BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

"Bombing civilian infrastructure" is not a war crime.

And no matter what you want, other than ordering the release of nuclear weapons, Trump is not going to be removed from office by the 25th Amendment.

---

"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again..."

This is a genocide threat. Is that a war crime still or not anymore?

---

Is "Death to America" a genocidal threat?

---

Look up what that phrase actually means to Iranians.

---

Here is my 4th time to ask you Kenyo, is threatening genocide considered a war crime?

---

Another poster stated that it was and cited it. In a previous page. I haven't double checked it yet

---

It's not.

It's a position that is difficult to support, which is why it is so unsupported on this thread. The empty link to a long document with zero analysis that doesn't really even help the position isn't really meaningful.

But, if you want to make a contention that you know that it is, I would be interesting in hearing your argument.

---

Eh, I can see both sides of the argument but I am not personally sure. I never made the claim that the threat itself was a war crime; some other poster just intentionally misunderstood my post to argue that point. Obviously we can both agree that genocide is a war crime.

---

Well since that has not happened in Iran we dont have to worry about it.

---

What are we doing here? Pretending you don't understand? Trump made a threat of a genocide. Genocide is a war crime. Trump made a threat of a war crime. It is disturbing and unprecedented and obviously that is the point.

This whole strategy of pretending you don't understand the point being made is tiresome.

---

I disagree that Trump made a threat of genocide. He said he would end a civilization. Then he described a future where the Iranian people would be free from their oppressors. That sounds a lot more like a person who is very loose with their words than it does a threat of genocide.

---

He said "a whole civilization will die tonight". A little more forceful than how you are describing it.

The idea that the Iranian people are mostly oppressed and hate the regime is I think also overstated. Our politicians push that idea to get the public on board with their actions (it's always popular to believe YOU are the good guy), but in reality I think it could just as easily go the other way. The more of their nation we destroy, the more their people hate us.

Looks like "genocide" joins "fascist" and other terms leftists have misused to the point of making them meaningless.

samurai_science said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

"Bombing civilian infrastructure" is not a war crime.

And no matter what you want, other than ordering the release of nuclear weapons, Trump is not going to be removed from office by the 25th Amendment.

---

"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again..."

This is a genocide threat. Is that a war crime still or not anymore?

---

How is it a war crime if it never happened? So no, a statement is not a war crime.

---

The old Minority Report pre-crime war crime except in this case the precogs are redditors in their parent's basement.

Keyno said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

"Bombing civilian infrastructure" is not a war crime.

And no matter what you want, other than ordering the release of nuclear weapons, Trump is not going to be removed from office by the 25th Amendment.

---

"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again..."

This is a genocide threat. Is that a war crime still or not anymore?

---

Is "Death to America" a genocidal threat?

---

Look up what that phrase actually means to Iranians.

---

Here is my 4th time to ask you Kenyo, is threatening genocide considered a war crime?

---

Another poster stated that it was and cited it. In a previous page. I haven't double checked it yet

---

It's not.

It's a position that is difficult to support, which is why it is so unsupported on this thread. The empty link to a long document with zero analysis that doesn't really even help the position isn't really meaningful.

But, if you want to make a contention that you know that it is, I would be interesting in hearing your argument.

---

Eh, I can see both sides of the argument but I am not personally sure. I never made the claim that the threat itself was a war crime; some other poster just intentionally misunderstood my post to argue that point. Obviously we can both agree that genocide is a war crime.

---

Well since that has not happened in Iran we dont have to worry about it.

---

What are we doing here? Pretending you don't understand? Trump made a threat of a genocide. Genocide is a war crime. Trump made a threat of a war crime. It is disturbing and unprecedented and obviously that is the point.

This whole strategy of pretending you don't understand the point being made is tiresome.

---

LOL

B-1 83 said:

---

Looks like "genocide" joins "fascist" and other terms leftists have misused to the point of making them meaningless.

---

Remember Israel was genociding the Palestinians. In fact, its the same Dem leaders trotting the narrative out today.

Those calling it genocide stand with terrorists.

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Thanks, this is actually helpful.

Public incitement of genocide is clearly against the document that was cited. But, that is not the same thing as a threat.

If Trump were to encourage Israel to nuke Iran, you might have a point.

He didn't do that. He threatened to end 47 years of death and destruction, to take down the Iranian regime, and clear a path that the Iranian people might be able to rise up against their oppressors.

---

That is kind of where I am at as well. He isn't "inciting" so it does not meet that requirement.

