Quote:

---

Hitler threatened genocide

---

Not according to Tucker Carlson!

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

If you're so uncomfortable taking a position on the POTUS threatening to "end a civilization" that you can only point fingers at other vague hypocrisies, then I fear you've lost your own moral compass and are victim to the same cruelty you accuse others of.

---

Most of us don't give a **** how you hypocritical liberals feel about anything.

AggieMac06 said:

---

It's like people don't understand hyperbole.


Hitler threatened genocide, Trump used mean words.

Yuge difference.

---

Clarification. Hitler didn't threaten it, he implemented on a scale the world had never seen and hopefully will never see.

Trump still just uses mean words (and some bombs).

dmart90 said:

---

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.

---

The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols prohibit attacking objects necessary for civilian survival, such as water installations, food supplies, and power plants.

I guess those that signed off on the Geneva Conventions decided what happened in WWII was unacceptable and shouldn't happen again...

---

I sure hope that Iran is held accountable for their countless direct attacks on their own CIVILIANS, Israeli civilians and nearly all of their nearby neighbors.

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?

---

I would say so.

And I would say Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas, and others have committed war crimes based on who and what they have targeted.

But I would like to hold the US to a higher standard than those losers.

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

MAD does not apply here whatsoever. Iran literally is incapable of striking the US homeland with anything, much less a nuke.

---

Well, thank God for that. Maybe we should do some things to make sure that this never happens? You agree?

---

Define some things. Do I agree that "An entire civilization" has to die to prevent some theoretical threat they may some day pose? Uh no not really.

---

A whole Civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it will probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight, one the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end.

Let's talk about reading comprehension. Based on the text of the tweet, what do you think Trump means when he says "whole Civilization will die".

Using context clues from the tweet, I can gather that he is looking to:
1) replace the leadership of Iran with something less radicalized
2) eliminate 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death.

That is an extremely reasonable conclusion of what "A whole Civilization will die tonight" means.

1) Are you against regime change, and ending 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death?
2) If you are for #1, but still don't like the tweet, what other definition of "A whole Civilization will die tonight" would you like to use, and why is your definition better?

dmart90 said:

---

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.

---

The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols prohibit attacking objects necessary for civilian survival, such as water installations, food supplies, and power plants.

I guess those that signed off on the Geneva Conventions decided what happened in WWII was unacceptable and shouldn't happen again...

---

So, we only committed war crimes in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq 2, and now?

Keyno said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

If you're so uncomfortable taking a position on the POTUS threatening to "end a civilization" that you can only point fingers at other vague hypocrisies, then I fear you've lost your own moral compass and are victim to the same cruelty you accuse others of.

---

Most of us don't give a **** how you hypocritical liberals feel about anything.

---

Is calling anyone critical of Trump a liberal like the new go to argument? Because that's not an argument.

---

It's been going on for 10 years and is a good way to differentiate those of us who love America, and those who want to destroy it and turn it into a globalist subject of the Davos crew… and who blame Orange Man for standing in the way.

Those are the facts.

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

MAD does not apply here whatsoever. Iran literally is incapable of striking the US homeland with anything, much less a nuke.

---

Well, thank God for that. Maybe we should do some things to make sure that this never happens? You agree?

---

Define some things. Do I agree that "An entire civilization" has to die to prevent some theoretical threat they may some day pose? Uh no not really.

---

A whole Civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it will probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight, one the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end.

Let's talk about reading comprehension. Based on the text of the tweet, what do you think Trump means when he says "whole Civilization will die".

Using context clues from the tweet, I can gather that he is looking to:
1) replace the leadership of Iran with something less radicalized
2) eliminate 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death.

That is an extremely reasonable conclusion of what "A whole Civilization will die tonight" means.

1) Are you against regime change, and ending 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death?
2) If you are for #1, but still don't like the tweet, what other definition of "A whole Civilization will die tonight" would you like to use, and why is your definition better?

---

I saw you did not bold However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change.

Trump appears to be saying we have already achieved regime change (and he has claimed this at other times as well).

So how is your reading comprehension?

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Threatening genocide is generally considered a violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention, to which the United States is a party.

---

I'm going to need a citation for that with analysis to primary sources, not reliance on CNN paid experts.

---

https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4#EndDec

---

Thanks.

Now where is your analysis that cites to primary sources to the point that you are trying to make.

