Gromnir

the only positive we see from trump's predictable premature declaration that the iran sites were, “completely and totally obliterated,” is that trump never admits he were wrong; he always doubles down. now that trump has declared mission accomplished, how does he justify additional strikes w/o being confronted by the same people who triggered him with TACO and two weeks? update: predictable double-down. so now what happens when there is increasing evidence that, "one of the most successful military strikes in history," failed to achieve the complete and total obliteration described? future bombing by the US or israel undermines trump's narrative, but the whole justification for the President authorizing an attack requires an imminent threat to the US and if the situation today is little different than before midnight hammer... if only trump had taken our usual advice to be patient and wait for reliable info before making claims which could result in humiliation. on the other hand, ~70% o' trump voters believe everything trump says, even when trump contradicts himself. HA! Good Fun!

not to let trump off the hook, (am not) but israel has gutted iran command & control. chaos. am suspecting there is a whole lotta people in the iranian military who are acting independent during a time o' crisis, and unlike in the US, iranian military commanders has far less experience acting solo. any sorta expectation that iran is even capable of adhering to a ceasefire w/o at least some kinda delay is suspect given what israel has been doing to the military command structure o' iran for the past week. unlike others, Gromnir hesitates before opining in these situations, particular given trump's habitual mendacity. however, am admitting that even if iran did agree to a ceasefire, there would be some kinda initial period o' time during which they would have difficulty communicating that fact meaningful to the people capable o' sending missiles to israel... and both trump and israel should be aware o' that reality. HA! Good Fun! ps we spoke with somebody yesterday and it occurred to us that at least a few people don't know what is an Iranian centrifuge. the person we spoke with were under the impression a centrifuge is an enormous and complex device, and that person were not dumb. most iranian centrifuges is smallish-- 'bout 2 m high and 30 cm wide, with the older models being a bit more boxy. the newest iranian centrifuges is more than 4 m in height and 40 cm wide, but they had very few o' those. an individual iranian centrifuge, even the good ones, is incapable o' enriching much uranium over the course o' a year, so iran needs a whole lotta them if they wish to make more enriched uranium. the thing is, as noted, the centrifuges individually ain't that big and they ain't that difficult for iran to manufacture. you don't need an enormous facility to house and maintain the centrifuges, particular if you are making an effort to hide 'em. regardless, there ain't no way to prevent replacement centrifuges from being constructed, and it wouldn't be impossible to hide a whole bunch o' working centrifuges if that were your goal.

more significant is the fact oil dropped after the news that iran's response were symbolic. ... am also gonna observe just how tepid has been the arab world's reaction to the israeli and US attacks. sure, there has been a performative UN theatre, but am certain iran noticed just how meek and measured has been the outrage from other nations in the region. heck, a nyc candidate for mayor were more vocal supportive o' global intafada than has the arab world post 13 june. again, am so not in favor o' what increasing looks like an israeli effort to bring about regime change, but am suspecting they see @HoonDingrecent post and are barely able to suppress an evil grin o' agreement, if for complete different motives. these attacks were never about ending the iranian breakout capability. as such, it is looking like bush's mission accomplished is almost having been achieved by israel. the history o' regime change in the region does not suggest a more stable and safe outcome. hamas, syria and hezbollah has already been knee-capped and while the US may have blundered in its efforts to neuter the houthis, by our admitted inexpert estimation, iran on 12 june were weaker and less a threat than at any time in recent decades. so seeing as how the iranian nuclear threat has most certain not been eliminated, mission accomplished, where the real goal is to get vengeance on iran for its involvement in october 7, is maybe close to having been achieved? am suspecting israel is satisfied with mission accomplished, but the potential for regional chaos is more or less than were the case before the israeli attacks? HA! Good Fun!

warning: ordinary rogan sweary the nuts part is that Gromnir is not surprised at all that clowns like rogan is shocked by the utter predictable outcomes we are seeing. this were the likely outcome when trump said he were gonna do mass deportations amounting to millions o' undocumented. math made the outcome inevitable. there were never that many criminals, so... even so, if you only get your news from national conservative outlets, you would think la were under siege. HA! Good Fun!

