Patterico's Pontifications

1/7/2020

Defense Secty. Contradicts Trump: No Iranian Cultural Sites Will Be Targeted (UPDATE ADDED)

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:02 am



[guest post by Dana]

On Saturday, President Trump caught administration officials off guard when he warned that Iran’s cultural sites would be targeted if there was retaliation against the U.S. for the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani:

Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

In spite of concerns raised from national security experts and legal scholars, Trump doubled-down on his threat the following day:

“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” he told reporters traveling with him on Air Force One. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way.”

Yesterday, Defense Secretary Mark Esper contradicted the President, saying that no cultural sites would be targeted:

Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the U.S. will “follow the laws of armed conflict.” When asked if that ruled out targeting cultural sites, Esper said pointedly, “That’s the laws of armed conflict.”

Esper’s public comments reflected the private concerns of other defense and military officials, who cited legal prohibitions on attacks on civilian, cultural and religious sites, except under certain, threatening circumstances.

Details:

[T]he 1954 Hague Convention says nations must “take all possible steps” to protect cultural property and shall refrain “from any act of hostility, directed against such property.” It also says nations must not use cultural sites for any threatening purposes that would make such locations a military target.

UPDATED: It looks like President Trump has accepted Esper’s clarification regarding cultural sites:

“If Iran does anything that they shouldn’t be doing, they’re going to be suffering the consequences, and very strongly.”

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

176 Responses to “Defense Secty. Contradicts Trump: No Iranian Cultural Sites Will Be Targeted (UPDATE ADDED)”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (643cd6)

  2. Maybe Trump only meant that he would ban The Rubaiyat Of Omar Khayyam?

    No, wait, that poem is heretical. Maybe he meant that he would drop copies of it on Qom?

    nk (dbc370)

  3. Esper was doing Trump a favor, standing in the way of his boss committing even more impeachable federal crimes. Donald should thank him.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  4. If one presumes that the Pentagon keeps an updated list of cultural sites that notes any military uses of those sites (which would under international law allow them to be targeted), and that list is what POTUS had in mind, there is actually nothing to cavil at in either Trump’s tweets or Esper’s statements. Note that Esper said the US would not violate the laws of armed conflict. He did not say “we won’t attack cultural sites”.

    kishnevi (496414)

  5. It will shortly become an article of faith among Trump’s supporters that in war you’re supposed to blow up your opponent’s cultural landmarks or otherwise you aren’t doing it right. Besides, what’s more important, beautiful old mosques or showing nobody should ever ever even think of crossing the United States?

    Victor (d34828)

  6. kishnevi @4 is right. although I think it’s more like a list of important cultural sites to cross reference against anything that might become a military target, and, normally, exclude.

    So they probably told him: “You might not want to hit this, this and that.”

    Esper is not contradicting Trump, and neither did Pompeo on Face the Nation on Sunday.

    He’s contradicting what some people have interpreted Trump as saying. (which Trump hasn’t stopped people from doing. Why try to lower the deterrent effect?)

    Esper is not really clarifying this also because, for one thing, he doesn’t want to exactly name the possible targets.

    There’s no sign that Trump is prepared to add any targets of his own and the Pentagon is not going to propose anything that violates the laws of war. Trump might possibly suggest something like Iranian government headquarters, but, because he says he doesn’t want regime change, that probably won’t come up for serious consideration until a second or third round of escalation, and he’d still ask the military what they think about it.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  7. @6 you really bend yourself in knots to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here.

    Time123 (52fb0e)

  8. @7 were you able to type that with a straight face? @4 and @6 are objective reads of the situation.

    The entire OMG! he’s going to commit war crimes storyline is right there with the war powers kabuki. Both were born with clown makeup on.

    frosty (f27e97)

  9. It’s not so much benefit of the doubt that I think that kishnevi and Sammy have it right, as it is that Trump has no clue about war. Remember, this is the guy whose “personal Vietnam” was dodging STDs and for whom “vaginas were landmines”. In short, he didn’t know what he was talking about and then said it again.

    nk (dbc370)

  10. “The entire OMG! he’s going to commit war crimes storyline is right there with the war powers kabuki.”

    You saw Trump’s tweet, right?

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  11. oops, forgot to copy it

    “They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” he told reporters traveling with him on Air Force One. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way.”

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  12. @8, I genuinely think Trump would like to target Cultural sites. I also think he wants to target family members of suspected terrorists. I think these things because on multiple occasions he’s said that’s what he wants to do.

    Time123 (daab2f)

  13. When he’s said these things he’s sounded sincere and the statements have come in his voice. When he’s gone back to ‘clean up’ his previous statements it’s sounded forced and insincere.

    Time123 (daab2f)

  14. But you have to look at the tweet which started all this:

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593975732527112

    [we have] ….targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

    Pompeo said:

    “President Trump didn’t say he’d go after a cultural site. Read what he said very closely.”

    It’s obvious to me what’s going on here.

    Meanwhile Polifact tries to say that Pompeo lied:

    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2020/jan/06/mike-pompeo/pompeo-falsely-claims-trump-did-not-say-hed-go-aft

    There are some things that fall into both categories, and by the way, Trump’s “important to Iran & the Iranian culture” may not include any of the 22 cultural sites in Iran on the UNESCO World Heritage List because I;d expect the U.S. military not to limit itself to that, or rely on that and in fact be quite generous in categorizing places as cultural sites.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  15. With family members it’s also the fact that some family members are included or will be collateral damage. I think 3 children of Baghdadi were killed with him, and a son-in-law was said to be killed with General Qassim Soleimani. Of course, he would have had some kind of a job with him.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  16. “Pompeo said”

    Pompeo is a weasel.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  17. From Donald Trump

    And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families,” he explained. “They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.”

    Time123 (52fb0e)

  18. as it is that Trump has no clue about war

    As opposed to….whom? Bush I, Ford, JFK, Truman, and Teddy Roosevelt were the only 20th century presidents who were ever shot at in anger. Of course there was that time Hillary came under fire…

    PTw (894877)

  19. Curious….has anyone here actually been shot at on a field of war?

    PTw (894877)

  20. @16. That’s an insult.

    To weasels. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  21. You could trip people up and include Eisenhower in that group as a True/False question (DDE was not sent to the front in WWI or in any expeditions i.e. Pancho Villa retrieval or the Dominican Republic in the mid 1920s).

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  22. Good catch, urbanleftbehind. I think LBJ connived himself onto a flight that “conveniently” developed mechanical problems, IIRC. I think he was a congressman at the time. Nixon and Reagan were state-side servers, again IIRC.

    PTw (894877)

  23. Bah…forgot McKinley was in the Civil War and was killed in 1901, so 20th century president. Also, really truly was shot at in anger when he was killed…in the 20th century. But kinda off my point.

    PTw (894877)

  24. @10 Did you read @4 and @6 where reasonable alternatives to “OMG! he’s going to commit war crimes” were clearly articulated?

    What purpose are these constant irrational and hyperbolic reactions to everything Trump does supposed to serve? For a while, I saw these as attempts to undermine his support and lay the groundwork for other candidates. But we’ve jumped this shark so many times now the shark isn’t even pretending anymore.

    frosty (f27e97)

  25. If state side service counts that would include Bush II.

    Time123 (daab2f)

  26. If state side service counts that would include Bush II.

    No. Shot at in anger. As successful as he was at keeping Charlie out of El Paso and Austin, that doesn’t mean squat as far as having a clue about war. Though his father I’m sure gave him a few pointers on what it is all about.

    PTw (894877)

  27. As opposed to….whom? Bush I, Ford, JFK, Truman, and Teddy Roosevelt were the only 20th century presidents who were ever shot at in anger. Of course there was that time Hillary came under fire…

    PTw (894877) — 1/7/2020 @ 11:13 am

    I think that’s actually a pretty good ratio that the 21st century will not approach. Take the last 2 democrat presidents out and it’s actually amazing how much of our leadership was veteran. It used to be that actual military service was a huge plus for a politician. These days, the chubby establishment prefers to say that doesn’t overlap with expertise, but I disagree.

    There’s a real difference between someone with the character to go serve in a hazardous deployment , but smart enough to also be a successful businessman, lawyer, professor, etc (and then a politician), versus the fortunate son types like Trump who were specifically asked to serve and instead joked about being Jody. (I had one such deployment if this is important to you, but I could never be a successful politician as anyone reading my rants will agree). I think about my friends who left behind kids or mom when killed in Iraq, and it really does change how I see recklessness in our leadership. Character matters. Loyalty to your wife, employees, your nation in business (unlike Bain Capitol shipping jobs to China), and actually loving this country’s ideals… that kind of stuff gets eye-rolls from the fringe right and fringe left. “wake up!” they tell me. It’s all a cynical game and we need a cynical leader. But those leaders might do something callous in response to bad press during their impeachment.

    Does Trump care about those troops? We know he does not, because of how he destroyed their businesses in Park Avenue, how he mocked POWs as failures, and how he bragged about the Jody stuff. We don’t talk about this much, but the military has radically reduced its footing in Korea to a centralized, less forward footing, with a much more recognized and bold enemy in the north busily plotting to build its nukes.

    Similarly, of course, Obama failed us by giving away the store just to attempt to have a foreign policy legacy. Clinton failed us terribly by blowing off national security because ‘it’s the economy stupid’ (and indeed, for Clinton’s reelection, that’s all that mattered).

    You left W off your list, I imagine deliberately, but he served in a dangerous capacity with those jets he flew. Clearly a much better man, and much better patriot, and of course better president, than Moscow Donnie.

    My point of no return for the GOP was nominating Romney, who was having fun in Paris during the draft, was unable to get reelected when he was a governor, had put a lot of Americans out of jobs and moved industry to China (in my book same as owning a plantation), but donned the facade of stoic patriot. People do not change that much in life.

