Logos Stick said:

---

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.

---

credit where it's due: the abraham accords were a legitimate achievement, albeit an easy one. it formalized relationships that were largely operational behind the scenes.

the 20-point gaza plan undermines your argument, actually. the implementation was left to a party (Israel) that had no intention of complying with the withdrawal and humanitarian provisions, and the trump admin applied no visible pressure to enforce compliance. it was one of a long list of examples of declaring victory on a deal and moving on before anyone noticed the deal fell apart, which is much more the norm than the abraham accords.

Agador Spartacus said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Typical liberal: sounds intelligent at first, then you realize that they simply made up everything they wrote.

---

Hah. I'm a republican - I have voted Republican almost all of my life.

I'm curious about the logistics of this since it seems to be gaining steam and Trump seems to be going downhill fast.

---

That doesn't make a person immune to parroting incorrect information.

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."

---

I wish we could have started the conversation here. I have to go soon.

We are just going to have to disagree on the bolded above.

Incitement has a definition, that being to try to provoke an illegal action in a way where that illegal action is likely to happen. That is not a threat, which is a warning that you will do something. Incitement is about getting other people that you have no control over to act. It is different than ordering something to do something, where you tell someone that you do have control over to act. A threat can be used to incite, but it is not the threat that is the problem in the document that you cited.

Trump was not inciting genocide. His threats are not likely to lead others that he does not control to commit genocide. The thing with incitement is that you work to cause something without putting yourself in line for the blame of that thing happening. That isn't what is happening here.

Finally, threats themselves can be illegal in certain contexts, if they are credible and the person making the threat seems to be taking action to make good on the threat. Don't ever joke about killing POTUS, for example. An interesting conversation would have been whether or not a threat of genocide by itself is illegal if the threat is not credible. Your citation isn't all that supportive here.

You never mentioned the "direct and public incitement" thing until this post that I recall. I think it is better to make your own points, not to point to a URL and expect the person you are having a discussion with to assume your own points for you.

Quote:

---

"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?

---

Why aren't you saying that Iran should be charged with war crimes?

They have been saying this for almost 50 years.

Stupe said:

---

Quote:

---

"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?

---

Why aren't you saying that Iran should be charged with war crimes?

They have been saying this for almost 50 years.

---

So many college kids and protestors committed wars crimes since october 7 we'd have no space in the jails to house them all.

Stupe said:

---

Quote:

---

"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?

---

Why aren't you saying that Iran should be charged with war crimes?

They have been saying this for almost 50 years.

---

Been addressed. Read the thread

Ragoo said:

---

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

---

Reading comprehension is exactly what I expect from the insulated national populists that seem to have infiltrated this board!! What an echo chamber!

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

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.

---

So obtuse.

A future without death, destruction, extortion where less radicalized minds prevail and something revolutionarily wonderful might happen seems very dark and disturbing.

Which brings us to the term "revolutionarily wonderful". Who talks this way? Is this even English? Seems like something someone who plays really loose with words would say.

BusterAg said:

---

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."

---

I wish we could have started the conversation here. I have to go soon.

We are just going to have to disagree on the bolded above.

Incitement has a definition, that being to try to provoke an illegal action in a way where that illegal action is likely to happen. That is not a threat, which is a warning that you will do something. Incitement is about getting other people that you have no control over to act. It is different than ordering something to do something, where you tell someone that you do have control over to act. A threat can be used to incite, but it is not the threat that is the problem in the document that you cited.

Trump was not inciting genocide. His threats are not likely to lead others that he does not control to commit genocide. The thing with incitement is that you work to cause something without putting yourself in line for the blame of that thing happening. That isn't what is happening here.

Finally, threats themselves can be illegal in certain contexts, if they are credible and the person making the threat seems to be taking action to make good on the threat. Don't ever joke about killing POTUS, for example. An interesting conversation would have been whether or not a threat of genocide by itself is illegal if the threat is not credible. Your citation isn't all that supportive here.

