Trump outrage of the day

[JLee]

Re the assassination of the Iranian general, I'm more than a little nervous about the consequences.

Trump has been champing at the bit to start a war with Iran.  Remember in 2018 when he unilaterally broke the Iran nuclear deal that Iran had been following to the letter?  And then started illegal sanctions against Iran?

Did they refuse to let him build another Trump Tower there or something?

[GuitarStv]

Trump is a yuge fan of Israel.  Israel hates Iran.  Going to war with Iran before an election will keep people talking about something other than Trump's impeachment.  Win-win.

[JLee]

I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.

How is he able to justify the deaths of the six other people?

[sherr]

Re the assassination of the Iranian general, I'm more than a little nervous about the consequences.

Do we really wonder what the consequences will be?

1. Trump will continue escalating until we are at full-scale war with Iran, preferably right before the next election.

2. Republicans will praise the war, excuse all of Trump's behavior in every way, and claim that Democrats "aren't patriotic" and "don't support the troops".

3. It will probably work, and Trump will probably be re-elected, just like Bush was.

4. The US will be quagmired in yet another decades-long mid-east war that is entirely funded by deficit spending, which is already at an all-time high in a time of relative peace and prosperity thanks solely to Republican fiscal irresponsibility.

5. Republicans will use their power to further their agenda:
5.a. Making voting harder for non-Republicans.
5.b. Allowing billionaires and corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to smother inconvenient facts, muddy the waters on irrefutable science, and outright buy elections.
5.c. Using the 2020 census redistricting to extreme gerrymander harder in more places in order to steal more power with a smaller percentage of the vote, now that the Republican Supreme Court has announce it is perfectly fine to do so.
5.d. Continue to "deregulate" and cut taxes for the ultra-rich to allow their donor base of billionaires to pocket more money at the expense of public health and public lands and public programs. The Billionaires then spend a small share of the money they've received to buy elections for more Republicans, which sets off another round of deregulation and tax cuts, which buys them the next election, etc.

6. America will cease to be a functioning democracy, and instead will be ruled by an ever-deceasing minority that lives in a world of "alternative facts" and open corruption, and thinks they're the good guys for doing so because "the Democrats would do it too if they were able so really both sides are the same".

This is all going exactly according to the Republican plan. Does anyone really disagree at this point?

[GuitarStv]

1 and 2 are very likely, and guarantee 4.

I'm really hoping that 3 won't go through, as it's about the only way to stop 5..

[Kris]

I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.

How is he able to justify the deaths of the six other people?

His base doesn't give a shit.

[OtherJen]

I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.

How is he able to justify the deaths of the six other people?

His base doesn't give a shit.

They really don't. I've already seen a post from a Trump supporter this morning in which he very emphatically encouraged Trump to level the entire country of Iran to the ground. Apparently they can justify wiping out an entire country, including millions of innocents.

[JLee]

I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.

How is he able to justify the deaths of the six other people?

His base doesn't give a shit.

They really don't. I've already seen a post from a Trump supporter this morning in which he very emphatically encouraged Trump to level the entire country of Iran to the ground. Apparently they can justify wiping out an entire country, including millions of innocents.

Were they aware that this strike was at a civilian Iraqi airport?

[OtherJen]

I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.

How is he able to justify the deaths of the six other people?

His base doesn't give a shit.

They really don't. I've already seen a post from a Trump supporter this morning in which he very emphatically encouraged Trump to level the entire country of Iran to the ground. Apparently they can justify wiping out an entire country, including millions of innocents.

Were they aware that this strike was at a civilian Iraqi airport?

Based on the last 3 years, I think I can safely say that pesky things like facts and reality do not matter to a particular segment of the US population.

[Roland of Gilead]

They will just point out that Obama killed somewhere between 350 and 800 civilians in drone attacks and use that to justify civilian deaths under Trump

[Kris]

I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.

How is he able to justify the deaths of the six other people?

His base doesn't give a shit.

They really don't. I've already seen a post from a Trump supporter this morning in which he very emphatically encouraged Trump to level the entire country of Iran to the ground. Apparently they can justify wiping out an entire country, including millions of innocents.