    Plenty of heroic Americans do not serve in the military. Some serve as public defenders, school teachers, trash collectors, good cops, etc. But show me something other than complete self-interest your whole life. The kind of person I can trust with the power to put a generation of young men in danger should be a part of something bigger than himself. Trump can’t even be loyal to the golf scoreboard if it doesn’t make him look good. This is why I’ve always felt in some way Romney and Trump are oddly the same (even though complete opposites in style).

    Dustin (cafb36)

  28. No. Shot at in anger. As successful as he was at keeping Charlie out of El Paso and Austin, that doesn’t mean squat as far as having a clue about war. Though his father I’m sure gave him a few pointers on what it is all about.

    PTw (894877) — 1/7/2020 @ 11:38 am

    What was your MOS and where were you deployed that you have such an eyeroll attitude about W flying dangerous aircraft?

    Dustin (cafb36)

  29. @12

    I genuinely think Trump would like to target Cultural sites. I also think he wants to target family members of suspected terrorists. I think these things because on multiple occasions he’s said that’s what he wants to do.

    The accuracy of this depends a lot on how you choose to parse a statement. I don’t want to pay my insurance premiums but the most effective way for me to keep my coverage is to pay them.

    The quote you give in @17 does not say he wants to target families as an end in itself. Neither does the quote in @11 or the original tweet in the post say that he wants to target cultural sites. All of these comments exist in the context of deterrence.

    A more plausible reading of these quotes is that he is willing to target families or cultural sites. A more accurate reading is that he doesn’t feel constrained to avoid collateral damage, namely families or cultural sites.

    frosty (f27e97)

  30. It’s “Sharpie-map” time.

    The Trump administration has no credible evidence to substantiate ‘imminent threat.’

    For three years they’ve been dissing U.S. intel; now they conveniently embrace it. If you believe them, you’re a sucker. Esper’s presser was as vaporous as Pompeo’s. The credibility gap w/these twits is wider than the distance between Earth and moon. Only a total Trump-chump would believe anything these charlatans chum out.

    And regardless of which point of the Compass you come from, this “brief Congress,” gang-of-8 crap is Sharpie sucker bait as well. Given the security they live with daily on our dime, none of those rodents are subject to an increased risk or threat as they go about their business. Average Americans at home and abroad are. They’ll come out of a briefing and split on the interpretation along party lines.

    Back in October, 1962, JFK had much, much more credibility w/t American people than Trump has today yet even in the midst of the missile crisis there was some suspicion that Kennedy was exaggerating the issue as there was an election near. To harden both domestic and international support, the administration made a calculate decision to reveal limited elements of the evidence, then deemed ‘classified,’ to the public during Stevenson’s televised presentation at the UN. It appears tame by today’s standards, but it was effective, convincing and enough to firm up support at home and abroad.

    You may be content w/his domestic efforts but Helsinki should have taught every American that Trump is an incompetent stumblebum and completely out of his element internationally.

    Today’s lie is among his biggest and will be on his brass-plated tombstone: “I like to obey the law…” — Donald J. Trump 1/7/2020

    But he’s earned this: “Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump.” – Larsen E. Whipsnade [W.C. Fields] ‘You Can’t Cheat An Honest Man” 1939

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  31. You are reading way too much into my question, and while I thank you for your service, I’m sensing some sensitivity on this subject. I’ve had the privilege to know, work with, and learn a tremendous amount from men who spent considerable time in combat situation, under fire, for days and weeks at a time. I came to understand that those men knew something, something that can’t be taught, something that often isn’t casually discernible. I know many, many more people who work dangerous jobs, jobs where due to their training they were prepared for very dangerous situations. Those men didn’t know squat relative to those who had been hunted by other men. It’s a very, very different thing doing dangerous work vs. fighting a war. The only men I have ever met who had been hunted by other men, in real life, knew something special. I’m just curious if there are any such men here.

    PTw (894877)

  32. I’ve updated the post with President Trump’s response to Esper’s clarification.

    Dana (643cd6)

  33. @29

    “They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.”

    Help me understand how you spin this to mean something other than he advocated the intentional killing of terrorist’s families as a deterrent and not as a unfortunately collateral damage.

    Time123 (52fb0e)

  34. PTw specifically talked about being the subject of hostile fire from the enemy. I don’t remember 43 ever being mentioned in that context.

    Carter also served in wartime, but not in a combat zone.

    kishnevi (0c10d1)

  35. You are reading way too much into my question, and while I thank you for your service, I’m sensing some sensitivity on this subject.

    LOL

    Dustin (cafb36)

  36. If one presumes that the Pentagon keeps an updated list of cultural sites that notes any military uses of those sites (which would under international law allow them to be targeted)

    Leadership sites would also be fair game.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  37. you really bend yourself in knots to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here.

    For the first time ever on this blog.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  38. In either direction.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  39. I wonder how long the US-Israel attack on Iran’s nuclear development is going to wait. The real reason they agreed to that pact was to forestall an attack, if not just by Israel. And the tribute money, of course.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  40. I think the MSM’s cheerleading and water-carrying for Iranian propaganda is unseemly. Then again, there’s a bit of that here, too.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  41. PTw specifically talked about being the subject of hostile fire from the enemy. I don’t remember 43 ever being mentioned in that context.

    Carter also served in wartime, but not in a combat zone.

    kishnevi (0c10d1) — 1/7/2020 @ 12:26 pm

    I grant there is obviously a difference. Sometimes it’s not even a good difference. A lot of people I know are on 100% disability simply because of PTSD. They are wonderful family men (frankly all my friends from the military are men) but you wouldn’t want them to be president of the united states on a bad day. The mind is a lot more fragile and we pretend it’s not because of Hollywood.

    Carter is a synonym for awful president so it’s also not like mere military service is a qualification.

    But given Reagan, Clinton, Obama, and now Trump, we’ve changed as a society. W is the exception, and that’s something that concerns me as we move more and more towards drones and surgical strikes. I firmly believe that had Clinton given a crap about our military, he wouldn’t have kicked the can down the road with the middle east, and his failure led to tragic consequences. I don’t really put W as the reason for the War on Terror. And of course, Clinton dodged the draft and everyone said this didn’t matter. To me, it does matter.

    I highlight what I said before. I don’t really care if it’s military service. I just want to see that someone aspiring to lead the nation did more than just serve their own selfish interests their whole life. Most politicians are career politicians and frankly total weirdos. I’d take a school teacher in the inner city or an EMT who went on to get an MBA over them.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  42. Number one priority is to get Lieawatha to Australia and do a rain dance.

    mg (8cbc69)

  43. I think the MSM’s cheerleading and water-carrying for Iranian propaganda is unseemly. Then again, there’s a bit of that here, too.

    Kevin M (19357e) — 1/7/2020 @ 12:39 pm

    That’s kinda what happens when we have freedom of thought and expression. I know it’s hard for the Dear Leader and Sacred Party but some people even like the Iranians. Some people literally agree with them on stuff. Some people assume Trump is lying 100% of the time. This sets the stage for a diversity of opinion when Trump faces off against a barbaric and evil regime, especially when we doubt he did so sincerely with a long term goal, and instead just poked the bear inviting violence because he got impeached.

    Is Trump following a real plan, and does he respect the USA enough to explain his goal? I see a lot of snide ‘well deterrence is step 1 so there!’ remarks that do not address Trump’s 3 years of being Iran’s B****.

    Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, as an intellectual exercise, that Obama blew up Kim Jong Un the day after it was revealed Bill Ayers wrote his autobiography. Kim is a bad, bad man, objectively, but Obama really just wanted a distraction. Is that cool? Let’s assume we actually know for sure Obama intended the media distraction, something we can’t prove (yet of course we all know to be the case today if we’re honest and not partisan hacks).

    Dustin (cafb36)

  44. 30. DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/7/2020 @ 12:15 pm

    The Trump administration has no credible evidence to substantiate ‘imminent threat.’

    I think they said that for legal reasons, although the legality doesn’t strictly depend upon that. Iran was ramping up what it was doing – did they march on a U.S. embassy before, and they were planning things on what was probably a 6-12 month timeframe.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-blast-pentagon/pentagon-says-iranian-commander-soleimani-was-developing-plans-to-attack-americans-idUSKBN1Z2056

    https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2049534/statement-by-the-department-of-defense

    General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.

    This can probably legally qualify as imminent.

    They’d been ramping up all year. I think Trumps calling off the air strike on the grounds that nobody (?) had been killed in Saudi oil field attack sobered them up for awhile, and created a red line..

    Iran (or that militia that followed Soleimani’s orders) continued to attack Iraqi army sites. Soleimani didn’t consider that if an American was killed in such an attack, it Trump might consider it an an attack on U.S. forces.

    At first Trump approved five strikes in Iraq and Syria. It’s not clear if he was morivated to escalate by the controlled riot at the U,S. embassy in Baghdad. Killing Soleimani when he nxt arrived in Baghdad was on the option list December 28.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  45. Media distractions don’t mean anything, and they only meant something to Bill Clinton, who wanted to argue he was popular and so wanted politicians to think they would be hurt if they voted to impeach him.

    Clinton understood how the “how good a job” a president was doing poll was being misinterpreted.

    He knew that it referred only to what had been in the news lately except very close to an election. He had known that in 1991. And was not deterred by Bush’s sky high poll ratings at the time of the first gulf war.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  46. @33 You may be thinking that my goal here is to defend Trump or to defend his argument. I’m not. You said I also think he wants to target family members of suspected terrorists.

    I said doesn’t feel constrained to avoid collateral damage so my read on that would be you have to be willing take out their families.

    Your post reads as Trump wants to destroy cultural sites and kill family members of terrorists for no other reason than the killing and destruction. You’re now asking me to spin this into something other than he was saying that it would be a deterrent. I was saying exactly that; ref: All of these comments exist in the context of deterrence.