---

And, it would be an interesting conversation about whether or not Trump was inciting genocide, but it took dozens of posts just to start the conversation.

I just get tired of some posters on here that are unwilling to clearly state a position because then they don't have the room to crawfish when they realize what they are copying from Reddit was distorted and not really supportable.

Not saying that this is exactly what happened here, but it does happen on F16 a lot.

---

I agree with your last post regarding the use of the word civilization. Terrible word choice if he meant regime. But it doesn't really work for regime because in the same post, he says we already have regime change. So it's disturbing (and confusing) to many, including myself.

---

that's because you aim to be disturbed and therefore confused

BusterAg said:

---

Thanks, this is actually helpful.

Public incitement of genocide is clearly against the document that was cited. But, that is not the same thing as a threat.

If Trump were to encourage Israel to nuke Iran, you might have a point.

He didn't do that. He threatened to end 47 years of death and destruction, to take down the Iranian regime, and clear a path that the Iranian people might be able to rise up against their oppressors.

---

I've said several times I was not saying anything about what Trump did or that I think his posts or whatever rise to a genocide crime. You're "crawfishing" and trying to avoid the point, now. I was responding to a post that said " Threatening genocide is not and has not ever been a war crime. Actual genocide is."

That's just wrong.

Again, threats are generally considered within the direct and public incitement prong that is in Article III of the Genocide Convention I provided. (I'm not sure why you're apparently just discovering "direct and public incitement.)

As also stated in the Akayesu case from Rwanda, for example, "[D]irect and public incitement must be defined...as directly provoking the perpetrator(s) to commit genocide, whether through speeches, shouting or threats uttered in public places or at public gatherings."

Keyno said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

"Bombing civilian infrastructure" is not a war crime.

And no matter what you want, other than ordering the release of nuclear weapons, Trump is not going to be removed from office by the 25th Amendment.

---

"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again..."

This is a genocide threat. Is that a war crime still or not anymore?

---

You mean like to death to America? Or death to Israel?

BusterAg said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

he is categorically bad at making deals

---

Seriously, there are a lot of things to complain about when it comes to Trump.

But, this is like saying OJ Simpson was bad at football.

His net worth alone is proof enough that you don't know what you are talking about.

---

the pattern with Trump and Iran is exactly what you'd expect from someone whose core competency is producing compelling television, not closing deals.

i mean just look at the past month. threaten to obliterate power plants on Monday, announce a pause for "productive conversations" on Wednesday, declare things are going "extremely well" on Thursday, say there's "NO TURNING BACK" on Saturday, threaten to blow up oil wells while claiming "serious discussions" the following Wednesday, declare victory the next Tuesday, then issue a 48 hour ultimatum on Sunday… and so on. all while conditions on the ground don't meaningfully change.

this is not how negotiation works. it IS how reality television works. which is trump's whole deal.

I've missed this thread. I'll need to get AI to summarize for me. Should be hilarious.

Burnsey said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

"Bombing civilian infrastructure" is not a war crime.

And no matter what you want, other than ordering the release of nuclear weapons, Trump is not going to be removed from office by the 25th Amendment.

---

"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again..."

This is a genocide threat. Is that a war crime still or not anymore?

---

You mean like to death to America? Or death to Israel?

---

dude does t know what the word genocide means, doesnt know the difference legally between a threat and action. The inability to think with logic or reason is the true travesty of this entire thread. And it is on repeat throughout.

Old McDonald said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

he is categorically bad at making deals

---

Seriously, there are a lot of things to complain about when it comes to Trump.

But, this is like saying OJ Simpson was bad at football.

His net worth alone is proof enough that you don't know what you are talking about.

---

the pattern with Trump and Iran is exactly what you'd expect from someone whose core competency is producing compelling television, not closing deals.

i mean just look at the past month. threaten to obliterate power plants on Monday, announce a pause for "productive conversations" on Wednesday, declare things are going "extremely well" on Thursday, say there's "NO TURNING BACK" on Saturday, threaten to blow up oil wells while claiming "serious discussions" the following Wednesday, declare victory the next Tuesday, then issue a 48 hour ultimatum on Sunday… and so on. all while conditions on the ground don't meaningfully change.

this is not how negotiation works. it IS how reality television works. which is trump's whole deal.

---

if you believe this he's got you glued in bigly.

Agador Spartacus said:

---

It's pretty clear at this point that Trump isn't worried about threatening / committing international war crimes.

Simply bombing civilian infrastructure is a clear and obvious war crime, and this morning he went a step further and threatened genocide against the entire Iranian civilization. ("A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again...")