Were they aware that this strike was at a civilian Iraqi airport?

Based on the last 3 years, I think I can safely say that pesky things like facts and reality do not matter to a particular segment of the US population.

After three years of Trump and right-wing media strongly insinuating that Muslims are not human... I doubt that it makes one iota of difference whether Iraqi civilians are hurt or killed. In fact, I'm guessing most Trump supporters believe all Iraqis are militant terrorists.

[Kris]

They will just point out that Obama killed somewhere between 350 and 800 civilians in drone attacks and use that to justify civilian deaths under Trump

Yes, and this, too. Unfortunately, it was predictable when Obama chose to use drones that the decision would be used to justify other monstrosities by the right going forward.

[GuitarStv]

I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.

How is he able to justify the deaths of the six other people?

His base doesn't give a shit.

They really don't. I've already seen a post from a Trump supporter this morning in which he very emphatically encouraged Trump to level the entire country of Iran to the ground. Apparently they can justify wiping out an entire country, including millions of innocents.

Were they aware that this strike was at a civilian Iraqi airport?

Based on the last 3 years, I think I can safely say that pesky things like facts and reality do not matter to a particular segment of the US population.

After three years of Trump and right-wing media strongly insinuating that Muslims are not human... I doubt that it makes one iota of difference whether Iraqi civilians are hurt or killed. In fact, I'm guessing most Trump supporters believe all Iraqis are militant terrorists.

Trump was elected after saying that he wanted to murder the families of terrorists.

They will just point out that Obama killed somewhere between 350 and 800 civilians in drone attacks and use that to justify civilian deaths under Trump

Yes, and this, too. Unfortunately, it was predictable when Obama chose to use drones that the decision would be used to justify other monstrosities by the right going forward.

It was just as wrong when Obama did it.  An awful lot of civilians were killed by US drones in his presidency.

[Dancin'Dog]

Maybe this is Trump's sick way of making Kim Jung Un jealous. 

[Sanitary Stache]

I might think much more highly of Trump as a strategist if he just launches a full scale assault on Iran.  If the AUMF authorizes the killing of a Iranian military commander, then it authorizes the destruction of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, the assassination of their leadership, the dismantling of their intelligence services, and the subjugation of their people.

Clearly not the best way to make the US more secure, but it does pay off the military industrial complex, which is another way for Trump to buy essential support.

[Davnasty]

I've been studying the Soleimani attack. David French appears to have a pretty good argument formed that it is lawful (depending heavily on the fact that it took place on Iraqi soil).

As with many Trump things, it feels like pro-Trump people are merely defending whether an action he takes is lawful, while those who oppose Trump are arguing that something is bad policy.

How is he able to justify the deaths of the six other people?

His base doesn't give a shit.

They really don't. I've already seen a post from a Trump supporter this morning in which he very emphatically encouraged Trump to level the entire country of Iran to the ground. Apparently they can justify wiping out an entire country, including millions of innocents.

Were they aware that this strike was at a civilian Iraqi airport?

Based on the last 3 years, I think I can safely say that pesky things like facts and reality do not matter to a particular segment of the US population.

After three years of Trump and right-wing media strongly insinuating that Muslims are not human... I doubt that it makes one iota of difference whether Iraqi civilians are hurt or killed. In fact, I'm guessing most Trump supporters believe all Iraqis are militant terrorists.

Unfortunately I think this goes well beyond Trump and his supporters. I've been hearing people make comments about "wiping them all out" or "blowing the whole place up" for as long as I can remember. A recent example came from someone who hates Trump. They probably don't really mean it or even understand how many people they're talking about, but it's clear they don't view them as human lives equal in value to American's or citizen's of other first world countries.

When you consider the way the Middle East is portrayed in movies and television it's not all that surprising.

[Glenstache]

Be ready for the price of gas to increase as things choke off at the straight of Hormuz.
Be ready for the majority of congress to further abdicate military responsibility to the executive.
Be ready for nobody to really be a winner in the conflict, though the US has more to lose.

