#60
Rank
51
Comments
41
Likes Received
33
Likes Given
n/a
3 months ago
Clearly, the last thing we have atleast in the comment section - is consensus 😂
n/a
3 months ago
In retrospect polymarket’s clarification was really a bad move. Now the clear decision to make is P4 - but if It happens the clarification really screwed up the yes holders. On the otherside, if it will be P2 due to polymarket commitment - it will be unfair to no holders, because it shouldn’t affect the result.
n/a
3 months ago
If you have more emails we can message them as well. He is probably more busy then others.
NERA
3 months ago
Guys Pls Email The NYTimes Editor responsible of this (Email: michael.levenson@nytimes.com): Hello Michael Levenson, I believe that Truth matters for a great journalist like you! I'm very interested to understand why NYtimes reported that Israel striked Iraq, while all evidence said otherwise. PLz help correct this, people are losing their money on Polymarket based on this.
n/a
3 months ago
Sharing this tweet https://x.com/sewalifturki/status/1850838347427528725?s=46. Written better than mine. Share! ❤️
n/a
3 months ago
Without “in”
ulfric
3 months ago
how is that a yes and the ismail haniyeh assassination in iran didn't resolve this market https://polymarket.com/event/israel-military-action-against-iran-by-end-of-2024 polyscam
n/a
3 months ago
Correct! And in this also should have resolved to “consensus” of credible sources
ulfric
3 months ago
how is that a yes and the ismail haniyeh assassination in iran didn't resolve this market https://polymarket.com/event/israel-military-action-against-iran-by-end-of-2024 polyscam
n/a
3 months ago
also published tweet https://x.com/boazboz/status/1850838732791857183?s=46
n/a
3 months ago
We will definitely probably gonna lose. But we are still correct and will hear our voices to the end.
Drachenstark
3 months ago
No - it is time to let lose of the copium an accept the fact this market is going to resolve to yes
n/a
3 months ago
Share the link to the post here. I recommend to also share some of the arguments that have been written here.
n/a
3 months ago
Let's open a hashtag on x and let's make our voices heard.
n/a
3 months ago
It was after the additional context published..
0xc6e26eD82B3aB9e8fCB97cAb94A1f42582DbA1DE-1721714221863
3 months ago
The trading volume increased by 1 million USDC in one day, and the yes price was raised from 92 to 99 by funds. Why did yes funds push the price up when there was such a big controversy? For how many points of profit? I think they knew the end result and wanted to create a fait accompli.
n/a
3 months ago
Consensus means that a large majority of the main outlets actively report it, or are not interested enough to mention it. They 5 big media outlets mentioned did not ignore Iraq due to lack of interest (they reported Syria), and therefore constitutes a contradiction to the consensus.
n/a
3 months ago
Fox news joined CNN, BBC, and Arab news reporting only on Syria and Iran. As they deliberately did not mention Iraq, they are all not part of the general agreement claimed. If you call Iraq claims consensus, are Syria claims a really big consensus? And Iran claims a really really big consensus? Obviously Iraq claims are way less agreed upon than this two.
n/a
3 months ago
Fox News is maybe the best example to our case. The following article is mentioned in UMA posts as an example for a report of an attack on Iraq. Currently it only mentions an attack on Syria and Iran. That means they deliberately removed the report of attack of Iraq - and therefore, they are not a part of a general agreement (consensus) it happened. Obviously, they won’t correct themselves by posting another article correcting a sentence in the first version, but the edit they performed is enough to understand they are not a part of the agreement. btw, it also proves big media outlets might still correct themselves so we should WAIT UNTIL OCT. 31. https://www.foxnews.com/world/israel-begins-retaliatory-strikes-against-iran-following-missile-barrage-targeting-israelis
n/a
3 months ago
another report of that statement https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/271020244
n/a
3 months ago
kan11 reporter writes: https://x.com/kaisos1987/status/1850620719857799519?s=46 The Iraqi Hezbollah Brigades, Iran's flagship militia in the land of the Euphrates and Tigris, says in a statement that the Israeli attack against Iran carried out from Iraqi territory cannot go quietly under any circumstances, because if it does, Israel will repeat it. The announcement said that the United States must pay a price for turning Iraqi airspace into a no-man's land, and it will pay in its time and place, and Israel will not escape from it either: "After they dared to attack in Iran, they will also dare to attack in Iraq for sure, if the enemy does not pay a heavy price." Now i emphasize 1. They clearly deny the attack though they have no interest and want to escalate. 2. They say the iraqi airspace is no-man's land (no reason to attack anti air missiles) 3. "they will also dare to attack in Iraq for sure, if the enemy does not pay a heavy price"...