Taking away the emotion of this, which is admittedly high, how far would this need to go before the 25th could potentially be invoked?

---

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

It must be very interesting going through life as a dupe of the left.

Agador Spartacus said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

LOL, using AI that quotes from "Amnesty International."

---

Pick whatever source you want

---

Sorry double post but wow if these are your 3 choices, not sure you could go much further left

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you believe that the concepts and ideas that are within the book were made up by Schwartz?

Do you think that Trump's negotiation style does or does not fit with the architecture laid out in the book?

---

Yes, both the author Schwartz and the publisher Howard Kaminsky have on record for decades saying Trump had next to nothing to do with the project, gave almost no input, and had just cursory edits to the finished product.

Most of the "facts" in the book have been discredited. Trump had next to nothing to do with the acquisition of the Swifton Village in Cincinnati. The Grand Hyatt chapter has been contested by almost everyone that was involved,

And the principles of the book mostly don't fit his actual life. He was a serial bankruptor for the decades following the publication. His pivot to reality tv and then licensing his image is where he finally started making money. Not many of the books 11 rules made up by the Ghostwriter applied to him. # 9 is hilarious in hindsight.

2. Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
"I always go into the deal anticipating the worst. If you plan for the worstif you can live with the worstthe good will always take care of itself."

7. Get the word out
"One thing I've learned about the press is that they're always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better…The point is that if you are a little different, a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you."

9. Deliver the goods
"You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on."

10. Contain the costs
"I believe in spending what you have to. But I also believe in not spending more than you should."

---

This is helpful.

I did some of my own research, and this is what I think is likely the most unbiased viewpoint:

Quote:

---

Yes, Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter for The Art of the Deal (1987), created the structure and "rules" of the deal, as he wrote the entire book based on 18 months of observing Donald Trump. Schwartz has stated he wrote every word, while Trump made minor revisions.

• Role of Schwartz: Schwartz, a journalist, shadowed Trump, listened to his phone calls, and, as the Wikipedia article on the book notes, essentially wrote the narrative that presented the "11 elements of the deal" as a business strategy.
• Fabrication Claims: Schwartz has expressed regret over the book, telling the New Yorker that he created a more sympathetic character than reality and suggesting the book be retitled "The Sociopath".
• Disputed Authorship: While Trump initially acknowledged choosing Schwartz to write the book, he later claimed, "I wrote the book," according to Wikipedia.
• Background: The book was released in 1987 and served to build the public image of Donald Trump as a master negotiator, notes Wikipedia.

---

Here are the 11 rules:

Quote:

---

1. Think big
"I like thinking big. I always have. To me it's very simple: if you're going to be thinking anyway, you might as well think big."

2. Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
"I always go into the deal anticipating the worst. If you plan for the worstif you can live with the worstthe good will always take care of itself."

3. Maximize the options
"I keep a lot of balls in the air, because most deals fall out, no matter how promising they seem at first."

4. Know your market
"I like to think that I have that instinct. That's why I don't hire a lot of number-crunchers, and I don't trust fancy marketing surveys. I do my own surveys and draw my own conclusions."

5. Use your leverage
"The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you're dead."

6. Enhance your location
"Perhaps the most misunderstood concept in all of real estate is that the key to success is location, location, location…First of all, you don't necessarily need the best location. What you need is the best deal."

7. Get the word out
"One thing I've learned about the press is that they're always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better…The point is that if you are a little different, a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you."

8. Fight back
"In most cases I'm very easy to get along with. I'm very good to people who are good to me. But when people treat me badly or unfairly or try to take advantage of me, my general attitude, all my life, has been to fight back very hard.

9. Deliver the goods
"You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on."

10. Contain the costs
"I believe in spending what you have to. But I also believe in not spending more than you should."

11. Have fun
"Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score. The real excitement is playing the game.

---

Honestly, these all look to be very Trumpian, with the exception of #10.

Finally, if you are in real estate development and have never declared bankruptcy, you are doing it wrong. Some projects turn out bad. If you are batting 1.000, you are not taking enough risk. If you are the equity provider in a real estate deal, and it goes bad, you go bankrupt. Thems the rules. Everyone knows this going into the project. Everything is project financed, so bankruptcy is a failed project, not a failed company.

scuzman said:

---

Agador Spartacus said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

LOL, using AI that quotes from "Amnesty International."

---

Pick whatever source you want

---

---

Those are your 3 sources? Wow!