    Want (verb): have a desire to possess or do (something); wish for

    Want is a desire for the thing itself. None of these quotes supports your comment that Trump has a specific desire to kill people or destroy things. What he wants is the deterrence.

    frosty (f27e97)

  47. Trump leaves out the part where we killed about 50 of their people with airstrikes after they killed one of ours.

    Which is good, as far as I’m concerned, if we hit the right people.

    But if there is any disproportionality in recent events, we are the beneficiaries, not the victims.

    Dave (8a7bf8)

  48. [T]he 1954 Hague Convention says nations must “take all possible steps” to protect cultural property and shall refrain “from any act of hostility, directed against such property.” It also says nations must not use cultural sites for any threatening purposes that would make such locations a military target.

    So how does this work? If a terrorist group or terrorist state sets up military operations in a cultural site, is the other side bound to not target it? That sounds like an invitation for the lawless to exploit this law against law-abiding nations. (IIRC, Hamas has done similar things in Gaza).

    Bored Lawyer (56c962)

  49. they can always be collateral damage.

    asset (27e2c9)

  50. @30 JFK had much, much more credibility w/t American people than Trump has today
    Based on what we know today about JFK this is damning with faint praise. It might say more about the American people than it does Trump or JFK.

    frosty (f27e97)

  51. [T]he 1954 Hague Convention says nations must “take all possible steps” to protect cultural property and shall refrain “from any act of hostility, directed against such property.” It also says nations must not use cultural sites for any threatening purposes that would make such locations a military target.

    So how does this work? If a terrorist group or terrorist state sets up military operations in a cultural site, is the other side bound to not target it? That sounds like an invitation for the lawless to exploit this law against law-abiding nations. (IIRC, Hamas has done similar things in Gaza).

    Bored Lawyer (56c962) — 1/7/2020 @ 1:18 pm

    Then they become legit targets, but comes with PR costs.

    Why do you think terrorist try to setup up shop in schools, hospitals and the like? It gives them some cover, at least initially, to get a few whacks in, and then gives them PR victorys when those sites are destroyed with collateral damage.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  52. @48 must not use cultural sites for any threatening purposes that would make such locations a military target overrides all possible steps and refrain.

    An example at a tactical level:

    Rules of Engagement for U.S. Military Forces in Iraq

    c) Do not target or strike any of the following except in self-defense to protect yourself, your unit, friendly forces, and designated persons or property under your control: Civilians, Hospitals, mosques, national monuments, and any other historical and cultural sites.

    The argument you make is why I’m not reading Trump’s comments as war crime worthy. I don’t see any reason why the US should say that if you put your military sites in mosques it won’t protect them. Or put differently, I don’t see any reason we should tell them to put their military sites inside mosques to keep them safe. That Trump hasn’t used the exact magic words doesn’t really bother me.

    frosty (f27e97)

  53. I don’t see any reason why the US should say that if you put your military sites in mosques it won’t protect them.

    This is a good effort to defend Trump, but he did not say he would attack military targets, no matter where they were. He said he selected 52 targets and you better watch out because some are Iranian heritage. He clearly meant that the targets were selected BECAUSE they were cultural, not DESPITE them being cultural.

    This is one of those partisan things that had Hillary said the exact same words, all the partisans would flip instantly on how big a deal it is.

    I think the best defense of Trump is that threatening to commit a war crime is not itself a war crime, and Trump wasn’t serious in his bluster because exaggerating is how to do fraudulent deals as a real estate mafia guy.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  54. Your post reads as Trump wants to destroy cultural sites and kill family members of terrorists for no other reason than the killing and destruction.

    Of course this is what Trump meant. This is a guy who praised the Tienanmen Square massacre for its toughness. He is not some sober leader wiping tears away that he had to do what must be done. He likes Kim Jong Un! Let’s be real that Trump’s words were not at all hard to follow, and require no explanation. He simply didn’t mean what he said, hopefully.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  55. If a terrorist group or terrorist state sets up military operations in a cultural site, is the other side bound to not target it?

    That would be perfidy, which would be a war crime on Iran’s part, which means we could attack that cultural site if we had high confidence that that was what was going on. But I don’t believe Trump was talking about that. He was basically saying he would commit war crimes because Iranians have done mean things.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  56. @48 If you peruse Off Target:
    The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq: Preplanned Targets
    you might get some idea of the issues.

    Preplanned targets primarily included leadership buildings, government buildings, and security buildings. … Moreover, civilian casualties were limited by Iraq’s policy of locating the majority of these facilities away from the population. Even where these facilities were in populated areas, they were often separated by security perimeters and walls.

    If Iran doesn’t have a policy like that then you’re relying primarily on weapon choice. There there’s

    U.S. forces attacked the Baghdad International Fairgrounds, which had been occupied by the Iraqi Intelligence Service. … Across the street from the fairgrounds is the Baghdad Red Crescent Maternity Hospital; Human Rights Watch spoke to the director, Dr. Rasmi al-Rikabi. He said that the Mukhabarat had left their headquarters complex in al-Mansur district and had occupied the Fairgrounds and his hospital. The hospital had been evacuated two weeks earlier, but a skeleton staff remained and watched as the Mukhabarat freely operated from the hospital. Dr. al-Rikabi said that the Mukhabarat threatened to kill him if he questioned their presence so he remained silent.

    Which led to

    … nine 2,000-pound precision-guided bombs struck the International Fairgrounds, blowing the glass out of the hospital and partially collapsing a secondary roof. One person in the street was killed and twenty-five or so suffered minor injuries, mostly from glass. The Mukhabarat evacuated the area and Dr. al-Rikabi treated the wounded.

    It appears the United States took precautions to minimize civilian casualties. Though 18,000 pounds of bombs were dropped some one hundred yards (ninety meters) away from the hospital, the angle of the attack seems to have limited the blast and fragmentation damage and directed it away from the hospital. There also appears to be some evidence of delayed fuzing, which caused the buildings to implode and thus contained damage.

    “OMG! Trump cultural sites war crimes” is completely disconnected from reality.

    frosty (f27e97)

  57. Trump didn’t qualify his desire to attack these targets in any way. Whenever Trump says something stupid, the Trump Whisperers come out of the woodwork to explain what he really meant.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  58. 51. whembly (fd57f6) — 1/7/2020 @ 1:42 pm

    It gives them some cover, at least initially, to get a few whacks in, and then gives them PR victorys when those sites are destroyed with collateral damage.

    The hospitals (while being used as a hospital – ambulances don’t get immunity just because of their markings) do not get destroyed by moral powers, and the leaders f Hamas had their bunker in the basement of a functioning hospital.

    Now it’s different with Iran and Russia’s ally, Syria. There hospitals get targeted because they are hospitals. Every law of war has been thrown out the window by Bashar Assad regime, and no way if this a decision taken alone. In fact, he doesn’t even have a loyal army.

    War crimes are actually committed by Russia – but you knew that, didn’t you? If not in Syria in some other places.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/world/middleeast/russia-bombing-syrian-hospitals.html

    The Russian Air Force has repeatedly bombed hospitals in Syria in order to crush the last pockets of resistance to President Bashar al-Assad, according to an investigation by The New York Times.

    An analysis of previously unpublished Russian Air Force radio recordings, plane spotter logs and witness accounts allowed The Times to trace bombings of four hospitals in just 12 hours in May and tie Russian pilots to each one.

    The 12-hour period beginning on May represents a small slice of the air war in Syria, but it is a microcosm of Russia’s four-year military intervention in Syria’s civil war. A new front in the conflict opened this week, when Turkish forces crossed the border as part of a campaign against a Kurdish-led militia….

    See also:

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/09/12/assad-and-russia-bombing-hospitals-isn-accident-strategy/mfXdTb1uBqfxRkl1iFKOlM/story.html

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/world/middleeast/united-nations-syria-russia.html

    The U.N. Tried to Save Hospitals in Syria. It Didn’t Work.

    ….Mr. Assad’s government, which has effectively criminalized the providing of health care in opposition-held areas, has repeatedly bombed humanitarian sites. Russian officials claim their Air Force carries out only precision strikes on “accurately researched targets,” and they have attacked the integrity of the deconfliction system…

    …While some of Mr. Nebenzia’s claims were shown to be false, at least three relief groups did submit incorrect coordinates to the United Nations on various occasions, The Times found.

    While investigating an airstrike in November, The Times discovered that a relief group had provided coordinates for its health center that were around 240 meters away. When another hospital was bombed in May, The Times found that the coordinates submitted by its supporting organization pointed to an unrelated structure around 765 meters north.

    After questions from The Times prompted the organization to review its deconfliction list, a staff member discovered that it had provided the United Nations with incorrect locations for 14 of its 19 deconflicted sites. The original locations had been logged by a pharmacist. The list had been with the United Nations humanitarian agency for eight months, and no one had contacted the organization to correct the locations, a member of the organization’s staff said.

    [Because everyone in Syria knows they are targets!]

    Mr. al-Dairi and others involved in relief work said they assumed Russian and Syrian forces could find and target hospitals and other humanitarian sites without using the information shared by the United Nations. But they said they felt pressured to join the deconfliction system and had to convince skeptical Syrian doctors and aid workers to let them share their locations, knowing the information would go to the Russians and almost assuredly their Syrian government allies.

    The reason this hasn’t got any more attention is that Trump hasn’t made a fuss about it – and Democrats care only what they can blame Trump for.

    And other countries? They don’t really care about human rights or laws of war.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  59. Shorter David French: Yes, Trump threatened to commit war crimes. Here’s the longer version:

    On Saturday afternoon, President Trump tweeted a clear threat to attack sites that were “important” to “the Iranian culture” if Iran struck Americans or American assets:

    Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.

