Trump Warns That The U.S. May Hit 52 Iranian Sites Including Cultural Sites

President Donald Trump is often incautious in his language when speaking on the international stage. Words matter in diplomacy which often reflect important distinctions of international law. President Trump’s latest tweet is an example of this pattern. In pledging to strike back “very fast and very hard” to any Iranian retaliation for the killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, Trump included striking Iranian cultural sites. Under international law, the targeting of cultural targets is viewed as a war crime. The U.S. military has a long history of avoiding such targets.

Trump tweeted:

“Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have 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 President could fairly argue that he was referencing to legitimate military targets that also have cultural value. However, with a possible war imminent, it is even more important for the President to take care in the language that we use to justify any response to Iran.

Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions it is prohibited to “commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples…to use such objects in support of the military effort…[and] to make such objects the object of reprisals.”

The Hague IV requires:

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It further states:

Art. 56. The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

All seizure of, destruction or willful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.

Other international resolutions and agreements amplify this long-standing principle. In 2017, the United Nations condemned in resolution 2347 “the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage, including the destruction of religious sites and artefacts, and the looting and smuggling of cultural property from archaeological sites, museums, libraries, archives, and other sites, notably by terrorist groups.”

The targeting of cultural sites would violate not just international but American values. Indeed, in World War II under the Truman Administration, the U.S. decided not to bomb Kyoto (made at the urging of Secretary of War Henry Stimson) due to its historic and religious significance.

This is why such statements by the President can be damaging to our effort to build a coalition to face any Iranian retaliation. I was hoping that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo would clarify this point on CBS Face the Nation but the issue of threatening cultural sites did not come up. Jake Tapper raised it on CNN with Pompeo, but Pompeo seemed to brush it aside. It should be clarified by the Administration as we head into a highly dangerous period with Iran.

133 thoughts on “Trump Warns That The U.S. May Hit 52 Iranian Sites Including Cultural Sites”

  1. I do not disagree with the legit strike on Sulemani.

    However, I do not think cultural sites should be targeted. That is a foolish choice and even more foolish statement.

    Now, with respect to the Professor, the US ABSOLUTELY DID TARGET GERMAN CULTURAL SITES IN WW II.

    Dresden for starters

    moreover, Nagasaki was a secondary target, Kokura was the first, they couldn’t deliver the package there, and they went on to Nagasaki a secondary target. I don’t know why it was on the list at all, seems like a poor choice to me, in retrospect. .
    one thing most folks may not know is that the small population of Christians in Japan, was mostly right there in that city

    1. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps placed 300 centrifuges for enriching fuel-grade uranium to weapons-grade uranium next door to the Shiite holy city of Qom.

      The Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Properties specifically covers cases like this:

      “Article 10. Identification and control

      During an armed conflict, cultural property under special protection shall be marked with the distinctive emblem described in Article 16, and shall be open to international control as provided for in the Regulations for the execution of the Convention.

      Article 11. Withdrawal of immunity

      1. If one of the High Contracting Parties commits, in respect of any item of cultural property under special protection, a violation of the obligations under Article 9, the opposing Party shall, so long as this violation persists, be released from the obligation to ensure the immunity of the property concerned. Nevertheless, whenever possible, the latter Party shall first request the cessation of such violation within a reasonable time.

      2. Apart from the case provided for in paragraph 1 of the present Article, immunity shall be withdrawn from cultural property under special protection only in exceptional cases of unavoidable military necessity, and only for such time as that necessity continues. Such necessity can be established only by the officer commanding a force the equivalent of a division in size or larger. Whenever circumstances permit, the opposing Party shall be notified, a reasonable time in advance, of the decision to withdraw immunity”

      In this context, it seems the President has dotted his I’s and crossed his t’s.

      1. Erratum: According to an article in the Allgemeiner,

        “A top official of Iran’s nuclear program has said that activity at the Tehran regime’s uranium enrichment facility at Fordow will be resumed if Iran withdraws from the JCPOA – the technical name for the July 2015 nuclear deal reached with the US and five other powers.

        In remarks on Saturday quoted by the regime-backed Mehr news agency, Behrouz Kalmavandi – deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) – said that were Iran to exit the deal, “we have plans for this site.”

