7 ms·
Trump says 'a whole civilization will die tonight' if Iran does not make a deal
- parthdesai 7mo agoAt this rate, if the official religion of USA was a different one, they would be categorized as a terrorist state
- jacquesm 7mo agoIt is, just not in the USA. This is the textbook definition of terrorism: "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." It does not get much clearer than that.
- franktankbank 7mo ago[flagged]
- jacquesm 7mo ago[flagged]
- franktankbank 7mo agoI'm sorry if my general discourse is grating in this thread/in general on HN. It really is just kind of who I am and how I figure things out for myself, I'm very off the cuff and unafraid of looking/being stupid if it wins me some knowledge. I think the point of my question is that I predict this is how the conversation is going to go in the next few days (if the bombs start dropping), and I guess I'm trying to predict for myself where this conflict is headed. Big picture, Strait of Hormuz is just one front on the war to get Iran to submit which as stated is to remove their ability to achieve the bomb (if you believe the initial justifications). I don't know if that sheds any light on what my goals were or if it gave you a migraine. Apologies if the second.
- jacquesm 7mo agoYou can believe whatever you want but I actually don't believe that Iran would use that bomb offensively even if they have been threatening to do so. In that sense they would be no different than all but two other nuclear powers. Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons and only two countries have threatened to use them in recent memory. Iran was more or less bottled up until Trump decided to cancel the deal that was in place and since then it has been going down further and further. You don't escalate like this unless you are prepared to deal with the consequences and it is pretty clear that Trump had absolutely no plan post the initial bombings and has been winging it. That makes him super dangerous, not just to Iran but to pretty much the whole world. This conflict has the potential to spiral out of control in ways that make my hair stand on end and to not put too fine a point on it, it's the first time in my life that I actually wonder if there will be a tomorrow as we know it because apparently some idiot thinks he has the power to decide over life and death for 100's of thousands of people and for once the person with that power is deranged enough that he might actually use it unprovoked. In a sane world this guy would be behind bars instead of at the top of the food chain. The Strait of Hormuz was open 6 weeks ago and Iran was not as determined to 'get the bomb' then as they are now.
- vel0city 7mo ago> as stated is to remove their ability to achieve the bomb As stated by the people committing the violence today and threatening massive civilian death and destruction, Iran's ability to achieve the bomb was already destroyed many months ago.
- jacquesm 7mo agoNon proliferation is over and done with. Every country that can afford it and has the capability will have the bomb. There is no way this genie will go back in the bottle. And that means that a future nuclear war - if not today - is all but a certainty.
- vel0city 7mo agoSo I guess we just gotta bomb every country until they call uncle! If the capability of making a bomb is enough to allow bombing them, and every country has the capability to make a bomb, than what is the rubric again? When do we stop bombing?
- parthdesai 7mo agoWith the same logic, you could also justify bombing white house since they're clearly using weapons to destroy civilian infrastructure in other countries, and also murder civilians. That would be classified as a terror act though. So what's the difference in your eye?
- jfengel 7mo agoThat is the near-universal definition, but I don't think it captures the essence of it. The difference between terrorism and warfare is the degree of top-down control. Warfare is done in uniform, by people in a hierarchy. The reason for the distinction is that there is somebody taking responsibility. You end a war by agreeing to a treaty with the top level. You can hold the top level responsible for violations of the rules of war. Terrorism, by contrast, is harder to stop. There is no authority to end it. Even state-sponsored terrorism need not end when the sponsoring state agrees; they can find a different sponsor. That doesn't make one morally worse or better than the other. It's just a distinction worth drawing, because it governs how you go about bringing an end to it. The US law for terrorism is about attacks against it, and they combat those differently from how they'd go about fighting a war against a conventional enemy. What the US is doing to Iran is almost certainly unlawful, but I think that calling it "terrorism" obscures the fact that there is an authority to end it. The attack is legal in its own terms -- it at least has a law, which terrorists do not. Again, not better. Arguably, much worse. Which is why I find the definition problematic.
- ModernMech 7mo agoThe US has constantly been at war for like 250 years. How can you conclude war is easier to stop than terrorism? Can we make the USA stop waging war? Because that would be a nice change. Just take Iran, they agreed to a treaty with the top level of the USA. But the next top level ripped up the agreement and now is threatening total destruction of their civilization. Should Iran sign a new deal with that guy, and what's to stop him from tearing that up and bombing them again?