    Then, on Sunday, he doubled down:

    “They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” the president said. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”

    But it does, in fact, work that way. There are times when a legal analysis is complex. This is not one of those times. The War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2441, states that if any person commits a war crime as defined in the act, they can be fined, imprisoned for life—or, if death results—be executed. And what is a war crime? The definition is complicated, but here’s the simple part—a war crime is defined in part “as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949.”
    Article 53 of the Geneva Conventions (IV) of 1949 (which the United States both signed and ratified) prohibit the destruction of property owned by individuals, the state, or “social or cooperative organizations” unless “such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.” Article 53 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions (which were signed but not ratified) prohibit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples.”
    Furthermore, the Geneva Conventions define a “grave breach” in part as the “extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.”
    Moreover, the United States has ratified the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The Department of Defense Law of War Manual has an entire section dedicated to the protection of cultural property during hostilities and another section dedicated to special treatment of individuals who protect cultural property. Indeed the Law of War manual is layered with sections and provisions providing for the safeguard of cultural sites. Moreover, servicemembers who violate the Law of War are subject to prosecution under Article 18 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    In short, this is not a hard legal call.

    The exception is if Iranians use those sites for military purposes, which converts them to military targets.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  60. @57 When you start with “how can I interpret this comment in the worst way possible”, you allow magic mind-reading powers to help inform this sort of reading of the tea leaves, and a guideline is “he didn’t not say ” then just about anything remotely rational can fit this.

    Most of the current anti-Trump comments seem to have fallen into one of two camps. The Ancient Aliens I’m not saying it’s aliens but you have to ask yourself … (if it’s aliens) and the Curse of Oak Island “could this be evidence of … of course it could be”.

    If some of the commenters here don’t have “Of course” and “obviously” on a macro, they need to look into it. Work smarter not harder guys.

    frosty (f27e97)

  61. Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 1/7/2020 @ 2:30 pm

    But I don’t believe Trump was talking about that. He was basically saying he would commit war crimes because Iranians have done mean things.

    Trump didn’t say that in isolation but linked it with other things:

    targeted 52 Iranian sites…some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture

    Trump is reporting there is a target list that he and the Secretary of Defense have agreed upon. It’s not a wanton attacks on cultural sites. Esper says it’s not going to be a war crime.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  62. 57 When you start with “how can I interpret this comment in the worst way possible”,

    That’s pretty unfair. Trump bragged he would target places for a symbolic quantity, to match an old grudge, not for military value, at 52 targets, and these targets would be at a high level and culturally important.

    We aren’t even interpreting his remark. That’s simply what Trump said:

    ….targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

    Trump wanted you to hear that he’s hitting targets that are important to culture, and hit them very hard, to represent the 1979 hostage crisis, and not military necessity. Saying he really meant there are 52 cultural sites hiding secret labs and Trump is strictly following the laws and really sad to have to blow up some Mosques is a strained and ad ho interpretation you would probably not offer if Hillary said the same exact thing.

    Most of the current anti-Trump comments seem to have fallen into one of two camps. The Ancient Aliens I’m not saying it’s aliens but you have to ask yourself … (if it’s aliens) and the Curse of Oak Island “could this be evidence of … of course it could be”.

    Actually, people are reasonably and honestly telling you why they do not support Trump. Just as the left dismissed honest and reasonable concerns, and that led to a president they do not like, be careful if your arrogance gets you a president you don’t like too. After all, ‘this is how you get Trump’ doesn’t just apply to the left. It was just 3 years ago the president was Obama, and then Trump didn’t even win the popular vote, and then the House flipped to the more popular democrats. These concerns are widespread, and not at all crazy. Trump went from Muslim ban to praising Kim Jong Un to being pretty cowardly with Iran, to flip flopping and talking about blowing up cultural heritage sites (while he’s impeached and disgraced by the day to day revelations).

    If y’all could shoot all Muslims into the sun and raze all Mosques and salt the earth where they stood, you totally would do it. Let’s not pretend Trump didn’t mean what he said just because his one air strike happened to get a really bad guy.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  63. Trump is reporting there is a target list that he and the Secretary of Defense have agreed upon. It’s not a wanton attacks on cultural sites. Esper says it’s not going to be a war crime.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/7/2020 @ 3:01 pm

    You clipped out the part where Trump admits these targets represent the 1979 hostages. Pretty wanton.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  64. Cultural sites?
    As in the sites where boys are raped

    JRT (aef158)

  65. @50. Except it’s not and it doesn’t.

    Helsinki.

    ‘Nuff said.

    @44. “Legalities” aren’t exactly a hallmark of virtue w/this administration, Sammy. W/t lie count passing 12,000 and climbing, no sane person would believe anything Trump or the 3rd and 4th tier lackeys in his administration are chumming w/o some heavy duty fact checking for verification.

    Unless they’re Trump-chumps, of course.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  66. Esper directly contradicted Trump, Sammy.
    You have no basis or evidence to conclude that Trump and Esper worked on this list together, or that Trump even has a list. Like with most of his comments, it’s more probable that he pulled his tweety words directly from his a$$.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  67. 53. Dustin (cafb36) — 1/7/2020 @ 2:03 pm

    he did not say he would attack military targets, no matter where they were.

    Trump didn’t say that, but tht’s what it has to mean, especially since Trump is describing what the Pentagon came up with.

    He said he selected 52 targets

    No, he didn’t say he selected them. He said we have targeted, not I have targeted and there’s every reason to believe the “we” is real. (The pronouu is at the end of the previous tweet)

    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1213593965838163968

    He clearly meant that the targets were selected BECAUSE they were cultural, not DESPITE them being cultural.

    He was just trying to give Iran another disincentive by pointing that out.

    I think the best defense of Trump is that threatening to commit a war crime is not itself a war crime, and Trump wasn’t serious in his bluster because exaggerating is how to do fraudulent deals as a real estate mafia guy.

    That’s true as far as it goes, but I think he’s not lying about some of the targets being plausibly considered cultural sites.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  68. This guy keeps showing you who he is over and over; a brass letters and faux-gold-plated toilet fixtures fella. Trump has never given a damn about any heritage or ‘cultural sites’ or traditions. Hell, he eats pizza w/a fork.

    Exhibit A: art deco façade he destroyed on the Bonwit Teller Building in Manhattan.

    Google it.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  69. DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/7/2020 @ 3:13 pm

    “Legalities” aren’t exactly a hallmark of virtue w/this administration, Sammy.

    It matters to people in the Pentagon and this was intended as justification to Congress. Maybe the truth was stretched a little bit with the word imminent (who said that word? I don’t think it was Trump.)

    I think it was Mike Pompeo: (although I don;t know if he was the first to s=use that word)

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/01/07/pompeo-sidesteps-questions-imminent-threat-irans-soleimani/2830949001

    WASHINGTON – Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declined to elaborate Tuesday on his assertion that an “imminent” threat justified the Trump administration’s decision to kill an Iranian general last week as questions about the intelligence mounted on Capitol Hill and fears spread about a wider conflict in the region.

    In a news conference at the State Department, Pompeo seemed to downplay that earlier assertion when pressed to specify how imminent the threat was from Gen. Qasem Soleimani. Pompeo focused instead on Soleimani’s history of attacks on Americans.

    “There’s been much made about this question of intelligence and imminence,” Pompeo said. “You need to look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken against us,” he said, referring to a rocket attack by Iranian-backed militias on a Iraqi base in Kirkuk Dec. 27 that killed an American contractor….

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  70. @59 The entire “OMG! war crimes” narrative rests on one assumption. The 52 sites mentioned in the tweet aren’t used for military purposes. That assumption is based solely on Trump’s word choice, i.e. cultural.

    After so much effort has been put in to establish that Trump is an idiot, that he’s careless, he lies, he tweets off the cuff, etc. are you confident that those 52 sites do not have any military significance based on his tweet?

    It seems that just to avoid looking hysterical, French might want to see the list before concluding that it is obviously 100% no doubt war crime material.

    frosty (f27e97)

  71. 68. DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/7/2020 @ 3:21 pm

    . Trump has never given a damn about any heritage or ‘cultural sites’ or traditions.

    That’s right, that’s right.

    But he’s hoping maybe the Ayatollah does.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  72. 70 We’re only going to see that list, or most of it, if the targets actually get attacked, if an Edward Snowdon reveals it, if a member of Congress declassifies it, if a new president does, if it gets included in a leak, or after many years after the submission of a Freedom of Information Act request. If the Iranian regime falls it might happen sooner.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  73. @71. And w/your analysis of his POV, pretty much the rest of the world sides w/t Ayatollah on the subject of heritage and culture.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  74. 66. Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 1/7/2020 @ 3:13 pm

    You have no basis or evidence to conclude that Trump and Esper worked on this list together,

    Trump used the word “we”

    or that Trump even has a list.

    It i possible there is no finished and ready to go list at all. But that would be some bluff.

    This sounds like something his subordinates might think would appeal to Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  75. Breaking: Iran’s RGC claims credit for attack on Al-Asad Airbase in Iraq where U.S. troops are based; hit w/10 rockets.

    Your move, Donald.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  76. Breaking: Iranian TV says a ballistic missile attack was launched against al Asad airbase in Iraq where hundreds of American troops are stationed. No word on casualties, if any, from the Pentagon.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  77. It all depends on whether any American soldiers gets killed.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  78. I guess we’ll get to test Trump’s word pretty soon now

    BREAKING: Multiple missiles have been launched into Iraq from Iran targeting American bases.

    https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1214692125557895168

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  79. This is what they call in the biz “Safer in the region.”

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  80. In other news: Earthquake in Puerto Rico.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  81. @77. Why? You mean no kills but a cratered runway doesn’t count as a “cultural site”??? 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  82. Put up or shut up, Donald.

