Trump casually threatens the extermination of the Afghani people if they can't reach a deal with the Taliban.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXJjHFlSHtA

But hey, at least we didn't elect that warmonger Hillary.


Incidentally, one of my friends in university was an Afghani woman who came to Canada as a child. We haven't talked much since I left university, but we still keep in touch via Facebook. And today I saw my friend posting about how my country's President is threatening to exterminate her entire people. How does one even respond to that?

I do not advocate political violence. My fondest wish is to see Trump destroyed by the law, to spend his life in prison, not made into a martyr.

But if any President, hypothetically, were to actually give such an order, my dearest prayer would be that someone in the room would just say screw it and empty a clip into that President's deviant brain on the spot. And I would consider it my duty to take up arms against such a President myself, in the event that the entire rest of the world didn't respond by nuking the rogue United States to ash out of self-preservation.

Even making the threat should be enough to bring about his instant removal under the 25th. Amendment. By all rights he should be gone and in cuffs before Midnight tonight (but then, by all rights he should have been gone years ago). Every single cabinet member and member of Congress who stands by him will rightly be damned for their choices.

[Ralin]

Thread title is a lie. Stating that the US could wipe out Afghanistan's people is a factual statement. Stating that he has a plan to do so, probably less so, but given the context involves Trump repeatedly saying he doesn't want to do that calling it an extermination threat is dumb.

Frankly if Trump was willing to do that he could much more easily do the right thing and unilaterally withdraw every single American soldier from Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'm with the president on this one: our nineteen year war on Afghanistan is evil and wrong and should be ended as quickly as possible.

[The Romulan Republic]

Thread title is a lie. Stating that the US could wipe out Afghanistan's people is a factual statement. Stating that he has a plan to do so, probably less so, but given the context involves Trump repeatedly saying he doesn't want to do that calling it an extermination threat is dumb.

Don't give me that bullshit.

Trump stated that he could wipe out Afghanistan, that he has a plan to do so (which indicates that he has considered it as an option), and (paraphrasing) that its either that or the option he wants. What do you call that? That its also a statement of fact that the US has the power to do it does not make it less of a threat- in fact it elevates it from "blowhard spouting off" to "credible threat".

I very much doubt he'll actually do it, because one of the few bright spots of this regime is that on everything except protecting his own interests, Trump has virtually no consistency or effective capacity for follow-through. But that he would even say it is reprehensible, reckless, and staggeringly racist, even by his standards. As, frankly, is your attempt to downplay and excuse it.

Its being taken as a threat, because that's exactly what it was. Trump putting a paper-thin veil on it to fool useful idiots doesn't change that.

Frankly if Trump was willing to do that he could much more easily do the right thing and unilaterally withdraw every single American soldier from Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'm with the president on this one: our nineteen year war on Afghanistan is evil and wrong and should be ended as quickly as possible.

Jesus Christ, you're actually still going to claim that Trump is anti-war and anti-intervention.

That has got to be the best con he and his supporters ever came up with. I wonder how many so-called progressives he conned into helping to put a Neo-Fascist in the White House with that line.

I must also point out that technically, the US is not at war with Afghanistan- it is at war with the Taliban, and is backing certain factions in Afghanistan against others. That is neither a defense not a condemnation of the war, and it certainly doesn't much change the effects of it on the people living there. But if you're going to call me a liar for not drinking the Trump Kool Aid, then you ought to stick as closely to the facts as possible.

[Ralin]

Trump stated that he could wipe out Afghanistan,

He can

that he has a plan to do so (which indicates that he has considered it as an option),

He’s probably lying.

and (paraphrasing) that its either that or the option he wants. What do you call that? That its also a statement of fact that the US has the power to do it does not make it less of a threat- in fact it elevates it from "blowhard spouting off" to "credible threat".

I’d say it’s some attempt to come off as a badass alpha man while saying that he totally wants a peaceful resolution and that if you don’t believe him consider just how easily I could have just killed everyone right now.

I very much doubt he'll actually do it, because one of the few bright spots of this regime is that on everything except protecting his own interests, Trump has virtually no consistency or effective capacity for follow-through. But that he would even say it is reprehensible, reckless, and staggeringly racist, even by his standards. As, frankly, is your attempt to downplay and excuse it.