        The Fordow facility’s existence, constructed as part of Project Amad, Iran’s clandestine effort to assemble nuclear weapons, was first revealed by satellite imagery in 2o09. The facility – designed to accommodate more than 3,000 centrifuges – is located at an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) base near the Shia Muslim holy city of Qom. In testimony on June 6 to the House Subcommittee on National Security, David Albright, head of the Institute for Science and International Security, said that the facility was “likely designed to make weapon-grade uranium from low enriched uranium”


        You don’t place 3,000 centrifuges for making weapons-grade uranium next to a holy site unless you’re gaming the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultiral Propertied in a way specifically prohibited by that treaty. In this case, the President has given the Iranians due notice of their violation of the treaty in a way that legally allows the treaty’s protection from military action to be withdrawn.

        Sorry, Iran, this is on you guys, and you knew it form the start. That treaty entered force in 1954, you can’t claim that you didn’t know it prohibited you from using your holy cites to shield militarily significant facilities.

    2. Nuclear historians agree that Nagasaki was a permitted military target due to the presence of military facilities around the city, but more importantly, hadn’t been firebombed as larger military targets in Japan had been. It was a military target useful to the Los Alamos scientists in gauging the effects of their weapons (a sobering thought and not one that makes me feel any better about those deaths).

      The deaths wouldn’t have been less tragic than if they hadn’t included the major center of Japan’s Christian population. Tragic, costly decisions were being made constatntly at that time. Curtis LeMay’s bomber force was trying to create firestorms with conventional bomb strikes with similar death tolls, while the Japanese were preparing to defend their home islands with suicidal employment of civilians as well as their remaining military forces.

      It took annihilation of two cities by single American bombers dropping single bombs (in his surrender, Emperor Hirohito called them “cruel weapons”) to help drive the futility of Japan’s situation home to them and give them a face-saving way out of the Pacific War.

    1. i suspect they choose to locate such targets close to places like Qom simply because they hope the cultural sites will be hit, and thus to enrage other muslims, etc. this is typical partisan thinking and strategy and the Quds are nothing if not successful partisans

      1. Qom is Iran’s 7th largest metropolis and the 5th largest city among those with a Persian majority. It’s densely settled area makes it a burg about as populous as greater Pittsburgh or greater Cincinnati. I’m wagering the ‘holy city’ is a small fraction of the whole. The Old City of Jerusalem, to take one example, encompasses about 0.75% of the land area of greater Jerusalem and perhaps 3% of its population.

        1. Not sure what you’re getting at here. Are you arguing that airstrikes on the Fordow weapons-grade uranium enrichment facility to take it out of military utility for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps exert “double-effect” because Fordow’s a suburb of Qom?

          Ordinarily, “double effect” is just as prohibited as “disproportionate damage” or “damage to cultural properties”, but in this case, the metropolis didn’t grow up around the enrichment facilitiy (as, say, the modern metropolitan areas around Los Alamos or Oak Ridge did). The IRGC purposely selected a holy site to enrich weapons-grade uranium near. The relevant treaties need to be studied further, but at first glance don’t provide the protection under the Law of Armed Conflict that Iran seems to think they do.

  2. it is prohibited to “commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples…to use such objects in support of the military effort…[

    So if Iran places anti-aircraft installations next to or inside of cultural or religious sites they’re off limits? I don’t think so.

  3. it is prohibited ”

    …to use such objects in support of the military effort…[

  4. Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the earth for many years. That includes Jewish cultural sites.

    1. You have alienated everyone and yet you lecture someone way above your paygrade who is President of the USA?


      1. “You have alienated everyone…”

        Not true. You’re just one person and there aren’t that many people who post here on a regular basis.

        “…you lecture someone way above your paygrade who is President of the USA?”

        He’s simply expressing his opinion which he has every right to do.

  5. Back in October 2017, Alan Dershowitz made the following observation:

    There are those that argue that by decertifying, President Trump has undercut American credibility and sent a message to the world that it can’t count on one American president following through on deals made by his predecessor. But the fault for that lies squarely with President Obama who refused not only to make his deal a binding treaty, but also to seek any congressional approval, both of which would have assured greater continuity. He knew when he signed the deal that it could be undone by any future president.

    Isn’t that rich. Dictator Obama pulled an order out of his ass without Congressional approval.


