaves on this one, but am gonna observe it likely don't make too much difference as no matter what, ca or the fed is gonna appeal, and the appellate court(s) will likely maintain the current stay pending scotus resolution. well, en banc ca appellate might come before scotus. maybe. edit: politico's take HA! Good Fun!

did reverse sear on a bone-in ny strip. *sigh* we don't typical do bone-in ny strip, but our preferred method for steak nowadays is that we bring the meat up to 120F in the oven which is set at 275F. we then quick hit the steak with our infrared broiler. let the steak rest for a bit less than ten minutes and by then the steak comes up to perfect med-rare internal. sometimes we do similar but after the oven, we finish in a pan with compound butter... or even just butter. this method works well in part 'cause we often let the meat rest before we do the pan finish. carbon steel pan is kinda ideal, but we also like to use a cast iron pan for this approach, and if we go cast iron, we put the pan in a 500F oven first so it is ripping hot before we place it on the stove. pretty much need less than 30 seconds per side to finish in the hot cast iron... though we highly recommend buy an elastic shower cap and covering your smoke detector while crustifying your steak as you will produce a fair amount o' smoke. we went smoky cast iron last night, but in part cause the steak was bone-in, it took a bit more than 30 seconds on one o' the sides to get the crust we demanded. "a bit more than 30 seconds" meant we overshot medium-rare and were firmly in medium territory. is not as if the steak were ruined, but am admitting we were disappointed for at least a few hours afterwards... and clearly we ain't managed to let go completely even today. perhaps we take food a bit too serious? also, we made frijoles charros the other day, which is kinda our alternative to making chili with beans. we always use mexican chorizo as one o' the meats, and while we ordinary use pinto beans, we had good mother stallard beans on hand and they have some nice coffee/chocolate undertones which we enjoy in charros. am kinda conflicted on using bacon, 'cause no mater how crispy you make your bacon, the meat becomes soft and less appetizing when cooked. we did have a bit o' very bacony ham, which we substituted for bacon... even if bacony is not a real word. also, this is one o' those recipes where am using cilantro stems as 'posed to leaves. the stems many people ordinary throw away have more cilantro flavor than does the leaves, but the stems is woody... but not woody once they has been frozen. am highly recommending to chop up frozen cilantro stems and throw 'em into a soup or stew if you has never done so before. the freezer burned cilantro will dissolve into your soup or stew. warning: cilantro flavor is concentrated in the stems, so you need less stem than leaves to get same flavour. ... am also willing to admit that we added more than a few dashes o' this into the soup/stew/whatever. rather than opening up a can/jar and chopping up a whole chipotle pepper, in a recipe which cooks for a considerable time, am finding the cholula sauce gives us the same, chipotle flavour we want as well as some heat without any additional work or mess. sue us. anyways, we serve the frijoles charros with queso fresco and lime... and maybe even some carne asada. we ordinary make a few quarts and then freeze half o' the batch, so am gonna have cowboy beans potential for a considerable period o' time as well as the accompanying gas and gas pains from the beans, meat... and the cheese we add with little restraint. worth it, but luckily we live alone and the dog doesn't mind our increased presence following the consumption o' a bowl o' beans. HA! Good Gun!

we got no problem condemning israel, but (b) is an initial valid response even if you have framed it with a bit o' snark. how many time does folks need embarrass themselves by latching onto a preliminary narrative before there has been time to examine what actual happened. you sacrifice nothing by waiting a day or two to respond to these kinda events. observe that if true, it is yet more evidence o' israeli war crimes? sure. in our experience, am far less likely to unwitting play the fool when we adopt st. thomas as a role model. we let others adorn themselves in harlequin's motley as they race to be the first to condemn ___________, although am not sure what is the point o' winning that challenge. HA! Good Fun!

