Kinda reminds me of the story of king Croesus of Lydia, who asked the oracle of Delphi whether he should wage war against Cyrus the Great, the Oracle promptly told him that by doing so he would "destroy a great empire". Croesus then promptly attacked the Persians and lost.
To clarify, the quote comes directly from the Wikipedia article on Iranian Jews [1], which cites a BBC source [2].
The phrasing is "After Israel, it is home to the second-largest Jewish population in the Middle East."
The links you posted actually support my point rather than refute it.
The "Jewish population by country" page lists Iran at 8,500–20,000. Palestine is not listed as a separate entry with a larger Jewish population.
You may be referring to Israeli settlers in the West Bank, but those individuals are Israeli citizens counted under Israel's population in every demographic source I'm aware of.
Counting them under "Palestine" would require simultaneously recognizing Palestine as a sovereign state while attributing Israeli citizens to it, which no standard demographic dataset does.
If you have a source that counts a Jewish population in a recognized state called Palestine that exceeds Iran, I'd genuinely be interested to see it. But calling a direct Wikipedia/BBC citation a "straight up lie" is a strong claim that should probably come with a stronger source and also shows, you arrive with an ulterior agenda, that I at least, do not have.
""" It comes as a surprise to many visitors to discover that Iran, a country so hostile to Israel and with a reputation for intolerance, is home to a small but vibrant Jewish community that is an officially recognized religious minority under Iran's 1979 Islamic Constitution.
"Khomeini didn't mix up our community with Israel and Zionism - he saw us as Iranians," says Haroun Yashyaei, a film producer and chairman of the Central Jewish Community in Iran."""
Iran's objection is not with Judaism but with the occupation and the meddling in their affairs through proxies.
Hence the term "Delphic", commonly used in English to mean "dangerously ambiguous".
But in this case, there's not really much ambiguity - Trump is openly threatening genocide and, as a result, is destroying any remaining moral authority that the USA might once have had.
Putin will be loving it, but I guess China that must be likely to emerge as the real winners from this.
At what point are the US military expected to refuse unlawful orders? Some form of high-level mutiny might actually be the best way forward for America right now.
Does anyone knows why current US administration keeps aligning with Chinese interests in their actions while proclaiming that China is their main adversary?
They even send JD Vance to support Orban in his elections. The same Orban and Hungary which Xi Jinping supports and recently visited out of all the EU.
You cannot agree with someone on so many actions and keep pretending that you are against each other.
> We don’t know which infrastructure he wants to attack
I think you may be living under a rock. He has announced multiple times that he wants to go after oil processing, power plants, desalination plants, and bridges. His threat for today's deadline (made last week) is to destroy every power plant and bridge in the country.
Yes, and? That changes exactly nothing about the argument, he still threatened genocide. If someone threatens to kill you, you give them a cookie and they relent ("for now"), that doesn't magically change the past and make it so they didn't threaten to kill you, but instead asked for a cookie.
> Genocide is very clear intent to destroy a people.
"a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again."
where is the intent ambiguous to you? are you just one of those that says Trump blusters big to force negotiations? otherwise, he's quite clearly said the he wants to eliminate "a whole civilization" which is exactly what genocide is. not really sure how you can be confused on this other than willingly so
He did exactly that and succeeded. Read his book the art of the deal, in which he says that is precisely his strategy. Historically this is what he does every single time.
He succeeded in opening a strait that was open a month ago in exchange for higher gas prices, destroying a nuclear program he himself said was already destroyed a year ago, killing an 86-year-old leader who would be dead in a couple of years anyway, no regime change, billions of dollars wasted, and dead American soldiers.
You are the only one making fake arguments. The threat was explicitly to destroy 'a civilization', which nobody but yourself considers equivalent to 'infrastructure'. Ply your lame rhetorical fallacies elsewhere.
Genocide literally means killing a nation, and that's what Trump is threatening. If he achieves those aims by destroying vital infrastructure, it's just as much genocide as if he does it by any other means.
Article IIc of the Genocide Convention would likely cover that particular case, but I'll note that that's just your reading of it - Trump hasn't actually given specifics.
What he definitely has done, though, is make a clear statement of intent. And, historically, the most difficult part in proving genocide has been with demonstrating intent. Trump's just made that bit easy.
He said "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again." To me that sounds more like a threat to destroy a civilization than an announcement that the US will be targeting specific parts of Iranian infrastructure, but maybe you are better at reading between the lines than I am.
That is the near-universal definition, but I don't think it captures the essence of it.
The difference between terrorism and warfare is the degree of top-down control. Warfare is done in uniform, by people in a hierarchy.
The reason for the distinction is that there is somebody taking responsibility. You end a war by agreeing to a treaty with the top level. You can hold the top level responsible for violations of the rules of war.
Terrorism, by contrast, is harder to stop. There is no authority to end it. Even state-sponsored terrorism need not end when the sponsoring state agrees; they can find a different sponsor.
That doesn't make one morally worse or better than the other. It's just a distinction worth drawing, because it governs how you go about bringing an end to it.
The US law for terrorism is about attacks against it, and they combat those differently from how they'd go about fighting a war against a conventional enemy.
What the US is doing to Iran is almost certainly unlawful, but I think that calling it "terrorism" obscures the fact that there is an authority to end it. The attack is legal in its own terms -- it at least has a law, which terrorists do not.
Again, not better. Arguably, much worse. Which is why I find the definition problematic.
The US has constantly been at war for like 250 years. How can you conclude war is easier to stop than terrorism? Can we make the USA stop waging war? Because that would be a nice change.
Just take Iran, they agreed to a treaty with the top level of the USA. But the next top level ripped up the agreement and now is threatening total destruction of their civilization. Should Iran sign a new deal with that guy, and what's to stop him from tearing that up and bombing them again?
The US stopped individual wars. They went on to attack somebody else, but the host of the previous war was happy to see it over. That's why they negotiated a peace treaty, and the US mostly respected that. (Except with the native Americans.)
There is nothing to stop the next guy from changing his mind, but it generally doesn't happen.
It certainly could, and yeah, there's a really strong case that with the current administration the US has gone completely off the rails. My last comment was speaking generally about civilized countries. It doesn't account for rogue states, and the US is increasingly fitting that definition.
