Frank wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2026 at 1:26pm:


You're trying to muddy the water by half-remembering how the laws of armed conflict work and hoping nobody notices the gaps.

Yes, civilian infrastructure can become a legitimate military target if it is being used for military purposes, but that's only step one. It doesn't magically stop being civilian, and it doesn't give you a blank cheque to hit it. The principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity still apply. That means you have to distinguish between civilian and military use, ensure the military advantage is concrete and direct, and avoid attacks where the civilian harm would be excessive relative to that advantage. Deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure because it's civilian, or with reckless disregard for civilian harm, is still a war crime.

So no, you don't get to flatten a power station, hospital, or port and shrug it off with "well maybe the military used it too". That's not how it works, and pretending otherwise is either ignorance or bad faith.

As for closing something like the Strait of Hormuz, that's not automatically a war crime either. It can be unlawful depending on how it's done, particularly if it involves things like indiscriminate attacks on civilian shipping or violations of neutrality, but simply restricting or blockading a waterway during conflict isn't in itself the same category as deliberately targeting civilians. Different legal framework entirely.

Which is what makes your comparison so absurd. You're trying to equate a complex, conditional issue about maritime access with a leader openly talking about hitting civilian targets. One is a grey area governed by specific rules, the other is the exact scenario those rules are designed to prohibit.

It's not a serious argument, it's a deflection. And it's a pretty transparent one at that.

chimera wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2026 at 4:02pm:


It's almost as if, when Donald Trump is in charge of the United States, the only reliable deterrent against his "President of Peace" routine is a nuclear arsenal.

Ukraine gave up the world's third-largest nuclear stockpile under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, in exchange for assurances from Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. When Russia violated that agreement and invaded, Washington under Trump didn't just equivocate, it actively undermined Ukraine while echoing Kremlin talking points.

So the lesson writes itself, doesn't it. Don't disarm.

Look at Iran. Under Barack Obama, they entered the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, accepted intrusive inspections, and constrained their nuclear program. Trump tears it up, reimposes pressure, then circles back demanding the same concessions that were already on the table, only this time under the shadow of escalation and conflict.  He bombed them during active negotiations which led to this current war.

Again, the lesson is obvious. Compliance doesn't protect you, it exposes you.

Every country watching this, particularly those outside formal alliance systems, is drawing the same conclusion. Security guarantees are political theatre. The only credible insurance policy, when dealing with erratic leadership in Washington, when dealing with Trump, is nuclear capability.

He's making the world less safe because his ego and incompetence.

And this is the part that was entirely predictable. Critics warned, repeatedly, that Trump's volatility would erode trust, shred agreements, and incentivise proliferation. It wasn't exactly a complex forecast, more like an open-book test.

Yet here we are, watching the consequences unfold in real time, while some still contort themselves to defend the indefensible, refusing to acknowledge that this is precisely the instability they were warned about, that they called the left being "hysterical" for pointing out.

Seems like it would be wise for Trump to TACO again.

Keep an eye out for stock market trades minutes before he surrenders.

lee wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2026 at 3:27pm:


No no, I think you'll find the US War Crimes Act applies to Americans.

But who knows? The big fella may care to put Supreme Leader on trial once he's taken Iran and captured the mullahs.

After all, I do feel he's a big fan of the rule of law.

You?

SadKangaroo wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2026 at 4:38pm:


I know, Sad, but as Donnie said, the mullahs gave him a really nice present.

What's that? The fakers asked.

It's secret, Donnie said.

Yes, but can you give us an idea? They said.

Was it a medal? One asked.

No.

A gold bar?

No.

Some frankincense or myrh?

Don't be ridiculous, Donnie said. Trust CNN.

Anyhow, turned out it was two oil tankers Pete stole that were heading to Chi-na. Donnie told him to take the oil, so he obeyed.

So now Donnie's decided to pull out and leave the Strait in the hands of the cowards, America's Asian, European and Middle Eastern allies. Turns out he's decided to give the mullahs a present in return.

Yes, Donnie's just given them a fifth of the world's supply of oil, gas and fertilizers.

I think it's a smart move.

You?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2026 at 7:10pm:


Please explain?

"Trump strikes Iran" = "Allah bah bah"