Here, I have some refutation for you somewhere in here: https://www.wikipedia.org/

You can find the evidence in there that supports my position for yourself.

---

Did you really just link to the Wikipedia homepage and say "something here supports my position" while trying to also be a smartass about citing primary sources?

TAMUallen said:

---

dmart90 said:

---

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.

---

The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols prohibit attacking objects necessary for civilian survival, such as water installations, food supplies, and power plants.

I guess those that signed off on the Geneva Conventions decided what happened in WWII was unacceptable and shouldn't happen again...

---

I sure hope that Iran is held accountable for their countless direct attacks on their own CIVILIANS, Israeli civilians and nearly all of their nearby neighbors.

---

They should be!

Ervin Burrell said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

The level of irrational thought from the left is mind boggling.

---

Is it more or less mind-boggling than seeing cultists, who were chanting "no new wars" during campaign season, now cheer on statements like "a whole civilization is going to die tonight?" All in defense of a yankee born on third base who couldn't care less about anybody in the world but himself.

---

What did Trump mean when he said that? Why do you believe that is what he meant? Did you read his entire tweet?

Keyno said:

---

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

ETFan said:

---

akm91 said:

---

Looks like new talking points have been distributed to be parrotted.

---

I remember when a president saying he was going to wipe an entire civilization off the map didn't need "talking points", we simply all agreed that's psychotic and insane.

But, we've got ourselves a cult, what can ya do?

They've successfully moved the overton window so that anything is defensible.

---

I guess your recollections aren't all that relevant since you're too young to remember MAD.

It was ALL ABOUT wiping civilizations off the map.

I got under my desk at school as a small child on a regular basis because a Soviet Premier said he'd "Bury" us.

Historically ignorant children who bandy about terms like "cult" and "psychotic" should listen more and speak less.

---

MAD does not apply here whatsoever. Iran literally is incapable of striking the US homeland with anything, much less a nuke. Furthermore, even if they could hit us and had a nuke, MAD still would not apply because one nuke vs the US hundreds does not equal MAD. The Soviet Union was an entirely different thing.

---

You said that threatening to wipe a civilization off the map was psychotic and insane. Your words. That's been the status quo since the late 1940's, whether you admit it or not. We know that leftists don't deal in reality.

Oh, and your buddies the Mullahs (or what's left of them) were actively developing a nuke and in fact lied about the range of the rockets as we saw first hand. Finally, do you have any idea what just one nuke on a boat detonated in the Houston ship channel would do to this country and the world?

---

Yes I did say that and stand by it. And no, it has not been the status quo since the 1940's. I am not familiar with any US President since WW2 who has ever threatened genocide. If you can cite one, I am happy to be corrected.

Edit: I guess you could probably make the case for Andrew Jackson regarding the Indians

---

Richard Nixon: "I'm going to destroy the ******* country, believe me, I mean destroy it if necessary. And let me say, even the nuclear weapon if necessary. It isn't necessary. But, you know, what I mean is, that shows you the extent to which I'm willing to go. By a nuclear weapon, I mean that we will bomb the living bejeezus out of North Vietnam and then if anybody interferes we will threaten the nuclear weapon."

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

MAD does not apply here whatsoever. Iran literally is incapable of striking the US homeland with anything, much less a nuke.

---

Well, thank God for that. Maybe we should do some things to make sure that this never happens? You agree?

---

Define some things. Do I agree that "An entire civilization" has to die to prevent some theoretical threat they may some day pose? Uh no not really.

---

How about:

1) Regime change
2) Hoping for a less radicalized leadership to arise
3) Ending 47 years of death and destruction
4) Calling those three things death to "an entire civilization".

Is that so bad?

japantiger said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

ETFan said:

---

akm91 said:

---

Looks like new talking points have been distributed to be parrotted.

---

I remember when a president saying he was going to wipe an entire civilization off the map didn't need "talking points", we simply all agreed that's psychotic and insane.

But, we've got ourselves a cult, what can ya do?

They've successfully moved the overton window so that anything is defensible.

---

I guess your recollections aren't all that relevant since you're too young to remember MAD.

It was ALL ABOUT wiping civilizations off the map.

I got under my desk at school as a small child on a regular basis because a Soviet Premier said he'd "Bury" us.

Historically ignorant children who bandy about terms like "cult" and "psychotic" should listen more and speak less.

