Trump Tweets Threat to Commit War Crimes in Iran
WAR CRIME
"Making the clearly-recognized historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples ... the object of attack"
Geneva Convention Protocol I
(also: U.S. Department of Defense, Law of War Manual, 5.18) pic.twitter.com/yqKLA6JHbY
President Trump and his administration have claimed that the drone strike targeting Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani was an effort to de-escalate tension with Iran and prevent a war, but it’s not clear what role Trump expects his blustering tweets to play in that process. On Saturday, the president responded to Iran’s vow to retaliate for Soleimani’s death by tweeting that the U.S. would respond to an Iranian strike on “any Americans” or “American assets” by striking 52 preselected sites in Iran, including some which had cultural importance to Iranians:
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. 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!
As many were quick to point out, deliberately attacking cultural sites is a war crime:
Trump’s tweets followed massive regime-sanctioned demonstrations across Iran in response to Soleimani’s death, both to mourn the widely known general, as well as show resolve against the U.S.
In addition, a pair of rockets were fired at bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq, though it seems unlikely that indirect rocket fire was part of any official Iranian response. But while speculation has been rampant about if, when, or how Iran might retaliate, but the regime’s threats have apparently been enough to prompt an escalation-begging response from Trump that mirrors Iran’s often-outlandish rhetoric .
It’s also difficult to take Trump’s threat seriously, considering the fact that hyperbolic outbursts are a key element of what he perceives to be foreign policy — as well as how he pointed out that the number of targets was chosen to line up with the 52 hostages Iran once took at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, which is not how the U.S. — or any nation — goes about picking military targets. Then again, maybe Trump hopes he can win the first Nobel Peace Prize for preventing war by promising war crimes.
For what it's worth, I find it hard to believe the Pentagon would provide Trump targeting options that include Iranian cultural sites. Trump may not care about the laws of war, but DoD planners and lawyers do...and targeting cultural sites is war crime. https:// twitter.com/realDonaldTrum p/status/1213593975732527112 …
We have a potUS with the brain of an 8th grade vengeful drama queen,
who thinks he's king...so please, somebody crown him with another red checker !
What a mental midget embarrassment , yet again.
Trump is a creature of reality television and often regards world events as entertainment. Threatening to blow up 52 sites as a retaliation for an event that happened 40 years ago is proof itself he is not capable or qualified to lead the world's greatest nation.
Iran is an ancient people and they are very proud of their culture. Threatening it is not going win over Iranians to "regime change". Quite the opposite.
Iranian cultural sites have been known to be terrorist training camps. Fair game
Kahl obviously doesn't understand the laws of war.
And that is where the problem is. Idiots like the liberals and Kahl either willfully ignore a lot (which we all know they do) or they are really just that stupid (which we all know they are when it comes to combat). I'm not a liberal, I've never been afraid to call for an airstrike or artillery fire on schools, hospitals and mosques as outlined in the Law of War, ROE and Geneva Convention.
Oh it's ugly enough. Unfortunately those that have never been there will understand that. They sit nice and secure in their homes bitching about things that go wrong and the rest are idiots like the Democrats who constantly push for war.
Notice how the Democrats are now supporting Iran allies when not to long ago, Iran was an enemy.
As someone on a tv news show said this morning, Trump has a barely nodding familiarity with the english language, so it isnt clear what he meant when he threatened to destroy "cultural" sites in Iran. The Geneva Convention section regarding war crimes does know what is meant by "cultural", for its purposes, and Trump stepped in it big time.
This man is too stupid and vain to be a war leader.
God help us all.
Why can't he just STFU and assess the situation. He has got to be the dumbest leader in the world.
Because he's a "star".
A star is little more than a big ball of gas.
he's number 1 at being a piece of number 2
Very witty. hahahahahaha
He did. There is one less terrorist because of it.
Actually two less as one of the others taken out by our righteous attack was also a terror leader.
It could be worse Obama attacks hospitals and Doctors Without Borders.
What would you do without previous presidents and others to compare the moron Trump to in a barely relevant way?
Hey John...
Here is a hypothetical headline and I would like to know what your reaction would be to it...
"Obama orders strike against Iranian general known to be responsible for hundreds of American's death."
Let's see if you can be honest with your answer.
Trump had this man killed because Trump watched something happening on tv that he didnt like. (An assault on the US embassy in Iraq.)
According to the New York Times today, Trump was given a list of options for how to retaliate for the assault on the US embassy. Killing Sulemani was the most extreme option.
So Trump chose the most extreme, a few days before his impeachment is eligible to take place in the Senate. Now he threatens war crimes.
Thats' entertainment !
So you won't answer the question. We knew you wouldn't.
Your entire post is based on feeeeeeeeeelings, and nothing else.
If what the NYT article is true, Trump took the correct measure. Do you think one of the less extreme measures was to drop off a pallet of cash? We know how that worked out, huh?
"a few days before his impeachment is eligible to take place in the Senate"
This is the funniest part of your post. The Senate was eligible to take the impeachment the day it was voted on in the House. Unfortunately for dem/lib/progs, she has decided to hold onto the articles because she absolutely knows there is nothing there.
The President has been saying he wanted a quick trial, so there no distraction, as liberals are claiming.
As far as "war crimes", that is just a liberal wet dream. They are saying that because the House leader, Omar, tweeted that Trump "assassinated" the terrorist. Sorry, terrorist lover Omar, a terrorist does not get assassinated. They get wiped out at the first opportunity possible.
Trump did this.
after benghazi hillary said it is more important to figure out why they did it than to bring them to justice.
is this what trump should have done?
Bugsy, having someone like you attack them is a badge of honor for the intelligent people of Newstalkers and elsewhere.
By the way, there is nothing in your post worth responding to.
Maybe he is thinking that as long as he is getting impeached, he will cause as much shit as he can before getting his pink slip.
And your buddy and friends, Obama and Hillary, did absolutely nothing when an American Ambassador and four American employees are killed over a "movie" or by a couple guys out for a walk who just wanted to kill Americans.
Remember this??? Clinton grew testy before the Senate, in reply to Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, who insisted that she explain how "Americans were misled." She replied: "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make ? "
At least this President isn't going to allow any foreign nation kill U.S. citizens and attack U. S. sovereign soil without retribution.
That's what "difference it makes".
Which "foreign nation" attacked the consulate at Benghazi?
Where is your proof that there was no "retribution" against the group or groups who attacked at Benghazi? The person who claimed responsibility for the attack was caught
Libyan militia leader gets 22-year sentence in Benghazi ...
Jun 27, 2018 · Abu Khattala was photographed shortly after his apprehension by U.S. special forces south of Benghazi , Libya, in June 2014. A Libyan militia leader convicted in the deadly 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans was sentenced to 22 years in prison Wednesday by a federal judge in Washington.
Must have been, because you did.
BTW, we know you don't want to answer the question because it would point out your hypocrisy.....if you were honest.
John, a liberal, be honest about Obama, another liberal, and/or Trump, a conservative leaning president? Not going to happen.
The blindness of hatred shines through bright and clear with that one.
Maybe we should tell him Hillary is president. That will calm him down.
The Pentagon is an American cultural icon--and also a high value military target. So is the White House, so is the U.S. Congressional building, so is Fort Knox, as are Annapolis, Pearl Harbor, every States Capital buildings, etc., etc., etc...
Just because it is a "Significant cultural icon" doesn't mean it isn't a high value military target.
Let us also keep in mind that ISIS is led by religious leaders operating out of Mosques. This would make those military targets as well as being culturally important.