- jfengel 7mo agoThe US stopped individual wars. They went on to attack somebody else, but the host of the previous war was happy to see it over. That's why they negotiated a peace treaty, and the US mostly respected that. (Except with the native Americans.) There is nothing to stop the next guy from changing his mind, but it generally doesn't happen. It certainly could, and yeah, there's a really strong case that with the current administration the US has gone completely off the rails. My last comment was speaking generally about civilized countries. It doesn't account for rogue states, and the US is increasingly fitting that definition. Can a rogue state commit terrorism by my definition? Not with a uniformed army. That's another part of my definition of terrorism: it puts civilians in jeopardy by hiding its combatants among them. Uniformed soldiers are legitimate targets, which means it's possible to fight back only against legitimate targets, even if those legitimate targets are committing acts that would otherwise be terrorism. I don't think targeting civilians is a sufficient definition for terrorism, because militaries have been doing that since forever. It's basically part of war, even if we wish to pretend otherwise.
- matusp 7mo agoIt's called terrorism only when it comes from a certain region. Otherwise it's sparkling military action.
- gib444 7mo agoIt's not about definitions or categorisations. It's about what reprisals there are for labelling them a terrorist state.
- jacquesm 7mo agoSeriously, wtf?
- jjtwixman 7mo agoThe USA is deeply sick.
- spaghetdefects 7mo agoWe are captured by Israel and working against our own interests because they are blackmailing and bribing our leaders.
- readitalready 7mo ago[flagged]
- khaledh 7mo agoExactly. Remember Trump's tweet from 2019[0]. But the zionist lobby is holding the US hostage. The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE..... [0] https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181905659568283648 https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181905659568283648
- akagusu 7mo ago> The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE..... Could you imagine 8 trillion dollars reverted to the welfare of american citizens? How much affordable housing, higher education and healthcare 8 trillion dollars could have bought for american citizens?
- sirbutters 7mo agoIt's as if it would be heaven, if not for the greed of man.
- mvdtnz 7mo agoYou got here because you elected Donald J Trump, twice.
- Gud 7mo agoYou don’t believe millions of dollars in bribes(“lobbying”) has influence, when sprinkled on the right people? Israel and Jewish interests spend a lot of money on USA politicians.
- emilsedgh 7mo agoNuclear threat is incredibly real. Please call your congressmen.
- BoggleOhYeah 7mo agoBlah blah blah. Trump is trying his stupid, tough businessman TV persona in world politics. Everyone in the admin is a deeply unserious person being propped up by the paranoia and dumb “patriotism” created by 9/11. You could make an argument that Osama bin Laden was ultimately successful in destroying the US.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- treetalker 7mo agoSend war criminals to The Hague.
- Someone 7mo agoI think civilization already died in Washington.
- schonfinkel 7mo agoKinda reminds me of the story of king Croesus of Lydia, who asked the oracle of Delphi whether he should wage war against Cyrus the Great, the Oracle promptly told him that by doing so he would "destroy a great empire". Croesus then promptly attacked the Persians and lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croesus#War_against_Persia_and_defeat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croesus#War_against_Persia_and...
- johnbarron 7mo agoAfter Israel, Iran is home to the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East. Current estimates are that 15,000 to 20,000 Jews live in Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Jews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Jews
- AndrewKemendo 7mo agoThat’s not even a little correct there’s 100s of thousands more in Palestine than Iran Like you just posted a straight up lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_city
- mongol 7mo agoPalestine doesn't exist, from Israel's point of view. To accuse parent of lying is taking it much too far
- johnbarron 7mo agoTo clarify, the quote comes directly from the Wikipedia article on Iranian Jews [1], which cites a BBC source [2]. The phrasing is "After Israel, it is home to the second-largest Jewish population in the Middle East." The links you posted actually support my point rather than refute it. The "Jewish population by country" page lists Iran at 8,500–20,000. Palestine is not listed as a separate entry with a larger Jewish population. You may be referring to Israeli settlers in the West Bank, but those individuals are Israeli citizens counted under Israel's population in every demographic source I'm aware of. Counting them under "Palestine" would require simultaneously recognizing Palestine as a sovereign state while attributing Israeli citizens to it, which no standard demographic dataset does. If you have a source that counts a Jewish population in a recognized state called Palestine that exceeds Iran, I'd genuinely be interested to see it. But calling a direct Wikipedia/BBC citation a "straight up lie" is a strong claim that should probably come with a stronger source and also shows, you arrive with an ulterior agenda, that I at least, do not have. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Jews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Jews [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm
- TrackerFF 7mo agoTwo ways to interpret this: 1) US and Israel will throw everything they have (of conventional weapons) at Iran. 2) US will use (tactical) nuclear weapons on strategic targets. Of the two evils, I truly hope it will be (1).