Its being taken as a threat, because that's exactly what it was. Trump putting a paper-thin veil on it to fool useful idiots doesn't change that.

What’s reprehensible and staggeringly racist is caring more about Trump’s dumb way of emphasizing that he’s totally committed to a peaceful resolution (‘because if I wasn’t I could so easily kill everyone’) then the nineteen goddamn year long war the US has inflicted on Afghanistan

Jesus Christ, you're actually still going to claim that Trump is anti-war and anti-intervention.

He is. He hasn’t started any new wars or invaded any new countries, and as much as you hate the idea of him cozying up to dictators (read: engaging in diplomacy) that and his engagement with countries like North Korea is pretty high on the list of bright spots about his administration.

That has got to be the best con he and his supporters ever came up with. I wonder how many so-called progressives he conned into helping to put a Neo-Fascist in the White House with that line.

It’s amazing how many so-called progressives require the president to be a Neo-Fascist before they’re willing to stop meh-ing a horrific 19 year old war to defend us from the horrible terrorist training camps of Afghanistan.

I must also point out that technically, the US is not at war with Afghanistan- it is at war with the Taliban, and is backing certain factions in Afghanistan against others. That is neither a defense not a condemnation of the war, and it certainly doesn't much change the effects of it on the people living there. But if you're going to call me a liar for not drinking the Trump Kool Aid, then you ought to stick as closely to the facts as possible.

I must point out that I don’t give a shit over technical nitpicking (and not even accurate nitpicking since the US never declared war on the Taliban) over an evil 19 year war that has raped an entire country for a literal generation.


Also, to go back to your OP?

Even making the threat should be enough to bring about his instant removal under the 25th. Amendment. By all rights he should be gone and in cuffs before Midnight tonight (but then, by all rights he should have been gone years ago). Every single cabinet member and member of Congress who stands by him will rightly be damned for their choices.

Any random year of Obama’s administration did more to deserve being dragged out in cuffs over the shit the US has done to Afghanistan than Trump’s ‘threat’

[The Romulan Republic]

[snip]Ralin defending Trump's threat of genocide and saying Obama was worse while completely leaving out how Bush started the war in Afghanistan, then calling me a racist and implying I am anti-diplomacy because I recognize a distinction between "negotiating with dictators" and "being subservient to them".[snip]

I don't really know what to add to that, except to note that on this issue at least, Ralin's biases have made him functionally indistinguishable from a Trumper.

Also, that the claim that Trump has started no wars may be technically true, but he has:

1. Continued all wars inherited from previous Presidencies, at least up to this point. Including ordering strikes on Syria.

2. Repeatedly advocated for war in Venezuela.

3. Reportedly ordered the assassination of Assad according to Woodward's book (an order General Mattis, his then Secretary of Defense, ignored).

4. Given effective carte blanche to the Israeli government in its occupation of Palestine, even beyond the support given by prior US administrations.

5. Used one of the first vetoes of his Presidency to ensure continued US support for the horrific Saudi war in Yemen.

6. Threatened nuclear war/genocide on multiple occassions.

Yeah, a real dove there. But hey, he's not part of the "establishment" (which has conveniently been redefined to not include a rich white businessman who inherited his money from Daddy), and he says nice things about non-Western dictators, so clearly he must be one of the good guys.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its pitiful, really. The faux progressives are so obsessed with their hatred of America, and proving America is and always has been evil in every possible way, that they actively downplay and defend the US government's current crimes, so as not to allow Trump to look worse than the crimes of prior administrations. Of course, there's another side to it- they know (though will never admit) that Trump is an asset of America's enemies, and therefore defend him as part of their support for non-Western dictators.

Thus, the Trump Presidency, the most vile and dangerous in recent history, ends up being the only one they will not only give the benefit of the doubt to on foreign policy, but will bend over backward to defend.

It would be amusing, in a pathetic sort of way, if it weren't so dangerous.

[loomer]

TRR, you know how people say you come off very Trumpish and over the top? Your last post is a perfect example. While I have objections to some of Ralin's inferences around Trump's non-interventionism, an unprovoked rant about faux progressives hating America and a screed about how people mistakenly view Trump as non-Establishment and a good guy - which Ralin has not stated - comes off as absolute histrionics.