Also, read the NYT article on the recent emergence of hypersonic missiles for things to get really scary as conflict is likely to increase in the future.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/opinion/hypersonic-missiles.html

So much winning!

[Glenstache]

Also starting the watch on McConnell saying we can't impeach in the middle of a conflict...

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

The one thing I was most afraid of but had been able to bring myself to hope wouldn't happen with a Trump presidency...it looks like he's going to start a war because he can.

[Dancin'Dog]

The one thing I was most afraid of but had been able to bring myself to hope wouldn't happen with a Trump presidency...it looks like he's going to start a war because he can.

I don't think it's "because he can".  I think it's "because he needs it". 


This is right on schedule.  Even without the impeachment, it was on the calendar. 

[DavidAnnArbor]

Tweets from Donald Trump:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/03/what-trump-has-said-about-iran-what-it-means-now/?arc404=true


Jul 3, 2012
Just as I predicted, @BarackObama is preparing a possible attack on Iran right before November.
http://nyti.ms/N5CTdm

Nov 29, 2011
In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.

Aug 16, 2012
I always said @BarackObama will attack Iran, in some form, prior to the election.

Apr 4, 2012
Remember what I said about @BarackObama attacking Iran before the election--I hope the Iranians are not so (cont)
http://tl.gd/gqa96n

Oct 22, 2012
Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected--be careful Republicans!

Aug 16, 2012
@Israel could very well be close to attacking Iran. Could be this election's big October surprise...

Oct 9, 2012
Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran.  He is desperate.

[OtherJen]

Basically, his Twitter archive before 2017—everything he accused Obama of doing or predicted that Obama would do—seems to be the game plan for his presidency.

[PKFFW]

The one thing I was most afraid of but had been able to bring myself to hope wouldn't happen with a Trump presidency...it looks like he's going to start a war because he can.

I don't think it's "because he can".  I think it's "because he needs it". 


This is right on schedule.  Even without the impeachment, it was on the calendar.

It might not be completely true and accurate but from an outsiders point of view it seems the USA really only remembers and celebrates Presidents that went to war.

Trump wants to be remembered above all else.  He knows he will be forgotten with the rest of the peace time Presidents if he doesn't start a war at some stage.

[Glenstache]

The one thing I was most afraid of but had been able to bring myself to hope wouldn't happen with a Trump presidency...it looks like he's going to start a war because he can.

I don't think it's "because he can".  I think it's "because he needs it". 


This is right on schedule.  Even without the impeachment, it was on the calendar.

It might not be completely true and accurate but from an outsiders point of view it seems the USA really only remembers and celebrates Presidents that went to war.

Trump wants to be remembered above all else.  He knows he will be forgotten with the rest of the peace time Presidents if he doesn't start a war at some stage.

Well, he will be remembered for being impeached (even if not removed from office).

[GuitarStv]

Basically, his Twitter archive before 2017—everything he accused Obama of doing or predicted that Obama would do—seems to be the game plan for his presidency.

Guys . . . I think Trump is a secret Kenyan.  Where's his birth certificate?  Has anyone seen his birth certificate????

[Travis]

I might think much more highly of Trump as a strategist if he just launches a full scale assault on Iran.  If the AUMF authorizes the killing of a Iranian military commander, then it authorizes the destruction of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, the assassination of their leadership, the dismantling of their intelligence services, and the subjugation of their people.

Clearly not the best way to make the US more secure, but it does pay off the military industrial complex, which is another way for Trump to buy essential support.

I don't see this getting nearly that far.  Shortly after he took office everyone was predicting war with North Korea. He made a "deal" and now our issues with them are not talked about nearly as much.  He fulfilled a campaign promise to have a trade war with China that few were really that interested in. It sounds like we're close to a "deal" that really didn't move the needle one way or the other, but he'll call it a win.  I think he'll launch a few more airstrikes and end it in a way that counts in his win column.

[scottish]

Right... except Trump didn't assassinate General No Kwang-choi and Marshal Ri Yong-gil.

I think the ICC should issue a warrant for Trump's arrest.    At least he won't be able to travel around the world anymore.    You Americans can keep your leader at home.