Can a rogue state commit terrorism by my definition? Not with a uniformed army. That's another part of my definition of terrorism: it puts civilians in jeopardy by hiding its combatants among them. Uniformed soldiers are legitimate targets, which means it's possible to fight back only against legitimate targets, even if those legitimate targets are committing acts that would otherwise be terrorism.
I don't think targeting civilians is a sufficient definition for terrorism, because militaries have been doing that since forever. It's basically part of war, even if we wish to pretend otherwise.
> The US stopped individual wars. They went on to attack somebody else, but the host of the previous war was happy to see it over.
Right, until they come back and attack again though. USA has invaded several countries multiple times including Iraq, Haiti, DR, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua... Seems to me "terrorist" is just something states call the warriors of the people they themselves are terrorizing.
Frankly, the current administration is just recycling the propaganda and playbook of the bloodthirsty Neocons, so I don't see how this current administration is an aberration.
You're conflating terrorism with irregular warfare. The Oradour-sur-Glane massacre was terrorism committed by regular forces; the French resistance blowing up a German supply train was non-terrorist action by irregular forces.
I don't know how anyone can sleep normally knowing this madman has sole authority over the second largest nuclear weapons stockpile on the planet. It usually takes me until 5am.
I've stocked up on Potassium Iodide tablets for the child to avoid cancer after the nukes fly. I don't think we'll be hit soon in the US, but it's getting a lot more likely.
Likewise. Trump 1 caused my long term sleeping disorder to re-appear and Trump 2 is having me wonder why I thought it was a great idea to have kids. It is complete insanity that someone like this should be holding the Presidency of the USA.
Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens. - Epictetus
As someone who also thinks about the world a lot, I know it is easier said than done. But it helps to mentally separate the things that you can control and the things you cannot control. Then try to accept the things that you can't control.
You cannot directly control Trump or the US army. You can protest, go on strike, boycott, call your congressman/senator, love your neighbor, be there for your kids.
Potassium iodide is not going to help you much in the event of a nuclear war.
It's only really useful for nuclear accidents where the primary radioisotope release is I-131. It's not a magical radiation protection shield (for example against Cs-137 or Sr-90 released as a result of nuclear weapons).
Adding to this KI wont keep anything out of the other organs. People not in sealed bunkers will air filtration systems will get acute radiation sickness and eventually cancer either way. Intentionally leaving out the extra morbid details.
There’s an urge down there in the modern people secretly hoping for the destruction the civilization. Get out of the current systems that dictate a life for you. I suspect that’s why very few people are panicking, a lot of people are rooting for it to happen.
It’s not a rational thought, it’s an urge. Besides, people naturally believe that they will survive and the bad things won’t happen to them. That’s how people do stupid things all the time.
A previous post was "Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day", so I'd guess it's about that. Destroying the entire power infrastructure of a large country like that would have a pretty catastrophic effect on civilians. So that seems worse enough, I seriously hope no nukes will be involved.
> it is selectively applied for national security.
This is true. The US gets creative when it wants to avoid adhering to the law. But international law is established through treaties, and the terms the US agrees to in treaties is US law.
It is a can of worms indeed. Sadly, the President may be able to break the law without any repercussions. However, the same isn't true for the people under him.
This is true in this case, but in general complicated in the US. Since the executive branch is responsible for diplomacy, but only Congress can pass laws, there's a weird wiggle room where the Executive branch is completely on board with signing some treaty, but then when it comes time to actually implement it in any way that actually binds, Congress can refuse to do so.
It's one of the reasons why for a lot of the "everybody joins" treaties, a bunch of countries sign with a statement that they don't recognize the US as a signatory.
International law consists of treaties that have been bilaterally agreed to by several countries, in most cases including the US. Being treaties, they are US laws that are much more difficult for the US to amend than ordinary laws. US law/international law is a false distinction, when we speak of international law in the context of the US, we are generally referring specifically to treaties that the US is party to.
Yup. Remember the blowback from those videos showing potential double-taps on the alleged drug smuggling vessels in the Caribbean? That’s a clear violation of “hors de combat” as outlined on page 244 of DoD’s own Law of War Manual [1] because unlike Hegseth, I actually took the time to read it.
Hegseth came completely unhinged, going after Senator Mark Kelly’s retirement, etc.
Then a few weeks ago, Hegseth gave an interview where he literally argued that the United States doesn’t have to follow international law. He called the rules of engagement “stupid” and went on with a bunch of similar remarks.
It’s pretty clear that rather than trying to defend violations of international (and U.S.) law, the regime is now just saying they don’t have to follow them in the first place.
I saw the observation elsewhere but the medium and long range drones seen in the Russian-Ukraine war at an industrial scale of production would be devastating. Along the lines of "Imagine 1M drones being launched in the opening salvo of a war. Every power substation, cellphone tower, gas station, water tower, oil pipeline etc. in a country could be targeted". It would indeed be civilization ending.
I'm not sure which of 1 and 2 is least-bad. All depends on downstream consequences, because we're already past the point where everyone's looking at Trump (not just in Iran but also, and we already had this to an extent with Putin attacking Ukraine) and thinking they need a credible deterrent. OTOH, the USA getting suckered into a drawn-out war with Iran in the same way Russia is with Ukraine may be good for almost everyone else, because an exhausted USA is a manageable threat, in a way that the current USA almost certainly isn't.
1 is least bad. Maybe not for Iran, but for the world. If Trump re-opens Pandora's box, there is much less to hold back other nuclear powers in similar circumstances. The US has lost some dozen troops in this war, Russia has lost hundreds of thousands in its. Why should Russia restrain themselves if the US president goes mental? Our world becomes much, much more dangerous if Trump becomes unable to control himself.
2 is hundreds of thousands dead at a minimum. 1, even at its worst, would not come close to that. Worse, 2 breaks the "no actual use since Nagasaki" moratorium that has held for 80 years. Once it's broken, how long until the next use? Until Russia decides it can just start nuking cities in Ukraine, say?
Nuclear explosives are good. They are very good, as in, "the invention of fire" good. Once the cat is out of the bag on First Use, militaries around the world will put them in operational planning for literally anything that can carry 100kg and needs to strike a hard or spread out target.
That's assuming this conflict doesn't immediately escalate, which is not a given by any stretch.