[The Romulan Republic]

TRR, you know how people say you come off very Trumpish and over the top? Your last post is a perfect example. While I have objections to some of Ralin's inferences around Trump's non-interventionism, an unprovoked rant about faux progressives hating America and a screed about how people mistakenly view Trump as non-Establishment and a good guy - which Ralin has not stated - comes off as absolute histrionics.

I am not the topic of this thread.

Ralin, however, is defending a threat of genocide by Donald Trump because he's supposedly more anti-war than Obama. This fits a pattern of those I describe as faux progressives (my term for the kind of "anti-establishment" Leftist who will defend anything as long as its anti-America) defending Trump's foreign policy, or at least trying to downplay it as no worse than his predecessors. I drew my conclusions based on his own words, and I stand by them.

I will also point out that my again being called a racist and compared to Trump while Ralin is the one defending a threat of genocide from a notorious white supremacist as no big deal is an excellent example of the utter hypocrisy, dishonesty, and intellectual bankruptcy that has come to dominate the News and Politics section of this board.

[Ralin]

So mods, could we maybe not have every single thread where someone says something mildly positive about Trump turn into a multi-post screed about the fake progressives that TRR thinks have infested the forum? Please?

[The Romulan Republic]

Sure, if we could also not have every single thread where someone says something critical of Trump's foreign policy or a non-Western dictator turn into a pages-long screed of lies, ad hominems, character assassination, and appologetics for fascism.

Honestly, this thread can pretty much be summed up as:

1. I post on Trump's blatantly threatening comments toward Afghanistan, and their implications, while expressing my outrage over his rhetoric.

2. Ralin immediately opens by calling me a liar, downplays/excuses threats of genocide, and defends Trump as non-interventionist (outright saying "I'm with the president on this one", and tacitly equating opposition to the war with support for Trump).

3. I point out that his position is both racist and factually false, in a mocking and insulting tone (heavens forfend!).

4. He doubles down on defending threats of genocide and portraying Trump as non-interventionist, while calling me racist for not hating (insert change of topic here) more than Trump.

5. Loomer takes his side and compares me to Trump. Not the guy defending Trump and his threat of genocide. Nope. Just me.

This is what passes for political debate on this board today.

I'd regret for it to come to this, but if the mods concur that I am in the wrong and Ralin is in the right, I will quite willingly take a ban, as this board will no longer be a place where honest debate is welcome or possible, and in any case my reputation on this board has so thoroughly been poisoned that any argument I make seems likely to be dismissed simply because I am making it, as often as not.

[loomer]

It takes an enormous leap to assume I'm on Ralin's side, TRR, or that I'm actually comparing you to Trump, since my one post was actually critical of Ralin's belief in Trump as a non-interventionist and simply said that the hyperbole and histrionics is what people find Trumpish. I'm pointing to your posts here as part of why people in the Ecuadorean Embassy investigation thread are comparing your rhetorical style to his - nothing more.

[The Romulan Republic]

It takes an enormous leap to assume I'm on Ralin's side, TRR, or that I'm actually comparing you to Trump, since my one post was actually critical of Ralin's belief in Trump as a non-interventionist and simply said that the hyperbole and histrionics is what people find Trumpish. I'm pointing to your posts here as part of why people in the Ecuadorean Embassy investigation thread are comparing your rhetorical style to his - nothing more.

You're right, I should not have said that you were on his side. That was an overly-broad accusation which was not warranted by your posts in this thread. My apologies. Nonetheless, it was an accusation made in response to you doing what so many others have done- contributing to a derail of one of my threads by lecturing me on my tone or personality rather than discussing the actual topic of the thread. Something which I find offensive both because it puts me in the position of being constantly under personal attack (which makes me more likely to lash out at others over what would by themselves be minor disagreements), and because I REALLY SHOULDN'T BE THE TOPIC HERE. See, unlike Trump, I am not a raging narcissist, though I probably come off as one because every topic I post in ends up somehow being about me, no matter how much I wish it wouldn't. We're talking about a threat of genocide by the President of the United States against a nation of millions. Why the everlasting fuck is the focus of conversation some nerd working a minimum wage retail job? Perhaps because it makes a convenient distraction from the facts of the issue.