am not sure if you get irony. tough to take serious from the guy who had multiple times not bothered to make a substantive argument in this thread, as well as doing the reflexive tell o' dismissing supported observations as word salad, or something similar, yes? as such, am finding your observation less than compelling... but thank you for continuing this silliness. honest. am not sure what you could possibly be getting out of this, but who are we to deny you what you seem to yearn for. making the same mistake and strawmaning non responsive arguments with an imaginary person rather than dealing with the individual responding to your posts. am having to do all the work 'cause you offer nothing meaningful or relevant. typical we would be exhausted by this point, but your responses is just so utter lacking am enjoying highlighting a compare and contrast difference in substance. aside, even though am arguing with our self, iran did not end it's weapons program 22 years ago. the ieae report am having linked were a wakeup call for the west, but the rand and isis links from a decade past we provided also argue, via considerable evidentiary support, that iran were maintaining a weapons program, but were not active developing a weapon. am not sure why that concept is so difficult for zor to grasp. the nuclear sites operated by iran were not sole for the purpose o' developing civilian electricity production and other iran excuses. iran did and still does have a weapons program, but they are not active pursuing the development of such weapons and they have not been doing so for over a decade. iran were close to breakout ten years ago. iran is negligible closer to breakout today. before, during and after the iran deal, no effort was made by iran to develop a weapon. as such, israel's justification for attacking at this time rings hollow. incoming wall o' text for those willing to read-- summary follows at after the spoiler window In any case, this evidence raises substantial concerns about Iran’s nuclear activities prior to 2004 and supports the 2007 NIE’s finding that Iran had a weapon program in place until that time. It also raises substantial concerns about Iran’s behavior and intentions after 2003, and undercuts Iran’s claims that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful in nature. The available evidence suggests that by 2003, Iran may not have had perfected its ability to produce a weapon, but had made significant progress with virtually every element of weaponization. It is unclear what, if any, progress Iran has been able to make in its weaponization efforts since its formal program was halted in 2003. Iran has thus far failed to satisfactorily address the above evidence to the IAEA, and has in fact refused to answer any weapons-related questions from the IAEA since August 2008, other than to claim that allegations of weapons-related work are “baseless” and that evidence of weapons work is “forged” and “fabricated.”105 again, israel has been war criming in gaza for a considerable period o' time now. returning hostages and some level o' retribution against hamas were deemed warranted post october 7 by much o' the world, but israel went way beyond that point a long time ago. we pointed out in the past that any kinda prolonged siege approach to gaza, cutting off food, water and electricity to the civilian population o' gaza more than incidental or briefly, would be a red line for us. unlike zor who stubborn chooses sides, am a bit more flexible, so it weren't difficult for us to condemn israel for their excesses in gaza... excesses which made little sense to us at the time as they accomplish almost nothing useful save guarantee that whosoever replaced hamas, assuming israel were successful in destroying that organization, would be more antagonistic than hamas, and potential more competent. even from a pure practical pov, we didn't see the value in the idf's ongoing gaza campaign. attacking hezbollah made sense o' the situation for us. add israeli support o' the US efforts to neuter the houthis as well as the most recent attacks on iran and only now does israeli efforts make sense... but not really. sure, regime change in iran likely means that at least short term there will be diminished iranian support for palestinian groups and others who wish to do violence to israel, but iran has a population o' something like 90 million and the only reason they ain't achieved breakout in two decades is 'cause they chose not to. after these attacks can israel be certain iran will not choose yay as 'posed to nay when considering whether to aim for breakout? what gives 'em such confidence the answer is nay? the israeli attacks thus far have no chance o' destroying the iranian nuclear program, so am questioning the wisdom o' the israeli attcks while observing that their announced rationale were bullsh!t. even so, am admitting we don't get much o' what is happening in the middle east. oil prices went up to $75 on the 13th and then dropped down to $68 the following day, but we are back up to $73.50 today. oil is not reacting the way it did post russia invasion o' ukraine, but so far it looks like even the illuminati is uncertain what will happen 'tween israel and iran, particular with trump's tweets, which are as nonsensical as zor posts, fanning the chaos flames. jk about the illuminati, but the rest is serious. HA! Good Fun! ps (edit) given that zor is logic challenged, as has been evidenced many times past and recent, am unsurprised he recognizes the ad hominem fallacy. if an insult replaces the argument, it is fallacious. however, please note it is only when you abandoned any effort at meaningful argument that we responded in kind. "word salad." bruce. then your strawman 'bout what we wanted. you didn't offer any argument, having functional surrendered, so ad hominem as a fallacy weren't relevant.

... this is the predictable zor response when he has absolute nothing. Gromnir presents analysis, and zor, unable to rely on his typical reddit drivel that almost nobody else bothers to fact check, does... whatever this is. but... does anybody who knows zor personal wanna go over and make sure he is all right... ensure that he and elon ain't sharing a ketamine moment or something? he does get that Gromnir has been criticizing israel, right? we pointed out that israel went way too far in gaza and is now using a recycled excuse from 2011 to legitimize their attack which looks unconvincing unless you reimagine the motive as regime change. is not as if picking a side means anything to the strength o' the analysis, but the fact am using +ten year old documents is kinda essential to our claim that israel, who hadn't attacked iran for +ten years, sudden decided to do so in spite o' the relevant facts not having changed at all in those + ten years: iran is not current developing a weapon, but their current technical knowledge and resources mean they could create a weapon in six to nineteen months. if such facts weren't a legit excuse to attack +ten years ago, then why would iran continuing to not develop nuclear weapons sudden legitimize such an attack? whatever. somebody should check zor for signs o' debilitating drug use or at least make sure he hasn't had a stroke, 'cause while his typical brand o' obdurate lack o' self awareness when somebody actual fact checks him surprise us not at all, am a tiny bit concerned for his safety and well being, particular if he has not yet figured out that Gromnir has been criticizing israel's stated rationale for their current attack on iran. am knowing that some o' you clowns can't understand how Gromnir could claim israel were justified in responding to hamas rocket attacks and the october 7 mass murders while simultaneous recognizing that, "am genuine surprised israel calculations proved accurate, given the ugly humanitarian crisis israel indulged in beyond any seeming reasonable efforts to remove/punish hamas and get hostages returned." given how zor and those o' similar mindset will die on a hill once they choose a side, regardless o' facts, it makes it difficult for them to recognize that not everybody is as limited. have said multiple times now am shocked that the US and arab states were willing to just look away as gaza burned... and we keep stressing that, ""Again," the whole point is that iran has been six to nineteen months away from breakout for at least 10 years and likely since 2003. nothing has fundamental changed in that time. is Gromnir who pointed out that the recent israeli attacks were preventative as opposed to preemptive, precisely 'cause there were nothing imminent about an iranian attack, especial with nukes. we observed earlier how if israel were most concerned about nukes, then their choice o' initial targets were perplexing... but less a mystery when viewed through the lens o' regime change. etc. in any event, what kinda l00n continues to fight with somebody, trying to prove a point their perceived adversary agrees with 'em 'bout?" zor pov: Gromnir-- israel = good guys that kinda oversimplified stoopid is why you once again fail. aside, the only reason we don't add zor to our ignore list is 'cause every few months (well a few months + a year and a half this last time given our absence,) he provides us with uniquely embarrassing entertainment, but am admitting that this time am moderate concerned he is suffering from a stroke or something similar. am not sure how many times we need says the israeli excuse for attacking iran don't past muster, but zor twists himself into a knot fighting with air 'cause his brain won't register that the use o' +ten year old documents is precise the point. duh. HA! Good Fun!