    C’mon, Captain, start a war.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  83. @62 You aren’t doing yourself any favors with

    That’s pretty unfair.

    and

    If y’all could [commit large scale mass murder] and raze all Mosques and salt the earth where they stood, you totally would do it.

    in the same post.

    Also but to a lesser degree

    We aren’t even interpreting his remark

    after interpreting his remark.

    And

    is a strained … interpretation you would probably not offer if Hillary said the same exact thing

    wouldn’t apply because HRC having the best of intentions would be the default narrative. It was with Libya.

    people are reasonably and honestly telling you why they do not support Trump

    The number of people in this group is not as large as you seem to think. With the media and Democrat Party, we passed say and do whatever is needed to get rid of this guy a long time ago. At this point I’d be hard-pressed to use all five fingers of one hand to count the political groups that I’d label reasonable and honest.

    frosty (f27e97)

  84. “C’mon, Captain, start a war.”

    It’s just “a little noise.”

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  85. @72 And this is why getting in a lather over war crimes has provided some entertaining comments and allowed us to explore the Hague convention it is an otherwise a meaningless exercise.

    frosty (f27e97)

  86. Weinstein would have been better off using the Ted Kennedy neck brace look rather than the Ethyl Kennedy walker look.

    mg (8cbc69)

  87. @46, he made it pretty clear in the quote I provided that he wants to target terrorists families. Regardless of if it’s because he thinks it’s the right deterrent or some other reason it’s what he advocated. Maybe advocated is a better word to use since there’s less of implication that the thing is desired on an emotional level? If I say Trump advocates targeting cultural sites and the families of terrorists are we basically in agreement?

    Time123 (88dba2)

  88. #4

    I got mocked for saying something similar yesterday… well my post wasn’t as well done as your post and I do have a knack for ruffling feathers.
    But thanks for the brief clear and lawfully based description of how that works.

    steveg (354706)

  89. Congratulations Nick Sandmann for collecting 275 million from CNN.

    mg (8cbc69)

  90. @76 It will be interesting to see how much discussion we have about whether this is an act of war by Iran against Iraq. [sarc] I’m also expecting widespread protests of the Iranians if they hit any civilians [/sarc].

    I’m also guessing the Saudi’s went from high-pucker alert to ultra. This regional cold war between Saudis and the Iranians might be moving to the next phase.

    frosty (f27e97)

  91. A successful missile attack on a U.S. air base? Why weren’t they on alert? Once again the U.S. military fouls up. But the Pentagon has cover: Pompeo and Espy and The Donald said Americans would alllll be safer now after the assassination droning.

    Idiots.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  92. Trump used the word “we”

    You don’t know who the “we” is, or if there even was a “we”. He also said “do us a favor” when it was really all about him. Presume his statements false until proven true, Sammy. It’s how it is when a person speaks over 15,000 lies in less than three years on the job.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  93. DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/7/2020 @ 3:47 pm

    You mean no kills but a cratered runway doesn’t count as a “cultural site”??? 😉

    It’s just property loss, like the temporary loss of 5% of the world’s world’s daily crude oil production in September. Trump gave Iran an off ramp there.

    Iran is already under pretty strong sanctions.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  94. CNN reports Pentagon says more than a dozen the ballistic missiles were fired at U.S. and coalition forces [nice try, brass hats, but they’re after Americans, not any coalitions forces] from Iran.

    Why weren’t U.S. forces on alert for this, Mr. Commander-In-Chief? Oh, right… American are safer now that you’ve taken up assassination droning as a hobby.

    You move, Donald. Care to attack a sovereign nation and start a war? Iran ain’t Merv Griffin.

    Idiot.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  95. Watch world oil prices soar.

    … and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  96. Its funny watching people interpret what Trump says and claiming they are not reading into his words, just quoting them.
    Its laughable to me because when I string Trumps sentences together, they often make very little sense because he jumps all over the place. I often laugh out loud when he speaks. This makes it difficult for me to establish a context. I constantly am reading into his words because I can’t otherwise make heads or tails of it.
    I’m predisposed to “heads”. Some here are predisposed to the tail. Single digits here are able to pull off neutral.

    steveg (354706)

  97. @87 There’s no reason to spend more time disagreeing with that especially on the terrorist family issue. I’m not there on the cultural sites. I’m still reading this as “won’t be limited by” and not “it’s a good idea to destroy” cultural sites.

    I have no trouble saying the chance of the US intentionally destroying any cultural sites with no military value is 0. I wouldn’t say the US won’t kill members of terrorist families simply because I believe we already have.

    And I suspect some of the people now driving the war crimes narrative will, after the fact, say Trump lied because no cultural sites were destroyed.

    frosty (f27e97)

  98. DCSCA

    How do you know forces were not on alert?

    Obama was THE “Drone Assassin” and he bragged about how good he was at it.

    Oil prices soar. Putin will be happy. It won’t last.

    steveg (354706)

  99. CNN reports Pentagon says more than a dozen the ballistic missiles were fired at U.S. and coalition forces [nice try, brass hats, but they’re after Americans, not any coalitions forces] from Iran.

    Did they hit any camels? Any tents knocked down?

    nk (dbc370)

  100. Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 1/7/2020 @ 4:11 pm

    You don’t know who the “we” is,

    That would be a bunch of U.S government personnel, working overtime. We know that a list of options was presented to him after December 27.

    or if there even was a “we”. He also said “do us a favor” when it was really all about him.

    The difference is that while in the case of possible involvement by people in Ukraine to meddle in the 2016 election, that Russian disinformation or hoax probably interested only Trump, and Giuliani and several political aides, here more people would be involved.

    Presume his statements false until proven true, Sammy.

    But the next question is in what way are they false?

    My favorite pixck for a lie would be that there is no prepared list of 52 sites at all.

    It’s the people who criticize that tweet who presume it is true and presume also it has no connection to normal U.S. military contingency planning,

    I anyway presume he wouldn’t necessarily strike 52 sites at the first opportunity. We may get to find out.

    Trump tweeted Jan 4: … Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have…..

    ….targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

    Now i think he was lying in saying he would do all this if any American assets were struck. A cratered runway won’t do this.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  101. 94. DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/7/2020 @ 4:16 pm

    Care to attack a sovereign nation and start a war? Iran ain’t Merv Griffin.

    Idiot.

    I think its Iran that maybe wants to start the war. And this was not it.

    As reported by the New York Times intelligence service – they get information the CIA doesn’t…

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/world/middleeast/iran-khamenei-general-soleimani.html

    Khamenei Wants to Put Iran’s Stamp on Reprisal for U.S. Killing of Top General

    In a departure from Iran’s usual tactics of hiding behind proxies, the country’s supreme leader wants any retaliation for the killing of a top military commander to be carried out openly by Iranian forces.

    In the tense hours following the American killing of a top Iranian military commander, the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made a rare appearance at a meeting of the government’s National Security Council to lay down the parameters for any retaliation. It must be a direct and proportional attack on American interests, he said, openly carried out by Iranian forces themselves, three Iranians familiar with the meeting said Monday.

    It was a startling departure for the Iranian leadership. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Tehran had almost always cloaked its attacks behind the actions of proxies it had cultivated around the region. But in the fury generated by the killing of the military commander, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, a close ally and personal friend of the supreme leader, the ayatollah was willing to cast aside those traditional cautions…

    ..The increasingly public vows of direct action on Monday constituted Iran’s latest act of defiance to President Trump. Over the weekend the president had repeatedly threatened to retaliate for any attacks against American interests by ordering airstrikes against as many as 52 potential targets, one for each American hostage held after the seizure of the United States embassy in Tehran in 1979.

    In response, Iran’s moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, on Monday responded with his own numerology. “Those who refer to the number 52 should also remember the number 290,” he said on Twitter, a reference to the 290 people killed in 1988 in the accidental downing of an Iranian airliner by an American warship. “Never threaten the Iranian nation,” Mr. Rouhani added.

    [I know what happened after that. Iran stoped the Iran Iraq war. Ayatollah Khomeini saiid it was like swallowing poison. Iran is also suspected of being behind the downing of Pan Am 103.(subcontracted to Syria and then to Libya)

    Is Rouhani confessing to that now?

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  102. @92

    You don’t know who the “we” is

    You completely doubt there was a “we” at all and

    Presume his statements false until proven true

    But “cultural” you hang your hat on? You’re convinced that cultural translates into war crimes because these sites, that may not exist at all because you think there isn’t a “we” or a list, have no military value because obviously he would have said they did if that were the case.

    frosty (f27e97)

  103. The killing begins. How many will die before it is over? Those who voted for iraq war have blood on their hands!

    asset (27e2c9)

  104. @100

    Now I think he was lying in saying he would do all this if any American assets were struck. A cratered runway won’t do this.

    I think this is correct. I also think all of the people wailing and putting on ash cloth yesterday and earlier today about WW3 will tomorrow complain about him not escalating if no US personal are hurt.

    frosty (f27e97)

  105. @104. Clearly you don’t know Trump. He reacts w/a Roy-Cohn-to-the-mattresses-Queens-mentality to everything when he gets peeved. Busting balls w/Iran isn’t like dealing w/Merv Griffin.

    He’s not a disciplined person. Never has been. The WH indicates he may be addressing the nation tonight from the Oval– and he’s surrounded w/3rd and 4th string advisory neocon-types who want regime change.

    At this tick of the clock, now that he’s blowing hundreds of millions of dollars on deployment costs and getting people in harm’s way, injured and killed, impeachment over Ukraine literally looks lame.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  106. @98. Because the launch of ballistic missiles was successful and the attack succeeded.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  107. I think this is correct. I also think all of the people wailing and putting on ash cloth yesterday and earlier today about WW3 will tomorrow complain about him not escalating if no US personal are hurt.

    frosty (f27e97) — 1/7/2020 @ 4:50 pm

    Of course they will. The left and the right at the same. They both act with absolutely zero good faith, twisting everything the other side does, twisting everything their own side does wrong. It’s always lies, even if there’s no need to lie.