from the nyt article linked above: "But there was also evidence, according to two Israeli officials with knowledge of the intelligence, that Iran had moved equipment and uranium from the site in recent days. And there was growing evidence that the Iranians, attuned to Mr. Trump’s repeated threats to take military action, had removed 400 kilograms, or roughly 880 pounds, of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity. That is just below the 90 percent that is usually used in nuclear weapons." from the cnn article linked: But unlike the other two Iranian facilities targeted in the operation, B-2 bombers did not drop massive “bunker-buster” bombs on the Isfahan facility, multiple sources told CNN. The damage to the facility appears to be restricted to aboveground structures, according to Jeffrey Lewis, a weapons expert and professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies who has closely reviewed commercial satellite imagery of the strike sites. Even if the US was successful in destroying Iran’s facility at Fordow — another underground site that housed centrifuges needed to enrich uranium, which the US hit with 12 bunker busters — the obvious survival of Isfahan has raised questions about whether Trump achieved his stated goal of “a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s No. 1 state sponsor of terror.” “This is an incomplete strike,” Lewis said. “If this is all there is, here’s what left: the entire stockpile of 60% uranium, which was stored at Isfahan in tunnels that are untouched.” and as already mentioned, bushehr is functionally untargetable via military air strikes. on june 13, israel's espoused goal of eliminating iran's nuclear breakout capability as the goal o' attacks were unconvincing. less convincing today. HA! Good Fun!

unrelated to iran, so am posting separate... "In her 51-page order, Judge Holmes said the government failed to prove there is a "serious risk" that Abrego Garcia will flee or that he will obstruct justice in the case. Holmes also said the government's evidence that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13 "consists of general statements, all double hearsay" from cooperating witnesses." however, please keep in mind that while the judge ordered mr. garcia's release, he were being held on criminal charges. am suspecting nothing functional changes for abrego garcia as he is gonna need endure continued ice detention. however, the point is that the judge observed that the criminal case the fed slapped together is weak. contrary to the expectations o' many hereabouts, the fed (pre 2025) don't manufacture cases or use sleight o' had nonsense to get indictments and convictions. the thing we liked most about working for the fed were the hours-- as close to 9-5 as any attorney job is ever gonna be. why? you got unlimited resources and time, and the line prosecutors (ordinarily) is insulated from politics. so not like tv or the movies. regardless, the point is judge holmes declared bs on fed prosecutors, but with everything else going on, few will notice or care. HA! Good Fun!

so... btw, and Early assessments raise questions over whether US destroyed bulk of enriched Iranian nuclear material but even if the attacks were intelligent planned and successful, iran's capability to construct a nuclear weapon would not have been ended, so what possible alternative were there for israel's attack? am seeming to recall we posited an alternative theory explaining israel's motivations back on 13 june. as for US involvement, as ridiculous as it sounds, am suspecting the most significant factor which led to the US bombing/striking fordow, natanz and isfahan were neither ending iran's nuclear breakout threat nor regime change. am gonna guess @Malcador and most obsidian boardies do not watch fox news, but israel were getting a whole lotta positive coverage on that netwok over the past week. as far as we can tell, given the reality that the ending iran's nuclear threat argument is implausible, and that even just the news o' possible regime change is gonna push up oil prices, the most obvious explanation for why the US would insert itself into this mess is 'cause trump were jealous o' the press israel were getting on fox and he didn't wanna look like he were impotent, irrelevant or TACOing. god help us all. edit: the following link includes updated info HA! Good Fun!

am not sure how the result can be anything but a waste. for years iran has been aware israel wanted to attack their nuclear sites. for years iran has been stockpiling the material needed to build a weapon-- feel free to review the purposefully recycled decade-old conclusions o' rand, us intelligence, isis and iaea that am having shared ad nauseum at this point. as such, why wouldn't iran develop their version o' a reverse GECK, and bury a rudimentary facility under a hospital or mosque in tehran, beneath seemingly untargetable bushehr, or anywhere in the vast and remote mountains which make up a considerable portion o' iran... or multiple such locations. again, iaea has recent said that iran has enough 60% enriched uranium that it could further enrich quick and make more than six weapons. why wouldn't iran squirrel away some portion o' their, "very, very specific ingredients to build a nuke," in remote or functional untargetable locations. the notion it were possible for the US and/or israel to military strike iran's nuclear weapon potential out of existence looks flawed on its face. the recent attacks of iran may have extended the nuclear breakout timeline a bit, but the one thing holding iran back from nuclear breakout for two decades has been their lack of political will to cross the nuclear red line. now? HA! Good Fun!