At the start of WW1 everyone thought that Europeans would hold themselves to proper civilized weapons to use against Proper People. Then someone brought in the weapons reserved for colonized peoples - i.e. "half-people" - and found they work real good on Proper People as well. Uncorking nuclear first use will be like the introduction of the machine gun to the world of war, except every bullet is the most powerful device made by Man.
Breaking the first use taboo - for goddamn Iran of all people - would probably be the worst decision in human history.
I know what you mean. I guess we'll all find out in a few hours what the payloads are, given that while B-52s are nuclear-capable, that's not the only thing they're used for.
And I guess also, when it is a pick-one dichotomy, whether the USAF obeys either their orders or their oaths.
Just to call it out now that it's happened: it was 3, he was bluffing, and he just folded. The US is halting operations. Iran still holds de facto control over the straight. Trump himself even called out Iran's previous 10-point plan (which, among other things, demands reparations!) as the basis for negotiation.
Either way, we won't be talking about it on HN, this got flagged so hard it is on page 4. We don't do politics. By the way, here is some new nonsense built with an LLM.
No, obviously it is not, but, Trump is for bad or for worse the US government in persona so this is somewhat political. Since I posted the link above I'm obviously of the impression that this is something that might interest us but apparently the subject is too uncomfortable/too mainstream/too 'not HN' for discussion.
Once I do find out about something major that's "trending" on mainstream media, I wouldn't want it to take over HN. I just wouldn't want it to be absent altogether. Anywhere you go some things will be controversial no matter what.
What you can't get anywhere else is the insight from the thoughtful commentators drawn from the unique and diverse corners of technology and business, with all the adjacent domain expertise, all in one place. Usually more informative than a number of other accomplished sources.
The occasional outlier having a gentleman's appearance and a Trump-like character is nothing new, about as old as the hills.
One of the most revealing things when it comes to digital tech and SV in particular, was the pop-up reversal where so many turned out to sheepishly start following the dumb money all of a sudden. Just because there wasn't any "smart money" to follow right that minute was no excuse.
That might be one of the things that too many frequent flagrant flaggers would rather not have serious commentary about. For some of the biggest capitalists it could be very embarrassing when things emphasize any glaring deficiencies in character judgment they might harbor, that can only be undeniable after falling behind Trump. When now the simple math can give an idea how much further their money would have gone if they backed the Democrats instead. And it's still early :(
Sure, the Democrats weren't that great but at least they weren't as abysmal as they could be.
I know how I would feel if I was a bright young college innovator having dreams of backing from a successful benevolent capitalist someday. And before you have your chance, you find out that so many of the capitalists you have been admiring and looking up to, are not actually that good with money instinctively, and can't even tell the difference between an honest person and a Trump.
smh
>Trump is for bad or for worse the US government in persona
This is what makes me ashamed and embarrassed about for quite some time to come. Along with the vast majority of Americans (too bad they didn't vote) and the entire rest of the world.
I've recognized this before, but every single day there is more emphasis from Trump himself showing why Obama was the final US President sophisticated enough to carry forward the hard-earned tradition of being the "leader of the free world."
I would have liked it if Obama did a better job, but Trump couldn't even pick up the torch.
An unempowered individual (a John Doe) threatening to destroy a civilization might be an unhinged individual, a terrorist, or a nusiance.
A President of a significant world power threatening to destroy a civilization is politics in its ultimate form: the power to f** over anyone it wants to.
Any subsequent backtracking/negotiation/etc is also part of politicking.
It's the uncomfortable underbelly of some societal structures.
Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of genocidal fascist-enablers on Hacker News. Even 10% is probably enough to flag every story into oblivion.
I know that this has been discussed several times, but I wish that the HN moderators would do more to unflag these stories. Yes, they will lead to flame wars and whatnot, but the collapse of the rule-based international order and repeated genocide by some Western nations is too big to ignore.
If WOIII happens, HN would still only be "How agents cooked my dinner" and "HN company This Is Fine raises 2B from a16z". How intellectually poor.
To me, the problem isn't politics per se. It's the zealots, ideologues, and shills that it brings out. What I wish the moderators would do is go through the comments carefully and wield the ban hammer vigorously.
Even having a curated list of people that are not allowed to post on political-adjacent stories would help.
And no, I'm not a hypocrite, that list would help the quality of discussion here even if I am put on it. Now I won't like that, but, frankly, my contributions to the discussion on such topics are not all that vital.
Tactical nukes on strategic targets, if nukes will ever be used. While I think in general that the usage of nuclear weapons is "point of no return" action, I do think actual usage would be lower yield tactical nukes on strategic targes - compared to detonating Minutemen over Tehran, and similar high-casualty targets.
Option 2 is unthinkable under any circumstances. But in case the biggest mistake in human history, is done by a convicted felon and convicted rapist, that the US elected two times as supreme leader, you should know, that Pakistan stated several times, that will act as nuclear backstop for Iran.
Blah blah blah. Trump is trying his stupid, tough businessman TV persona in world politics.
Everyone in the admin is a deeply unserious person being propped up by the paranoia and dumb “patriotism” created by 9/11. You could make an argument that Osama bin Laden was ultimately successful in destroying the US.
The worst part of this is that he's not threatening to kill Iranian civilians because of some human atrocities that the Iran gov is committing, that they must stop or else.
No, he's threatening to kill civilians because of the _price of gas_.
At what point is Congress going to realize that the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world, with sole authority over _nuclear launch codes_, is mentally unstable and a threat to not only the rest of the world, but consequently, to the US as well.
Curious to know how many HNers still support Trump. They’ll probably say they never supported him, but they were pretty numerous (or at least more than you would expect on HN) saying he wasn’t all that bad (who cares about human rights when money is flowing) at the beginning of his term.
China won't need to invade anyone. In a few more years of this the leaders of the world will be re-writing their national anthems in Mandarin to get a whiff of stability.
Just saw a comment where someone wondered if Trump explicitly said he would bomb Iran or if he left a little linguistic wiggle room so he could nuke San Francisco if Iran doesn't do what he wants. Modernity is so weird recently, it honestly wouldn't surprise me.
There is a massive disconnect between what Americans experience in their day to day vs what they will support happening abroad. We are so completely insulated that we can have something like this happening and still not be shocked by the implications because the likely near-term consequence is just "shucks $5 a gallon".