    I still hold out hope Trump tells us what his overall objective is, and then pursues it. Iran firing missiles at our bases is not acceptable, so of course he should shut down Iran’s capability to fire missiles.

    The reason Trump can’t tell us what his plan is, is that he flip flopped on strategy, with 3 years of Jimmy Carter until he was impeached.

    Dustin (d9d65a)

  108. NBC News reports security upped around White House in Washington, DC, USA.

    B-b-b-but aren’t Americans supposed to be safer now you’ve taken up assassination droning, Captain, sir? You said so. Pompeo said so. Esper said so.

    Idiots. Idiots all.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  109. @107. He has no ‘overall objective’ other than to bury impeachment and win re-election– and perhaps drive up oil process for Brother Putin.

    Helsinki. This guy is clueless; he keep boxing himself and the other guy in which is piss-poor negotiating tactics. He lives from day to day, always in the now. If this was October, 1962 and he was at the helm, half the East Coast would be dead and glowing in the dark by now.

    The man is an imbecile at this; dealing with the sovereign state of Iran is not like cutting a deal w/Merv Griffin Enterprises. He was grand entertainment and let the Right appoint plenty of judges but now he’s blowing millions on unbudgeted deployments costs and getting people killed.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  110. @93. Assassination by drone is not an off ramp. There’s a reason superior minds and negotiators than him did not do this years ago.

    He’s utterly clueless. No plan. No strategy. Hell, his own Pentagon can’t manage sending out the correct letters. He’s totally winging this based on what he sees on Fox News. Hell, if they ran a doc on Pearl Harbor today, he’d order a drone strike on the Emperor of Japan tomorrow.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  111. That’s kinda what happens when we have freedom of thought and expression. I know it’s hard for the Dear Leader and Sacred Party but some people even like the Iranians. Some people literally agree with them on stuff.

    AKA “Adhering to their beliefs” One should then avoid “giving them aid and comfort” by word or deed. Believe it or not, there are actual Constitutional limits on that free expression. Although it is rarely enforced, that does not mean that people should not call it out. More free expression.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  112. 30. DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/7/2020 @ 12:15 pm

    The Trump administration has no credible evidence to substantiate ‘imminent threat.’

    Do you really expect they are going to lay it all out, just for you? What arrogance! Your ENTIRE proof is that they didn’t AND you don’t like Trump.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  113. But if there is any disproportionality in recent events…

    I’ll bite. Why does the reaction need to be proportionate? That’s a liberal political assumption that even the Democrats ignore most of the time. As one of them said “They bring a knife, you bring a gun!”

    Kevin M (19357e)

  114. “Your ENTIRE proof is that they didn’t AND you don’t like Trump.”

    I can’t speak for DCSCA, but my proof is that Trump and everyone in his administration are pathological liars.

    Davethulhu (fe4242)

  115. 94. Why weren’t U.S. forces on alert for this, Mr. Commander-In-Chief?

    Um, maybe they were? No one was killed, or particularly surprised.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  116. I can’t speak for DCSCA, but my proof is that Trump and everyone in his administration are pathological liars.

    Kind of circular, or perhaps dogmatic, but logical? I think not.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  117. Besides, Mr Thulu, I have not heard a truth from you yet. But I am open to hearing one.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  118. You know, there were quite a lot of people who despised FDR and thought his administration was a bunch of clueless Commies. But when war came (a war that FDR wanted and helped along) they stood shoulder to shoulder. Of course, that was before everybody thought that their Principles were more important than country, assuming that “country” isn’t bad, too.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  119. “Besides, Mr Thulu, I have not heard a truth from you yet. But I am open to hearing one.”

    GFY.

    Point out a lie by me in this thread.

    Davethulhu (fe4242)

  120. Kevin M (19357e) — 1/7/2020 @ 5:48 pm
    It’s seems Solomeini was consistently planning attacks on us for years, if not decades. So there probably was an “imminent” threat that he was involved in.

    The question then become “mah nishtanah”: why was this threat so different from the previous ones that it jystifued killing him when the previous ones did not.

    Kishnevi (7ee5f0)

  121. . Of course, that was before everybody thought that their Principles were more important than country, assuming that “country” isn’t bad, too.

    More precisely, “Country” was a Principle back then.

    Kishnevi (7ee5f0)

  122. I can’t speak for DCSCA, but my proof is that Trump and everyone in his administration are pathological liars.

    Davethulhu (fe4242) — 1/7/2020 @ 5:53 pm

    This is a lie for one. You’re going to claim it as opinion when you made a diagnosis based on your predisposition.

    Obama and his ilk were saints to you compared to the current administration. No matter that they lied consistently and on every important issue from passing Obamacare, to Bengazi, to gun running to using the IRS against conservatives to weaponizing the FBI and CIA to spy on opposing candidates for president.

    NJRob (dcd795)

  123. #120

    I suspect he was surprised to find he served at the pleasure of the President of the US

    steveg (354706)

  124. @112. Kevin, in case you’ve forgotten: they work for me. And you. And all of us. It’s not the other way around.

    They’re acting in our names. Funny, though, how “they” trusted We the People enough to manage a competent reveal in October, 1962. Guess the subsequent lies revealed in Pentagon Papers, the faux WMD fiasco and recent revelations over lies about the Afghan war were over your head.

    With a lie count well past 12,000 and counting, you have to be either a Larsen E. Whipsnade sucker or a total Trump-chump to believe anything that comes out of this administration.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  125. 2122. Except it’s not. This administration lies like a Persian rug.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  126. “This is a lie for one.”

    No, it’s not.

    “You’re going to claim it as opinion when you made a diagnosis based on your predisposition.”

    Setting aside the irony of this sentence together with the following one, Trump is objectively a serial liar.

    “Obama and his ilk were saints to you compared to the current administration. No matter that they lied consistently and on every important issue from passing Obamacare, to Bengazi, to gun running to using the IRS against conservatives”

    You’re not wrong, but we’re not talking about Obama.

    “to weaponizing the FBI and CIA to spy on opposing candidates for president.”

    This, however, is a lie.

    Davethulhu (fe4242)

  127. #119

    “GFY”

    When you don’t speak the truth, it doesn’t mean you are lying. It could be that you are simply ignorant or a fool. Probably both, because you sir are a multi-tasker able to GFY. Enjoy your evening

    steveg (354706)

  128. @119 I’ll bite;

    @16 Pompeo is not a weasel. Human beings are distinct from weasels. It is common knowledge that weasels are not humans and humans are not weasels. It’s reasonable to believe you know this and that you knew it when you made the statement.

    @114 Everyone in the Trump administration is not a pathological liar. The statistics on pathological lying are hard to nail down but it’s reasonable to believe that out of the appropriately 4 million executive branch employees at least 1 of them isn’t a pathological liar. In fact I personally know at least two executive branch employees who aren’t.

    frosty (f27e97)

  129. This is a lie for one. You’re going to claim it as opinion when you made a diagnosis based on your predisposition.

    Obama and his ilk were saints to you compared to the current administration. No matter that they lied consistently and on every important issue from passing Obamacare, to Bengazi, to gun running to using the IRS against conservatives to weaponizing the FBI and CIA to spy on opposing candidates for president.

    NJRob (dcd795) — 1/7/2020 @ 6:25 pm

    LOL so Trump is honest, and your only evidence is that Obama was dishonest? And this is your argument against assuming a president is dishonest?

    This is great stuff.

    Everyone in the Trump administration is not a pathological liar.

    Yeah they are.

    Dustin (d9d65a)

  130. “When you don’t speak the truth, it doesn’t mean you are lying.”

    Context matter, and this isn’t the first time Kevin has accused me of being a liar.

    Davethulhu (fe4242)

  131. @129 and you drive right past the point w/o even noticing. Or maybe you do notice and that is your point. At least you put a little more distance between this and your post about good faith and twisting things around.

    frosty (f27e97)

  132. 93. SF: It’s just property loss, like the temporary loss of 5% of the world’s world’s daily crude oil production in September. Trump gave Iran an off ramp there.

    110. DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/7/2020 @ 5:36 pm

    . Assassination by drone is not an off ramp.

    I was speaking about when Trump called off the bombing attacks in Iran, but let them know he had nearly done it.

    The off rasmp was there in that situation.

    And it look like Iran took it, but their idea of getting off was not doing any large scale attacks against American targets. Stopping it with the ships etc. But Iran continued trying to get control of Iraq and made small scale attacks that could kill or injure American troops embedded with Iraqi troops.

    There’s a reason superior minds and negotiators than him did not do this years ago.

    Fear of the unknown.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  133. To achieve something by deceit is to “weasel.” To pretend the definition at play was about species would be to “weasel”. This is a good example of the needless and childish dishonesty that is needed by Trump supporters. Always watch the guy who starts shouting ‘liar’ for no reason. He probably just wants everyone rolling around in his mud.

    Dustin (d9d65a)

  134. “Trump and everyone in his administration are pathological liars.”
    Davethulhu (fe4242) — 1/7/2020 @ 5:53 pm

    I guess the (non)whistleblower thou-who-shan’t-be-named is a member of some other administration.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  135. 110.

    He’s utterly clueless. No plan. No strategy….He’s totally winging this based on what he sees on Fox News.

    He’s winging it, but we can see a plan shaping up:

    1. Continue with the sanctions and intensify them. Lift them only if Iran stops supporting terrorism and Hezbollah style militias and disbands for good its nuclear program, but don’t ask for regime change: In fact assure them they have nothing to fear on that account from the United States if they just disarm and put an end to their imperialism.

    Meanwhile, get U.S. troops involved in helping military groups, not necessarily belonging to internationally recognized countries, defend themselves against Iran or its proxies, if they also have to deal with ISIS at the same time.