n/a
3 months ago
If anyone can help to spread this message, we would really appreciate that!
n/a
3 months ago
And to conclude all of my comments, although it is "israel attacked in iraq" is written more then "israel did not attack in iraq" in the credible media, it is clear there is NO general agreement between them it did happen.
n/a
3 months ago
The following two "no attack" reports are often refuted because they are based on the biased iraqi goverment: Iraqi news: “no Iraqi targets were exposed during the Zionist attack on Iran” Link: https://ina.iq/eng/35857-no-iraqi-targets-were-exposed-during-the-zionist-attack-on-iran.html Israel news: “Iraqi facilities not affected by Israeli attack on Iran” Link: https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-826158 But if we check the "attack occurred" reports - we see that guardian basis themself on NYT report that came from "three Israeli and three Iranian officials". This is a weaker source then the iraqi goverment and media. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/27/israel-strikes-iran-air-defence-systems-energy-sites Furthermore, WSJ does not even provide their source of the claim. https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-israel-pulled-off-its-largest-ever-strike-on-iran-689022ca
n/a
3 months ago
Arab News also reported only on iran and syria https://www.arabnews.com/node/2576820/middle-east
n/a
3 months ago
In Jerusalem Post, it is written in the headline that Israel attacked in iraq. In contrast, the actual article, they only talk about explosions that are denied to be attacks, and do not mention any claim of any source of an attack. following the previous logic, they are also reporting between the lines that there is not enough evidence of an attack. https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-826132
n/a
3 months ago
CNN, BBC, Fox and Reuters reported only on attacks in Iran and Syria. The attack on Iraq was rumored in the first minutes, which means they intently did not mention it due to lack of evidence. Obviously they won’t say explicitly “Israel did not attack in Iraq” as they did not say “Israel did not attack in Yemen” or anywhere else that was not attacked. There is no media consensus on this topic. It’s just that “Israel did not attack in…” is not an headline. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/explosions-heard-iran-syria-middle-east-braces-israeli-retaliation-2024-10-25/ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yr5ek4r8ro https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/26/middleeast/israel-strikes-iran-explainer-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.foxnews.com/world/israel-begins-retaliatory-strikes-against-iran-following-missile-barrage-targeting-israelis (I think in previous versions they did report attack on iraq - that means it was editted out!)
n/a
3 months ago
CNN, BBC and Reuters reported only on attacks in Iran and Syria. The attack on Iraq was rumored in the first minutes, which means they intently did not mention it due to lack of evidence. Obviously they won’t say explicitly “Israel did not attack in Iraq” as they did not say “Israel did not attack in Yemen” or anywhere else that was not attacked. There is no media consensus on this topic. It’s just that “Israel did not attack in…” is not an headline. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/explosions-heard-iran-syria-middle-east-braces-israeli-retaliation-2024-10-25/ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yr5ek4r8ro https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/26/middleeast/israel-strikes-iran-explainer-intl-hnk/index.html In Jerusalem Post, it is written in the headline that Israel attacked in iraq. In contrast, the actual article, they only talk about explosions that are denied to be attacks, and do not mention any claim of any source of an attack. following the previous logic, they are also reporting between the lines that there is not enough evidence of an attack. https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-826132
n/a
3 months ago
CNN, BBC and Reuters reported only on attacks in Iran and Syria. The attack on Iraq was rumored in the first minutes, which means they intently did not mention it due to lack of evidence. Obviously they won’t say explicitly “Israel did not attack in Iraq” as they did not say “Israel did not attack in Yemen” or anywhere else that was not attacked. There is no media consensus on this topic. It’s just that “Israel did not attack in…” is not an headline. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/explosions-heard-iran-syria-middle-east-braces-israeli-retaliation-2024-10-25/ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yr5ek4r8ro https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/26/middleeast/israel-strikes-iran-explainer-intl-hnk/index.html
n/a
3 months ago
Didn’t you say we can talk with them?
n/a
3 months ago
Again, CNN and BBC reported only on Iran and Syria. Obviously they won’t say explicitly “did not attack in Iraq” as they did not say “did not attack in Yemen” or anywhere else that was not attacked. That definitely means that in there view there is no sufficient evidence of such attack. Otherwise they would have definitely write about that.
n/a
3 months ago
Also Reuters.
n/a
3 months ago
Again, CNN and BBC reported only on Iran and Syria. Obviously they won’t say explicitly “did not attack in Iraq” as they did not say “did not attack in Yemen” or anywhere else that was not attacked. That definitely means that in there view there is no sufficient evidence of such attack. Otherwise they would have definitely write about that.
