Biden secretly gave Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia with US weapons

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: cherokeetroy

Evidence mate, thats the ticket you see.

Of the credible sorts mind you.

Which should be everywhere by now, and its not.

Hence.

Well, you do the math...........

I see your math is leading you around in circles. Maybe you should get to the point?

a reply to: cherokeetroy

Your lack of credible evidence to support the missile strike on a US carrier springs to mind.

The point being if that were true it would be everywhere by now.

And its not hence.

I think you may be on to plums.

Genocide Joe would rather engage in World War III then give up that power to Donald Trump.

a reply to: Dandandat3

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: cherokeetroy

Your lack of credible evidence to support the missile strike on a US carrier springs to mind.

The point being if that were true it would be everywhere by now.

And its not hence.

I think you may be on to plums.

There was a missile strike. Missiles were launched. Did you miss the Centcom tweet that acknowledged the engagement?

a reply to: cherokeetroy

On the US carrier?

Post the link please so i can check out the actual place you getting this "information".

And how would a "tweet" constitute proof ffs?

a reply to: cherokeetroy

And yet its not Biden that had an issue leaving the White House last time around, but Trump, so there is that.

a reply to: cherokeetroy

talk about being dishonest,why didn't you post a link instead of a screen shot.
me i think this maybe the reason why,

my screen shots,




Link to #upland
x.com...

the other two hashtags don't even show a video.
using fake or disinformation makes your credibility doubtful.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Well, i think you just blew that palaver out the water.

It looked completely suspect which is why i also asked for the link.

Let's see if he's man enough to apologize and accept the reality of the facts.

a reply to: andy06shake

i thought that looked familiar and didn't even look like a aircraft carrier when i saw like, the towers are not the same.
it's a LHD Wasp-class amphibious assault ship.
that's the one where the sailor was found not guilty for arson

a reply to: andy06shake


x.com...
x.com...
x.com...

a reply to: cherokeetroy

There were no injuries or damage reported by U.S., coalition, or commercial ships.

From your own source.

The ASBM were fired in the direction of USS Gravely and were destroyed in self-defense, with no damage or injuries reported by U.S., coalition, or commercial ships.

And once again.

Oh dear.

Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear.

Would you like a spade or a life jacket?

a reply to: cherokeetroy

Time to give it up, mate?

a reply to: andy06shake

Yes, once again right back where we started. You're the one making the claim there was zero engagement. You asked for evidence in links, I gave it to you.

Now it's your turn to provide evidence that I claimed Houthis struck the Eisenhower. Copy/paste my words so I can see them.

a reply to: cherokeetroy

How can i provide evidence of a negative? LoL

Buddy show us a US aircraft carrier with a big hole in the side please.

Try not to make it a tweet screenshot or a blatant fake.

And then we can talk.

Else crap or get off the pot please.

BernnieJGato already shot you in the foot.

Now limp away.

Or better yet, man up and admit you were simply mistakenly full of tripe.

a reply to: andy06shake

It's not that hard. Simply scroll back through the last few pages, find my statement:

"Houthis struck the Eisenhower"

Copy/paste it into a new response.

I'll wait.

a reply to: cherokeetroy

another one of my real screen shots,



did you notice the mention of LHD 6 at the start, now look at your phony fake liars screen shot see the big ol 6 on the tower.

link to another x post orignal one i'm thinking judging by the comments.

x.com...

you should really stop now your just embarrassing yourself trying to double down on it.

a reply to: cherokeetroy

"Wild claim'? I don't know how wild it is when their drones have obv been targeting the ships over the last 24 hours

I did not suggest it was that hard little bit.

Will these ones do where you seem to be seriously entertaining the possibility?

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Nope it went right over his head probably like the Houthis cruise missile.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk...
www.newsweek.com...#:~:text=A%20Pentagon%20spokesperson%20told%20News week,the%20satellite%20images%20was%20taken.&text=Neither%20of%20the%20photos%20shared,caused%20by%20Houthi%20missile%20strikes.
defence-blog.com...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: cherokeetroy

"Wild claim'? I don't know how wild it is when their drones have obv been targeting the ships over the last 24 hours

I did not suggest it was that hard little bit.

Will these ones do where you seem to be seriously entertaining the possibility?

No, that doesn't suffice.

I'm not wrong btw, I can provide you further evidence that Houthis continue launching missiles attempting to hit US targets in the Red Sea almost daily, now.

a reply to: cherokeetroy

I also posted links in the post above that all call into question the carrier being hit.

Pay particular attention to the Chinese satellite images of a fully functional USS Eisenhower in the 3rd link.

If you're not wrong you should be able to post evidence of the USS Eisenhower with a large hole in her side.

And once again your own words seem to suggest you believe the carrier was struck.

"Wild claim'? I don't know how wild it is when their drones have obv been targeting the ships over the last 24 hours

Your hole is simply getting deeper, so i take it you chose a spade after all.