Reality. You don't get to attack a country and pretend that's de-escalation. What you're describing is absolute and fucking utter nonsense that has no relationship with reality, basic analysis or the human ability to string two words together.
Unless you are the most fucking unhinged empire on planet
The kind to attack the commander in chief of Iran while he's on a diplomatic mission and then pretend that's de-escalation? No wait, you're the one saying that.
who just geared up for war
Yes, anyone with a pair of functioning eyes can look at a map and realize the United States is perpetually ready to invade Iran. Hence their ability to continuously wage hybrid war against 5 different countries in the region, including Iran.
Like no shit sure he was, he wanted it just the same
Ah, yes. Trump wanted a war. Which is why he de-escalated by attacking the country!
this would be first time in history when the potential target of US manage to avoid being attacked by "calling them".
Jesus fucking Christ. Anyone who reads the news mega can cite dozens of instances where de-escalation was achieved by calling the other side and letting them know where bombings. Case in point, when the United States attacked Iran the Iranians called the US, told them which bases they'd bomb and those bases were promptly prepared for the attack.
Also, did you just suggested that Soleimani's death was Iran giving him up so the US can "save face"?
See above for the actual events I was referring to. You lack basic knowledge of the facts at hand, which is why you just asked such an asinine question.
but they didn't openly attacked US in retaliation
See above once again in case you ignored my previous advice. The fact that you can even make such a statement is another instance of you lacking the basic knowledge of the situation at hand. Iran and the iraqi resistance attacked US bases in Iraq as retaliation for the US's attack on Iran. That is what happened.
and surely didn't go to war with US
Yes, it was Iran who chose to de-escalate by letting the pentagon know where and how the retaliation would occur. The US has continued to wage hybrid and actual war against Iran nonetheless.
funnily of you to engage in such vulgar great man theory after calling me "revisionist" lol.
No. Revisionist isn't just a word that exists within your terminally online circles. It's an actual word used in sociology and history. The fact that you don't know two shits about what happened back then (see above) is what makes you an incompetent revisionist. The United States attacked Iran, killing its commander in chief. The fact of the matter is that the pro iran caucus believed that was it, that war would finally happen. That is one of the many things you've been incapable of remembering or ever knowing.
Lol where i did ever said that lol.
Oh I'm sorry, is the statement 'The United States de-escalated from war with Iran by killing its military commander in a diplomatic mission without any provocation' any less ridiculous than the implication that the US was appeasing peace doves when IT FUCKING KILLED THE MILITARY COMMANDER OF IRAN IN A DIPLOMATIC MISSION.
Reality. You don’t get to attack a country and pretend that’s de-escalation.
I didn't even want to read rest of your inane drivel after this, i explained it to you at least twice but you seem to live in alternate reality where the war did happened.
Since i'm on grad and we don't have this emoji, treat this as PPB and move along.
Reality. You don't get to attack a country and pretend that's de-escalation. What you're describing is absolute and fucking utter nonsense that has no relationship with reality, basic analysis or the human ability to string two words together.
The kind to attack the commander in chief of Iran while he's on a diplomatic mission and then pretend that's de-escalation? No wait, you're the one saying that.
Yes, anyone with a pair of functioning eyes can look at a map and realize the United States is perpetually ready to invade Iran. Hence their ability to continuously wage hybrid war against 5 different countries in the region, including Iran.
Ah, yes. Trump wanted a war. Which is why he de-escalated by attacking the country!
Jesus fucking Christ. Anyone who reads the news mega can cite dozens of instances where de-escalation was achieved by calling the other side and letting them know where bombings. Case in point, when the United States attacked Iran the Iranians called the US, told them which bases they'd bomb and those bases were promptly prepared for the attack.
See above for the actual events I was referring to. You lack basic knowledge of the facts at hand, which is why you just asked such an asinine question.
See above once again in case you ignored my previous advice. The fact that you can even make such a statement is another instance of you lacking the basic knowledge of the situation at hand. Iran and the iraqi resistance attacked US bases in Iraq as retaliation for the US's attack on Iran. That is what happened.
Yes, it was Iran who chose to de-escalate by letting the pentagon know where and how the retaliation would occur. The US has continued to wage hybrid and actual war against Iran nonetheless.
No. Revisionist isn't just a word that exists within your terminally online circles. It's an actual word used in sociology and history. The fact that you don't know two shits about what happened back then (see above) is what makes you an incompetent revisionist. The United States attacked Iran, killing its commander in chief. The fact of the matter is that the pro iran caucus believed that was it, that war would finally happen. That is one of the many things you've been incapable of remembering or ever knowing.
Oh I'm sorry, is the statement 'The United States de-escalated from war with Iran by killing its military commander in a diplomatic mission without any provocation' any less ridiculous than the implication that the US was appeasing peace doves when IT FUCKING KILLED THE MILITARY COMMANDER OF IRAN IN A DIPLOMATIC MISSION.
I didn't even want to read rest of your inane drivel after this, i explained it to you at least twice but you seem to live in alternate reality where the war did happened.
Since i'm on grad and we don't have this emoji, treat this as PPB and move along.
the killing (which is an aggressive action)
of the iranian military commander (very important person)
while they are on a diplomatic mission (big no no to kill someone here)
is
not (as in, the negative)
deescalation from war (as in, choosing to not wage war)