    2. If Iran attacks but is unsuccessful in killing any Americans or sinking any ships, ignore it.

    3. If Iran attacks and is successful in killing one or more Americans, even if that is actually only collateral damage, escalate sharply.

    4. If Iran stops go back to Step 1.

    5. If Iran doesn’t stop, Khamenei’s residence itself may be bombed, and at best he’ll have to live in a series of secret bunkers, or in the basement of a hospital in Tehran.

    People who come in to see him may have to be careful where they go and what they do, especially if they are carrying money or secret instructions.

    Continue until satisfied Iran will stop attacking American or American related targets and also stop trying to get rid of the sanctions by any other means except negotiations with the United States..

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  136. 101.

    In a departure from Iran’s usual tactics of hiding behind proxies, the country’s supreme leader wants any retaliation for the killing of a top military commander to be carried out openly by Iranian forces.

    That has been borne out so far.

    The missiles that hit two different American bases in Iraq were fired from inside Iran.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  137. @134 Something something is the something of little minds or something. And you’re an awful person or something for pointing that out.

    frosty (f27e97)

  138. mr. trump who is the donald is not a liar, pathological or otherwise

    he is a man of broad vision who sees all the facts, including the alternative facts

    as for mr. soleimani, let’s just say that he did not have good djinns to keep him safe on a bad haroun day

    nk (dbc370)

  139. @134 Something something is the something of little minds or something. And you’re an awful person or something for pointing that out.

    frosty (f27e97) — 1/7/2020 @ 7:07 pm

    LOL

    Look, you know what Trump is. Maybe he isn’t Hitler but he’s a deeply weird and dishonest person. Read about how much he cheats at golf sometime. It’s actually hilarious enough people didn’t care about our country to the point that he became electable. Trump just backed out addressing the country because he doesn’t know what to do. I am deeply amused, even though obviously it’s not really funny if you think too hard. Let us Nevertrumpers have our night of laughs.

    Dustin (d9d65a)

  140. “Trump just backed out addressing the country because he doesn’t know what to do.”

    He needs to consult with his advisors (Fox and Friends).

    Davethulhu (fe4242)

  141. That has been borne out so far.

    The missiles that hit two different American bases in Iraq were fired from inside Iran.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/7/2020 @ 7:05 pm

    The Iranian government can either back down, ruining their whole model, or they can call the bluff, hoping Trump goes back to his years of Jimmy Carter. It’s a very risky play, but think about it from Trump’s POV. Trump hates our soldiers in Iraq. He doesn’t care if they come home alive or not. Trump wants to be reelected, and to do that, he can’t betray his promises to end wars. The right, the hawks, they will largely stick with him no matter what he does, and the left would be very awkward to bash Trump for making peace out of this situation. If you employ a little game strategy, it’s very clear why Iran would put Trump in this position. Because if Trump backs down, Iran’s status as a regional power is greatly enhanced.

    Risky move, but not surprising. Also, the Iranian government is utterly evil and crazy, closer to cartoon villains than most people the USA faces.

    Dustin (d9d65a)

  142. @133 You’re saying this was a metaphor? In that case it isn’t a lie but it also isn’t a truth. So, that won’t count for the purposes of @117.

    the guy who starts shouting ‘liar’ for no reason

    If this was directed at me I wasn’t shouting and you asked for examples of lying. I won’t challenge the needless or childish part. But I don’t see how my efforts at satire are any more dishonest than your attempts at metaphor. Or in the words of the famous poet whose identity has been lost to time, I’m rubber and your glue what bounces off me sticks to you.

    frosty (f27e97)

  143. frosty, I was talking about njrob. Read his comments and hopefully this is a little more obvious. You’ve been friendly as far as I can tell, though I just kinda assume that for my own sake.

    These politicians are all losers in my book. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Tulsi Gizzard, Judge Roy Bean, Ayatollah of Diet Cola, they are all losers.

    Dustin (d9d65a)

  144. I’ll bite. Why does the reaction need to be proportionate?

    It doesn’t, especially if you’re down for all-out war. You miss the point.

    Trump’s characterization of the situation was (surprise!) dishonest.

    He drew a false equivalence: they do A so therefore we’re entitled to do B, where A is “shoot at our soldiers” and B is “blow up their mosques, monuments and other cultural sites”.

    In the civilized world the ex legal response when somebody shoots at your soldiers is to shoot back at their soldiers. And we done this with great success. Trump falsely implies that if we don’t commit war crimes, we’ll somehow be letting them get away unpunished. This plays straight into his cultists’ Pavlovian conditioning to view themselves (and him) as victims at all times whatever the true situation.

    Dave (65a95a)

  145. The missile attack is just meant as a diversion from the Sandmann settlement.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  146. weaponizing the FBI and CIA to spy on opposing candidates for president.

    That’s a myth. At most, the FBI decided on its own to “spy” on Trump. And an impartial assessment would conclude the nexus of connections with the Putin regime justified that decision.

    The rest of that comment amounts to the claim that since Obama lied we don’t need to bother about Trump’s lies.

    Kishnevi (7ee5f0)

  147. @139

    It’s actually hilarious enough people didn’t care about our country to the point that he became electable.

    You’re missing the actual comedy of this situation. People did care enough and he was the best option they thought we had. But wait, that isn’t the full joke. After three years of Trump in action he’s probably going to get another term, i.e. people still think he’s better than any other option. The icing on top is that hyperbolic NeverTrump just reinforces this.

    And before you continue telling me how terrible he is stop. I don’t care and I probably don’t disagree with you. That’s not the joke. The joke is that people think he’s the least terrible option.

    The issue you keep dancing around is that the bad man Trump isn’t the problem and when he’s gone things won’t go back to whatever you think is normal. Trump is just a symptom.

    frosty (f27e97)

  148. @143 fair enough and I think I’ve gotten some posts crossed up. I’ll back out of that thread.

    frosty (f27e97)

  149. The issue you keep dancing around is that the bad man Trump isn’t the problem and when he’s gone things won’t go back to whatever you think is normal. Trump is just a symptom.

    Which is why I have voted Libertarian in the last four Presidential elections. And there’s a considerable likelihood that I will do so again. (In fact, depending on how bad the actual Democratic candidate is, I might even vote for Trump…)

    Kishnevi (7ee5f0)

  150. @139. He lives in the now.

    Tweets ‘All is well” tonight. Because, you know–

    “Tomorrow, is another day!” Scarlet O’Hra [Vivien Leigh] “Gone With The Wind” 1939

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  151. 140. He was eyeball to eyeball.

    And blinked.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  152. Dustin, when you’re foolish enough to use absolutely it’s easy to show it’s false. But your continued descent into Trump-like behavior is noted.

    NJRob (6fc444)

  153. @87; Times123; does @144 capture your read on the cultural targeting issue, i.e. that we have to commit war crimes or Iran is getting away with something?

    Dave; do you really think that’s an honest representation of Trump’s position? At this point I don’t even want to argue about the substance. I’m just curious if you really believe that or if this is something else.

    Even in the most generous version of Trump only does things for himself how does that help him? It doesn’t even play into the stupid trump supporter narrative you’re trying to lay out. I can get that Trump and his supporters just don’t care but this is basically saying Trump and his supporters are just straight up evil and want to destroy stuff for no other reason than the emotional feedback. We’ve already seen that in this thread and now I’m wondering if that’s where you and Times123 are.

    frosty (f27e97)

  154. Frosty, my impression of Trump is that his default position is to sound tough and not seem wimpy…and that a lot of bark compensates for a lack of bite. Saying he wants to destroy stuff makes him sound tough.

    Kishnevi (7ee5f0)

  155. Dave; do you really think that’s an honest representation of Trump’s position? At this point I don’t even want to argue about the substance. I’m just curious if you really believe that or if this is something else.

    Not clear what specifically you’re referring to.

    Trump said/wrote:

    “They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way.”

    It’s true he did mention “torture and maim our people” which would be a war crime as well, if true. I have not heard it alleged in conjunction with the present series of attacks and counter-attacks. Note that Trump recently pardoned several soldiers convicted or charged with similar offenses, although the victims were not Iranian.

    The Japanese tortured and maimed our people in WWII, and we did not reciprocate as a matter of policy (surely there were atrocities committed by individuals). We also did not attack Japanese cultural sites as such, and spared the oldest and most vulnerable Japanese cultural nexus, Kyoto, from the obliteration visited on most other Japanese cities.

    Dave (1bb933)

  156. @155 I don’t disagree but if you’re trying to sound tough you don’t say I’m going to only target non-military sites. Bark and no bite is I’m going to do X and then not doing X and if you want to sound tough X equals military targets. No matter how stupid you think Trump is no one is so stupid that they think avoiding military targets is the toughest option. Even arguing that Trump is personally a coward doesn’t close the gap. It’s not like he’s personally suiting up.

    frosty (f27e97)

  157. You’re missing the actual comedy of this situation. People did care enough and he was the best option they thought we had.

    Both Trump and Hillary being nominated represent such an apathy, basically from everybody.

    The icing on top is that hyperbolic NeverTrump just reinforces this.

    And before you continue telling me how terrible he is stop.

    LOL Ok.

    Dustin (d9d65a)

  158. no one is so stupid that they think avoiding military targets is the toughest option.

    I am sure if Trump thought attacking civilians was tough we would have heard about it.

    “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength,” Trump replied. “That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak…as being spit on by the rest of the world.”

    😬

    Dustin (d9d65a)

  159. @156 I’m referring to

    Trump falsely implies that if we don’t commit war crimes, we’ll somehow be letting them get away unpunished.