- jacquesm 7mo agoI hope it will be neither and someone reins in this buffoon.
- fabian2k 7mo agoA previous post was "Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day", so I'd guess it's about that. Destroying the entire power infrastructure of a large country like that would have a pretty catastrophic effect on civilians. So that seems worse enough, I seriously hope no nukes will be involved.
- AnimalMuppet 7mo agoYou remember that video that some Democratic legislators did about refusing to obey illegal orders? This is where that becomes absolutely real. (Targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime. Orders to commit war crimes are illegal by definition.)
- franktankbank 7mo agoIs that US law or international law?
- JohnFen 7mo agoInternational law is also US law. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3588&context=mlr https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
- franktankbank 7mo ago
- khaledh 7mo agoThe sad thing is that rulers never learn from history. There's no winner in this.
- igleria 7mo agoAny person that supports Trump's message is insane. There are no ifs or buts.
- causal 7mo agoThere is a massive disconnect between what Americans experience in their day to day vs what they will support happening abroad. We are so completely insulated that we can have something like this happening and still not be shocked by the implications because the likely near-term consequence is just "shucks $5 a gallon".
- doom2 7mo agoIt's funny because arguably a big reason Harris lost was unhappiness with the cost of living/the vibecession. Yet Trump hasn't managed to fulfill his promise of turning the magic grocery price knob down (they still seem quite expensive to me) and I'm still skeptical there will be any kind of "blue wave" come November. We'll see if voter sensitivity to living costs only apply to one party or not.
- JohnFen 7mo agoSo he's graduated from simply threatening war crimes to threatening genocide. We are the baddies.
- guzfip 7mo ago[flagged]
- 1attice 7mo agoYou have just responded to one genocide by recommending the mass murder of the elderly. Congratulations, you have won American Post of the Day
- pickleglitch 7mo agoThis is an open declaration of an intent to commit genocide.
- g8oz 7mo agoOne of the things that has been shocking to me but has received little attention, has been the assassination of prominent former Iranian officials. Is this not a war crime? They were serving in no military capacity before they and their families were killed in their homes. If a foreign adversary killed John Bolton or Anthony Blinken by bombing their homes I'm sure it would be called terrorism.
- mikewarot 7mo agoI don't know how anyone can sleep normally knowing this madman has sole authority over the second largest nuclear weapons stockpile on the planet. It usually takes me until 5am. I've stocked up on Potassium Iodide tablets for the child to avoid cancer after the nukes fly. I don't think we'll be hit soon in the US, but it's getting a lot more likely.
- jacquesm 7mo agoLikewise. Trump 1 caused my long term sleeping disorder to re-appear and Trump 2 is having me wonder why I thought it was a great idea to have kids. It is complete insanity that someone like this should be holding the Presidency of the USA.
- microtonal 7mo agoMake the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens. - Epictetus As someone who also thinks about the world a lot, I know it is easier said than done. But it helps to mentally separate the things that you can control and the things you cannot control. Then try to accept the things that you can't control. You cannot directly control Trump or the US army. You can protest, go on strike, boycott, call your congressman/senator, love your neighbor, be there for your kids.
- q3k 7mo agoPotassium iodide is not going to help you much in the event of a nuclear war. It's only really useful for nuclear accidents where the primary radioisotope release is I-131. It's not a magical radiation protection shield (for example against Cs-137 or Sr-90 released as a result of nuclear weapons).
- Bender 7mo agoAdding to this KI wont keep anything out of the other organs. People not in sealed bunkers will air filtration systems will get acute radiation sickness and eventually cancer either way. Intentionally leaving out the extra morbid details.
- mrtksn 7mo ago
- raks619 7mo ago[flagged]
- busyant 7mo agoyou could have stopped at "Persian people shouldn't have to die for this." The rest is irrelevant to what has been threatened. edit. to be clear, the rest of your post is offensive in that it implies that under a different genetic lineage, the threats would be justified. I can't believe I have to even write this.