It's funny because arguably a big reason Harris lost was unhappiness with the cost of living/the vibecession. Yet Trump hasn't managed to fulfill his promise of turning the magic grocery price knob down (they still seem quite expensive to me) and I'm still skeptical there will be any kind of "blue wave" come November. We'll see if voter sensitivity to living costs only apply to one party or not.
One of the things that has been shocking to me but has received little attention, has been the assassination of prominent former Iranian officials. Is this not a war crime? They were serving in no military capacity before they and their families were killed in their homes.
If a foreign adversary killed John Bolton or Anthony Blinken by bombing their homes I'm sure it would be called terrorism.
It's only terrorism if it originates from the middle east, otherwise it's just a sparkling extrajudicial special military operation and "police action"
Hey Americans this might be a good time to do something about that lunatic you put into office. You're the ones constantly bleating on about keeping government power in check, don't you think this is an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is? The world is watching, and judging.
>Hey Americans this might be a good time to do something about that lunatic you put into office. You're the ones constantly bleating on about keeping government power in check, don't you think this is an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is? The world is watching, and judging.
That's all true. And we even have a mechanism for removing said lunatic. We call it the 25th Amendment[0] to our constitution. The only problem with using that mechanism is that the folks who are in line to succeed[1] the aforementioned lunatic are at least as un-serious, and are, in many cases, religious zealots who see nuclear war in the Middle East[2] as bringing on the second coming of their imaginary sky daddy.
As an American, I'd be even more afraid if a jackass like J.D. Vance became president, and heaven help us all if Mike Johnson or Marco Rubio became president. Or how about Scott Bessent or Pete Hegseth. Yeesh! Scary stuff!
> Anyway, there is no sense to listen to Trump. TACO is a thing.
It's never a good idea to disregard something just because you want it to be true.
Trump's done a lot of shit that he said he'd do (tariffs, capturing foreign leaders, wars of choice). He's incredibly stupid. You can't predict stupid people.
Remember Trump's tweet from 2019[0]. I wonder which other country benefits the most from dragging the US into this war? Oh, right.
The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE.....
US presidents have a history of saying one thing on the campaign trail and doing another once they're in office. Clinton said he was going to do health care reform during the campaign, but signed the welfare to work, mandatory sentencing and glass-steagall repeal when he was in office.
Although... just looked at the date on that tweet. He was still in office for his first term at the time. So... yeah... modernity is not a place to look for consistent statements from political figures.
Kinda reminds me of the story of king Croesus of Lydia, who asked the oracle of Delphi whether he should wage war against Cyrus the Great, the Oracle promptly told him that by doing so he would "destroy a great empire". Croesus then promptly attacked the Persians and lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croesus#War_against_Persia_and...
After Israel, Iran is home to the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East. Current estimates are that 15,000 to 20,000 Jews live in Iran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Jews
That’s not even a little correct there’s 100s of thousands more in Palestine than Iran
Like you just posted a straight up lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_city
Palestine doesn't exist, from Israel's point of view.
To accuse parent of lying is taking it much too far
To clarify, the quote comes directly from the Wikipedia article on Iranian Jews [1], which cites a BBC source [2].
The phrasing is "After Israel, it is home to the second-largest Jewish population in the Middle East."
The links you posted actually support my point rather than refute it.
The "Jewish population by country" page lists Iran at 8,500–20,000. Palestine is not listed as a separate entry with a larger Jewish population.
You may be referring to Israeli settlers in the West Bank, but those individuals are Israeli citizens counted under Israel's population in every demographic source I'm aware of.
Counting them under "Palestine" would require simultaneously recognizing Palestine as a sovereign state while attributing Israeli citizens to it, which no standard demographic dataset does.
If you have a source that counts a Jewish population in a recognized state called Palestine that exceeds Iran, I'd genuinely be interested to see it. But calling a direct Wikipedia/BBC citation a "straight up lie" is a strong claim that should probably come with a stronger source and also shows, you arrive with an ulterior agenda, that I at least, do not have.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Jews [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm
Your “source” is 20 years old
Your “source” is non existing, that is why you did not answer my question.
Tehran to this day hosts Dr. Sapir Hospital and Charity Center, a Jewish charity hospital, the largest charity among the religious minorities in Iran.
Ayatollah Khomeini himself wrote a personal note thanking the hospital for its help after the revolution succeeded.
https://www.csmonitor.com/1998/0203/020398.intl.intl.3.html
""" It comes as a surprise to many visitors to discover that Iran, a country so hostile to Israel and with a reputation for intolerance, is home to a small but vibrant Jewish community that is an officially recognized religious minority under Iran's 1979 Islamic Constitution.
"Khomeini didn't mix up our community with Israel and Zionism - he saw us as Iranians," says Haroun Yashyaei, a film producer and chairman of the Central Jewish Community in Iran."""
Iran's objection is not with Judaism but with the occupation and the meddling in their affairs through proxies.
Ahmad Yassin also commented on this: https://x.com/incontextmedia/status/1720877046664986750
I had no idea.
That article lists the population as 9100.
Hence the term "Delphic", commonly used in English to mean "dangerously ambiguous".
But in this case, there's not really much ambiguity - Trump is openly threatening genocide and, as a result, is destroying any remaining moral authority that the USA might once have had.
I thought I heard a cork pop somewhere East of me.
and in front of a "Миссия выполнена" poster
Putin will be loving it, but I guess China that must be likely to emerge as the real winners from this.
At what point are the US military expected to refuse unlawful orders? Some form of high-level mutiny might actually be the best way forward for America right now.
i just hope someone in the US realises there is only 1 civilization on earth.
Those who do have no leverage.
Of course they do.
Does anyone knows why current US administration keeps aligning with Chinese interests in their actions while proclaiming that China is their main adversary?
They even send JD Vance to support Orban in his elections. The same Orban and Hungary which Xi Jinping supports and recently visited out of all the EU.
You cannot agree with someone on so many actions and keep pretending that you are against each other.
I think the Chinese interests is a coincidence. Trump behaves very much like Putin has something on him and Orban is Putin's main asset in the EU.
That said the general chaos of Russia vs the west and US against Iran makes China relatively stronger as it sits things out and watches.
Is he? One could also read it as destroying their infrastructure. Which would be devastating to the population, but a far cry from genocide.