    The Hill

    Iran is violating the deal

    Iran is not only violating the spirit of the no-nukes deal, it is violating its letter. The prologue to the deal explicitly states: “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” This reaffirmation has no sunset provision: it is supposed to be forever.

    Yet the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently stated that it could not verify that Iran was “fully implementing the agreement” by not engaging in activities that would allow it to make a nuclear explosive device. Yukiya Amano of the IAEA told Reuters that when it comes to inspections, which are stipulated in Section T of the agreement, “our tools are limited.” Amano continued to say: “In other sections, for example, Iran has committed to submit declarations, place their activities under safeguards or ensure access by us. But in Section T, I don’t see any (such commitment).”

    It is well established that Tehran has consistently denied IAEA inspectors access to military sites and other research locations. This is in direct contravention to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and bipartisan legislation set out by Congress, which compels the president to verify that “Iran is transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement.” Yet, according to the Institute for Science and International Security, as of the last quarterly report released in August, the IAEA had not visited any military site in Iran since implementation day.

    For its part, the IAEA has been complicit in allowing Tehran to circumvent the agreement and act as a law unto itself. Consider that after the deal was negotiated with the five permanent U.N. Security Council members, it was revealed that Tehran and the IAEA had entered into a secret agreement which allowed the Iranian regime to carry out its own nuclear trace testing at the Parchin complex, a site long suspected of being a nuclear testing ground, and would report back to the IAEA with “selective” videos and photos. This arrangement, which went behind the back of Congress, is especially suspect when considered in light of the Iranian regime’s history of duplicity.

    To be sure, revelations about Iran testing the boundaries of the JCPOA and crossing the line into violation are not new. While many of these violations have not been disclosed by the previous U.S. administration, or by the IAEA, there is a myriad of information and analysis suggesting that Iran has previously failed to comply with several provisions of the JCPOA. It has twice been revealed that Iran exceeded the cap on heavy water mandated by the agreement, and has also refused to allow testing of its carbon fiber acquired before the deal was implemented. Moreover, it has also been reported that Tehran has found new ways to conduct additional mechanical testing of centrifuges, in clear violation of the JCPOA.

    These violations are not surprising when considering Iran’s belligerent posture in the Middle East. Iran continues to exploit the instability in the region to prop up and fund terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, whose chants of “death to Israel” are now also accompanied by vows of “death to America.” For its part, the Iranian-funded Hezbollah has an estimated 100,000 missiles aimed directly at Israel. As such, it is clear that rather than combating Iran’s threatening posture, the influx of money thrust into the Iranian economy, coupled with ambiguities in the text of the agreement, have had the reverse effect of emboldening the Iranian regime and fortifying its hegemonic ambitions. Iran also continues to test its vast ballistic missile program and deny its own people fundamental human rights.

    Yet, even if Iran were to comply with the letter of the nuclear agreement, it would still be able to build up a vast nuclear arsenal within a relatively short timeframe. The approach adopted by the Trump administration, articulated in a statement delivered by the president several days ago, is justified by the realities on the ground. By announcing that he is decertifying Iran’s compliance with the nuclear agreement, President Trump is giving Congress 60 days to act. Not only is President Trump giving the United States back some of its leverage, but he is also sending a powerful message to the rogue leaders in Iran and North Korea, who are believed to have cooperated on missile technology, that the era of containment and deterrence policies is over. The United States is returning to its original mission of prevention.

    Interestingly, in the aftermath of President Trump’s address, the Saudi Press Agency reported that King Salman called the U.S. president to offer his support for America’s more “firm strategy” and commitment to fighting “Iran’s aggressive activities.” Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, offered similar praise for the new U.S. posture, saying in a statement that President Trump “has created an opportunity to fix this bad deal, to roll back Iran’s aggression and to confront its criminal support of terrorism.” It is no secret that these two previously discordant states are now cooperating in unprecedented ways as they try to counter the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. When Israel and the Gulf States are on the same page, the world should listen.