as childish as it may appear, am wondering how much the mockery trump endured for his reflexive "two weeks" announcement led to him moving quickly to end diplomatic efforts and instead resort to an overt display of military force. first, netanyahu maneuvers trump into helping him with attacks on iran that israel couldn't manage itself; donald didn't wanna look weak by admitting that israel had not only successful attacked numerous iranian sites, but that israel purposeful kept the US in the dark about the attacks. and trump, like a child, were jealous of the positive attention israel was getting on fox? then we get the "two week" jokes, which reveal just how often trump goes limp after making a bold pronouncement. trump didn't like that very much. am suspecting what the US needs most is a competent kindergarten teacher, somebody with experience keeping little kids in line, to handle trump. HA! Good Fun!

*eye roll* yeah, lexx who also imagined into existence a Gromnir position is an appropriate role model for you. is not as if he admitted his error neither. am not sure how you see lexx as having come out o' the situation looking anything but embarrassed, but am not surprised. so, birds of a feather? malc didn't exactly quietly ignore us either, but if this becomes a curious binary option, malc's approach were a far better way to handle. he initial defended what we see as mistakes, but he didn't fight and die on a pointless hill. am agreeing, you could learn from malc. unlikely. in any event, am still not seeing the point to all of this effort by israel if the goal were to neuter iran's capability to build a nuclear weapon. iran is facing more than a bit of political disarray, but it is hard to imagine they never considered the possibility of israeli or US attacks on their nuclear sites. for decades, the main thing holding iran back from building a weapon was the lack of political will to do so. bombing these sites surely didn't destroy all of iran's supplies of enriched uranium, and the knowledge o' how to build a weapon weren't vaporized by the fordow attack. iran is a big country with an enormous population and a whole lotta geography which is inhospitable and ideal for hiding some kinda stealth weapon development operation. iran could even secret a facility in the middle of a densely populated area. before the attack, it didn't look as if iran was actively pursuing the development of a nuclear weapon, even if they were enhancing their breakout capability. having been attacked, who here is confident that iran is less willing to build a bomb? regime change as the real goal looks far more likely, but am gonna see what happens from this point. (edit) am also not seeing any US or israeli solution for bushehr. even before the first attack, we woulda assumed israel would have devised a plan for dealing with busher if they were serious about at least temporarily halting iran breakout progress. am gonna admit to some cold sweat when israel announced that they finally had attacked bushehr. thankfully, that news were a mistake. HA! Good Fun!

rhetorical? what rhetorical effect are you seeking to achieve seeing as how we already explicit answered? is a kinda sad sympathy for zor the effect you were aiming for? if so, congrats? and again, using ten year old data were kinda essential if am showing that the threat today is not in fact any more imminent than it has been the case for thirteen years, or more. etc. in spite o' your memento cosplay, we did over and over and over again make clear that the israeli excuse for starting a war with iran in 2025 appears unjustified. however, beyond all reason, your intransigence led to, "the past few pages o' the belligerent, misleading, strawmaning you has engaged in where you argue against positions Gromnir didn't make and selective quote to support your wholly baseless positions, all the while seeming oblivious to the fact that Gromnir, since the godfather baptism post, has been stating unequivocal our opinion that israel's accusations lack merit and surely do not rise to the level o' potential starting a war with a country of ninety million people, a country that had chosen not to construct a nuclear weapon since 2003." am genuine not concerned as to why you were so triggered that you would indulge in deceptive efforts to refute a position you couldn't recognize were largely aligned with yours. we know exactly why you would do such a thing even if we don't care about the motivation. however, am gonna admit that your reflexive self-immolation efforts is, up to a point, entertaining... even if they become exhausting and we eventual regret indulging your unhealthy needs. HA! Good Fun!

... for gawd's sake, what is wrong with you? honest? how many times do we need repeat that am having been arguing that israel's stated justification for attacking iran is contrived? have been saying for many posts and pages that israel's efforts don't match their excuse and that this operation looks far more like regime change than any kinda effort at neutering iran's nuclear breakout capability. more immediate relevant, am having been repeating, over and over and over again, 'cause somebody is so complete impervious to reason, that the nuclear threat iran poses today, based on assessments from iaea, US intelligence, rand, isis, etc. is little more significant today than it was thirteen years ago, or any day since then. we made kinda a deal about words... that israel's attack were most clear preventative as 'posed to preemptive, the difference being that preemptive can create legal legitimacy, while preventative, does not. based on iaea and recent US intelligence assessments, there was no imminent threat from iran, so calling the attack preemptive were inappropriate. again, am having been arguing that the data offered did not create a justification for attacking iran, so telling us that iaea agrees with us is nice and all, but may not quite have the relevance you believe it does. this is one o' the only accurate observations you has made over the past few pages o' the belligerent, misleading, strawmaning you has engaged in where you argue against positions Gromnir didn't make and selective quote to support your wholly baseless positions, all the while seeming oblivious to the fact that Gromnir, since the godfather baptism post, has been stating unequivocal our opinion that israel's accusations lack merit and surely do not rise to the level o' potential starting a war with a country of ninety million people, a country that had chosen not to construct a nuclear weapon since 2003. HA! Good Fun!