on the lighter side: warning: the following scene is very tarantino HA! Good Fun!

our only quibble is with the following: "The challenge, for Iran, is producing not merely a crude nuclear weapon – which experts say Iran could potentially do within the space of months if it decided to – but also producing a working delivery system, which could take much longer." post 9/11, this kinda thinking strikes us as painful short o' imagination. once you got a working implosion device, then is any number o' creative if crude ways to deliver to a target, particular a port city such as tel aviv for example. beyond 9/11, consider the following: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wartech/nature.html ukranian spiderweb just happened for chrissakes. the inability o' too many in our military and intelligence communities to consider new possibilities and unconventional solutions is a persistent problem. h.r. mcmaster observed more than once that you can fight the US asymmetrical or you can lose. most other nations is aware o' that problem, so 'course they is planning asymmetrical and unconventional. why the US continues to assume that every other nation is incapable o' ingenuity is perplexing. to pretend as if iran is too stoopid to be creative strikes us as a serious mistake... and october 7 should make it abundant clear that the israeli intelligence is anything but omniscient. HA! Good Fun! ps (edit) not directed @Malcador, but 'cause this point keeps getting missed, am feeling the need to repeat: since at least 2011, iran has had the capacity to build at least one nuclear weapon and the time frame anticipated by the big brains has been anywhere between a few months to a couple of years. as such, the excuse israel is providing for their current preventative attacks has been equal valid/invalid every day for fourteen years... or more. iran coulda' built a nuke at least as far back as 2011, and probable closer to 2003. they haven't. for israel to attack now, and to not target at least a few o' the most important facilities in iran's potential weapons development infrastructure, serious undermines the excuse being provided.