n/a
3 months ago
Clearly, there is no media consensus. It’a just that “Israel did not attack in…” can’t be a headline.
n/a
3 months ago
Again, CNN and BBC reported only on Iran and Syria. Obviously they won’t say explicitly “did not attack in Iraq” as they did not say “did not attack in Yemen” or anywhere else that was not attacked. That definitely means that in there view there is no sufficient evidence of such attack. Otherwise they would have definitely write about that.
n/a
3 months ago
Again, CNN and BBC reported only on Iran and Syria. Obviously they won’t say explicitly “did not attack in Iraq” as they did not say “did not attack in Yemen” or anywhere else that was not attacked. That definitely means that in there view there is no sufficient evidence of such attack. Otherwise they would have definitely write about that.
n/a
3 months ago
A lot of news papers wrote only about Iran. BBC and CNN wrote only on Iran and Syria. A lot of news paper reported on “no attack” according to govs. There is not a consensus.
n/a
3 months ago
What do you expect? A headline : “Israel did not attack In Iraq”?? Why would it be a article
n/a
3 months ago
Also mentioning only Syria and Iran
n/a
3 months ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yr5ek4r8ro
n/a
3 months ago
This demonstrates how much the reports are weak and does not indicate on anything
n/a
3 months ago
CNN doesn’t mention attack on Iraq.
n/a
3 months ago
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/26/middleeast/israel-strikes-iran-explainer-intl-hnk/index.html
n/a
3 months ago
Well we have a new day for new reports to be posted. Let’s hope for good luck.
n/a
3 months ago
It actually makes no sense to do this now? Why not wait to when more information is out?
n/a
3 months ago
What does the clarification means? Why isn’t it closing now?
n/a
3 months ago
This is crazy
n/a
3 months ago
And the map just points Iraq and Syria as a country. It does not say anything specific
0xE064aE91a63B160b2C204d2C45c66752DB8262b5-1730038856174
3 months ago
I am for no.. but the map here scares me..https://m.maariv.co.il/news/military/article-1142917
n/a
3 months ago
The quote of the officer in here does not say anything about Iraq
0xE064aE91a63B160b2C204d2C45c66752DB8262b5-1730038856174
3 months ago
I am for no.. but the map here scares me..https://m.maariv.co.il/news/military/article-1142917
n/a
3 months ago
Continuing my last message - because of that, I believe that all of the new information will keep backing us up. I just hope that there will be enough new information in time.
n/a
3 months ago
Btw - honestly there are a lot of reports that say that Israel attacked there, but the media gets stuff like that wrong all of the time. I think it is more likely that we lose because the market will falsely resolve to yes, then because of us being wrong.
n/a
3 months ago
@shekel - The no community is all about love for no holders, and not about hate for yes holders. In this times, we have to show solidarity and belief in our truth ❤️
n/a
3 months ago
Me while waiting for new information on this issue: —.—
n/a
3 months ago
On iraq*
n/a
3 months ago
Would like to add another point. People here call Iraqi government biased (true), but call media unbaised. The media’s clear incentive is headlines. If they can vaguely claim an Israeli attack in Iran they will do it. No further details from them because there are none at this time.
n/a
3 months ago
Would like to add another point. People here call Iraqi government biased (true), but call media unbaised. The media’s clear incentive is headlines. If they can vaguely claim an Israeli attack in Iran they will do it. No further details from them because there are none at this time.
n/a
3 months ago
Sound like an evil villain
Car
3 months ago
its already over NO holders. dont waste your money
n/a
3 months ago
Can anyone explain about the UMA please?
n/a
3 months ago
How even this site managed to have funny comment section. Personally I cannot understand the yes holders, but it will be intersecting to analyze it in retrospect.
n/a
3 months ago
A brief overview of the facts: 1. Many sources reported an attack in Iraq, but without any specific details. 2. Israel, Iraq, and other entities deny the attack. 3. There is no military or diplomatic logic for an Israeli attack in Iraq. The alternatives are: A. The reported attack in Iraq is a rumor that spread and hasn’t been corrected because it’s not of enough interest and there isn’t sufficient information yet. B. Israel did attack in Iraq, even though it’s an illogical move for them, and the reports are accurate. In my opinion, there’s much more than a 9% chance…
n/a
3 months ago
Honestly the craziest 3% bet I ever thought I could see. People who really think it will surely resolve to yes are so naive. “You really think wsj get something wrong 😂”