exhausted, but am needing address the "liar" accusation as a point o' personal privilege... typical accusation from zor being manifest untrue and a kind disappointing projection. the full quote and context o' the partial quoting you call a lie. "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." zor only quotes the bold part and calls it a lie? kinda like the three years quote, eh? left out the part where the conclusion were that a weapon could actual be completed in months, but that a delivery system would require up to three years. your selective and dishonest quoting is not accidental or limited. is your mo. we will further note that in previous posts to the one you called a lie, we stated unequivocal that we agreed with the assessment that iran had no nuclear weapon program, 'cause as counter-intuitive as it may be, us intelligence and iaea could simultaneous find that iran had no weapon program while also determining that iran were moving forward towards breakout capability. "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." we recognized as a fact that iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon program in a post made only a short time previous to the partial quote you highlight as a lie. also, "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?" so we got multiple instances o' Gromnir making the observation that iran is not developing a nuclear weapon and that they don't have a weapon program from just previous to your your strategic partial quote lie accusation? liar, willful obtuse, or perhaps we were more right about ketamine/stroke than we believed. furthermore, https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291 Following Thursday’s resolution vote by the IAEA’s board of governors – which passed by a vote of 19 for, three against and 11 abstentions - Iran’s atomic energy body reportedly announced plans to open a new uranium enrichment plant and increase production of enriched fissile material. The draft for Thursday’s resolution highlights serious and growing concerns since at least 2019 that Iran had failed to cooperate fully with the UN agency’s inspectors. Tehran has “repeatedly” been unable to explain and demonstrate that its nuclear material was not being diverted for further enrichment for military use, the draft text maintains. Iran has also failed to provide the UN agency with “technically credible explanations for the presence of [man-made] uranium particles” at undeclared locations in Varamin, Marivan and Turquzabad, it continues. “Unfortunately, Iran has repeatedly either not answered, or not provided technically credible answers to, the agency’s questions,” IAEA chief Grossi said on Monday. “It has also sought to sanitize the locations, which has impeded Agency verification activities.” According to Mr. Grossi, Tehran has stockpiled 400 kilogrammes of highly enriched uranium. and https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/irans-stock-near-bomb-grade-uranium-grows-sharply-iaea-report-shows-2025-02-26/ The stock of uranium refined to up to 60% in the form of uranium hexafluoride grew by 92.5 kg in the past quarter to 274.8 kg, one of two confidential IAEA reports said. That is enough in principle, if enriched further, for six nuclear bombs, according to an IAEA yardstick. There is enough for more weapons at lower enrichment levels. Where before its latest acceleration Iran was producing between 6 and 9 kilograms (13 and 20 pounds) of uranium enriched to up to 60% per month, now that figure is between 35 and 40 kg, a senior diplomat said. This is just short of the 42 kg that is enough in principle for one bomb, if refined further. ... uranium refined to 60% in those quantities don't have believable applications other than breakout capability or actual weapon manufacture. so, what exact is the position o' the iaea? what would any ordinary follower o' these issues, one unfamiliar with the narrow definitions used by iaea, us intelligence, isis and others, conclude that iran's efforts at increasing their stockpiles o' enriched uranium mean in terms o' efforts to construct a nuclear weapon? enhancing breakout capability v. a weapons program? again, am having stated multiple times that we agree with the observation that iaea, isis, rand, us intelligence and others have consistently assessed that iran has no weapons program and we agree that iran has not been making efforts to weaponize. that said, try and explain to any reasonable and ordinary person that iran, having abandoned their nuke program in 2003, is now closer to breakout capability than when they had a weapon program. and you continue to display your diminished capacity to understand logic by mocking yourself with mcveigh and nichols v. our neighbor phd. the logic fail is you mistaking noncompletion o' a working device as being proof of lack of capacity. we used an example where there would be no 'question as to know-how, infrastructure and materials to show that not completing a device fails as evidence o' a lack o' capacity. am finding it difficult to believe you honest don't get it, but... and so maybe you are just that obtuse. and final, hopeful final, the ten year old argument were intentional based on old data and conclusions; how can you possible still be missing that point? am criticizing israel's 2025 justification by pointing out that their conclusions is hardly more persuasive today than they were in 2011 and 2012 when us intelligence, isis, rand and iaea all agreed that iran was somewhere between six and nineteen months from reaching breakout capability. dude. serious. but what do we expect from the logic challenged guy who offers little in the way o' evidence to support his positions save to intentional misquote sources, a guy who has been arguing with a strawman mor a few pages and like so many redditt warriors, doesn't believe anybody will go through the effort to fact check him. and so here we are, once again, eh? turin horse HA! Good Fun! ps am having been warned by mods, years past, that calling posters "liar" is frowned 'pon. if such remains verboten, am recognizing we overstepped a line or broke custom. our excuse is that we were responding in kind, but perhaps such is insufficient or immaterial. regardless, if we posted in error, am apologizing in advance and bear no ill will if the thread is pruned.