you wouldn't recognize word salad any better than logic. same old fails. again, from the linked rand report... highly recommended. In 2010, Iran began enriching to 20% in the PFEP using two centrifuge cascades. One cascade enriches 3.5% LEUF6 to roughly 20%. The other cascade is fed the tails assay from the first, which is around 2% U-235, and enriches it to 10%. The 10% product is then fed back into the first cascade at an intermediate point in order to enrich it to 20%. This procedure greatly improves overall efficiency. This is important from a cost perspective in producing fuel for the TNRR, Iran’s stated objective in enriching to 20%. However, it is also a useful way for Iran to improve its breakout capability should it ever choose to attempt a “batch recycling” process to quickly enrich 3.5% LEUF6 to 90% (this process is discussed in more detail in the section on breakout scenarios below). As of May 2012, Iran had produced 110.1 kg of 20% LEUF6 at the PFEP. iran had the know how and the resources at least as far back as 2012. but... It is unlikely that Iran will produce nuclear weapons within the next year, and it could be years—if ever—before it does so. At present, although Iran likely possesses the technical ability to make at least one deliverable nuclear weapon, it would be very difficult for it to do so without accepting serious risk. If Iran were to use its declared facilities for a breakout dash, it would likely require at least one year, and potentially more than two years, to build a bomb. Iran would find it extremely difficult to carry out a breakout dash using these facilities without alerting the United States and its allies, providing them with several months to consider a response. A potentially more attractive option for Iran would be to use a covert facility for HEU enrichment. However, this route would require the clandestine construction and operation of a facility, which would also carry significant risks. It is likely that Iran instead intends to focus its efforts over the near term on improving its breakout options, and to do so in ways that are unlikely to trigger a serious response, such as air strikes. Such a goal would be consistent with what has thus far been observed in Iran. ... Negative Security Consequences of Weaponization for Iran If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, the strategic results would not be all positive. In fact, Iran faces a complex and uncertain strategic calculus over the question of weaponization. The way that this calculus is approached, moreover, very likely varies across domestic political actors in Iran, with many elites more willing to accept the risks and costs of weaponization than others. The development of nuclear weapons could invite a preventive attack, and would likely trigger efforts on the part of other states to balance against Iran’s nuclear capabilities through arms buildups and possibly through the pursuit of nuclear weapons of their own. Iran would not be able to count on a benign response from Israel, and could find itself in a confrontation with a state that possesses far greater conventional and nuclear military capabilities. Weaponization could lead to a greater and permanent U.S. military presence or, in the worst case, military conflict with the United States. It could also increase Iran’s diplomatic and economic isolation, particularly with the West. Although some in Iran might believe that, eventually, they could go down the path of India and achieve a level of international acceptance as a nuclear power, they would not be able to count on such an outcome. For Iran, the security implications of weaponization are uncertain. Not all Iranian elites will recognize these potential trade-offs, however. The way in which Iran’s decisionmakers interpret the costs and benefits of nuclear policy choices will have at least as much to do with their particular views and assumptions as any objective calculation of rational regime interests. in 2012, rand and others observed how there were compelling reasons why iran was not likely to further pursue breakout, but were rather focuse on improving breakout capacity. regardless, the ability to do a thing is in no way disproven by a failure to do the thing in question. if zor reflected for even five minutes he could identify dozens o' examples which disprove his utter ridiculous claim, but in classic and predictable fashion he doubles down... and when confronted by sources, such as rand, iaea and isis, he bleats something irrelevant and repetitive. how many times has we replayed this same tired song? but, "Again," the whole point is that iran has been six to nineteen months away from breakout for at least 10 years and likely since 2003. nothing has fundamental changed in that time. is Gromnir who pointed out that the recent israeli attacks were preventative as opposed to preemptive, precisely 'cause there were nothing imminent about an iranian attack, especial with nukes. we observed earlier how if israel were most concerned about nukes, then their choice o' initial targets were perplexing... but less a mystery when viewed through the lens o' regime change. etc. in any event, what kinda l00n continues to fight with somebody, trying to prove a point their perceived adversary agrees with 'em 'bout? seriously dude. nevertheless, you keep making an observation which is utter irrelevant-- the fact iran didn't create a nuclear weapon since 2003, 2011 or whatever date you wanna choose as the one where folks who know a heck of a lot more than zor all seem to agree that iran was potentially months to, at worst, a couple years away from creating a nuclear weapon, in no way disproves the premise that they lack capacity to do so. what stopped iran from developing a weapon weren't a lack of capacity but rather their recognition o' the very real consequences o' genuine pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. the fact iran had the good sense not to antagonize, israel, the US and the world by crossing a red line since 2003 is strong if not conclusive evidence that they woulda' continued to forgo developing a nuke. converse, israel's calculus seems to be that they can claim self defense or some other kinda silliness and the other arab states as well as the US and the global community will at worst proclaim their indignation, but nobody will do anything meaningful to stop 'em. sheesh. honest, am feeling dirty for pointing out that we made zor's point before he did. somebody is too myopic or reflexive indignant to recognize they is arguing pointless. whatever. not new. HA! Good Fun! ps for those genuine interested in iran's breakout capacity circa 2012

well yes, which is why for over a decade iran has been deemed capable of developing nuclear weapons within a year. they got the know how and near all the required resources. again, duh. is the same silliness as we heard from zor in 2015 btw. the fact iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon in no way diminishes the possibility that they could achieve such in a realtive short period o' time. yeah, since 2003, iran had not been active working on developing a nuclear weapon, but rand, iaea, isis (institute for science and international security as 'posed to the terror group... or the egyptian goddess) and others were in agreement iran had progressed very close to the threshold stage. iran had virtual all the ingredients and the infrastructure, and at one point estimates were that iran were within one month of breakout, IF iran put forth the effort to achieve such... which they did not and had not... although am gonna admit the one month estimate were kinda an outlier. converse, from rand "In any case, this evidence raises substantial concerns about Iran’s nuclear activities prior to 2004 and supports the 2007 NIE’s finding that Iran had a weapon program in place until that time. It also raises substantial concerns about Iran’s behavior and intentions after 2003, and undercuts Iran’s claims that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful in nature. The available evidence suggests that by 2003, Iran may not have had perfected its ability to produce a weapon, but had made significant progress with virtually every element of weaponization. It is unclear what, if any, progress Iran has been able to make in its weaponization efforts since its formal program was halted in 2003." "Even though Iran may already have developed the necessary technical components to produce a bomb, as of January 2012, Iran would likely need over a year to do so. This correlates well with the conclusions of the U.S. Intelligence Community, which has estimated that it would require Iran at least a year to produce a single nuclear weapon even if all available resources were swiftly dedicated to the task.107 Other credible sources, however, arrive at estimates as short as 6 months, or as long as 19 months.108 These estimates vary according to the assumptions they make about a number of uncertain variables. They also vary according to whether the intent is to identify likely or merely plausible—but unlikely—outcomes. Both worst-case and likely estimates will be provided in this section where appropriate." feel free to once again read or ignore the relevant sources, but back in 2011 and 2012, iran were estimated to be six to nineteen months away from developing a weapon, if they chose to do so. they had the infrastructure and resources to at minimum enrich enough U-235 to a purity o' 90% back in 2012, which were always the only real hurdle other than time and will. once enough fissionable material were produced, it could be removed to more secure locations safe from israeli bombing for instance, and then the iranians conversion o' heuf6 to metal, and machining of implosion devices could go through the predictable trial and error stages. back in 2011 and 2012 there were little disagreement that iran had the capacity and the basic materials to achieve breakout in a relative short timeline IF they chose to make the effort. the fact they didn't actual go through with such efforts is not proof that iran lacked capacity as 'posed to will. again, iran not developing nukes as proof they couldn't breakout within six to nineteen months is bad logic, and ignores the observations and conclusions o' reputable sources far more reliable than zor and al jazeera. HOWEVER, that is kinda our point. iran coulda moved forward at anytime since 2003, but they had made only incremental efforts in that direction and virtual no progress since 2015. hadn't done before the iran deal. hadn't done so after the iran deal... and hadn't appeared to make any efforts to do so even when the iran deal were ended. so israel pretending as if there were some kinda need for preemption ignores the past +ten years o' iran sitting on their hands. HA! Good Fun! ps (edit) in the spirit o' full disclosure, am admitting we were wrong about the original iran deal, and have pointed out our error multiple times. we believed the iran deal were foolish naive as it lacked any real enforcement and relied on iran to voluntarily comply with inspections and performance. and yeah, is not as if iran sudden became a good faith actor on thew world stage as evidenced by october 7, but by all accounts, iran were sticking to their commitments to not develop their nuclear weapons program even after the US broke the deal. yes, 2025 iran were likely even closer to breakout than were the case in 2015, if only 'cause iran were technical more advanced. so less than six to nineteen months? even so, israel's excuse for attacking iran appears little more valid today than at any other point in the past decade... or more.