You never mentioned the "direct and public incitement" thing until this post that I recall. I think it is better to make your own points, not to point to a URL and expect the person you are having a discussion with to assume your own points for you.

---

I said "direct and public incitement" and gave you the page number and citation for "direct and public incitement" in like my second post to you hours ago. But nevermind...

You believe the intent of the Genocide Convention was to criminalize, say, an army general who tried to provoke people outside his chain of command to commit genocide but not to criminalize that same army general if he ordered his own army to commit genocide? That's just absurd and ahistorical.

Still a few hours left before the deadline!

It's not TACO if the other guys concede and open the straight.

GeorgiAg said:

---

And if I haven't made my position clear: F Iran.

---

Gig'em

OP claims to be a Republican, proceeds to cite CNN to make his case.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I said "direct and public incitement" and gave you the page number and citation for "direct and public incitement" in like my second post to you hours ago. But nevermind...

Comment: fair enough.

You believe the intent of the Genocide Convention was to criminalize, say, an army general who tried to provoke people outside his chain of command to commit genocide but not to criminalize that same army general if he ordered his own army to commit genocide? That's just absurd and ahistorical.

---

Neither of these two are a threat. Both are illegal. That is the point.

TexAgs91 said:

---

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?

---

I see today's talking points are out

---

I see the rebuttal talking point has been distributed.

Keyno said:

---

Stupe said:

---

Quote:

---

"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?

---

Why aren't you saying that Iran should be charged with war crimes?

They have been saying this for almost 50 years.

---

Been addressed. Read the thread

---

I have read the thread.

You haven't given a direct answer.

Why won't you give a direct answer as to why Iran saying their end game is to destroy the United States a war crime?

I don't know, maybe the protest signs saying," Death To America." Maybe I'm reading too much into that sign because they could mean South America, but in the interest of caution I'd play it as serious threat.

Stupe said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Stupe said:

---

Quote:

---

"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?

---

Why aren't you saying that Iran should be charged with war crimes?

They have been saying this for almost 50 years.

---

Been addressed. Read the thread

---

I have read the thread.

You haven't given a direct answer.

Why won't you give a direct answer as to why Iran saying their end game is to destroy the United States a war crime?

---

You obviously did not read the thread

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?

---

Am I missing something I keep reading from these post that it'SA germicide Who added that part in his statement

He said civilization which is separate from the people that inhabit that civilization


Quote from Internet search

No, the definition of civilization refers to a complex society characterized by urbanization, social stratification, and advanced institutions, while the people that make up that civilization are its inhabitants or citizens.


So he is describing the destruction of their social structure not the germicide of its people

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I said "direct and public incitement" and gave you the page number and citation for "direct and public incitement" in like my second post to you hours ago. But nevermind...

Comment: fair enough.

You believe the intent of the Genocide Convention was to criminalize, say, an army general who tried to provoke people outside his chain of command to commit genocide but not to criminalize that same army general if he ordered his own army to commit genocide? That's just absurd and ahistorical.

---

Neither of these two are a threat. Both are illegal. That is the point.

---

International jurisprudence is clear: threats are within the ambit of incitement.

If [insert historical figure] starts stating "we are going to kill all you Jews/Tutsis/[Insert whoever], we are going to kill all you Jews/Tutsis/[Insert whoever]" and persons go out and start killing the Jews because they decided to follow through on the threats being made, then that historical figure incited genocide. Clearly, the historical figure incited genocide.

Now, as I've mentioned previously, its well accepted incitement in the genocide case is intended to be inchoate and therefore doesn't actually require anyone to go out and actually commit genocide.

(And again, before someone tells me about Trump's post, I have NEVER claimed his post rises to this level.)

The thing to me that is so ironic about this thread is that:

"Death to America" really means please leave the Middle East alone.