and second video is from 2017 btw. two weeks is parody. two weeks is a tell that trump hasn't even thought deep enough to come up with a lie. HA! Good Fun! ps (edit) for those not paying attention, it ain't just health care which didn't happen in two weeks. obviously the initial 24 hour and day 1 boasts for ukraine and bringing down inflation were anomalous, as two weeks is the reflexive rejoinder when trump is questioned. infrastructure never occurred during trumps first term in spite of perpetual two week estimates. wire tapping bombshell? nope.

the cern facility is only a bit more excessive than our current setup... not to mention the vulgar oversized outdoor grill on our back patio, a weber charcoal grill, smoker, multiple air fryers (one toaster-style and two basket,) microwave oven, instapot, rice cooker, this and one of these... none o' which makes us near as good a cook as were our grandmother who cooked 99% on a circa 1957 basic 4-burner kenmore gas range. avocado color. HA! Good Fun! ps we got a bunch o' other additional cooking appliances, but they mostly sit in the pantry unused... as well as prep stuff like blenders, food processors and the stand mixer we almost never use 'cause we hardly ever bake.

am thinking paperboy love prince has a better shot as the next nyc mayor. heck, paperboy love prince might have a better shot than pahlavi does o' bringing back monarchy to iran. paperboy is in favour o' ubi, so am suspecting there is at least one obsidian boardy who would support him. HA! Good Fun!

am gonna admit that the part that made us open a search engine were the director credit? akeva schaffer? ... directed and wrote for snl from 2005-2011. whole lotta episodes worth o' directing credits and we had literal never heard o' him before today. ok then. admitted, is no shock his director movie credits were all flicks we never saw. he has an acting credit for the weird al parody biopic from 2022, and that is something am having meant to watch, but... ... am so outta touch. HA! Good Fun!