[Just Joe]

Gee, I was hoping he could spend his retirement years elsewhere and in relative obscurity. North Korea ought to get the job done. He and Kim can play golf or something.

[talltexan]

It is interesting to me how many of my friends are celebrating that Souleimani is dead.

Like, you didn't even recognize the name in 2019, bra.

[GuitarStv]

Maybe they're just happy about the coming war with Iran?

[eljefe-speaks]

Should Iran retaliate by attacking Americans, Trump will destroy 52 sites in Iran including cultural targets. Outrage of the day. 

[JLee]

Should Iran retaliate by attacking Americans, Trump will destroy 52 sites in Iran including cultural targets. Outrage of the day.

At some point we can start a new thread and call it War crime of the day...

[talltexan]

I cannot help but feel like arguing that something is a War Crime is not the way to persuade people in Trump's America.

Recall Trump's proposal about taking oil from countries as a fee for nation-building.

[JLee]

I cannot help but feel like arguing that something is a War Crime is not the way to persuade people in Trump's America.

Recall Trump's proposal about taking oil from countries as a fee for nation-building.

At this point I'm not sure there's any way to argue.

[Just Joe]

Maybe they're just happy about the coming war with Iran?

Surely not part of the people who will be sent to fight and die in any coming war...

[sherr]

I cannot help but feel like arguing that something is a War Crime is not the way to persuade people in Trump's America.

Recall Trump's proposal about taking oil from countries as a fee for nation-building.

Please. Republicans haven't pretended to care about War Crimes since before "Torture Prisoners of War" Bush.

[Samuel]

It is interesting to me how many of my friends are celebrating that Souleimani is dead.

Like, you didn't even recognize the name in 2019, bra.

Yeah, I find it interesting how many people suddenly have super strong opinions on this (on both sides). Personally, I don't feel remotely qualified to judge if this was a good idea or not. Certainly not yet. After all, we're talking about an impossibly messy situation where even the best decisions seem to carry 60% positive and 40% negative outcomes. Seems like the best we can do is try to string together a series of 60/40 decisions rather than 40/60's and it's still too soon to know which this is.

But I at least need to believe that there is a credible strategy at work, that there are serious people rigorously thinking this through and advising a cautious and disciplined executive. President Trump, through his own words and actions, has long ago squandered all the credibility and good faith I typically would extend to the holder of his office, and his corrosive effect on institutions threatens my backup belief in the overall process in a way I didn't think was possible a few short years ago. It's deeply unsettling to say the least.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I do still hold out hope there are a handful of sensible Republicans who are also not comfortable with Trump's "seat of his pants"/"chaos is a ladder" style of politics being applied to military action in the Middle East.

[talltexan]

...and Bolton has announced he would obey a Senate subpoena to testify.

I guess we know whether there is an imminent Senate trial now, don't we?

[JLee]

It is interesting to me how many of my friends are celebrating that Souleimani is dead.

Like, you didn't even recognize the name in 2019, bra.

Yeah, I find it interesting how many people suddenly have super strong opinions on this (on both sides). Personally, I don't feel remotely qualified to judge if this was a good idea or not. Certainly not yet. After all, we're talking about an impossibly messy situation where even the best decisions seem to carry 60% positive and 40% negative outcomes. Seems like the best we can do is try to string together a series of 60/40 decisions rather than 40/60's and it's still too soon to know which this is.

But I at least need to believe that there is a credible strategy at work, that there are serious people rigorously thinking this through and advising a cautious and disciplined executive. President Trump, through his own words and actions, has long ago squandered all the credibility and good faith I typically would extend to the holder of his office, and his corrosive effect on institutions threatens my backup belief in the overall process in a way I didn't think was possible a few short years ago. It's deeply unsettling to say the least.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I do still hold out hope there are a handful of sensible Republicans who are also not comfortable with Trump's "seat of his pants"/"chaos is a ladder" style of politics being applied to military action in the Middle East.

I'm way more than 60/40 on "Don't assassinate members of a foreign government" being a bad idea, especially when followed up by "if you retaliate we'll bomb your cultural sites."