I don’t think making unbased claims adds to the discussion; the facts are already severe enough to warrant their own critique.
If you unplug a life support system and a person dies did you kill a person or just disable their critical infrastructure?
If you’re a doctor? You have not killed the person, you let them die in peace, if you want to continue the reductio ad absurdum?
Or if you put CO2 in the atmosphere you are contributing to toxicity and global warming?
We don’t know which infrastructure he wants to attack, and even if people do die, that is still not genocide.
Genocide is very clear intent to destroy a people.
Destroying infrastructure, or any war, is serious enough as is, we don’t need to fake arguments here.
> we don’t need to fake arguments here
Indeed we don't. So why make them?
> We don’t know which infrastructure he wants to attack
I think you may be living under a rock. He has announced multiple times that he wants to go after oil processing, power plants, desalination plants, and bridges. His threat for today's deadline (made last week) is to destroy every power plant and bridge in the country.
He just got a cease fire and opening of the strait. Such genocide. Morons.
Yes, and? That changes exactly nothing about the argument, he still threatened genocide. If someone threatens to kill you, you give them a cookie and they relent ("for now"), that doesn't magically change the past and make it so they didn't threaten to kill you, but instead asked for a cookie.
> Genocide is very clear intent to destroy a people.
"a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again."
where is the intent ambiguous to you? are you just one of those that says Trump blusters big to force negotiations? otherwise, he's quite clearly said the he wants to eliminate "a whole civilization" which is exactly what genocide is. not really sure how you can be confused on this other than willingly so
He did exactly that and succeeded. Read his book the art of the deal, in which he says that is precisely his strategy. Historically this is what he does every single time.
He succeeded in opening a strait that was open a month ago in exchange for higher gas prices, destroying a nuclear program he himself said was already destroyed a year ago, killing an 86-year-old leader who would be dead in a couple of years anyway, no regime change, billions of dollars wasted, and dead American soldiers.
Such great deal making, love it.
You are the only one making fake arguments. The threat was explicitly to destroy 'a civilization', which nobody but yourself considers equivalent to 'infrastructure'. Ply your lame rhetorical fallacies elsewhere.
Genocide literally means killing a nation, and that's what Trump is threatening. If he achieves those aims by destroying vital infrastructure, it's just as much genocide as if he does it by any other means.
Article IIc of the Genocide Convention would likely cover that particular case, but I'll note that that's just your reading of it - Trump hasn't actually given specifics.
What he definitely has done, though, is make a clear statement of intent. And, historically, the most difficult part in proving genocide has been with demonstrating intent. Trump's just made that bit easy.
He said "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again." To me that sounds more like a threat to destroy a civilization than an announcement that the US will be targeting specific parts of Iranian infrastructure, but maybe you are better at reading between the lines than I am.
Read the tweet in full. Bridges and power plants don't "die".
At this rate, if the official religion of USA was a different one, they would be categorized as a terrorist state
It is, just not in the USA. This is the textbook definition of terrorism:
"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
It does not get much clearer than that.
That is the near-universal definition, but I don't think it captures the essence of it.
The difference between terrorism and warfare is the degree of top-down control. Warfare is done in uniform, by people in a hierarchy.
The reason for the distinction is that there is somebody taking responsibility. You end a war by agreeing to a treaty with the top level. You can hold the top level responsible for violations of the rules of war.
Terrorism, by contrast, is harder to stop. There is no authority to end it. Even state-sponsored terrorism need not end when the sponsoring state agrees; they can find a different sponsor.
That doesn't make one morally worse or better than the other. It's just a distinction worth drawing, because it governs how you go about bringing an end to it.
The US law for terrorism is about attacks against it, and they combat those differently from how they'd go about fighting a war against a conventional enemy.
What the US is doing to Iran is almost certainly unlawful, but I think that calling it "terrorism" obscures the fact that there is an authority to end it. The attack is legal in its own terms -- it at least has a law, which terrorists do not.
Again, not better. Arguably, much worse. Which is why I find the definition problematic.
The US has constantly been at war for like 250 years. How can you conclude war is easier to stop than terrorism? Can we make the USA stop waging war? Because that would be a nice change.
Just take Iran, they agreed to a treaty with the top level of the USA. But the next top level ripped up the agreement and now is threatening total destruction of their civilization. Should Iran sign a new deal with that guy, and what's to stop him from tearing that up and bombing them again?
The US stopped individual wars. They went on to attack somebody else, but the host of the previous war was happy to see it over. That's why they negotiated a peace treaty, and the US mostly respected that. (Except with the native Americans.)
There is nothing to stop the next guy from changing his mind, but it generally doesn't happen.
It certainly could, and yeah, there's a really strong case that with the current administration the US has gone completely off the rails. My last comment was speaking generally about civilized countries. It doesn't account for rogue states, and the US is increasingly fitting that definition.
Can a rogue state commit terrorism by my definition? Not with a uniformed army. That's another part of my definition of terrorism: it puts civilians in jeopardy by hiding its combatants among them. Uniformed soldiers are legitimate targets, which means it's possible to fight back only against legitimate targets, even if those legitimate targets are committing acts that would otherwise be terrorism.
I don't think targeting civilians is a sufficient definition for terrorism, because militaries have been doing that since forever. It's basically part of war, even if we wish to pretend otherwise.
> The US stopped individual wars. They went on to attack somebody else, but the host of the previous war was happy to see it over.
Right, until they come back and attack again though. USA has invaded several countries multiple times including Iraq, Haiti, DR, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua... Seems to me "terrorist" is just something states call the warriors of the people they themselves are terrorizing.
Frankly, the current administration is just recycling the propaganda and playbook of the bloodthirsty Neocons, so I don't see how this current administration is an aberration.
You're conflating terrorism with irregular warfare. The Oradour-sur-Glane massacre was terrorism committed by regular forces; the French resistance blowing up a German supply train was non-terrorist action by irregular forces.
It's called terrorism only when it comes from a certain region. Otherwise it's sparkling military action.
It's not about definitions or categorisations. It's about what reprisals there are for labelling them a terrorist state.
I don't know how anyone can sleep normally knowing this madman has sole authority over the second largest nuclear weapons stockpile on the planet. It usually takes me until 5am.
I've stocked up on Potassium Iodide tablets for the child to avoid cancer after the nukes fly. I don't think we'll be hit soon in the US, but it's getting a lot more likely.