Also, given my views of Trump, comparing me to him his pretty obvious flame-bait. If I said "Your rhetorical style is like Hitler", would you take offense? I bloody well hope you would.

[loomer]

It takes an enormous leap to assume I'm on Ralin's side, TRR, or that I'm actually comparing you to Trump, since my one post was actually critical of Ralin's belief in Trump as a non-interventionist and simply said that the hyperbole and histrionics is what people find Trumpish. I'm pointing to your posts here as part of why people in the Ecuadorean Embassy investigation thread are comparing your rhetorical style to his - nothing more.

You're right, I should not have said that you were on his side. That was an overly-broad accusation which was not warranted by your posts in this thread. My apologies. Nonetheless, it was an accusation made in response to you doing what so many others have done- contributing to a derail of one of my threads by lecturing me on my tone or personality rather than discussing the actual topic of the thread. Something which I find offensive both because it puts me in the position of being constantly under personal attack (which makes me more likely to lash out at others over what would by themselves be minor disagreements), and because I REALLY SHOULDN'T BE THE TOPIC HERE. See, unlike Trump, I am not a raging narcissist, though I probably come off as one because every topic I post in ends up somehow being about me, no matter how much I wish it wouldn't. We're talking about a threat of genocide by the President of the United States against a nation of millions. Why the everlasting fuck is the focus of conversation some nerd working a minimum wage retail job? Perhaps because it makes a convenient distraction from the facts of the issue.

Also, given my views of Trump, comparing me to him his pretty obvious flame-bait.

The reason you're perpetually having to defend against it, TRR, is because your rhetorical style is incredibly full of hyperbole and histrionics. That's why I pointed to your post and how it's a huge escalation from what had been said. You are in fact starting these fights, and then being wounded when people rise to the challenge. If you want to keep it to the facts, keep it to the facts - it's an admirable goal, but it isn't one you're actually meeting, and it's why this keeps happening. I don't come here often enough to have a stake in this, either - we've had a couple of disagreements but I don't really have any ill will or particular memory of you, but I see this happening often and it's usually, as it is here, because you react to legitimate criticism of a position you advocate with extremely rapid escalation into things like yourself comparing people to Trumpers, being offended that you think (incorrectly) that people are calling you racist, and so forth.

I also, I must again labour to emphasize, did not compare you to Trump. I pointed out an example of why people find your rhetoric reminiscent of his - this does not compare you, as a person, to Trump in any way. It is not flame bait.

[The Romulan Republic]

It takes an enormous leap to assume I'm on Ralin's side, TRR, or that I'm actually comparing you to Trump, since my one post was actually critical of Ralin's belief in Trump as a non-interventionist and simply said that the hyperbole and histrionics is what people find Trumpish. I'm pointing to your posts here as part of why people in the Ecuadorean Embassy investigation thread are comparing your rhetorical style to his - nothing more.

You're right, I should not have said that you were on his side. That was an overly-broad accusation which was not warranted by your posts in this thread. My apologies. Nonetheless, it was an accusation made in response to you doing what so many others have done- contributing to a derail of one of my threads by lecturing me on my tone or personality rather than discussing the actual topic of the thread. Something which I find offensive both because it puts me in the position of being constantly under personal attack (which makes me more likely to lash out at others over what would by themselves be minor disagreements), and because I REALLY SHOULDN'T BE THE TOPIC HERE. See, unlike Trump, I am not a raging narcissist, though I probably come off as one because every topic I post in ends up somehow being about me, no matter how much I wish it wouldn't. We're talking about a threat of genocide by the President of the United States against a nation of millions. Why the everlasting fuck is the focus of conversation some nerd working a minimum wage retail job? Perhaps because it makes a convenient distraction from the facts of the issue.

Also, given my views of Trump, comparing me to him his pretty obvious flame-bait.