And Trump's tweet, which include death of a civilization, but also details a future where the Iranian people are led by less radicalized leaders, really means genocide.

It's almost like there are separate standards here for acceptable interpretation.

Truly fascinating.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I said "direct and public incitement" and gave you the page number and citation for "direct and public incitement" in like my second post to you hours ago. But nevermind...

Comment: fair enough.

You believe the intent of the Genocide Convention was to criminalize, say, an army general who tried to provoke people outside his chain of command to commit genocide but not to criminalize that same army general if he ordered his own army to commit genocide? That's just absurd and ahistorical.

---

Neither of these two are a threat. Both are illegal. That is the point.

---

International jurisprudence is clear: threats are within the ambit of incitement.

If [insert historical figure] starts stating "we are going to kill all you Jews/Tutsis/[Insert whoever], we are going to kill all you Jews/Tutsis/[Insert whoever]" and persons go out and start killing the Jews because they decided to follow through on the threats being made, then that historical figure incited genocide. Clearly, he incited genocide.

Now, as I've mentioned previously, its well accepted incitement in the genocide case is intended to be inchoate and therefore doesn't actually require anyone to go out and actually commit genocide.

---

Who is Trump trying to incite?

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

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.

---

So obtuse.

A future without death, destruction, extortion where less radicalized minds prevail and something revolutionarily wonderful might happen seems very dark and disturbing.

Which brings us to the term "revolutionarily wonderful". Who talks this way? Is this even English? Seems like something someone who plays really loose with words would say.

---

This is called rhetoric. Americans eat this stuff up. "Oh boy- a world without death and destruction and extortion? Sounds great lets make this civilization die!"

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I said "direct and public incitement" and gave you the page number and citation for "direct and public incitement" in like my second post to you hours ago. But nevermind...

Comment: fair enough.

You believe the intent of the Genocide Convention was to criminalize, say, an army general who tried to provoke people outside his chain of command to commit genocide but not to criminalize that same army general if he ordered his own army to commit genocide? That's just absurd and ahistorical.

---

Neither of these two are a threat. Both are illegal. That is the point.

---

International jurisprudence is clear: threats are within the ambit of incitement.

If [insert historical figure] starts stating "we are going to kill all you Jews/Tutsis/[Insert whoever], we are going to kill all you Jews/Tutsis/[Insert whoever]" and persons go out and start killing the Jews because they decided to follow through on the threats being made, then that historical figure incited genocide. Clearly, he incited genocide.

Now, as I've mentioned previously, its well accepted incitement in the genocide case is intended to be inchoate and therefore doesn't actually require anyone to go out and actually commit genocide.

---

Who is Trump trying to incite?

---

Like clockwork. See the edit.

Quote:

---

(And again, before someone tells me about Trump's post, I have NEVER claimed his post rises to this level.)

---

Deerdude said:

---

I don't know, maybe the protest signs saying," Death To America." Maybe I'm reading too much into much in to that sign because they could mean South America, but in the interest of caution I'd play it as serious threat.

---

You don't get it Dear,

You have to interpret the words of homicidal maniacs as generously as possible to the point of comedy, and interpret the words of a very successful Jersey Shore meat head that happened to become president as literally and threatening as possible. Gemini said so, otherwise we are some kind of Nazi echo chamber.

Keyno said:

---

Stupe said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Stupe said:

---

Quote:

---

"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?

---

Why aren't you saying that Iran should be charged with war crimes?

They have been saying this for almost 50 years.

---

Been addressed. Read the thread

---

I have read the thread.

You haven't given a direct answer.

Why won't you give a direct answer as to why Iran saying their end game is to destroy the United States a war crime?

---

You obviously did not read the thread

---

Yes, I have.

I've also gone back and read every one of your posts. Most of them just spin back to what Trump said.

None of them directly answer that question.

Deerdude said:

---

Why would you think that destroying infrastructure is a war crime? Is it the "feels" thing kicking in?

