Art of the deal?
Trump’s claims:
Mar 3: "We won the war."
Mar 7: "We defeated Iran."
Mar 9: "We must attack Iran."
Mar 9: "The war is ending very beautifully."
Mar 10: "practically nothing left to target."
Mar 11: “You never like to say early you won. We won.”
Mar 12: "We did win, but we not completely yet."
Mar 13: "We won the war."
Mar 14: "Please help us."
Mar 15: "If you don't help us, I will remember it."
Mar 16: "Actually, we don't need any help at all."
Mar 16: "I was just testing who's listening."
Mar 16: "If NATO doesn't help, they will suffer."
Mar 17: "We neither need nor want NATO's help."
Mar 18: "Allies must cooperate in reopening Hormuz."
Mar 19: "US allies need to get a grip."
Mar 20: "NATO are cowards."
Mar 21: "Hormuz, we don't use it, no need to open it."
Mar 22: "This is the last time. I will give Iran 48 hours."
Mar 22: "Iran is Dead"
Mar 23: "We had very good talk with Iran."
Mar 24: "We’re making progress."
Mar 25: “They gave us a present today."
Mar 26: "Make a deal."
Mar 27: "We don’t have to be there for NATO."
Mar 29: "Talks are progressing."
Mar 30: "Open Hormuz immediately or consequences."
Mar 31: "Deal very close, Iran will do the right thing."
Apr 1: "We’ll see what happens very soon."
Apr 2: "Deal likely, strikes if not."
Apr 3: "Something big is going to happen."
Apr 4: "Iran must comply immediately."
Apr 5: "Open the fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards."
Apr 6 : "A whole civilization will die."
Apr 7: "Total and complete victory."
Apr 8: "Objectives were met."
No regime change.
The strait of Hormuz remains closed.
Israel is getting destroyed.
Iran won?
Let’s be honest: if it had been clearly established that the strike which killed the UN humanitarian worker was carried out by AFC/M23, the tone of the statements would already be completely different. AFC/M23 would immediately be labeled terrorists and face intense condemnation and pressure from the international community.
Instead, the reactions we’re seeing are cautious and diplomatic, avoiding any direct attribution. That hesitation suggests there is serious awareness about where the strike may have actually originated.
When a government can violate agreements to the point where a UN humanitarian worker loses their life and there is still no clear condemnation of the perpetrator, it sends the wrong message. Silence or ambiguity only risks encouraging further escalation.
It increasingly looks like key figures such as Corneille Nangaa, Joseph Kabila, and Sultani Makenga are considered targets. If eliminating these individuals is the objective, it appears the government is willing to strike even in residential areas, showing little concern for the civilians who might be killed in the process as long as the intended target is removed. @US_SrAdvisorAF@USEmbKinshasa@AmbaFranceRDC@SecRubio@UN@RealManziWilly@afcongo@CNangaa@dr_dash250
No one is trying to silence you. Criticism is not intimidation. Journalists question governments and the public has the right to question journalists.
Saying “facts are facts” is not enough when your reporting consistently shows only one side of a complex conflict. Integrity is not something you declare; it is proven through balance, context, and equal scrutiny of all actors.
You repeatedly accuse Rwanda of violating the Washington Accords, yet you rarely address the DRC’s clear obligation to neutralize the FDLR, a documented threat to regional security. Leaving out such a central fact is selective reporting, not neutrality.
Independence is also judged by actions. You traveled to Kinshasa and Bujumbura, interviewed leaders aligned against Rwanda, appeared with a DRC state media microphone, and framed M23 as foreign despite well-known Congolese realities. That shows an editorial choice.
A fair question remains: did you make the same effort to travel to Rwanda and interview Rwandan officials, security experts, or affected civilians? And if you claim full independence, did you attempt to travel to areas controlled by M23 to interview them directly and hear their position?
Balanced journalism means going to all sides of the story, especially the uncomfortable ones. Choosing not to do so and then claiming absolute objectivity looks less like impartial reporting and more like taking a side.
@Katsuva_R@Katsuva_R Comment est la route de Mukamira à Muhanga ? La dernière fois que je l'ai empruntée, il y a plus de 15 ans, elle n'était pas en très bon état. Je sais pas si elle est goudronnée maintenant.
@l_jimanel@StromaeRW Honnêtement, c’est évident que toi-même tu utilises régulièrement ChatGPT pour poster tes arguments incohérents, tu ne peux pas vraiment me faire croire que tu as tapé plus de dix paragraphes en moins de dix minutes !
@l_jimanel@StromaeRW Sérieusement ? Tu l’accuses d’utiliser ChatGPT, alors qu’en réalité, l’utiliser intelligemment est un signe de compétence, pas un manque d’idées. C’est une question de cohérence entre toi et l’outil pour communiquer efficacement.
When you cosplay as a leader but rescind & backtrack on every promise/agreement, do you assume the public suffers from collective amnesia, or is that just another feature of the delusional package?
@PatrickRugaba@be_johns@sheilakamuzinzi Ariko @BURIKANTU_1 uwo mumotari wagutakiye ko utamubajije impamvu ako kazi atakareka? Ntekereza ko impamvu atakareka aruko kamutunze we n'umuryango we nubwo ahura n'izo mbogamizi zose. Muri transportation services zo mu Rwanda, abamotari nibo benshi.
@kivuutile They’re accusing him of killing Hutus 😅! If that were truly his intention, he would have wiped them out back in 1990 when he joined the RPA to protect Tutsis.
@SugiraMireille I often wonder if the @hrw president has an extreme Hutu bias, as their reports seem to consistently portray Hutus as victims and depict Tutsis as perpetrators.