- khaledh 7mo agoRemember Trump's tweet from 2019[0]. I wonder which other country benefits the most from dragging the US into this war? Oh, right. The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE..... [0] https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181905659568283648 https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181905659568283648
- OhMeadhbh 7mo agoUS presidents have a history of saying one thing on the campaign trail and doing another once they're in office. Clinton said he was going to do health care reform during the campaign, but signed the welfare to work, mandatory sentencing and glass-steagall repeal when he was in office. Although... just looked at the date on that tweet. He was still in office for his first term at the time. So... yeah... modernity is not a place to look for consistent statements from political figures.
- duxup 7mo agoI know children with more maturity.
- ludicrousdispla 7mo agorelated... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47677473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47677473
- Jamesbeam 7mo agoExcuse me guys and gals, on what page of The Art of the Deal are we right now? I can’t find the chapter about threatening the other party with genocide and how to follow up negotiations from that point.
- shiftydodgy 7mo ago[flagged]
- insane_dreamer 7mo agoThe worst part of this is that he's not threatening to kill Iranian civilians because of some human atrocities that the Iran gov is committing, that they must stop or else. No, he's threatening to kill civilians because of the _price of gas_. At what point is Congress going to realize that the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world, with sole authority over _nuclear launch codes_, is mentally unstable and a threat to not only the rest of the world, but consequently, to the US as well.
- jacquesm 7mo agoIf they don't realize it now they never will.
- thiht 7mo agoCurious to know how many HNers still support Trump. They’ll probably say they never supported him, but they were pretty numerous (or at least more than you would expect on HN) saying he wasn’t all that bad (who cares about human rights when money is flowing) at the beginning of his term.
- jacquesm 7mo agoEnough to flag this thread.
- tim333 7mo agoFlagging Trump threads could also be people who don't like Trump.
- spaghetdefects 7mo agoThere are a lot of Zionists that patrol this site and this is exactly what they want and support.
- mvdtnz 7mo agoHey Americans this might be a good time to do something about that lunatic you put into office. You're the ones constantly bleating on about keeping government power in check, don't you think this is an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is? The world is watching, and judging.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- nobody9999 7mo ago>Hey Americans this might be a good time to do something about that lunatic you put into office. You're the ones constantly bleating on about keeping government power in check, don't you think this is an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is? The world is watching, and judging. That's all true. And we even have a mechanism for removing said lunatic. We call it the 25th Amendment[0] to our constitution. The only problem with using that mechanism is that the folks who are in line to succeed[1] the aforementioned lunatic are at least as un-serious, and are, in many cases, religious zealots who see nuclear war in the Middle East[2] as bringing on the second coming of their imaginary sky daddy. As an American, I'd be even more afraid if a jackass like J.D. Vance became president, and heaven help us all if Mike Johnson or Marco Rubio became president. Or how about Scott Bessent or Pete Hegseth. Yeesh! Scary stuff! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_lin... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon
- ponector 7mo agoHe is winning so much he is openly talking about commiting new war crimes. Anyway, there is no sense to listen to Trump. TACO is a thing.
- johneth 7mo ago> Anyway, there is no sense to listen to Trump. TACO is a thing. It's never a good idea to disregard something just because you want it to be true. Trump's done a lot of shit that he said he'd do (tariffs, capturing foreign leaders, wars of choice). He's incredibly stupid. You can't predict stupid people.
- ponector 7mo agoI cannot predict his moves, I can not do anything to affect him. There is no point to listen him. The only thing I can do is to donate money to buy kamikaze drones for Ukraine to help defeat his dear friend vladimir.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- OhMeadhbh 7mo agoJust saw a comment where someone wondered if Trump explicitly said he would bomb Iran or if he left a little linguistic wiggle room so he could nuke San Francisco if Iran doesn't do what he wants. Modernity is so weird recently, it honestly wouldn't surprise me.
- OhMeadhbh 7mo agoSo... if I were China... this would be a decent week to invade Taiwan. Everyone seems to be a bit distracted.
- lopsotronic 7mo agoChina won't need to invade anyone. In a few more years of this the leaders of the world will be re-writing their national anthems in Mandarin to get a whiff of stability. Why invade when they come to you?
- croes 7mo agoI wonder why this deal maker didn’t get a nobel peace price. He sounds exactly like the peaceful Ayatollahs