Gemini did not disappoint:

Quote:

---

Tone and Sentiment

The tone of the thread is highly adversarial, dismissive, and cynical.

• Hostility toward the "Left": There is a palpable sense of "us vs. them." Any criticism of the president is immediately met with accusations of being a "bad faith actor" or a "TDS" (Trump Derangement Syndrome) sufferer.
• Skepticism of International Institutions: Sentiment toward international law, "Amnesty International," and the concept of war crimes is generally dismissive, viewing them as tools used by the weak to restrain American power.
• Defensive Loyalty: The majority of the sentiment is protective of Trump, viewing his statements as "bluster" or "hyperbole" rather than literal policy intent.

Political Spectrum Characterization

On the political spectrum, this thread is firmly located within the Right-to-Far-Right quadrant, specifically reflecting Nationalist-Populism (MAGA).

• Right-Wing Realism: The community favors "Peace through Strength" and displays a "realist" view of international relations where American interests and military might supersede international treaties.
• Anti-Establishment: There is a strong distrust of mainstream media (CNN), "liberal" talking points, and bureaucratic mechanisms like the 25th Amendment.
• Insular Community: The forum operates with its own specific vernacular (e.g., "seminar callers," "talking points," "pearl clutching"), characteristic of a politically homogeneous digital space.

---

Awesome. No need to read. Same F16 I know and love.

Quote:

---

• Insular Community: The forum operates with its own specific vernacular (e.g., "seminar callers," "talking points," "pearl clutching"), characteristic of a politically homogeneous digital space.

---

Old McDonald said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

he is categorically bad at making deals

---

Seriously, there are a lot of things to complain about when it comes to Trump.

But, this is like saying OJ Simpson was bad at football.

His net worth alone is proof enough that you don't know what you are talking about.

---

the pattern with Trump and Iran is exactly what you'd expect from someone whose core competency is producing compelling television, not closing deals.

i mean just look at the past month. threaten to obliterate power plants on Monday, announce a pause for "productive conversations" on Wednesday, declare things are going "extremely well" on Thursday, say there's "NO TURNING BACK" on Saturday, threaten to blow up oil wells while claiming "serious discussions" the following Wednesday, declare victory the next Tuesday, then issue a 48 hour ultimatum on Sunday… and so on. all while conditions on the ground don't meaningfully change.

this is not how negotiation works. it IS how reality television works. which is trump's whole deal.

---

Oh brother.

Trump has been in more high stakes negotiations then you and all of your comrades combines.

It's just impossible to take the left seriously when you know they don't take themselves seriously.

Keyno said:

---

He said "a whole civilization will die tonight". A little more forceful than how you are describing it.

The idea that the Iranian people are mostly oppressed and hate the regime is I think also overstated. Our politicians push that idea to get the public on board with their actions (it's always popular to believe YOU are the good guy), but in reality I think it could just as easily go the other way. The more of their nation we destroy, the more their people hate us.

---

Here is the whole tweet. It is clear to me from the tweet that he didn't mean genocide, as genocide wouldn't leave any people left in Iran.



So, if he didn't mean genocide, what did he mean? I think that the context of the tweet tells you what he meant.

I'm shocked that some people are shocked when Trump uses extreme hyperbole. It's his schtick. I also don't think he is very good with words, meaning he's just not that articulate, so he misspeaks a lot. But, in a world where perverse and extreme spin can also be marketed as truth, it's what I have come to expect from the Media and any posters on F16 getting their talking points from ThinkBlue.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Thanks, this is actually helpful.

Public incitement of genocide is clearly against the document that was cited. But, that is not the same thing as a threat.

If Trump were to encourage Israel to nuke Iran, you might have a point.

He didn't do that. He threatened to end 47 years of death and destruction, to take down the Iranian regime, and clear a path that the Iranian people might be able to rise up against their oppressors.

---

I've said several times I was not saying anything about what Trump did or that I think his posts or whatever rise to a genocide crime. You're "crawfishing" and trying to avoid the point, now. I was responding to a post that said " Threatening genocide is not and has not ever been a war crime. Actual genocide is."

That's just wrong.

Again, threats are generally considered within the direct and public incitement prong that is in Article III of the Genocide Convention I provided. (I'm not sure why you're apparently just discovering "direct and public incitement.)

As also stated in the Akayesu case from Rwanda, for example, "[D]irect and public incitement must be defined...as directly provoking the perpetrator(s) to commit genocide, whether through speeches, shouting or threats uttered in public places or at public gatherings."

