https://i.imgur.com/M4GMyx5.jpeg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5771439&forum_id=2),#49248409)

- This morning, the Trump Administration was notified by the United States Military that Israel was attacking Hamas which, very unfortunately, was located in a section of Doha, the Capital of Qatar.

- This was a decision made by Prime Minister Netanyahu, it was not a decision made by me.

- Unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a Sovereign Nation and close Ally of the United States, that is working very hard and bravely taking risks with us to broker Peace, does not advance Israel or America's goals.

- However, eliminating Hamas, who have profited off the misery of those living in Gaza, is a worthy goal.

- I immediately directed Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to inform the Qataris of the impending attack, which he did, however, unfortunately, too late to stop the attack.

- I view Qatar as a strong Ally and friend of the U.S., and feel very badly about the location of the attack.

- I want ALL of the Hostages, and bodies of the dead, released, and this War to END, NOW!

- I also spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu after the attack.

- The Prime Minister told me that he wants to make Peace.

- I believe this unfortunate incident could serve as an opportunity "for PEACE.

- I also spoke to the Emir and Prime Minister of Qatar, and thanked them for their support and friendship to our Country.

- I assured them that such a thing will not happen again on their soil.

- I have directed Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, to finalize the Defense Cooperation Agreement with Qatar.

- Thank you for your attention to this matter!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5771439&forum_id=2),#49248414)

Wow it sure sounds like the Hamas leaders were killed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5771439&forum_id=2),#49248419)

Here's a breakdown of what I see, separated into observations about the *content* and then observations about the *style/rhetoric*:

**Content - The Core Problem & How It’s Being Addressed:**

* **Massive Escalation:** Israel bombing Hamas in Doha, Qatar? This is *huge*. Qatar isn't just any nation; it's a U.S. ally and a key player in regional diplomacy. This action fundamentally destabilizes the region and jeopardizes ongoing peace efforts. The statement acknowledges this ("very unfortunately," "does not advance Israel or America’s goals").

* **Blame Shifting:** The core strategy is to distance the speaker (presumably a President) from the decision. Repeatedly stating “it was not a decision made by me” and attributing it solely to Netanyahu is crucial for political survival. This attempts to shield the speaker from direct responsibility for an action that could have severe consequences.

* **Conflicting Goals:** The statement tries to reconcile two opposing goals: eliminating Hamas (a stated objective) with maintaining good relations with Qatar and pursuing peace. It's a tightrope walk, arguing that one justifies the other. The "worthy goal" justification is weak given the scale of the diplomatic damage.

* **Questionable Claims:** The claim that Steve Witkoff warned Qatar “too late to stop the attack” is suspicious. If there was warning, why didn't Qatar prevent it? This suggests either a breakdown in communication or an attempt to minimize U.S. responsibility for not preventing the strike.

* **Reassurance & Future Promises:** The speaker goes to great lengths to reassure Qatar ("strong Ally and friend," "such a thing will not happen again"). This is standard procedure after a diplomatic incident, but it feels somewhat hollow given the severity of the initial action. The Defense Cooperation Agreement announcement is likely intended as a tangible sign of commitment.

* **Netanyahu's Claims:** Accepting Netanyahu’s statement that he “wants to make Peace” at face value is naive and serves to legitimize his actions, even if they contradict U.S. interests.

**Style & Rhetoric - How It's Being Said:**

* **Exaggerated Language:** Phrases like "bravely taking risks" (Qatar brokering peace) are hyperbolic and designed to portray Qatar in a positive light.

* **Emotional Appeals:** The repeated emphasis on releasing hostages and ending the war is intended to evoke sympathy and project an image of concern, even while downplaying the larger diplomatic crisis.

* **Defensive Tone:** The entire statement reads as defensive – constantly explaining, justifying, and apologizing. This reinforces the impression that something went terribly wrong.

* **Unusual Appointments:** The mention of "Special Envoy Steve Witkoff" and "Secretary of State Marco Rubio" feels oddly specific and potentially designed to highlight loyalty or signal a particular policy direction. It's unusual to name individuals in this way within an official statement unless they are playing a very visible role.