does somebody wanna tell zor that am saying, ad nauseum, that israel did not have a legit imminent nuke threat for attacking iran? that fact doesn't seem to have sunk in yet. perplexing. kinda a lotta noise seeing he is arguing with the strawman he invented. can't serious wanna go down the list o' fact checks given your last few posts misrepresenting quotes and ignoring inconvenient facts. and is no surprise that you complete miss the point o' the tim mcveigh and phd chemist example as it is where you initial went off the rails.... and the iaea is thankful relevant, so am able to kill two birds with one fertilizer bomb. since 2011-12, iaea, rand, us military intelligence and isis has all been in agreement that iran has the know-how, infrastructure and, "very, very specific ingredients to build a nuke," within a period of six to nineteen months, and a bit less time in 2025. the fact our neighbor, in spite of having the know-how, infrastructure and access to ingredients necessary to build a bomb, but has not done so, hardly proves that she cannot build such a bomb. the recognition that tim mcveigh and nichols, not phd chemists, were able to build a bomb in no way diminishes the point that you have no better understanding o' basic logic today than at anytime in the past decade. iran and our neighbor not building a bomb o' any sort is unpersuasive proof that they is incapable o' doing so. our neighbor has chosen not to build a bomb. similarly, iran has chosen not to build a bomb. the length o' time which has expired since our neighbor has had the capacity to build a bomb and today in no way makes it more likely that she lacks capacity to do so. same goes for iran. am not sure how to simplify this further. reminder: our initial conflict with zor, from the start, were extreme limited, but presumably 'cause you got distracted by strawmen and phantoms o' what you imagined were our real arguments, you utter missed any chance at responding coherent or constructive. you made the logically faulty insinuation that the extreme amount o' time that had elapsed since israel and others first claimed that iran were working on a bomb, undermined the proposition that iran is, and has been only six to nineteen months away from creating a nuke. again, and hopeful final 'cause this is bordering on an insane level o' spam, iaea, us intelligence, rand and isis (and quite possible more,) all agreed that iran has had the capacity to reach breakout in somewhere betwixt six months and a couple years, and that assessment were true even back in 2011: a supported example unlike zor take on faith and selective half-quote nonsense, that iran had the "very, very specific ingredients" to reach breakout in a short span o' time furthermore, am not sure how many times we need repeat that am in full agreement that iran were not active pursuing the development of a nuke in spite of their efforts to shorten the breakout time by enhancing their technical and infrastructure resources, have now posted the following MULTIPLE times. "The reader is cautioned not to allow technical breakout estimates to become a distraction from the more important question of Iran’s political will. All breakout estimates assume that Iran has decided to produce a weapon. Yet this is likely not so." for chrissakes, the fact that pretty much every credible source agreed that in spite of having a short breakout timeline, iran had not been making any effort to actual develop a weapon is one o' the reasons Gromnir criticized israel (many times now) for attacking iran based on the pretext o' an imminent nuclear threat from iran. the reason iran weren't developing a weapon weren't lack o' capacity, but rather the absence o' political will. so what were different in 2025 than in the decades previous? seeing as how israel didn't provide any meaningful rationale or compelling evidence for a shift in will from iran, their justification for attacking iran looks fraudulent. but again, nobody is arguing with you that iran hasn't been working to develop a nuke for a long time. that has been a cornerstone o' our complaint that israel's excuse for attacking iran were bs. as such, complaining to us that iaea stated that iran had no weapons program since 2003 is kinda pointless. weapons program v. working towards breakout? you serious quibbling over nomenclature when am having already agreed more than a dozen times now that iran stopped working on developing a nuke way back in 2003 and instead focused on breakout capacity? ... look, am knowing the and blunders had to be embarrassing, but maybe you can take this as a learning opportunity? perhaps not. whatever. pushed us to exhaustion... again. HA! Good Fun!

telling us that netanyahu's justification was less than convincing is kinda irrelevant, seeing as how that has been exact what Gromnir has been saying since our godfather baptism post... so again, duh. even so, there is an assumption that the delivery system in question is a ballistic missile warhead, which is why we quoted a pertinent portion from the rand report which describes the engineering hurdles o' accomplishing such a feat. however, as already stated, it takes little imagination to come up with alternative delivery methods for at least a single weapon. even then, zor can't help himself but misquote: "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." "up to" is carrying a bit of weight. funny you left that part out, eh? regardless, am admitted tickled by the realization zor has been busy arguing against an imaginary strawman. in any event, before israel's attack, not much had changed since 2011 when iaea and others recognized that iran were six to nineteen months away from breakout. before the most recent preventative attack by israel, there had been more than a decade o' time during which iran had the materials, infrastructure and technical know-how to achieve breakout in six to nineteen months. although breakout estimates had shrunk recent, the difference were a matter o' a few months. iran chose to not pursue the development o' a nuclear weapon. a decade o' restraint seems like a good thing in our estimation. unless somebody is hiding some sooper relevant info, there didn't look to be any more reason to attack iran in 2025 than were the case in 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, etc. nevertheless, israel launched an attack which, particular based on their target selection, had zero chance o' seriously diminishing iran's breakout capability. is why am having repeated called bs on israel's justification for their attack. worse, if iran weren't developing a weapon before the attack as seems to be consensus, it would surprise us not at all if iran's calculus has changed. however, on the lighter side, 'cause am admitting this continued bloodbath is no doubt inspiring a bit o' nietzsche and turin horse sympathy for zor, ... is somehow equal parts amusing and grotesque that trump is effective quoting colonel strelnikov. if he had mentioned, "wolverines, small ferocious animals," we woulda' been absolute certain that trump had watched red dawn the night before. HA! Good Fun!

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!