The reason you're perpetually having to defend against it, TRR, is because your rhetorical style is incredibly full of hyperbole and histrionics. That's why I pointed to your post and how it's a huge escalation from what had been said. You are in fact starting these fights, and then being wounded when people rise to the challenge. If you want to keep it to the facts, keep it to the facts - it's an admirable goal, but it isn't one you're actually meeting, and it's why this keeps happening. I don't come here often enough to have a stake in this, either - we've had a couple of disagreements but I don't really have any ill will or particular memory of you, but I see this happening often and it's usually, as it is here, because you react to legitimate criticism of a position you advocate with extremely rapid escalation into things like yourself comparing people to Trumpers, being offended that you think (incorrectly) that people are calling you racist, and so forth.

I also, I must again labour to emphasize, did not compare you to Trump. I pointed out an example of why people find your rhetoric reminiscent of his - this does not compare you, as a person, to Trump in any way. It is not flame bait.

1. The difference between my rhetorical style and Trump's is that a) my rhetoric is not focussed on self-agrandizement, b) I do not routinely shift my basic positions out of self-interest, c) I do not target people based on their race, gender, sex, religion, nationality, etc, and d) I have a vocabulary greater than that of the average fifth-grader. And frankly, I think that nitpicking my rhetorical style instead of the President's threat of genocide against a nation of millions is at best severely myopic.

2. Ralin did, in fact, call me a racist, in this thread and elsewhere.

What’s reprehensible and staggeringly racist is caring more about Trump’s dumb way of emphasizing that he’s totally committed to a peaceful resolution (‘because if I wasn’t I could so easily kill everyone’) then the nineteen goddamn year long war the US has inflicted on Afghanistan

Unless we're supposed to believe that wasn't directed at me, but was just a random insert referring to other people not participating in this thread?

3. Ralin made multiple false allegations against me, including calling me a liar in the very first line of his very first post (before I had a chance to "escalate" anything), and claiming that I "hate the idea of (Trump) cozying up to dictators (read: engaging in diplomacy)", implying that I was opposed to any diplomacy with dictators. Neither of these allegations is true.

4. While I will acknowledge that I have sometimes jumped to conclusions, and that the responsibility for that is on me, I do not agree that I was mis-reacting to "legitimate criticism" here. Ralin's arguments are not legitimate, and he has made no more than a token effort to defend them by any means other than smearing me. His defense of Trump's threats is deplorable (and yes, in my opinion, racist), and his characterization of Trump as anti-war and anti-intervention, and of merely negotiating with (as opposed to pandering to) dictators, is factually false on multiple counts. I will note that I posted no less than six examples of Trump's militarism, not one of which Ralin or anyone else has made the slightest effort to refute, preferring instead to focus on discussing my tone and personality, again.

I am not blameless, but the blame is not all on me here. The focus, however, is- to the detriment of the thread and the forum. It is very clear to me that Ralin is debating my character because he does not wish to, or cannot, debate my arguments.

[Broomstick]

Thread title is a lie. Stating that the US could wipe out Afghanistan's people is a factual statement. Stating that he has a plan to do so, probably less so, but given the context involves Trump repeatedly saying he doesn't want to do that calling it an extermination threat is dumb.

What Trump is talking about is nuking the place. Let's be frank about that. Yes, absolutely the US could bomb the place into glass.

It's not polite to mention it. It's on par with a thug walking into a small business and telling the owner "Nice place you have here... shame if something happened to it... would be terrible if it burned down..." none of which is a direct threat but it is threatening.

Absolutely the US military has a "plan" for that. They have a plan for an honest-to-god extraterrestrial invasion. The US military engages in absurd levels of planning and has for a long time. Let's just hope those plans can stay on the shelf.

Repeatedly saying "but I don't want to kill 10 million people" (which he did in the first couple minutes of the clip, which I didn't watch until the end) is thuggish behavior. "But I don't want to kill 10 million people" is on par with "the detention centers aren't as bad as Dachau". Taken literally it's true, but in context it's a lot more sinister than it first appears.

[The Romulan Republic]

Thread title is a lie. Stating that the US could wipe out Afghanistan's people is a factual statement. Stating that he has a plan to do so, probably less so, but given the context involves Trump repeatedly saying he doesn't want to do that calling it an extermination threat is dumb.