logic failure. the fact iran hasn't developed nukes does not in anyway diminish the possibility that they have been one year away from developing a nuke for over a decade. iran no doubt made the calculation that they have more advantage being on the cusp o' producing a nuclear weapon than the costs o' actual possessing nuclear weapons would entail. iran has possessed the know how for a long time and they got most o' the infrastructure necessary to build a nuclear weapon. all they needed were time and will. iran has chosen nay as 'posed to yay... thus far. our neighbor has a phd in chemistry from brown. perhaps we once gave her sh!t about going to brown, in spite o' our joking, she has a legit degree and +30 years of experience working both at jpl and then teaching at major universities. she knows chemistry. if our neighbor wanted to, could she build a device similar (considerable more efficacious) than the one used by timothy mcveigh? of course she could. the fact she hasn't gone ahead and built such a monstrosity is hardly proof she is incapable of doing so. duh. curiously, our neighbor is a middling cook, though we suspect she could do baking w/o much difficulty. is not as if she is a terrible cook like in bad anime, but am having seen her make omelets, roast chicken and have watched her attempt to grill foods and am feeling a bit embarrassed for her even if we pretend to enjoy what she serves. honest, we don't know why it would be so hard for a world class chemist to follow a recipe, but... in any event, october 7 and hamas keeping hostages, some o' whom were abused and/or sexually assaulted, gave israel's initial retributive efforts legitimacy in many corners o' the globe that other chronic war crimers don't have. israel, in spite o' their october 7 blunder, correctly predicted that the outrage over palasteninas suffering in gaza would amount to sound and fury. am genuine surprised israel calculations proved accurate, given the ugly humanitarian crisis israel indulged in beyond any seeming reasonable efforts to remove/punish hamas and get hostages returned. we woulda' thought there were a limit to how much palestinian suffering arab nations and the US would accept before making serious efforts to intervene, but am admitting we were wrong. the thing is, am suspecting too many arab nations is even less sympathetic about iranian suffering than they were 'bout palestinian. but again, the potential downsides o' a conflict 'tween israel and iran is so not similar to the worst-case scenarios for israel v. hamas. we woulda' expected a bit more pushback after the initial israeli preventative attacks. shows we don't know enough to provide meaningful analysis, but we don't pretend to neither. HA! Good Fun! ps (edit) am not sure about everybody else, but pete hegseth taking time to go on jessie waters to reassure the world that a US attack on tehran was not imminent was very comforting. (<--sarcasm)