    This was my question to Times123’s about “want”. This is a version of that, namely, that destroying non-military cultural sites is the desired result.

    frosty (f27e97)

  160. You’re missing the actual comedy of this situation. People did care enough and he was the best option they thought we had. But wait, that isn’t the full joke. After three years of Trump in action he’s probably going to get another term, i.e. people still think he’s better than any other option.

    As DRJ once memorably summed up:

    “Trump 2020: Because the worst is the best we can do”

    Dave (1bb933)

  161. @141

    Trump hates our soldiers in Iraq.

    I think you’ve said this before but I don’t see where this is coming from. His base is absolutely pro-military which means he is absolutely pro-military. Maybe you mean he hates that they are in Iraq but that implies he cares what happens to them.

    He doesn’t care if they come home alive or not.

    I’m pretty sure he cares that they aren’t killed on his watch if only because

    Trump wants to be reelected,

    Yep, which is why he’s absolutely pro-military.

    and to do that, he can’t betray his promises to end wars.

    I’d argue he doesn’t really need to worry about ending wars. His base really doesn’t care about that. I’m not sure that’s limited to his base. I’m still surprised at how little people in general seem to care about the cost in dollars or lives.

    His problem is starting new ones. His base will not be happy with a new war. Which is why describing this Iran thing as wag the dog is problematic.

    frosty (f27e97)

  162. His base will slavishly fawn over any policy that the Democrats oppose, whatever it is.

    The only thing he can’t get away with is making concessions on immigration, DACA, judges, etc because the Democrats would support them.

    Dave (1bb933)

  163. I think you’ve said this before but I don’t see where this is coming from.

    In your mind, Trump is a Republican, a conservative, a fighter against Schumer, Pelosi, and Clinton. He loves Americans and he wants us to be successful.

    This is the lie.

    Trump’s a die hard lefty who has been incredibly disrespectful to our military for decades. A planned parenthood fundraiser who has talked about universal healthcare and gun bans while saying Hillary was the greatest Secretary of State and W was the worst president in American history because [insert anything Cindy Sheehan ever said].

    This is a man who compared dating the women in America to serving in vietnam because he had to dodge STDs. Who has condemned the Navy Seal who led the successful fight for Bin Laden. Who bashed POWs for getting captured (“I like people that weren’t captured” and “Losers”). Who fought tooth and nail to destroy veteran owned shops on Park Avenue. Who couldn’t remember which foot his bone spurs were in. Who based the parents of Captain Khan (a recently slain soldier), on the basis of their Islamic faith. Who has praised Putin, Kim, Xi, and many others who have made a career of plotting to kill our troops.

    It’s not unfair to point out this is deeply and consistently disrespectful to the concept of military service. Trump has never done a thing for others and does not understand the concept, except that it clearly threatens his ego.

    Trump, like Obama, like Jane Fonda even, will pretend to love the troops if it serves a bumper sticker level argument. But he does not give a crap about the men and women serving in the military. Not one crap.

    Dustin (d9d65a)

  164. Donald J. Trump belittled the parents of a slain Muslim soldier who had strongly denounced Mr. Trump during the Democratic National Convention, saying that the soldier’s father had delivered the entire speech because his mother was not “allowed” to speak.

    Mr. Trump’s comments, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News that will air on Sunday, drew quick and widespread condemnation and amplified calls for Republican leaders to distance themselves from their presidential nominee. With his implication that the soldier’s mother had not spoken because of female subservience expected in some traditional strains of Islam, his comments also inflamed his hostilities with American Muslims.

    Khizr Khan, the soldier’s father, lashed out at Mr. Trump in an interview on Saturday, saying his wife had not spoken at the convention because it was too painful for her to talk about her son’s death.

    Mr. Trump, he said, “is devoid of feeling the pain of a mother who has sacrificed her son.”

    Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, a rival of Mr. Trump’s in the Republican primaries who has refused to endorse him, castigated him on Twitter. “There’s only one way to talk about Gold Star parents: with honor and respect,” he wrote, using the term for surviving family members of those who died in war.

    And Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump’s Democratic opponent, said he “was not a normal presidential candidate.”

    “Someone who attacks everybody has something missing,” she told a crowd at a campaign stop in Youngstown, Ohio. “I don’t know what it is. I’m not going to get into that.”

    Mr. Khan’s speech at the convention in Philadelphia was one of the most powerful given there. It was effectively the Democratic response to comments Mr. Trump has made implying many American Muslims have terrorist sympathies or stay silent when they know ones who do. Mr. Trump has called to ban Muslim immigration as a way to combat terrorism.

    At the convention, Mr. Khan spoke about how his 27-year-old son, Humayun Khan, an Army captain, died in a car bombing in 2004 in Iraq as he tried to save other troops.

    He criticized Mr. Trump, saying he “consistently smears the character of Muslims,” and pointedly challenged what sacrifices Mr. Trump had made. Holding a pocket-size copy of the Constitution, he asked if Mr. Trump had read it. Mr. Khan’s wife stood silently by his side.

    Mr. Trump told Mr. Stephanopoulos that Mr. Khan seemed like a “nice guy” and that he wished him “the best of luck.” But, he added, “If you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say, she probably — maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say, you tell me.”

    Trump often trolls by going after people’s families because he is a fundamentally ugly man. Granted, these guys supported Hillary (like Trump had mere months previously to this exchange). All he had to do was say he respects their sacrifice and doesn’t have anything else to say, but no, he had to bash the mom because they were Muslims who just lost their soldier son. That’s not some slick politician’s strategy. That’s hate from a thin skinned weirdo.

    Dustin (d9d65a)

  165. @163 This is sort of a tautology. The D’s will oppose anything he does except the things you’ve mentioned. See as reference the current rush to service the Iranians, who are allied with the Russians btw.

    If Trump tweets tomorrow about the cold weather in DC by tomorrow afternoon I’ll be arguing this is just about the weather and the narrative, and comments here, will be this is a secret message to Putin because it’s cold in Moscow, this is an unconstitutional pro-global warming initiative, and/or Trump is delusional because it’s a balmy 0C.

    frosty (f27e97)

  166. Better that Trump goes after grown men, like decorated POWs and gold-star fathers, than 15- or 16-year old girls, I suppose.

    Dave (1bb933)

  167. @164

    In your mind

    I can assure you that none of the things you mentioned are in my mind.

    Nothing said in the rest of the post explains why he hates the military in general or the troops in Iraq specifically.

    belittled the parents of a slain Muslim soldier who had strongly denounced Mr. Trump during the Democratic National Convention

    Gold star families that wade into politics and use that gold star as some sort of shield are despicable people. They dishonor themselves and the sacrifice of their son. Being political is fine. Advocate for whatever you want. But hiding behind the star and claiming some sort of sainthood while slinging mud won’t work.

    Trump, like Obama, like Jane Fonda even, will pretend to love the troops if it serves a bumper sticker level argument. But he does not give a crap about the men and women serving in the military. Not one crap.

    He has to appear to give at least one crap if only for the political points.

    Again how do you get to hate? I get indifference. I get disrespectful. But I don’t get hate.

    Getting off topic but

    implying many American Muslims have terrorist sympathies or stay silent when they know ones who do.

    I’m not taking a position on this but you might want to look into some of the surveys that have been done to study this issue.

    frosty (f27e97)

  168. I know we all have issues, I’m so happy I’m not a dave.

    mg (8cbc69)

  169. Prediction:

    Our Captain will take the off-ramp then slam straight into a wall when he boasts, “They’re lousy shots- their missiles didn’t hit anything important.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  170. President Trump is going to deliver an address at 11 AM EST (8 AM Pacific time)

    There were no (U.S. anyway) casualties reported in the two attacks yesterday.

    I think this may have been on purpose. Maybe not what the Ayatollah wanted, but on purpose by the people planning the attack. They had to know it had very little chance of harming any Americans. They would know that the sites from which the missiles were fired – and similar sites – would be a top target of any U.S. response (as well as air defenses) And maybe some military headquarters. They don’t want to get killed.

    I heard secndhand that the United States was informed through Spain that some response was coming .

    The only problem is that misile attack may not be the last of it.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  171. Four of the missiles fired yesterday didn’t even explode.

    In the meantime, a Ukrainian passenger jetliner taking off from Tehran crashed, killing 107 aboard.

    Some people have speculated it could have been hit by Iranian fire, but we don;t need that to explain a crash by a pane flown by a airline from the former Soviet Union.

    Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea)

  172. Opinion: If the 52 sites were actually selected, AND any of them was clearly an illegal target, the list would have already been leaked, or at least the names of the targets that would be clearly illegal.

    Saying Trump is an idiot-tweeter who says things in 140 characters that clearly need a page or two is self-evident.

    But the idea that a group of people including the state department would create a target list that included illegal sites? Even if Trump didn’t understand what would make a site legal or illegal (I could easily believe he doesn’t, and is just counting on his staff to work that out, like he seems to count on lawyers to keep him from doing illegal things that he might otherwise do).

    Note: Trump didn’t say “I’m going to commit war crimes”, he said he had targets he would hit. When it was suggested that his description of the targets might suggest a war crime, both his state department, and he, said “I will not commit a war crime”. Whether that is a statement that was always true, or whether that was a statement indicating he was educated on the subject, I don’t think there is any evidence that Trump WANTED to commit a war crime, and was shamed out of it.

    Charles (aca208)

  173. AF:

    Four of the missiles fired yesterday didn’t even explode.

    Actually it was, two fired into Iraq went wild. And it could have been there were also four that didn’t explode.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  174. 174. The easiest way to understand is that one or more targets (and they possibly actually hadn’t been settled on) qualified as both a legitimate military target and a cultural site, and maybe it had been suggested that, while it was alegal target because of the way the U.S. assessed it was being used, Trump night want to avoid it or them (and how would he know it was a cultural site unless somebody told him?)

    Even if Trump was making up the fact that a list of 52 targets had been settled on, the issue would have been brought to his attention.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5633 secs.