We killed the Iranian

So what’s next? Does anybody know?
Trump threatens destruction of 52 cultural sites. A war crime by definition. To what end? Anybody know?

This is false. Here is the tweet;

…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!

He did not say he was targeting 52 cultural sites. His tweet doesn’t come close to that.

6 Likes

" very high level and important to Iranian culture."
And it is your opinion that doesn’t mean " cultural cites." Glad all of those facts cleared it up. Cites of importantance to Iranian culture is not Iranian cultural cites? Why? Because we want to imagine to save Trump?

Goodness. Here’s the quote again:

some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself,

He did not say “ destruction of 52 cultural sites”. That is a false statement.

4 Likes

I think the issues is that Trump said 52 sites of which some will be very important to Iranian culture.
So maybe only s few culturally important sites, not necessarily 52. Only a few war crimes, not 52.

And when asked, Trump doubled down:

“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way,” Trump said.

The idea of attacking “cultural sites”, in particular as retribution, is very much a war crime.

5 Likes

I don’t really see how it advances anything anyhow. It’s not like bombing say, Persepolis will be beneficial in any war effort. Rather, it might have the effect of reconciling Iranians with the government they abhor as they watch their culture come under attack from the one government they hate more than theirs.

Who benefits? That is the interesting question.

2 Likes

I don’t think anyone knows. But I’m glad we have a good leader.

4 Likes

Thank you, the suggestion Trump did not mean cultural cite had me feeling like I was going insane

Trump has them United overnight

1 Like

What’s the Iranians threat to attack the White House?

The dead Iranian? Zero!
In retribution?
I guess that can be an answer. Trump’s action set of a retribution threat. Do you think Trump was looking to escalate into war?

The dead Iranian is a cultural site now?
Retribution or not.
If one really cared to understand President Trump, they’d know he’s the last person to want more war in the Mideast.

4 Likes

I have no idea what that means

They don’t care to understand Trump. They’re willing to take the side of a terrorist like Soleimani and a terrorist state like Iran. Had Obama done this, he would have been a hero.
Of, Obama wouldn’t have. This was Iran, after all.

8 Likes

Trump’s actions have been incoherent. I appreciate those who say," hey I know his mind," seem to believe it. After WMDs I don’t guess at what tea leaves say

Obama is irrelevant! Nothing furthur required about Obama.
You say," they don’t understand Trump."
The Administration provided no evidence. There is nothing to understand on THIS SUBJECT.
Nobody has taken the dead guys side in America. That was the misleading argument when there were no WMDs.
Remember? “But don’t you agree Sadamm is a bad guy?” Was never the point after over a decade of war and casualties and over a trillion spent.

Actions can’t be incoherent. Listen to Trump, it’s what he says not what people think.

“He didn’t say he’d club ALL the baby seals! Just a few. There’s a BIG difference!”

Soleimani probably was able to finance much of his terror using the billions of dollars Obama sent there. Obama is not irrelevant.

No, the other poster said that. I said they do care to understand him.

He isn’t obligated to provide evidence to you or the media.

Actua, the left has taken his fide, not so much be they like him, but because they despise Trump.
The false trope about WMD’s. Every interference community believed they were there. And they pro were at some point. But I’ll let you call Colin Powell a liar.

It is so funny you want to immunize Obama who basically financed this guy, but want to bring up Saddam.

6 Likes
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.