dunno, but after israel went after hezbollah, this were the increasing likely outcome... but am still not sure what israel sees in the fog of war for this new front to make sense. for decades, israel were doing the mow the grass approach in gaza, kneecapping hamas but recognizing that genuine weeding 'em out were too much effort and pointless as whichever group came after hamas would likely be ideological as bad. worse, hamas 2.0 might be more capable; hamas were incompetent at providing basic government services and israel seemed to think they were a limited threat insofar as their terrorist ambitions. hamas popularity were always low, save for immediate after terrorist or mass rocket attacks. get rid o' hamas seemed pointless when any alternative were likely to be worse. personally we couldn't figure out the gaza campaign beyond the initial retributive stages... until israel attacked hezbollah. the carnage in gaza made little sense to us as the idf were going so far to gain so little. the next hamas would be just as bad, and there would be legit reason for the palestinians to be more supportive o' river to the sea goals. the post october 7 gaza campaign were creating a generational wound. again, hamas were only ever popular with the people of gaza after they killed israelis. whenever hamas popularity got dangerous low, they committed some kinda "atrocity" against israel, and that seemed to mollify the people of gaza for a time. the vulgar levels o' violence done by israel in gaza were only gonna make hamas, or the next hamas, more sympathetic when that group carried out bloodshed against israelis. however, going after hezbollah made sense o' gaza 'cause it revealed israel were not interested in just getting rid of hamas; israel had larger goals. again, destroying hamas were gonna be bloody and pointless, 'cause whoever came next would be just as bad if not worse. the real danger was that the next hamas would be more competent. the thing is, israel recognized that october 7 happened 'cause o' iranian support o' hamas. once israel attacked hezbollah, it looked to us like their ambitions for a post october 7 were much more comprehensive than regime change in gaza. iran were likely always the ultimate ideal goal after october 7. is doubtful the israeli plan has gone exact according to the post oct 7 script, but am suspecting they always wanted to level gaza, decapitate hezbollah and the US were s'posed to neuter the houthis-- can't trust the americans to do anything right these days, eh? iran were always the ultimate goal, but could israel pull that off w/o facing the initial hamas quandary? what does regime change in iran really get israel... 'cause is obvious to us this ain't really about the iranian nuke program. israel intelligence shocking blundered in a big way regarding october 7 and am thinking that since that time, israel has been incremental building up to the iran attacks we see today, but am admitted not fully comprehending what is the final goal. even if regime change were somehow successful, how would that make the situation for israel better? the next iran is gonna be more huggable and less competent? serious? am giving israel credit for accurate predicting that the rest o' the arab world would sit idle and watch gaza burn. so far, israel also appears to have guessed right about the level o' outrage from the arab states following attacks on lebanon and iran. the US joining in to take down iran? if there is one thing which might encourage other arab states to come to iran's aid, the great satan aiding israel more direct might do it... but we got no real insights about what the arabs would or wouldn't do save to observe that israel has been more prescient than we gave 'em credit. still, none o' this actually makes sense to us save as a way to temporarily save netanyahu's political bacon, no pun intended. bloody regime change in iran poses similar issues as does regime change in gaza-- is worse 'cause the scale is so much larger in iran, and iran does have the know-how and basic resources to construct nukes. israel avoided regime change in gaza for many years and following innumerable rocket attacks precise 'cause the outcomes didn't justify the costs. why would israel believe the situation with iran is better? am admitted baffled by the reason and logic, but this might not be about reason and logic. HA! Good Fun!

joe rogan has an epiphany warning: sweary HA! Good Fun!

well, perhaps the navy (13 october) and marines (10 november) will do a better job when they get their parades. afterall, seeing how today were all about the army and not trump's birthday, that means that for the 250th birthday o' the navy and the marines, similar parades is gonna occur, yes? sure, a relative small number o' people showed up to trump's birthday... sorry, the army's birthday parade, and the whole event looked kinda underwhelming, but practice makes perfect. got two more shots at perfection. surely when the navy and marines get their parades, improvements will be made. more sponsors? perhaps you won't be able to hear the squeaky sherman tank noises over the sound of roaring crowd noise when people are cheering for the marines? trump wouldn't dare doze off for the marines, right? HA! Good Fun!

Multiple ICE impersonation arrests made during nationwide immigration crackdown as ice is routine wearing street clothes, balaclavas, and refusing to show id, the fact there hasn't been some kinda lethal incident/accident, particular in a stand your ground state, is nothing short of miraculous. unless the goal is to trigger such an accident, am unable to see the rationale... particularly insofar as the refusal to show id is concerned. but harris woulda been just as bad, right? the people who claimed they would use lethal force to deny a federal officer if the government tried to confiscate their gas powered chain saw if such were condemned due to imaginary environmental legislation, those people sudden go uncharacteristic meek and quiet when feds is routinely arresting american citizens by accident. am typical mistaken for puerto rican or mexican, and our post retirement wardrobe is admitted kinda embarrassing. no more ferragamo loafers and nice suits. in fact, one o' our old work colleagues keeps calling us "fetterman" 'cause we routine wear hoodies, shorts and sneakers ('course now that it is getting warmer, the hoodie is probable gonna disappear by 6am on most days, but am suspecting our new fetterman nick sticks for awhile.) we sure as heck don't carry a passport or have our birth certificate with us everywhere we go. how easy would it be for us to end up in an ice facility by accident with no way to prove our citizenship status? regardless, what happened to all the outrage from the libertarians? the "justified" anger 'cause o' rumors that the libs might do something was common a year ago, but now maybe the folks at reason.com write a they are all bad article when describing their disappointment about venezuleans and afghanistan residents having their temporary protected status summarily and arbitrarily revoked... but of course their lead article is 'bout biden. wtf? HA! Good Fun!

sure, this is unfortunate, but look at the violence of blm in 2020 and the widespread riots destroying la today. are libs genuine in their condemnation of political violence, or are they tacit advocates? whatabout the two trump assassination attempts? whatabout steve scalise and the 2017 baseball game shooting by a bernie sanders supporter? whatabout... am not having a hard time anticipating the deflection and whataboutism. as for the godfather, it is almost necessary to watch the first two films as both is cultural reference points-- if you don't know 'em, you miss the allusion and won't get innumerable memes. we read the bible in college not 'cause we were religious but do to the fact we would miss a large % o' famous author allusion and references if we didn't know the bible. you think we wanted to watch the star wars prequels or the jj abrams star wars films? hell no, but to get all the inevitable star wars references we knew would become part o' cultural norms, we suffered the indignity. HA! Good Fun!