---

MAD does not apply here whatsoever. Iran literally is incapable of striking the US homeland with anything, much less a nuke. Furthermore, even if they could hit us and had a nuke, MAD still would not apply because one nuke vs the US hundreds does not equal MAD. The Soviet Union was an entirely different thing.

---

You said that threatening to wipe a civilization off the map was psychotic and insane. Your words. That's been the status quo since the late 1940's, whether you admit it or not. We know that leftists don't deal in reality.

Oh, and your buddies the Mullahs (or what's left of them) were actively developing a nuke and in fact lied about the range of the rockets as we saw first hand. Finally, do you have any idea what just one nuke on a boat detonated in the Houston ship channel would do to this country and the world?

---

Yes I did say that and stand by it. And no, it has not been the status quo since the 1940's. I am not familiar with any US President since WW2 who has ever threatened genocide. If you can cite one, I am happy to be corrected.

Edit: I guess you could probably make the case for Andrew Jackson regarding the Indians

---

Richard Nixon: "I'm going to destroy the ******* country, believe me, I mean destroy it if necessary. And let me say, even the nuclear weapon if necessary. It isn't necessary. But, you know, what I mean is, that shows you the extent to which I'm willing to go. By a nuclear weapon, I mean that we will bomb the living bejeezus out of North Vietnam and then if anybody interferes we will threaten the nuclear weapon."

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this from some private conversation with Kissinger. Not a public statement to the world?

If you don't support war, you're a lib?

When dems get power back they will import Iranians by the millions if we destroy their infrastructure.

Who wants that?

Agador Spartacus said:

---

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

---

The winner takes all!

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Threatening genocide is generally considered a violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention, to which the United States is a party.

---

I'm going to need a citation for that with analysis to primary sources, not reliance on CNN paid experts.

---

https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4#EndDec

---

Thanks.

Now where is your analysis that cites to primary sources to the point that you are trying to make.

Here, I have some refutation for you somewhere in here: https://www.wikipedia.org/

You can find the evidence in there that supports my position for yourself.

---

Did you really just link to the Wikipedia homepage and say "something here supports my position" while trying to also be a smartass about citing primary sources?

---

I was pointing out that you provided nothing of value by providing nothing of value in return.

Do you want to actually do what I asked? Defend your position with analysis and quotes to primary sources? You haven't given that a try yet.

I mean, you don't have to. But, saying "It's a war crime" with no analysis and then citing an encyclopedia isn't really helpful.

This is what life has been like in occupied Iran under the terrorist Islamic Regime for the last 47 years.

So spare me your "outrage" over President Trump saying he will destroy the Islamic Regime.

I pray Trump ends them tonight.

Free Iran. pic.twitter.com/y7CqeNWRoV

— Goldie Ghamari | گلسا قمری 🇮🇷 (@gghamari) April 7, 2026

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

MAD does not apply here whatsoever. Iran literally is incapable of striking the US homeland with anything, much less a nuke.

---

Well, thank God for that. Maybe we should do some things to make sure that this never happens? You agree?

---

Define some things. Do I agree that "An entire civilization" has to die to prevent some theoretical threat they may some day pose? Uh no not really.

---

How about:

1) Regime change
2) Hoping for a less radicalized leadership to arise
3) Ending 47 years of death and destruction
4) Calling those three things death to "an entire civilization".

Is that so bad?

---

Are you just not aware of our history with regime change wars and their outcomes?

JB!98 said:

---

dmart90 said:

---

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.

---

The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols prohibit attacking objects necessary for civilian survival, such as water installations, food supplies, and power plants.

I guess those that signed off on the Geneva Conventions decided what happened in WWII was unacceptable and shouldn't happen again...

---

So, we only committed war crimes in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq 2, and now?

---

I'm not an expert in those military actions. Maybe? But there are clear allowances for targeting military installations and infrastructure supporting those installations. But that is different than wiping out all bridges and power plants.

Look. Iran is the worst of the worst. I wish the people of Iran would get their act together. I suspect most people in Iran really don't wish harm to the US or Israel. Bombing those civilians back to the stone ages probably won't win any hearts and minds. But that might be necessary to deal with the crazies that run that place today. I'm glad I'm not in charge of making that decision.

dmart90 said:

---

The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols prohibit attacking objects necessary for civilian survival, such as water installations, food supplies, and power plants.

I guess those that signed off on the Geneva Conventions decided what happened in WWII was unacceptable and shouldn't happen again...