---

And I should add that obviously, if a threat of genocide is made with a "primary purpose" of striking terror into the civilian population, then that is its own war crime without even considering whether its a violation of genocide law.

Old McDonald said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

he is categorically bad at making deals

---

Seriously, there are a lot of things to complain about when it comes to Trump.

But, this is like saying OJ Simpson was bad at football.

His net worth alone is proof enough that you don't know what you are talking about.

---

the pattern with Trump and Iran is exactly what you'd expect from someone whose core competency is producing compelling television, not closing deals.

---

You've never heard of the Abraham Accords, have you?

Israel-United Arab Emirates (UAE): Announced August 13, 2020; full diplomatic relations, trade, and cooperation in tech, tourism, and security. The U.S. sweetened the deal with advanced weapons sales (including F-35s).
Israel-Bahrain: Announced shortly after and signed the same day as the UAE deal.
Israel-Sudan: Announced in October 2020; involved removing Sudan from the U.S. terrorism sponsor list. Formal ratification was delayed by Sudan's internal issues, but it was part of the Accords framework.
Israel-Morocco: Announced December 2020; included U.S. recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara.




Ever heard of the October 7th attack on Israel?

Trump Peace Agreement or 20-point plan for ending the Gaza conflict:

- Announced in late September/early October 2025.
- Led to a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas effective October 10, 2025 (endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2803)
- Phase 1 included hostage/prisoner exchanges, increased humanitarian aid, and halting major operations. ALL hostages released.
- Phase 2 (launched January 2026) focuses on Hamas demilitarization, reconstruction (with a U.S.- chaired "Board of Peace" involving international funding, including $10B+ from the U.S.), a technocratic Palestinian governing body, and regional security.

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

He said "a whole civilization will die tonight". A little more forceful than how you are describing it.

The idea that the Iranian people are mostly oppressed and hate the regime is I think also overstated. Our politicians push that idea to get the public on board with their actions (it's always popular to believe YOU are the good guy), but in reality I think it could just as easily go the other way. The more of their nation we destroy, the more their people hate us.

---

Here is the whole tweet. It is clear to me from the tweet that he didn't mean genocide, as genocide wouldn't leave any people left in Iran.



So, if he didn't mean genocide, what did he mean? I think that the context of the tweet tells you what he meant.

I'm shocked that some people are shocked when Trump uses extreme hyperbole. It's his schtick. I also don't think he is very good with words, meaning he's just not that articulate, so he misspeaks a lot. But, in a world where perverse and extreme spin can also be marketed as truth, it's what I have come to expect from the Media and any posters on F16 getting their talking points from ThinkBlue.

---

he is very clearly talking about the regime itself being comprised of a civilization. The complete regime change is the end of that civilization.

Ex Ex Officio Director said:

---

The absolute unwillingness of some posters to acknowledge logic and reality, paired with the biting wit and sarcasm of other posters has really contributed to making this thread an entertaining read today.

Thanks to all!

---

Not sure what side of unwillingness I am on, but these types of threads keep me coming back here. I had lots of fun.

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Thanks, this is actually helpful.

Public incitement of genocide is clearly against the document that was cited. But, that is not the same thing as a threat.

If Trump were to encourage Israel to nuke Iran, you might have a point.

He didn't do that. He threatened to end 47 years of death and destruction, to take down the Iranian regime, and clear a path that the Iranian people might be able to rise up against their oppressors.

---

That is kind of where I am at as well. He isn't "inciting" so it does not meet that requirement.

---

And, it would be an interesting conversation about whether or not Trump was inciting genocide, but it took dozens of posts just to start the conversation.

I just get tired of some posters on here that are unwilling to clearly state a position because then they don't have the room to crawfish when they realize what they are copying from Reddit was distorted and not really supportable.

Not saying that this is exactly what happened here, but it does happen on F16 a lot.

---

I agree with your last post regarding the use of the word civilization. Terrible word choice if he meant regime. But it doesn't really work for regime because in the same post, he says we already have regime change. So it's disturbing (and confusing) to many, including myself.

---

Regime destruction?

It wouldn't be the first time Trump completely destroyed something, and then came back and completely-ultra destroyed it even worse, with threats that he will ultra-mega-super-completely destroy that thing if the other side doesn't play ball.

B-1 83 said:

---

Looks like "genocide" joins "fascist" and other terms leftists have misused to the point of making them meaningless.

---

Here's a whole book of words that leftists like to misuse if it suits their aim for that specific second:



But, to be fair, Trump does the same thing, in a way. He just misuses words out of extreme emphasis as opposed to deception.

