Stop instigating. Obviously, Mike would prefer not to divulge anything he may be privy to. Take what he said and reject it if you like. But you might notice the next time you post there is a little red phrase at the bottom of the text box.
Loose lips sink ships.
thank you
Give me a break. Someone writes cryptic nonsense, I ask cordially what he is talking about, and this is "instigating"?
Obviously, Mike would prefer not to divulge anything he may be privy to. Take what he said and reject it if you like.
The problem is that he HASN'T SAID ANYTHING. Nothing coherent that is. So there is no way for me to know whether I should accept or reject it.
Mike said "it's not happening" without saying what "it" is, and then he said to "trust" him. About what?
From context, "it" could be anything on a sliding scale from (1) full-fledged revolution, (2) widespread bloody riots, (3) scattered staged protests/instigations being put down, (4) a few rock-throwing incidents, (5) one guy took off his glove and slapped another guy's face with it on a sidewalk in Tehran, or anything in between.
I might agree for example that (1) is not happening but (3) is. Or whatever. Someone saying (1) or (2) aren't happening, fine. Someone asserting that (4) isn't happening, is on the face of it not credible, because nobody could be in a position to know that, I don't care where they are. Which is it? Mike just said "it" isn't happening. I don't know how to take that, so I asked him to clarify. Twice now. What is your problem with that?
But you might notice the next time you post there is a little red phrase at the bottom of the text box.
If there is unrest happening in Iran, the mullahs are going to learn this from their internal security. It is not plausible that they don't know it from their internal security, but then surf the web and find out about it. And you don't honestly believe that.