[partgypsy]

I do not follow the middle east political process so I can't comment politically is this good or bad.

But I thought, assassination of high ranking members of other country's government, was off the plate? The rule is to have people like that tried for any war crimes that they have committed. In this case the person was killed for supposedly planning something, not even actions actually done.

It sets a terrible precedent. We are now the "bad guys". 

[bacchi]

...and Bolton has announced he would obey a Senate subpoena to testify.

I guess we know whether there is an imminent Senate trial now, don't we?

Mitch is now thinking, "No way in hell we're going to call witnesses."

[Kris]

It is interesting to me how many of my friends are celebrating that Souleimani is dead.

Like, you didn't even recognize the name in 2019, bra.

Yeah, I find it interesting how many people suddenly have super strong opinions on this (on both sides). Personally, I don't feel remotely qualified to judge if this was a good idea or not. Certainly not yet. After all, we're talking about an impossibly messy situation where even the best decisions seem to carry 60% positive and 40% negative outcomes. Seems like the best we can do is try to string together a series of 60/40 decisions rather than 40/60's and it's still too soon to know which this is.

But I at least need to believe that there is a credible strategy at work, that there are serious people rigorously thinking this through and advising a cautious and disciplined executive. President Trump, through his own words and actions, has long ago squandered all the credibility and good faith I typically would extend to the holder of his office, and his corrosive effect on institutions threatens my backup belief in the overall process in a way I didn't think was possible a few short years ago. It's deeply unsettling to say the least.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I do still hold out hope there are a handful of sensible Republicans who are also not comfortable with Trump's "seat of his pants"/"chaos is a ladder" style of politics being applied to military action in the Middle East.

I'm way more than 60/40 on "Don't assassinate members of a foreign government" being a bad idea, especially when followed up by "if you retaliate we'll bomb your cultural sites."

Yeah, preeetttttyyy much this.

[Glenstache]

It is interesting to me how many of my friends are celebrating that Souleimani is dead.

Like, you didn't even recognize the name in 2019, bra.

Yeah, I find it interesting how many people suddenly have super strong opinions on this (on both sides). Personally, I don't feel remotely qualified to judge if this was a good idea or not. Certainly not yet. After all, we're talking about an impossibly messy situation where even the best decisions seem to carry 60% positive and 40% negative outcomes. Seems like the best we can do is try to string together a series of 60/40 decisions rather than 40/60's and it's still too soon to know which this is.

But I at least need to believe that there is a credible strategy at work, that there are serious people rigorously thinking this through and advising a cautious and disciplined executive. President Trump, through his own words and actions, has long ago squandered all the credibility and good faith I typically would extend to the holder of his office, and his corrosive effect on institutions threatens my backup belief in the overall process in a way I didn't think was possible a few short years ago. It's deeply unsettling to say the least.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I do still hold out hope there are a handful of sensible Republicans who are also not comfortable with Trump's "seat of his pants"/"chaos is a ladder" style of politics being applied to military action in the Middle East.

I'm way more than 60/40 on "Don't assassinate members of a foreign government" being a bad idea, especially when followed up by "if you retaliate we'll bomb your cultural sites."

Yeah, preeetttttyyy much this.

But the formula is for Trump to always do the exact opposite of Obama, so ... sadly predictable.

[GuitarStv]

It is interesting to me how many of my friends are celebrating that Souleimani is dead.

Like, you didn't even recognize the name in 2019, bra.

Yeah, I find it interesting how many people suddenly have super strong opinions on this (on both sides). Personally, I don't feel remotely qualified to judge if this was a good idea or not. Certainly not yet. After all, we're talking about an impossibly messy situation where even the best decisions seem to carry 60% positive and 40% negative outcomes. Seems like the best we can do is try to string together a series of 60/40 decisions rather than 40/60's and it's still too soon to know which this is.