Old McDonald said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

he is categorically bad at making deals

---

Seriously, there are a lot of things to complain about when it comes to Trump.

But, this is like saying OJ Simpson was bad at football.

His net worth alone is proof enough that you don't know what you are talking about.

---

the pattern with Trump and Iran is exactly what you'd expect from someone whose core competency is producing compelling television, not closing deals.

i mean just look at the past month. threaten to obliterate power plants on Monday, announce a pause for "productive conversations" on Wednesday, declare things are going "extremely well" on Thursday, say there's "NO TURNING BACK" on Saturday, threaten to blow up oil wells while claiming "serious discussions" the following Wednesday, declare victory the next Tuesday, then issue a 48 hour ultimatum on Sunday… and so on. all while conditions on the ground don't meaningfully change.

this is not how negotiation works. it IS how reality television works. which is trump's whole deal.

---

Trump is richer than you, largely due to his real estate deals.

He ushered in a peace deal in the Middle East, something no one has been able to do even though it has been tried many times.

I don't think you have much room to lecture Trump on how to structure a deal.

GeorgiAg said:

---

I've missed this thread. I'll need to get AI to summarize for me. Should be hilarious.

---

You would have been an entertaining addition.

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Thanks, this is actually helpful.

Public incitement of genocide is clearly against the document that was cited. But, that is not the same thing as a threat.

If Trump were to encourage Israel to nuke Iran, you might have a point.

He didn't do that. He threatened to end 47 years of death and destruction, to take down the Iranian regime, and clear a path that the Iranian people might be able to rise up against their oppressors.

---

That is kind of where I am at as well. He isn't "inciting" so it does not meet that requirement.

---

And, it would be an interesting conversation about whether or not Trump was inciting genocide, but it took dozens of posts just to start the conversation.

I just get tired of some posters on here that are unwilling to clearly state a position because then they don't have the room to crawfish when they realize what they are copying from Reddit was distorted and not really supportable.

Not saying that this is exactly what happened here, but it does happen on F16 a lot.

---

I agree with your last post regarding the use of the word civilization. Terrible word choice if he meant regime. But it doesn't really work for regime because in the same post, he says we already have regime change. So it's disturbing (and confusing) to many, including myself.

---

Regime destruction?

It wouldn't be the first time Trump completely destroyed something, and then came back and completely-ultra destroyed it even worse, with threats that he will ultra-mega-super-completely destroy that thing if the other side doesn't play ball.

---

Yeah the tweet really doesn't make any sense with any of the explanations you have offered up. "A whole civilization will die tonight." Then he says "I don't want that to happen, but it probably will."

It's a very dark and disturbing threat.

BusterAg said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I've missed this thread. I'll need to get AI to summarize for me. Should be hilarious.

---

You would have been an entertaining addition.

---

Why thank you. I've mellowed on Trump. I see this as bluster and him trying to get them to back down on Hormuz and/or for another regime change by cooler heads.

2016-2020 GeorgiAg would be screaming for the 25th Amendment. Full blown TDS.

I predict a TACO. He'll announce they've been negotiating in good faith and claim victory (again).

TACO TUESDAY!

BREAKING: The Pakistani Prime Minister is requesting a two week deadline extension from Trump & asking Iran to reopen the Strait as a sign of goodwill.

Pakistan has been reported as one of the key meditators so this could be their final attempt to try to get a deal in place. pic.twitter.com/mm7I3xD8a2

— amit (@amitisinvesting) April 7, 2026

Negotiating and diplomacy is TACO. Never change.

BTW - Several updates from the White House indicate a more direct dialogue. Not it says "Pakistan has been reported as one of the key mediators" - sounds like a version of "sources familiar with ..." so I am not sure I would rely on the "sources" here.

Disregard the libs on tv today suggesting more diplomacy.

Quote:

---

Threatening genocide is not and has not ever been a war crime. Actual genocide is."

That's just wrong.

Again, threats are generally considered within the direct and public incitement prong that is in Article III of the Genocide Convention I provided. (I'm not sure why you're apparently just discovering "direct and public incitement.

---

This is a reach. Threat =/= incitement.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Negotiating and diplomacy is TACO. Never change.

BTW - Several updates from the White House indicate a more direct dialogue. Not it says "Pakistan has been reported as one of the key mediators" - sounds like a version of "sources familiar with ..." so I am not sure I would rely on the "sources" here.

---

If it works, great. I wish Trump the best. And if I haven't made my position clear: F Iran.