[moi2388]

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.

[ndiddy]

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.

[graybeardhacker]

If you unplug a life support system and a person dies did you kill a person or just disable their critical infrastructure?

[moi2388]

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.

[muwtyhg]

> 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.

[moi2388]

He just got a cease fire and opening of the strait. Such genocide. Morons.

[customguy]

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.

[anigbrowl]

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.

[jacquesm]

> we don’t need to fake arguments here

Indeed we don't. So why make them?

[dylan604]

> 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

[moi2388]

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.

[aarond0623]

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.

[tencentshill]

Read the tweet in full. Bridges and power plants don't "die".

[roryirvine]

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.