* **The “Opportunity for Peace” Spin:** Framing the incident as an opportunity for peace is a desperate attempt to salvage something positive from a disastrous situation. It’s highly unlikely to be perceived that way by anyone outside of a very narrow circle.

**Overall Impression:**

This statement feels like a frantic effort to contain a crisis. The speaker is trying to minimize blame, reassure allies, and spin a deeply damaging event into a potential opportunity. The reliance on deflection and the questionable claims suggest a serious lack of control over the situation and a significant rift between the U.S. and Israel. It's a statement designed to protect political standing more than it is to genuinely address the underlying issues.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5771439&forum_id=2),#49248496)

This message presents a highly unusual and potentially problematic account of events surrounding an Israeli airstrike believed to have occurred in Qatar. Here's the assessment based *only* on its own claims (without external verification):

1. **Contradictory Tone:** The core issue is the deeply contradictory tone and framing.

* It explicitly criticizes Netanyahu for bombing "inside a Sovereign Nation," calling it "unfortunately... too late" to prevent, stating it didn't advance US goals ("does not advance").

* It simultaneously frames eliminating Hamas as a "worthy goal," despite acknowledging the attack happened in an area where they were located. This is highly unorthodox and raises legal concerns.

2. **Sovereignty Violation:** The statement strongly implies Israel struck targets within Qatar's territory, which directly violates international law (specifically sovereignty) unless it was self-defense against imminent armed attack occurring *within* the sovereign territory. It presents this violation as a major negative point.

3. **Lack of Transparency & Coordination:** The claim that the "impending attack" notification went out too late suggests significant friction or breakdown in communication and coordination between Israeli leadership, US Military officials notified beforehand, and potentially other relevant US entities (like State) involved in diplomacy *before* the strike occurred.

4. **Selective Use of Power/Influence:** The statement highlights Trump's power ("I immediately directed..."), promises that "such a thing will not happen again," and even mentions expediting a Defense Cooperation Agreement with Qatar as an assurance *after* the alleged incident. This implies the administration views diplomatic pressure, personal directives, and military/intelligence assets (like Witkoff) as tools to influence foreign behavior directly, bypassing or overriding existing agreements.

5. **Ambiguity on Hamas Location:** While it says "unfortunately... was located in a section of Doha," this is ambiguous about whether the *attack* itself or the *targets* were located there. It likely refers to the targets being inside Qatar, which is the more serious implication regarding sovereignty.

6. **Rhetorical Emphasis on Peace:** The phrase "an opportunity for PEACE" at the end stands out given the preceding criticism of actions that violate international norms and advance US goals only through problematic unilateralism by its key ally. While well-intentioned, this placement feels somewhat disconnected from the main body of the text which focuses heavily on Israel's *alleged* sovereignty breach.

**Overall Assessment (based solely on content):**

This statement paints a highly self-serving picture where:

* Netanyahu is publicly chastised for a unilateral action violating Qatari sovereignty.

* The US Military and State Department are depicted as responsible but overridden or ineffective in preventing the strike via their diplomatic channels *before* it happened.

* Eliminating Hamas is presented as an acceptable goal even if it means attacking them deep within an ally's territory, provided such attacks aren't repeated.

It suggests a potentially dangerous approach to US-Israeli influence operations abroad. While the stated desire for peace and prevention of future incidents sounds good in principle, the immediate framing focuses on Israel violating norms by bombing inside Qatar (which is itself seen as an ally). The effectiveness and appropriateness of using such language are highly questionable from an international relations standpoint.

The message needs to be read critically because it downplays or ignores a potential violation of Qatari sovereignty while supporting the military objective, creates ambiguity about whether the strike actually happened in Qatar or just hit targets there, and relies heavily on unverified claims ("eliminating Hamas... is a worthy goal," knowing exact target locations").

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5771439&forum_id=2),#49248614)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5771439&forum_id=2),#49248628)

https://i.imgur.com/spZ7qdn.png

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5771439&forum_id=2),#49248629)