[mindslight]

Because, as I said, it is an implicit threat. Especially with the context of everything else he said. For example:

As quoted by The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/19/donald-trump...

> "Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace," he wrote

As quoted by NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/09/world/americas/trump-gree...

> I would like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way we’re going to do it the hard way

This all adds up to a straightforward threat to use military force. You are essentially acknowledging this, but characterizing it as "strategic ambiguity". What is the point of this "ambiguity" if not to carry the implicit threat?

[paulsutter]

The hard way was tariffs, you know that.

Now you’re saying he didn’t actually make a threat, but he implied one?

Which means you’re assuming his intent to be whatever makes for the most lurid headline.

Funny that these professional journalists didn’t think to ask to clarify such a monumental possibility. Or maybe the ambiguity was what they wanted all along. And apparently people (such as yourself) just eat it up

[mindslight]

> The hard way was tariffs, you know that.

No, this was shortly after the US military had attacked Venezuela. It's reasonable to take this as a threat to use the military.

> Funny that these professional journalists didn’t think to ask to clarify such a monumental possibility

They did. They got "no comment". We covered this.

You also completely skipped over "I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace", as well as the copious other statements from Trump and his deputies implying the same thing. Those are all a mere web search away.

This is feeling like a gish gallop of highly motivated reasoning, and I am having a hard time believing your claim that you're an unbiased "grey" looking for truth rather than merely a Trump supporter in denial. If you want to pull up from this, you're going to have to start addressing the core of my point.

[paulsutter]

Reasonable and true statements:

- "He hinted at use of force" (he did!)

- "I think he's implying the use of force" (you own your thoughts!)

Problematic statements:

- "He IS implying use of force!" is actually just a guess, even if (let's say) it's 80% likely to be true. It's still a guess. It's not something you know.

- "HE THREATENED TO USE FORCE!" you've just promoted your guess into yelling fire in a crowded theater because you're a troll

None of this reasoning applies if you're a cat. For a cat, words and sentences just register as an emotional valence, with no comprehension of what it means to distinguish fact from inference.

If you are a cat, I apologize for misapprehending your lived experience.

[mindslight]

This is feeling like a gish gallop of highly motivated reasoning, and I am having a hard time believing your claim that you're an unbiased "grey" looking for truth rather than merely a Trump supporter in denial. If you want to pull up from this, you're going to have to start addressing the core of my point.

[paulsutter]

Could this somehow be a scissor statement? This is simple logic, there is no motivation here.

HYPOTHETICALLY let's say your uncle has an 80% chance of having cancer. Do you say that he has cancer? Or would you say it's likely that he has cancer?

"Trump's pathetic attempt at saber rattling" is the truest and fairest statement on the whole affair that I can possibly muster. Which is nothing like threatening to invade. Hilarious and sad, but not frightening.

Email me we could even discuss live! sutter at gmail