Likewise. Trump 1 caused my long term sleeping disorder to re-appear and Trump 2 is having me wonder why I thought it was a great idea to have kids. It is complete insanity that someone like this should be holding the Presidency of the USA.
Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens. - Epictetus
As someone who also thinks about the world a lot, I know it is easier said than done. But it helps to mentally separate the things that you can control and the things you cannot control. Then try to accept the things that you can't control.
You cannot directly control Trump or the US army. You can protest, go on strike, boycott, call your congressman/senator, love your neighbor, be there for your kids.
Potassium iodide is not going to help you much in the event of a nuclear war.
It's only really useful for nuclear accidents where the primary radioisotope release is I-131. It's not a magical radiation protection shield (for example against Cs-137 or Sr-90 released as a result of nuclear weapons).
Adding to this KI wont keep anything out of the other organs. People not in sealed bunkers will air filtration systems will get acute radiation sickness and eventually cancer either way. Intentionally leaving out the extra morbid details.
There’s an urge down there in the modern people secretly hoping for the destruction the civilization. Get out of the current systems that dictate a life for you. I suspect that’s why very few people are panicking, a lot of people are rooting for it to happen.
Then they're complete and utter idiots.
It’s not a rational thought, it’s an urge. Besides, people naturally believe that they will survive and the bad things won’t happen to them. That’s how people do stupid things all the time.
Yes, you are spot on. I've seen this many times in practice and it really never ceases to amaze me.
“The spirit of the world is the spirit of suicide” - Jacques Ellul
Two ways to interpret this:
1) US and Israel will throw everything they have (of conventional weapons) at Iran.
2) US will use (tactical) nuclear weapons on strategic targets.
Of the two evils, I truly hope it will be (1).
I hope it will be neither and someone reins in this buffoon.
A previous post was "Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day", so I'd guess it's about that. Destroying the entire power infrastructure of a large country like that would have a pretty catastrophic effect on civilians. So that seems worse enough, I seriously hope no nukes will be involved.
You remember that video that some Democratic legislators did about refusing to obey illegal orders? This is where that becomes absolutely real.
(Targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime. Orders to commit war crimes are illegal by definition.)
Is that US law or international law?
International law is also US law. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
That says internation law as US law.
Light investigation says it is selectively applied for national security. So... pretty big loophole.
> it is selectively applied for national security.
This is true. The US gets creative when it wants to avoid adhering to the law. But international law is established through treaties, and the terms the US agrees to in treaties is US law.
> and the terms the US agrees to in treaties is US law.
Which according to your source the President is allowed to disregard within his "constitutional authority". A can of worms on its own.
It is a can of worms indeed. Sadly, the President may be able to break the law without any repercussions. However, the same isn't true for the people under him.
This is true in this case, but in general complicated in the US. Since the executive branch is responsible for diplomacy, but only Congress can pass laws, there's a weird wiggle room where the Executive branch is completely on board with signing some treaty, but then when it comes time to actually implement it in any way that actually binds, Congress can refuse to do so.
It's one of the reasons why for a lot of the "everybody joins" treaties, a bunch of countries sign with a statement that they don't recognize the US as a signatory.
They left "obeying the law" behind a long, long time ago
There was this legal analysis about the Iran war crimes situation posted yesterday by some former military lawyers: https://www.justsecurity.org/135797/war-crimes-rhetoric-powe... Among other things they link to this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
International law consists of treaties that have been bilaterally agreed to by several countries, in most cases including the US. Being treaties, they are US laws that are much more difficult for the US to amend than ordinary laws. US law/international law is a false distinction, when we speak of international law in the context of the US, we are generally referring specifically to treaties that the US is party to.
Yup. Remember the blowback from those videos showing potential double-taps on the alleged drug smuggling vessels in the Caribbean? That’s a clear violation of “hors de combat” as outlined on page 244 of DoD’s own Law of War Manual [1] because unlike Hegseth, I actually took the time to read it.
Hegseth came completely unhinged, going after Senator Mark Kelly’s retirement, etc.
Then a few weeks ago, Hegseth gave an interview where he literally argued that the United States doesn’t have to follow international law. He called the rules of engagement “stupid” and went on with a bunch of similar remarks.
It’s pretty clear that rather than trying to defend violations of international (and U.S.) law, the regime is now just saying they don’t have to follow them in the first place.
https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD...
Remember how they claimed this war was actually about helping the Iranian People? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Pretty sure it was to get everyone to stop talking about Epstein.
I saw the observation elsewhere but the medium and long range drones seen in the Russian-Ukraine war at an industrial scale of production would be devastating. Along the lines of "Imagine 1M drones being launched in the opening salvo of a war. Every power substation, cellphone tower, gas station, water tower, oil pipeline etc. in a country could be targeted". It would indeed be civilization ending.
Or 3, he's bluffing.
I'm not sure which of 1 and 2 is least-bad. All depends on downstream consequences, because we're already past the point where everyone's looking at Trump (not just in Iran but also, and we already had this to an extent with Putin attacking Ukraine) and thinking they need a credible deterrent. OTOH, the USA getting suckered into a drawn-out war with Iran in the same way Russia is with Ukraine may be good for almost everyone else, because an exhausted USA is a manageable threat, in a way that the current USA almost certainly isn't.
1 is least bad. Maybe not for Iran, but for the world. If Trump re-opens Pandora's box, there is much less to hold back other nuclear powers in similar circumstances. The US has lost some dozen troops in this war, Russia has lost hundreds of thousands in its. Why should Russia restrain themselves if the US president goes mental? Our world becomes much, much more dangerous if Trump becomes unable to control himself.
> Our world becomes much, much more dangerous if Trump becomes unable to control himself.
I think we're well past that point.
It can always get worse. Trump ordering nuclear strikes will make it much worse than it has been been so far, by a large margin
I meant that we are past the point where Trump is in control of himself.
Trump using nukes on Iran would essentially give Putin the green light to do the same in Ukraine. And then all bets are off after that.
Oh, I'm quite sure. 2 is far worse.
2 is hundreds of thousands dead at a minimum. 1, even at its worst, would not come close to that. Worse, 2 breaks the "no actual use since Nagasaki" moratorium that has held for 80 years. Once it's broken, how long until the next use? Until Russia decides it can just start nuking cities in Ukraine, say?