---

Only commenting to point out that the "additional protocols" is an important distinction, here. The US has not ratified Protocol 1, which is where the second part of that sentence comes from. At least not formally.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Seriously, everyone knows Trump talks in big brash and sometimes crude terms, but if you look at ACTIONS, which is what matters, they are much more deliberate and restrained than his language, but they are also generally decisive. Trump exaggerates all the time compared to what is actually done, but it is what is done that matters.

---

And the alarmists fall for it every single time. They come on here pretending like the world is about to end because Trump said something...and then it doesn't.

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

MAD does not apply here whatsoever. Iran literally is incapable of striking the US homeland with anything, much less a nuke.

---

Well, thank God for that. Maybe we should do some things to make sure that this never happens? You agree?

---

Define some things. Do I agree that "An entire civilization" has to die to prevent some theoretical threat they may some day pose? Uh no not really.

---

How about:

1) Regime change
2) Hoping for a less radicalized leadership to arise
3) Ending 47 years of death and destruction
4) Calling those three things death to "an entire civilization".

Is that so bad?

---

Are you just not aware of our history with regime change wars and their outcomes?

---

Oh, very aware.

Let's not do Iraq. Let's do Venezuela. Or ISIS. Or Hamas.

Keyno said:

---

japantiger said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

ETFan said:

---

akm91 said:

---

Looks like new talking points have been distributed to be parrotted.

---

I remember when a president saying he was going to wipe an entire civilization off the map didn't need "talking points", we simply all agreed that's psychotic and insane.

But, we've got ourselves a cult, what can ya do?

They've successfully moved the overton window so that anything is defensible.

---

I guess your recollections aren't all that relevant since you're too young to remember MAD.

It was ALL ABOUT wiping civilizations off the map.

I got under my desk at school as a small child on a regular basis because a Soviet Premier said he'd "Bury" us.

Historically ignorant children who bandy about terms like "cult" and "psychotic" should listen more and speak less.

---

MAD does not apply here whatsoever. Iran literally is incapable of striking the US homeland with anything, much less a nuke. Furthermore, even if they could hit us and had a nuke, MAD still would not apply because one nuke vs the US hundreds does not equal MAD. The Soviet Union was an entirely different thing.

---

You said that threatening to wipe a civilization off the map was psychotic and insane. Your words. That's been the status quo since the late 1940's, whether you admit it or not. We know that leftists don't deal in reality.

Oh, and your buddies the Mullahs (or what's left of them) were actively developing a nuke and in fact lied about the range of the rockets as we saw first hand. Finally, do you have any idea what just one nuke on a boat detonated in the Houston ship channel would do to this country and the world?

---

Yes I did say that and stand by it. And no, it has not been the status quo since the 1940's. I am not familiar with any US President since WW2 who has ever threatened genocide. If you can cite one, I am happy to be corrected.

Edit: I guess you could probably make the case for Andrew Jackson regarding the Indians

---

Richard Nixon: "I'm going to destroy the ******* country, believe me, I mean destroy it if necessary. And let me say, even the nuclear weapon if necessary. It isn't necessary. But, you know, what I mean is, that shows you the extent to which I'm willing to go. By a nuclear weapon, I mean that we will bomb the living bejeezus out of North Vietnam and then if anybody interferes we will threaten the nuclear weapon."

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this from some private conversation with Kissinger. Not a public statement to the world?

---

So Trump saying things out loud and to the public is somehow… worse?

We should be praising his candor and forthright statements instead of "wish he would only plot annihilation in secret and publicly say something completely different, you know, be more like Nixon".

Thats your angle now?

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Threatening genocide is generally considered a violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention, to which the United States is a party.

---

I'm going to need a citation for that with analysis to primary sources, not reliance on CNN paid experts.

---

https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4#EndDec

---

Thanks.

Now where is your analysis that cites to primary sources to the point that you are trying to make.

Here, I have some refutation for you somewhere in here: https://www.wikipedia.org/

You can find the evidence in there that supports my position for yourself.

---

Did you really just link to the Wikipedia homepage and say "something here supports my position" while trying to also be a smartass about citing primary sources?

---

I was pointing out that you provided nothing of value by providing nothing of value in return.

Do you want to actually do what I asked? Defend your position with analysis and quotes to primary sources? You haven't given that a try yet.

I mean, you don't have to. But, saying "It's a war crime" with no analysis and then citing an encyclopedia isn't really helpful.