But I at least need to believe that there is a credible strategy at work, that there are serious people rigorously thinking this through and advising a cautious and disciplined executive. President Trump, through his own words and actions, has long ago squandered all the credibility and good faith I typically would extend to the holder of his office, and his corrosive effect on institutions threatens my backup belief in the overall process in a way I didn't think was possible a few short years ago. It's deeply unsettling to say the least.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I do still hold out hope there are a handful of sensible Republicans who are also not comfortable with Trump's "seat of his pants"/"chaos is a ladder" style of politics being applied to military action in the Middle East.

I'm way more than 60/40 on "Don't assassinate members of a foreign government" being a bad idea, especially when followed up by "if you retaliate we'll bomb your cultural sites."

It actually goes more like this:

- Suggest that Obama will start a war with Iran cover up problems and win his second term in office
- Break the US/Iran nuclear deal that Iran was following to the letter
- Impose illegal sanctions on Iran
- Assassinate Iranian military leader
- Threaten war crimes by bombing Iranian cultural sites

Taken in their entirety, it doesn't seem to be a 60/40, 40/60 question at all.

[Kris]

It is interesting to me how many of my friends are celebrating that Souleimani is dead.

Like, you didn't even recognize the name in 2019, bra.

Yeah, I find it interesting how many people suddenly have super strong opinions on this (on both sides). Personally, I don't feel remotely qualified to judge if this was a good idea or not. Certainly not yet. After all, we're talking about an impossibly messy situation where even the best decisions seem to carry 60% positive and 40% negative outcomes. Seems like the best we can do is try to string together a series of 60/40 decisions rather than 40/60's and it's still too soon to know which this is.

But I at least need to believe that there is a credible strategy at work, that there are serious people rigorously thinking this through and advising a cautious and disciplined executive. President Trump, through his own words and actions, has long ago squandered all the credibility and good faith I typically would extend to the holder of his office, and his corrosive effect on institutions threatens my backup belief in the overall process in a way I didn't think was possible a few short years ago. It's deeply unsettling to say the least.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I do still hold out hope there are a handful of sensible Republicans who are also not comfortable with Trump's "seat of his pants"/"chaos is a ladder" style of politics being applied to military action in the Middle East.

I'm way more than 60/40 on "Don't assassinate members of a foreign government" being a bad idea, especially when followed up by "if you retaliate we'll bomb your cultural sites."

It actually goes more like this:

- Suggest that Obama will start a war with Iran cover up problems and win his second term in office
- Break the US/Iran nuclear deal that Iran was following to the letter
- Impose illegal sanctions on Iran
- Assassinate Iranian military leader
- Threaten war crimes by bombing Iranian cultural sites

Taken in their entirety, it doesn't seem to be a 60/40, 40/60 question at all.

Indeed.

If anything, it seems fairly shocking that there would be many people complacent/indifferent enough to this situation to not think it something worth having an opinion on.

[talltexan]

Often Trump supporters are aware of that list, but see Iran's sponsor of terrorism--including proxies in both Iraq and Yemen--as more than offsetting it.

[GuitarStv]

Often Trump supporters are aware of that list, but see Iran's sponsor of terrorism--including proxies in both Iraq and Yemen--as more than offsetting it.

Killing an Iranian national via terrorist act, then threatening war crimes is the best way to prevent further terrorism by Iranians in their eyes?

[nereo]

I’m frequently shocked at how many people believe that the strength of the US military will somehow deter all hostile acts against Americans and their allies.

We are targets because of our foreign policies. Not in spite of it

[JLee]

Often Trump supporters are aware of that list, but see Iran's sponsor of terrorism--including proxies in both Iraq and Yemen--as more than offsetting it.

Killing an Iranian national via terrorist act, then threatening war crimes is the best way to prevent further terrorism by Iranians in their eyes?

Do they want to prevent further terrorism or have an excuse to blow up more brown people?

An acquaintance posted on social media a 'weather forecast' for Tehran, Iran showing Sat: Warm / 27°, Sun: Breezy / 19°, Mon: Hot (with a mushroom cloud pic), 1400°.

I asked if he was seriously joking about nuking a city with a population of 8+ million...and of course, there was no response.

[bacchi]

Defense Secretary Esper contradicted Trump's tweets about bombing cultural sites.

I'm giving him 2 weeks.