What Trump is talking about is nuking the place. Let's be frank about that. Yes, absolutely the US could bomb the place into glass.

It's not polite to mention it. It's on par with a thug walking into a small business and telling the owner "Nice place you have here... shame if something happened to it... would be terrible if it burned down..." none of which is a direct threat but it is threatening.

Absolutely the US military has a "plan" for that. They have a plan for an honest-to-god extraterrestrial invasion. The US military engages in absurd levels of planning and has for a long time. Let's just hope those plans can stay on the shelf.

Repeatedly saying "but I don't want to kill 10 million people" (which he did in the first couple minutes of the clip, which I didn't watch until the end) is thuggish behavior. "But I don't want to kill 10 million people" is on par with "the detention centers aren't as bad as Dachau". Taken literally it's true, but in context it's a lot more sinister than it first appears.

That is a very apt comparison, actually.

I remember when I read Comey's book, when he described watching the Trump team at work, he directly compared them to the Mafia he had dealt with in New York early in his career.

Trump is basically a mob boss on a grand scale.

[Ralin]

What Trump is talking about is nuking the place. Let's be frank about that. Yes, absolutely the US could bomb the place into glass.

It's not polite to mention it. It's on par with a thug walking into a small business and telling the owner "Nice place you have here... shame if something happened to it... would be terrible if it burned down..." none of which is a direct threat but it is threatening.
…
Repeatedly saying "but I don't want to kill 10 million people" (which he did in the first couple minutes of the clip, which I didn't watch until the end) is thuggish behavior. "But I don't want to kill 10 million people" is on par with "the detention centers aren't as bad as Dachau". Taken literally it's true, but in context it's a lot more sinister than it first appears.

Maybe it’s a perspective thing, but I personally felt the emphasis was “Of course I want a peaceful solution that doesn’t kill everyone, if I didn’t care about that I wouldn’t be going through all this bullshit when the violent way would be so much simpler.” Which may be dumb, but I don’t find terribly sinister. It’s not that different from Bush saying that the US didn’t have any ill will towards the Afghans in general and after all no one gives more aid to Afghanistan than we do (which is more or less a paraphrase from the speech I remember him giving shortly before or after invading).

I mean…who is he even supposed to be threatening? The Taliban to pack up shop and stop causing trouble or else? The Afghan government to get their shit together? Both?

Absolutely the US military has a "plan" for that. They have a plan for an honest-to-god extraterrestrial invasion. The US military engages in absurd levels of planning and has for a long time. Let's just hope those plans can stay on the shelf.

The military has a plan for it, sure. Trump knowing that plan or having asked about it is a lot more questionable, which was what I was getting at.

[Jub]

The thing TRR should have asked himself before posting is simple; is this threat by Trump credible? No, it's not credible, wiping out the Afghani people would weapons of mass destruction such nuclear weapons of which precisely zero have been used since 1945. This is just grandstanding with uncertain political aims as is much of what Trump says publicly but doesn't act on.

[The Romulan Republic]

The thing TRR should have asked himself before posting is simple; is this threat by Trump credible? No, it's not credible, wiping out the Afghani people would weapons of mass destruction such nuclear weapons of which precisely zero have been used since 1945. This is just grandstanding with uncertain political aims as is much of what Trump says publicly but doesn't act on.

I agree that it is highly unlikely that he will actually act on it. I said as much in my first reply to Ralin.

However, he doesn't need to actually push the proverbial button for the threat to have a serious impact. If a significant number of people think that there's even a chance that he might do it, it will still have the effect of creating further fear and hatred. If I, a white guy living in Canada, took it this seriously, I can't even imagine how it might feel to some Afghanis. Hell, I'd be shocked if the Taliban and Al Qaida don't run recruitment adds showing Trump threatening to wipe out Afghanistan.

And the fact that he even is willing to casually discuss exterminating a nation like this is appalling. It shows that the idea of genocide is one that he takes lightly. That in itself is utterly damning.

And before anyone says it, yes, I know Reagan once made a joke about bombing the Soviet Union. Reagan was a worthless (and probably starting to go senile before he left office) sack of shit too. You can decide for yourselves whether joking about bombing a rival nuclear power is better or worse than making a threat to exterminate a non-nuclear nation that would have no means of responding to such an attack, even via mutually assured destruction.