2 is almost unimaginably worse.
Nuclear explosives are good. They are very good, as in, "the invention of fire" good. Once the cat is out of the bag on First Use, militaries around the world will put them in operational planning for literally anything that can carry 100kg and needs to strike a hard or spread out target.
That's assuming this conflict doesn't immediately escalate, which is not a given by any stretch.
At the start of WW1 everyone thought that Europeans would hold themselves to proper civilized weapons to use against Proper People. Then someone brought in the weapons reserved for colonized peoples - i.e. "half-people" - and found they work real good on Proper People as well. Uncorking nuclear first use will be like the introduction of the machine gun to the world of war, except every bullet is the most powerful device made by Man.
Breaking the first use taboo - for goddamn Iran of all people - would probably be the worst decision in human history.
Unfortunately, since the time you made this comment, B52s have been seen leaving the UK. I'm tired, boss.
> I'm tired, boss.
I know what you mean. I guess we'll all find out in a few hours what the payloads are, given that while B-52s are nuclear-capable, that's not the only thing they're used for.
And I guess also, when it is a pick-one dichotomy, whether the USAF obeys either their orders or their oaths.
Just to call it out now that it's happened: it was 3, he was bluffing, and he just folded. The US is halting operations. Iran still holds de facto control over the straight. Trump himself even called out Iran's previous 10-point plan (which, among other things, demands reparations!) as the basis for negotiation.
To wit: the war appears to be over. Iran won.
Do you mean tactical weapons on strategic targets? Or strategical weapons?
I honestly don't know what to believe, but I feel the doomsday clock is getting closer to midnight than in a long, long time
Either way, we won't be talking about it on HN, this got flagged so hard it is on page 4. We don't do politics. By the way, here is some new nonsense built with an LLM.
A threat to destroy a civilization isn’t politics
No, obviously it is not, but, Trump is for bad or for worse the US government in persona so this is somewhat political. Since I posted the link above I'm obviously of the impression that this is something that might interest us but apparently the subject is too uncomfortable/too mainstream/too 'not HN' for discussion.
Once I do find out about something major that's "trending" on mainstream media, I wouldn't want it to take over HN. I just wouldn't want it to be absent altogether. Anywhere you go some things will be controversial no matter what.
What you can't get anywhere else is the insight from the thoughtful commentators drawn from the unique and diverse corners of technology and business, with all the adjacent domain expertise, all in one place. Usually more informative than a number of other accomplished sources.
The occasional outlier having a gentleman's appearance and a Trump-like character is nothing new, about as old as the hills.
One of the most revealing things when it comes to digital tech and SV in particular, was the pop-up reversal where so many turned out to sheepishly start following the dumb money all of a sudden. Just because there wasn't any "smart money" to follow right that minute was no excuse.
That might be one of the things that too many frequent flagrant flaggers would rather not have serious commentary about. For some of the biggest capitalists it could be very embarrassing when things emphasize any glaring deficiencies in character judgment they might harbor, that can only be undeniable after falling behind Trump. When now the simple math can give an idea how much further their money would have gone if they backed the Democrats instead. And it's still early :(
Sure, the Democrats weren't that great but at least they weren't as abysmal as they could be.
I know how I would feel if I was a bright young college innovator having dreams of backing from a successful benevolent capitalist someday. And before you have your chance, you find out that so many of the capitalists you have been admiring and looking up to, are not actually that good with money instinctively, and can't even tell the difference between an honest person and a Trump.
smh
>Trump is for bad or for worse the US government in persona
This is what makes me ashamed and embarrassed about for quite some time to come. Along with the vast majority of Americans (too bad they didn't vote) and the entire rest of the world.
I've recognized this before, but every single day there is more emphasis from Trump himself showing why Obama was the final US President sophisticated enough to carry forward the hard-earned tradition of being the "leader of the free world."
I would have liked it if Obama did a better job, but Trump couldn't even pick up the torch.
Thank you.
An unempowered individual (a John Doe) threatening to destroy a civilization might be an unhinged individual, a terrorist, or a nusiance.
A President of a significant world power threatening to destroy a civilization is politics in its ultimate form: the power to f** over anyone it wants to.
Any subsequent backtracking/negotiation/etc is also part of politicking.
It's the uncomfortable underbelly of some societal structures.
Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of genocidal fascist-enablers on Hacker News. Even 10% is probably enough to flag every story into oblivion.
I know that this has been discussed several times, but I wish that the HN moderators would do more to unflag these stories. Yes, they will lead to flame wars and whatnot, but the collapse of the rule-based international order and repeated genocide by some Western nations is too big to ignore.
If WOIII happens, HN would still only be "How agents cooked my dinner" and "HN company This Is Fine raises 2B from a16z". How intellectually poor.
To me, the problem isn't politics per se. It's the zealots, ideologues, and shills that it brings out. What I wish the moderators would do is go through the comments carefully and wield the ban hammer vigorously.
Even having a curated list of people that are not allowed to post on political-adjacent stories would help.
And no, I'm not a hypocrite, that list would help the quality of discussion here even if I am put on it. Now I won't like that, but, frankly, my contributions to the discussion on such topics are not all that vital.
We can flag those comments just fine.
Garry Tan believes that democracy is bad and that we should have fiefdoms run by CEO kings. The rot is at the top.
Whoa whoa there Jacques, We talk about politics here all the time.
'Uh, what kind of politics do you usually have here?'
'Oh we got both kinds -- Bay area zoning and Bay area homelessness.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS-zEH8YmiM
I know that clip without clicking.
But yes, you're right. If there is an issue with BART it has 500 upvotes and stays on the homepage for at least a day.
Tactical nukes on strategic targets, if nukes will ever be used. While I think in general that the usage of nuclear weapons is "point of no return" action, I do think actual usage would be lower yield tactical nukes on strategic targes - compared to detonating Minutemen over Tehran, and similar high-casualty targets.
Only as a start. It would greenlight Russia to use them in Ukraine and would escalate from there.
Option 2 is unthinkable under any circumstances. But in case the biggest mistake in human history, is done by a convicted felon and convicted rapist, that the US elected two times as supreme leader, you should know, that Pakistan stated several times, that will act as nuclear backstop for Iran.
