Why no wedding band, Beard?Huey » 02 Aug 2026, 8:00 am » wrote: ↑ I you would get some mental help you would lead a much happier life. You won't be so bitter and jealous. You might even get a friend or two or get laid.
That has to be the dumbest question you've ever asked!Blackvegetable » 02 Aug 2026, 9:32 am » wrote: ↑ Do you also believe that the number of US Iran fatalities is FALLING?
Ignorant wop..Zeets2 » 02 Aug 2026, 9:39 am » wrote: ↑ That has to be the dumbest question you've ever asked!
How do the number of those who are already dead become lower?
Reincarnation? Or are you now counting spooks?
So they issued a correction to an erroneous report, and it brought you an orgasm?Blackvegetable » 02 Aug 2026, 9:42 am » wrote: ↑ Ignorant wop..
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/23/us/p ... roid-share
On Wednesday, the Pentagon reported on its casualties website that a total of 18 American service members had been killed during the war in Iran.
By Thursday, the Defense Department had lowered that number, reporting that 14 American troops had been killed in the war.
@Beekeeper is he taking about your significant otherZeets2 » 02 Aug 2026, 9:59 am » wrote: ↑ So they issued a correction to an erroneous report, and it brought you an orgasm?
Was Blow-up Betty cleaned out afterwards this time?
They lowered an existing number, you **** idiot.Zeets2 » 02 Aug 2026, 9:59 am » wrote: ↑ So they issued a correction to an erroneous report, and it brought you an orgasm?
Was Blow-up Betty cleaned out afterwards this time?
To quote you:Blackvegetable » 02 Aug 2026, 10:02 am » wrote: ↑They lowered an existing number, you **** idiot.Zeets2 » 02 Aug 2026, 9:59 am » wrote: ↑ So they issued a correction to an erroneous report, and it brought you an orgasm?
Was Blow-up Betty cleaned out afterwards this time?
Because nothing that comes out of this administration is reliable.
Hello, can't hear you.....must be the editing.
"Editing"?
Hello?Blackvegetable » 02 Aug 2026, 10:15 am » wrote: ↑.
Cowardly little ****,Huey » 02 Aug 2026, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑ To quote you:
This thread is not about that. Start a thread. Post the rule! LMAO!
Since you went down this road go ahead and prove then number is 18.
Thar she blows.....hello Mary.Blackvegetable » 02 Aug 2026, 10:22 am » wrote: ↑Cowardly little ****,Huey » 02 Aug 2026, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑ To quote you:
This thread is not about that. Start a thread. Post the rule! LMAO!
Since you went down this road go ahead and prove then number is 18.
prove the number ISN'T 18.
Don't see anything worth reading
Sure you do. Or you wouldn't have deleted. But, I was correct. You are going to be dishonest about.
Huey » 02 Aug 2026, 10:32 am » wrote: ↑Thar she blows.....hello Mary.Blackvegetable » 02 Aug 2026, 10:22 am » wrote: ↑Cowardly little ****,Huey » 02 Aug 2026, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑ To quote you:
This thread is not about that. Start a thread. Post the rule! LMAO!
Since you went down this road go ahead and prove then number is 18.
prove the number ISN'T 18.
Cowardly? Hello ROTC.
Neither one of us can prove any of those numbers. The honest way to mentioned it would be that originally 18 were reported killed but now it is reported as 14.
But we all know, ROTC, that you are not honest.
You are very predictable....
Huey » 02 Aug 2026, 10:35 am » wrote: ↑Sure you do. Or you wouldn't have deleted. But, I was correct. You are going to be dishonest about.Huey » 02 Aug 2026, 10:32 am » wrote: ↑Thar she blows.....hello Mary.
Cowardly? Hello ROTC.
Neither one of us can prove any of those numbers. The honest way to mentioned it would be that originally 18 were reported killed but now it is reported as 14.
But we all know, ROTC, that you are not honest.
Looks like you got yet another *** beating......
No one worries much about what you think you see...
Yeah, this is obviously the first time any erroneous number was later corrected in war time reports, right?Blackvegetable » 02 Aug 2026, 10:02 am » wrote: ↑ They lowered an existing number, you **** idiot.
Because nothing that comes out of this administration is reliable.