[Jub]

However, he doesn't need to actually push the proverbial button for the threat to have a serious impact. If a significant number of people think that there's even a chance that he might do it, it will still have the effect of creating further fear and hatred. If I, a white guy living in Canada, took it this seriously, I can't even imagine how it might feel to some Afghanis. Hell, I'd be shocked if the Taliban and Al Qaida don't run recruitment adds showing Trump threatening to wipe out Afghanistan.

Prove it, it shouldn't be hard to find an Afghani news source that shows their take on this.

And the fact that he even is willing to casually discuss exterminating a nation like this is appalling. It shows that the idea of genocide is one that he takes lightly. That in itself is utterly damning.

Making a callous statement and treating genocide likely aren't the same thing. Back off the hyperbole a bit.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not specifically an Afghani news source, but here's Al Jazeera reporting on the response from Kabul:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/ ... 52964.html

Afghanistan has said the United States should clarify comments by President Donald Trump, in which he said he could easily win the Afghan war by wiping out the country but did not "want to kill 10 million people".

Trump made the remarks on Monday at the White House, where he was hosting Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan.

"I have plans on Afghanistan that, if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the Earth. It would be gone," Trump told reporters. "It would be over in - literally, in 10 days. And I don't want to do, I don't want to go that route."

The comment drew a stiff response from Afghanistan's presidential palace, which has been excluded from talks between the US and the Taliban.

"The Afghan nation has not and will never allow any foreign power to determine its fate," it said in a statement on Tuesday.

"While the Afghan government supports the US efforts for ensuring peace in Afghanistan, the government underscores that foreign heads of state cannot determine Afghanistan's fate in absence of the Afghan leadership," it added, calling for clarification of Trump's statement.

During his comments in Washington, Trump said Pakistan was helping the US "extricate" itself from Afghanistan, where Washington was acting as a "policeman" rather than fighting a war.

Washington wants Islamabad to pressure the Taliban into a permanent ceasefire and participation in talks with the Afghan government.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the US special envoy for Afghanistan who travels to Kabul on Tuesday to continue meetings, said on Twitter that Trump had reiterated the need for a negotiated peace.

"There is no reasonable military solution to the war in Afghanistan, and that peace must be achieved through a political settlement," Khalilzad said.

More than 20,000 foreign troops, most of them American, are in Afghanistan as part of a US-led NATO mission to train, assist and advise Afghan forces. Some US forces carry out "counterterrorism" operations.

A record 3,804 Afghan civilians were killed last year due in part to stepped-up air attacks by US-led forces and an increased number of suicide bombings, the United Nations said in a February report.

Oh, and since there seems to be some debate over whether Trump is an anti-militarist, non-interventionist President as opposed to a war-mongering thug, I'd just like to draw attention to that last line specifically:

A record 3,804 Afghan civilians were killed last year due in part to stepped-up air attacks by US-led forces and an increased number of suicide bombings, the United Nations said in a February report.

[Jub]

Not specifically an Afghani news source, but here's Al Jazeera reporting on the response from Kabul:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/ ... 52964.html

That makes it so clear that everybody over there must be angry, afraid, or both... Oh, wait, no it doesn't. It basically shows the Afghanis are taking this with as little seriousness as it deserves.

[Vendetta]

Thread title is a lie. Stating that the US could wipe out Afghanistan's people is a factual statement. Stating that he has a plan to do so, probably less so, but given the context involves Trump repeatedly saying he doesn't want to do that calling it an extermination threat is dumb.

The fact that it's a threat from a thuggish imbecile trying to sound like a hard man doesn't make it not a threat.

[Lonestar]

To return to the subject at hand

that was 100% him channelling a Shep thread

[Broomstick]

And before anyone says it, yes, I know Reagan once made a joke about bombing the Soviet Union.

One difference: Reagan make that "joke" in front of a microphone he though was inactive. Trump made it during a broadcast interview. Reagan intended his comment to be a private joke (albeit a really stupid one in poor taste). Trump intended his comment to be heard by everyone in the world.

Whether or not that makes a difference is up to the listener.