> Option 2 is unthinkable under any circumstances.
Too many unthinkable things have come to pass in the last decade or so for me to find that reassuring.
> Pakistan stated several times, that will act as nuclear backstop for Iran.
Can you clarify what this would even mean? And could you provide a source (because I couldn't)?
Don't forget that Israel has nukes as well.
What possible advantage would using them offer Israel right now? The war is going just fine as it is for them.
Apparently they came with 75 meters of bombing an nuclear power plant already. A plant with 10x the material Chernobyl had, and in vulnerable above-ground storage. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/middle-east-war-why-attacks-...
I mean... the Israelis could use their nuke. I don't know how quickly they could move it from Philadelphia, though.
I think civilization already died in Washington.
Nuclear threat is incredibly real. Please call your congressmen.
They are literally on vacation and will do absolutely nothing.
I am under no illusion that they would do something if they were not on vacation.
Send war criminals to The Hague.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
At least force them to try exercising it.
The USA is deeply sick.
We are captured by Israel and working against our own interests because they are blackmailing and bribing our leaders.
I know children with more maturity.
Blah blah blah. Trump is trying his stupid, tough businessman TV persona in world politics.
Everyone in the admin is a deeply unserious person being propped up by the paranoia and dumb “patriotism” created by 9/11. You could make an argument that Osama bin Laden was ultimately successful in destroying the US.
The worst part of this is that he's not threatening to kill Iranian civilians because of some human atrocities that the Iran gov is committing, that they must stop or else.
No, he's threatening to kill civilians because of the _price of gas_.
At what point is Congress going to realize that the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world, with sole authority over _nuclear launch codes_, is mentally unstable and a threat to not only the rest of the world, but consequently, to the US as well.
If they don't realize it now they never will.
Curious to know how many HNers still support Trump. They’ll probably say they never supported him, but they were pretty numerous (or at least more than you would expect on HN) saying he wasn’t all that bad (who cares about human rights when money is flowing) at the beginning of his term.
Enough to flag this thread.
Flagging Trump threads could also be people who don't like Trump.
There are a lot of Zionists that patrol this site and this is exactly what they want and support.
So he's graduated from simply threatening war crimes to threatening genocide. We are the baddies.
So... if I were China... this would be a decent week to invade Taiwan. Everyone seems to be a bit distracted.
China won't need to invade anyone. In a few more years of this the leaders of the world will be re-writing their national anthems in Mandarin to get a whiff of stability.
Why invade when they come to you?
This is an open declaration of an intent to commit genocide.
Just saw a comment where someone wondered if Trump explicitly said he would bomb Iran or if he left a little linguistic wiggle room so he could nuke San Francisco if Iran doesn't do what he wants. Modernity is so weird recently, it honestly wouldn't surprise me.
Any person that supports Trump's message is insane. There are no ifs or buts.
There is a massive disconnect between what Americans experience in their day to day vs what they will support happening abroad. We are so completely insulated that we can have something like this happening and still not be shocked by the implications because the likely near-term consequence is just "shucks $5 a gallon".
It's funny because arguably a big reason Harris lost was unhappiness with the cost of living/the vibecession. Yet Trump hasn't managed to fulfill his promise of turning the magic grocery price knob down (they still seem quite expensive to me) and I'm still skeptical there will be any kind of "blue wave" come November. We'll see if voter sensitivity to living costs only apply to one party or not.
One of the things that has been shocking to me but has received little attention, has been the assassination of prominent former Iranian officials. Is this not a war crime? They were serving in no military capacity before they and their families were killed in their homes.
If a foreign adversary killed John Bolton or Anthony Blinken by bombing their homes I'm sure it would be called terrorism.
It would not just be called terrorism, it would be terrorism.
It's only terrorism if it originates from the middle east, otherwise it's just a sparkling extrajudicial special military operation and "police action"
related...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47677473
Hey Americans this might be a good time to do something about that lunatic you put into office. You're the ones constantly bleating on about keeping government power in check, don't you think this is an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is? The world is watching, and judging.
>Hey Americans this might be a good time to do something about that lunatic you put into office. You're the ones constantly bleating on about keeping government power in check, don't you think this is an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is? The world is watching, and judging.
That's all true. And we even have a mechanism for removing said lunatic. We call it the 25th Amendment[0] to our constitution. The only problem with using that mechanism is that the folks who are in line to succeed[1] the aforementioned lunatic are at least as un-serious, and are, in many cases, religious zealots who see nuclear war in the Middle East[2] as bringing on the second coming of their imaginary sky daddy.
As an American, I'd be even more afraid if a jackass like J.D. Vance became president, and heaven help us all if Mike Johnson or Marco Rubio became president. Or how about Scott Bessent or Pete Hegseth. Yeesh! Scary stuff!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_lin...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon
Excuse me guys and gals, on what page of The Art of the Deal are we right now?
I can’t find the chapter about threatening the other party with genocide and how to follow up negotiations from that point.
I wonder why this deal maker didn’t get a nobel peace price.
He sounds exactly like the peaceful Ayatollahs
He is winning so much he is openly talking about commiting new war crimes.
Anyway, there is no sense to listen to Trump. TACO is a thing.
> Anyway, there is no sense to listen to Trump. TACO is a thing.
It's never a good idea to disregard something just because you want it to be true.
Trump's done a lot of shit that he said he'd do (tariffs, capturing foreign leaders, wars of choice). He's incredibly stupid. You can't predict stupid people.
I cannot predict his moves, I can not do anything to affect him. There is no point to listen him.
The only thing I can do is to donate money to buy kamikaze drones for Ukraine to help defeat his dear friend vladimir.
You can stockpile food, resources for yourself, your family, and your neighbors.
Thank you.
The sad thing is that rulers never learn from history. There's no winner in this.
Remember Trump's tweet from 2019[0]. I wonder which other country benefits the most from dragging the US into this war? Oh, right.
[0] https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181905659568283648
US presidents have a history of saying one thing on the campaign trail and doing another once they're in office. Clinton said he was going to do health care reform during the campaign, but signed the welfare to work, mandatory sentencing and glass-steagall repeal when he was in office.
Although... just looked at the date on that tweet. He was still in office for his first term at the time. So... yeah... modernity is not a place to look for consistent statements from political figures.
Seriously, wtf?