started watching the prof g markets youtube 'cause it is specific directed at young men as kinda an alternative to the idiotic cryptobro and tate brothers sludge. we don't "get" rogan and we sure as heck don't understand the appeal of andrew tate, but am recognizing such sources is increasing popular with young men, young men who made a hard shift towards the right this last election. we started checking out markets based on a recommendation we got. am not pretending we got any idea whatsoever about what kinda content that resonates with young men. am dubious markets works for the target audience but that is 'cause am a cynic. galloway and elson advice may be distilled as follows: get a job and start saving and investing in s&p 500. ... that were the advice we routine got plus thirty years ago and have been giving the past plus twenty. it's good advice, but am not sure it works with gen z as it is intended. however, and more specific, we were sooper impressed with markets recent guest, kathryn anne edwards. knowledgeable. smart. willing to offer pushback. full disclosure: type "debt" and "income inequality" into the board search function and you are gonna see a bunch o' Gromnir posts. democrats are concerned about income inequality and republicans once were once s'posed concerned about debt, so we didn't fit into either camp in spite o' being more fiscal conservative than lib. individuals such as kathryn anne edwards and cathrine rampell who preach a similar ethos as Gromnir is gonna resonate, so am admitting perhaps we see ms. edwards as smart as much 'cause o' how articulate and prepared she is but also 'cause we agree with her. HA! Good Fun!

am gonna admit we were surprised fordow, bushehr and isfahan sites were not hit in the initial strike. learning that perhaps israel were doing this solo helped make sense o' what we were seeing. if the goal were a preemptive knee-capping o' the iranian capacity to develop nuclear weapons, then this were a kinda slipshod effort as it nowhere near achieves such an outcome and likely only accelerates iranian efforts at the remaining sites, no? less 'bout an immediate halting o' the nuke program. considering how the trump admin leaked israeli intel in the first term, and the houthi stoopid more recent, we woulda' been more surprised if israel wanted the US anywhere near their operation... and given how well executed the israeli attacks were, (which again makes the exclusion o' fordow, bushehr and isfahan noteworthy,) it's hard to imagine the clown car assembly o' a reality tv show and serial sexual assaulter Pres who disturbing regular exhibits aphasia symptoms, a fox and friends weekend host defense secretary, a real estate mogul handling the diplomacy end o' things, plus tulsi gabbard (don't get us started,) were anywhere near the planning and execution o' the israeli version o' the baptism scene from the godfather. trump is gonna take credit just so long as things appear positive, but he will distance if/when things turn sour. 'course the truth o' the matter is that the US has become an increasingly irrelevant participant in the calculus o' middle east players since obama. even so, am not gonna pretend we have any kinda special knowledge. maybe the US and israel did work together, but am embarrassed to admit that israeli success makes US involvement less likely in our mind. 2025 is so not what we woulda' imagined in 1999. HA! Good Fun!

well, to be fair, the 2000 camp david thing happened after yitzhak rabin were assassinated, so... am suspecting bill clinton and @Gorth disagree about why camp david failed, but am gonna suggest it were the second intafada which marks the end o' any o' the parties involved being serious about even the possibility o' a lasting peace. *shrug* from a practical pov, am suspecting it don't matter much. for more than a couple decades, nobody has been serious about even trying to forge a lasting peace in the region. edit: Almost all of the Fulbright board resigns, citing Trump administration interference The former members said they voted to resign on Wednesday, effective immediately, "rather than endorse unprecedented actions" that they believe violate the law, compromise U.S. national interests and undermine the Fulbright program's mission and mandates. "Our resignation is not a decision we take lightly," they wrote. "But to continue to serve after the Administration has consistently ignored the Board's request that they follow the law would risk legitimizing actions we believe are unlawful and damage the integrity of this storied program and America's credibility abroad." ... only five months in and trump killed cisa, stopped enforcing white collar crime as part o' doj, stopped investigating foreign bribery and domestic terrorism as part o' the fbi mandate, gutted usaid, fired attorney generals w/o cause in addition to many thousands of probationary employees and hundreds o' other relative minor disruptions to dozens o' different departments, but few seems to notice or care. HA! Good Fun!

not directed at elerond, but am having been seeing "pre-emptive" language to describe the israeli attacks from various news sources... particularly fox. is wrong. words matter. HA! Good Fun!

this would never have happened if trump were President. HA! Good Fun!