---

we literally have "males" on here who would have charged FDR and Harry Truman (Democrats) with war crimes

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I said "direct and public incitement" and gave you the page number and citation for "direct and public incitement" in like my second post to you hours ago. But nevermind...

Comment: fair enough.

You believe the intent of the Genocide Convention was to criminalize, say, an army general who tried to provoke people outside his chain of command to commit genocide but not to criminalize that same army general if he ordered his own army to commit genocide? That's just absurd and ahistorical.

---

Neither of these two are a threat. Both are illegal. That is the point.

---

International jurisprudence is clear: threats are within the ambit of incitement.

If [insert historical figure] starts stating "we are going to kill all you Jews/Tutsis/[Insert whoever], we are going to kill all you Jews/Tutsis/[Insert whoever]" and persons go out and start killing the Jews because they decided to follow through on the threats being made, then that historical figure incited genocide. Clearly, he incited genocide.

Now, as I've mentioned previously, its well accepted incitement in the genocide case is intended to be inchoate and therefore doesn't actually require anyone to go out and actually commit genocide.

---

Who is Trump trying to incite?

---

Like clockwork. See the edit.

Quote:

---

(And again, before someone tells me about Trump's post, I have NEVER claimed his post rises to this level.)

---

---

Fair enough.

Are all threats an attempt to incite?
Is a threat that is clearly not intended to incite still illegal in your definition?

For example, fraud is illegal. You can use a lie to commit fraud, and lying is proof that you committed fraud. But, lying is not illegal in and of itself.

Keyno picked the wrong fight. Once Stupe gets a hold of that bone, he never lets go.

After four years of Biden, it takes some serious stones to call for the 25th Amendment now.

JB!98 said:

---

Man, we are going to have to hop in the way back machine to see when we first started committing "War Crimes"! WWII is chock full of them!

This is one of the lamest arguments I can think of in regard to a military operation.

---

American militia butchered Loyalist British Militia (also American citizens)

at the Battle of Kings Mountain in South Carolina in 1781

LMCane said:

---

Deerdude said:

---

Why would you think that destroying infrastructure is a war crime? Is it the "feels" thing kicking in?

---

we literally have "males" on here who would have charged FDR and Harry Truman (Democrats) with war crimes

---

Let's be clear, Dresden was not something for our country to be proud about, regardless if you look at everything else involved.

Not that this means we should have court marshaled people, but, we did some pretty crappy stuff in WWII as well.

BusterAg said:

---

"Death to America" really means please leave the Middle East alone.

---

Uh, no it doesn't. But your mental gymnastics are fascinating.

2000AgPhD said:

---

After four years of Biden, it takes some serious stones to call for the 25th Amendment now.

---

stones? Nah.

Its a complete lack of awareness . It's a self constructed "reality".

Stupe said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Stupe said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Stupe said:

---

Quote:

---

"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?

---

Why aren't you saying that Iran should be charged with war crimes?

They have been saying this for almost 50 years.

---

Been addressed. Read the thread

---

I have read the thread.

You haven't given a direct answer.

Why won't you give a direct answer as to why Iran saying their end game is to destroy the United States a war crime?

---

You obviously did not read the thread

---

Yes, I have.

I've also gone back and read every one of your posts. Most of them just spin back to what Trump said.

None of them directly answer that question.

---

Fine what is your question? "Why won't you give a direct answer as to why Iran saying their end game is to destroy the United States a war crime?"

I have not seen Iran ever say their "end game" is to destroy the United States. I also have not seen that written anywhere in their government policy. I know Mark Levin and Sean Hannity like to make this claim, but it's called propaganda. If you are talking about the phrase "Death to America", then yeah I addressed that and no that is not some stated Iranian "end game"

Furthermore, something you would know if you read the thread, I never said the threat itself was a war crime. I said I was not sure, another poster said it was and cited it, it was debated a little bit, and I ended up agreeing that no incitement took place from Trump's post.