---

I provided you a link to the scanned originally signed copy of the Genocide Convention from the online version of the United Nations Depository. I am *100% sure* you actually looked at the webpage, opened the PDF "Certified true copy", and looked down to page 11 of the PDF (page 3 of the English section), and read Article III, section (c) about about direct and indirect incitement of genocide.

You responded with "here's wikipedia's homepage."

Quality work.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

japantiger said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

ETFan said:

---

akm91 said:

---

Looks like new talking points have been distributed to be parrotted.

---

I remember when a president saying he was going to wipe an entire civilization off the map didn't need "talking points", we simply all agreed that's psychotic and insane.

But, we've got ourselves a cult, what can ya do?

They've successfully moved the overton window so that anything is defensible.

---

I guess your recollections aren't all that relevant since you're too young to remember MAD.

It was ALL ABOUT wiping civilizations off the map.

I got under my desk at school as a small child on a regular basis because a Soviet Premier said he'd "Bury" us.

Historically ignorant children who bandy about terms like "cult" and "psychotic" should listen more and speak less.

---

MAD does not apply here whatsoever. Iran literally is incapable of striking the US homeland with anything, much less a nuke. Furthermore, even if they could hit us and had a nuke, MAD still would not apply because one nuke vs the US hundreds does not equal MAD. The Soviet Union was an entirely different thing.

---

You said that threatening to wipe a civilization off the map was psychotic and insane. Your words. That's been the status quo since the late 1940's, whether you admit it or not. We know that leftists don't deal in reality.

Oh, and your buddies the Mullahs (or what's left of them) were actively developing a nuke and in fact lied about the range of the rockets as we saw first hand. Finally, do you have any idea what just one nuke on a boat detonated in the Houston ship channel would do to this country and the world?

---

Yes I did say that and stand by it. And no, it has not been the status quo since the 1940's. I am not familiar with any US President since WW2 who has ever threatened genocide. If you can cite one, I am happy to be corrected.

Edit: I guess you could probably make the case for Andrew Jackson regarding the Indians

---

Richard Nixon: "I'm going to destroy the ******* country, believe me, I mean destroy it if necessary. And let me say, even the nuclear weapon if necessary. It isn't necessary. But, you know, what I mean is, that shows you the extent to which I'm willing to go. By a nuclear weapon, I mean that we will bomb the living bejeezus out of North Vietnam and then if anybody interferes we will threaten the nuclear weapon."

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this from some private conversation with Kissinger. Not a public statement to the world?

---

So Trump saying things out loud and to the public is somehow… worse?

We should be praising his candor and forthright statements instead of "wish he would only plot annihilation in secret and publicly say something completely different, you know, be more like Nixon".

Thats your angle now?

---

There is a difference between a comment you make in private with an advisor and a public threat sent out to the entire world. Surely you can see that

Honestly, my complaints about Trump haven't changed a bit. I agree with his policies, but hate his undisciplined communication style.

He could have just used words that were different from "a whole Civilization" and there would be very little controversy.

If he would have just said "destruction of an entire government and way of life" we wouldn't be having this whole conversation, because the tweet spells out what he intends to destroy, and it is clear that this does not include the Iranian population.

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.

---

Then poor attempt at sarcasm?

itsyourboypookie said:

---

If you don't support war, you're a lib?

When dems get power back they will import Iranians by the millions if we destroy their infrastructure.

Who wants that?

---

Maybe we should elect the candidate that preaches "no new wars" next time.

BusterAg said:

---

Honestly, my complaints about Trump haven't changed a bit. I agree with his policies, but hate his undisciplined communication style.

He could have just used words that were different from "a whole Civilization" and there would be very little controversy.

If he would have just said "destruction of an entire government and way of life" we wouldn't be having this whole conversation, because the tweet spells out what he intends to destroy, and it is clear that this does not include the Iranian population.

---

At some point you have to understand you are not his target audience. He is speaking to the average Muhammad in the ME.

Take it to the Geneva Conventions board.

See my prior posts on "war crimes". It's a made up concept and term. There is no Earth Management Team, no Laws of the Earth, no Earth Police, Courts and Prison.

Once you understand that concept, then treaties and conventions and UN councils and so forth mean NOTHING.

Ability to enforce your morals on others is done at the behest of weaponry or through access to beasties like food and water.

Tonight Trump will do the right thing for the world. He will not be committing war crimes.