President Trump statement on Iran video (~8 minutes)

Freedom for Iran

Demoncrats and “Team Mitch” are fuming.

This is Operation Roaring Lion.

what has happened to Julian Epstein?...he was a hard left maniac for years. Hes on Fox News right now tearing Obama and Biden a new one. Saying what Trump is doing here is heroic!!....that he deserves a Nobel Prize. I noticed last week..seems he has changed sides. Strange.

It’s for freedom democracy all over the world.

Thanks.

I see also called Operation Shield of Judah.

Yes.

Dang, Trump really laid it down.

Godspeed to our soldiers and all our friends at risk. This is not going to be easy.

Dept. of war just called it operation epic fury.

Now being said it is Operation Epic Fury.

he was a hard left maniac for years

The civilians massacred on October 7 in the Gaza envelope were mostly peaceniks and leftist aligned types. Afterwards, many said that there would be an effect on the left.

Because the military industrial complex has had such rousing success in the Middle East.

We don’t “free” a country by bombing the bejesus out of it.

pop goes the weasel

The Mullah's were killing their own citizens en masse for protesting. For that alone they all should be wiped off the face of the earth starting with Khomeini. But there's far more reasons than just that to end the reign of terror of these madmen.

So be it and God help us.

That’s Israel’s name. It’s Epic Fury

when you wipe out their entire upper command and leadership in the opening 20 minutes...

things get a lot easier.

From an oldie but goody: From 10/28/2001: DEBATE: Ramadan fixation Why should the war in Afghanistan stop during the holy month of Ramadan for terrorists?

But assume for a moment that man cannot kill man in a holy period. By that token, how bloodless have the past Ramadans been?
Recorded history suggests that Prophet Muhammad fought to reclaim Mecca during the Ramadan in 624. Sallah eddine al-Ayoubi defeated the Crusaders in the 1100s during Ramadan. In modern times, the Syrian and Egyptian armies backed by Arab oil wealth attacked Israel on 6 October 1973 in the smack middle of Ramadan.
Iran and Iraq fought a terrible war for eight years through eight Ramadans. Saddam Hussein offered a ceasefire during the 1981 Ramadan to regroup his forces and Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini rejected it to prevent it. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Mujahideen launched their worst attacks during Ramadan.
Anti-government Islamic rebels in Algeria called for increasing attacks during Ramadan in 1995 as reaffirmation of their faith in the creed. And, while the Northern Alliance respected cessation or reduction of hostilities during Ramadan, the Taliban has been its most brutal violator.

And for the crass Democrat exploitation of Ramadan, I give you my post later in the thread:

Two words: Bill Clinton.
IIRC, this Ramadan thing didn't become an issue until Bill Clinton used it as an excuse to hold off bombing Iraq in 1998. See the following links: RAMADAN AND THE TIMING OF THE STRIKE and Full Text of the President's Televised Speech from the San Francisco Chronicle. Somehow, this has become de facto policy.
Also, if attacking during Ramadan was such a big offense to the Muslim people, why didn't Clinton feel the same way about Christians when he snatched Elian Gonzales during the Easter weekend the following spring?
Full Text of the President's Televised Speech [Bill Clinton]
Published 4:00 am, Thursday, December 17, 1998
Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the cease-fire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decadelong war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.
Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to 0 to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the U.N.
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then, at the last possible moment, that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the U.N. that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
Now over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to U.N. Secretary-General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing...
[snip]
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act, and act now.
Let me explain why.
[snip]
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.
[snip]
If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.
That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
[snip]

Sound familiar? Bill Clinton could have written the speech that President Trump gave on Truth Social tonight!

Except for the part about Ramadan.

-PJ