the thing to keep in mind is that almost half the country don't see anything wrong with what happened to mr. padilla. in fact, am suspecting 1/3 o' the country woulda' been more pleased if the senator were visibly injured during the altercation. am serious. tell us with confidence that Gromnir is wrong. doesn't matter that what the senator were doing was legal. doesn't matter that alex padilla had been escorted into the presser by both fbi and national guard; no "busting in," nonsense. doesn't matter that the senator did in fact announce his identity as a senator, though again, as he were in the fed building at the time of the presser, he had an escort that knew his identity. etc. facts don't matter. the reality don't matter. even if you do the impossible and convince somebody that alex padilla didn't do anything illegal, then chances are you will hear whataboutism or some kinda deflection. alex padilla is one of them, so when bad things happen to him, the initial reaction is gonna be that not only did the senator deserve the treatment he received, but that he shoulda' gotten more it... and by now, trump politicians know what trump voters want. when nixon were convinced by republican Congressmen to resign, those republicans, almost to a man, were primaried during the next election. trump is ignorant of history, but am gonna suggest near all senators and most representatives serving in 2025know history... and am certain those political creatures is aware that their constituents don't care about what is right and just unless it is they/them who is doing wrong. perhaps worse, the independents and democrats who either voted for trump or didn't vote for harris, are somehow ok with what is happening to social security, the va, pepfar, free speech, legal immigrants from afghanastan and venezuela losing their protected staus (another one am disappointed @Guard Dog can remain quiet regarding 'cause he knows what it means to be sending translators and those who helped US troops back to afghanistan,) and due process. they is ok with trump's corruption with market manipulation and his meme coin. they is ok with cecot. they is seeming ok with just about anything save whatever may personal be important to them. for gd? second amendment rights? for a farmer in north carolina? perhaps if the ice raids start happening on north carolina hog farms or... unless it affects 'em personal, trump voters or those who couldn't be bothered to vote against him, cares little that trump is gutting norms and freedoms. heck, even when people is personal impacted, chances are they still can't admit they were wrong, 'cause we don't do that anymore. again, when we saw the reaction to trump's muslim ban promise, we finally got it-- an increasing % of americans want them/they to suffer. First Amendment? due process? basic christian values? none o' that minor stuff matters 'cause trump is a fighter who is finally going after the real bad guys: illegals; libs; smart-arsed college professors; etc. "A poor Russian peasant’s neighbor has a cow, but the peasant himself has none. Every day the peasant has to walk by his neighbor’s field, where he sees that cow. He admires the cow, even adores it, envying the animal to the point of obsession. He even dreams about the cow at night. One day, the peasant goes into the forest to cut wood–and he finds a sprite bound to a tree with bonds that only a mortal can undo. The sprite promises the peasant that, if he frees her, she will grant him any one wish. So he unties her…and says, “Kill my neighbor’s cow.”" globalism is working. here in the US we are all becoming more russian, eh? HA! Good Fun! ps try and imagine how the alex padilla situation woulda' played out in 2015. if the dhs secretary's security detail had done the same thing to a sitting US Senator, the dhs woulda' likely apologized, right? maybe jeh johnson explains that security reacted with perhaps an overabundance of caution to the presence o' a large man with no visible press ID at the presser. woulda' been described as a truly unfortunate and regrettable mistake, right? in 2025, mike johnson is suggesting his colleagues in the senate should be calling for padilla's censure. never admit fault. double-down. gaslight with the help of fox news and turn this seeming loss into a win. too many republican voters like seeing a democrat US senator getting man handled, so go with a victim blaming effort, right? but, if harris was President, nothing would change, so...

just a reminder, 'cause with all the new illegal and improbable, people convenient memory hole the old. cecot. the US government sent an unspecific number o' people to this place no trial. not even a hearing. we can't be certain o' how many american residents were sent to el salvador, nor has the fed confirmed the identities o' those sent to cecot 'cause o' some ambiguous amalgam o' "state secrets" and "terrorism." we only know for sure the details regarding one person sent to cecot: abrego garcia. the only reason we learned the circumstances o' the abrego garcia situation is because a government lawyer admitted that the fed made a mistake by sending mr. garcia to cecot. that lawyer were fired. the government public says that everybody sent to cecot is a gang member, but the fed has offered no proof in court o' such 'cause "state secrets" and "terrorism." sure, we has been told via caroline leavitt and fox news that everybody "deported" were a nasty and terrible nogoodnik, but that ain't the same as going before a judge and providing affidavits, is it? why would you take on faith that the government is being truthful 'bout this? the only way we have even a rough idea o' who was sent to cecot, other than abrego garcia, is 'cause news outlets such as the washington post and sixty minutes did research... pieced together info from lawyers and family members o' persons with immigration cases who sudden disappeared from ice facilities contemporaneous with the military jets going to el salvador. cbs managed to get ahold of an internal government document via a leak which provided identities of most/many sent to cecot, but the government has only voluntarily provided the number o' persons sent to el salvador via the alien enemies act and traditional deportation efforts. again, since there were no trial or hearing, plus something-something "state secrets" and "terrorism" means there is literal no proof that the people we sent to cecot is criminals, gang members or undocumented. regardless, even if the government had held the hearings SCOTUS says 9-0 (even thomas and alito agreed on this point) were a necessary prerequisite to deport people under the alien enemies act, that ain't what happened in reality. the more than a hundred people, some o' whom might be american citizens who never committed a crime for all we know, were not deported back to their country o' origin. those +100 people (something 'tween 137 and 250?) were sent to serve out an indefinite period o' incarceration in a facility which manages to make a few o' those siberian gulags look like resort spas. ... where is the outrage? serious, what is wrong with americans that this don't bother more people? particular from the i don't trust the government and you could be next crowds, where is the justified anger? why is this not an inflection point for more people? how is this so last week/month already? in case it isn't clear, am a bit disappointed. HA! Good Fun! ps @Malcador not that it matters. shame is no longer a thing.