    There are those that argue that by decertifying, President Trump has undercut American credibility and sent a message to the world that it can’t count on one American president following through on deals made by his predecessor. But the fault for that lies squarely with President Obama who refused not only to make his deal a binding treaty, but also to seek any congressional approval, both of which would have assured greater continuity. He knew when he signed the deal that it could be undone by any future president. The goal, of course, is not to undo the deal but rather to undo its sunset provision and to make Iran keep the commitment it made in the prologue: Never obtain “any nuclear weapons.”

  6. The Democrats and Iran

    Joe Lieberman
    Jan. 5, 2020 5:15 pm ET

    President Trump’s order to take out Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct. It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats.

    The president’s decision was bold and unconventional. It’s understandable that the political class should have questions about it. But it isn’t understandable that all the questions are being raised by Democrats and all the praise is coming from Republicans. That divided response suggests the partisanship that has infected and disabled so much of U.S. domestic policy now also determines our elected leaders’ responses to major foreign-policy events and national-security issues, even the killing of a man responsible for murdering hundreds of Americans and planning to kill thousands more.

    After World War II, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, a Michigan Republican who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, formed a bipartisan partnership with President Truman that helped secure the postwar peace and greatly strengthened America’s position in the Cold War. “Politics stops at the water’s edge,” said Vandenberg when asked why he worked so closely with a Democratic president. He added that his fellow Americans undoubtedly had “earnest, honest, even vehement” differences of opinion on foreign policy, but if “we can keep partisan politics out of foreign affairs, it is entirely obvious that we shall speak with infinitely greater authority abroad.”

    In their uniformly skeptical or negative reactions to Soleimani’s death, Democrats are falling well below Vandenberg’s standard and, I fear, creating the risk that the U.S. will be seen as acting and speaking with less authority abroad at this important time.

    No American can dispute that Soleimani created, supported and directed a network of terrorist organizations that spread havoc in the Middle East. In Syria he made it possible for the Assad regime to respond with brutality to its own people’s demands for freedom. More than 500,000 Syrians have died since 2011 and millions more have been displaced from their homes.

    During the Iraq war, Soleimani oversaw three camps in Iran where his elite Quds Force trained and equipped Iraqi militias. According to the U.S. government, these fighters have killed more than 600 American soldiers since 2003. In another time, this would have been a just cause for an American war against Iran, and certainly for trying to eliminate Soleimani. Within Iran, the Quds Force has worked with the supreme leader to suppress freedom and economic opportunity, jail dissident politicians and journalists, and kill protesters in the streets.
    From the perspective of American values and interests, it’s impossible to mourn the death of such a man, and Democrats haven’t. Their response thus far has been “Yes, but . . .,” adding worries that Soleimani’s death will provoke a violent response from Iran. Democrats have also suggested that the Trump administration has no coherent strategy toward Iran or that Mr. Trump shouldn’t have acted without notice to and permission from Congress.

    Yet if we allow fear of a self-declared enemy like Iran to dictate our actions, we will only encourage them to come after us and our allies more aggressively. Some Democrats have said that killing Soleimani will lead us into war with Iran. In fact, Soleimani and the Quds Force have been at war with the U.S. for years. It is more likely that his death will diminish the chances of a wider conflict because the demonstration of our willingness to kill him will give Iranian leaders (and probably others like Kim Jong Un) much to fear.

    Some Democrats have also refused to appreciate Soleimani’s elimination because they say it isn’t part of an overall strategy for the region. But based on the public record, there is a strategy, beginning with the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement, the shift to maximum economic pressure, and now adding a demonstrated willingness to respond with military force to Iran’s provocations. The goal is to bring the Iranian government back into negotiations to end its nuclear weapons program and rejoin the world’s economy.

    The claim by some Democrats that Mr. Trump had no authority to order this attack without congressional approval is constitutionally untenable and practically senseless. Authority to act quickly to eliminate a threat to the U.S. is inherent in the powers granted to the president by the Constitution. It defies common sense to argue that the president must notify Congress or begin a formal process of authorization before acting on an imminent threat.

    On many occasions President Obama sensibly ordered drone strikes on dangerous terrorist leaders, including U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki. He did so without specific congressional authorization, and without significant Democratic opposition. Mr. Obama also “brought justice” to Osama bin Laden without prior, explicit congressional approval.

    It is possible that anti-Trump partisanship isn’t behind Democrats’ reluctance to say they’re glad Soleimani is dead. It may be that today’s Democratic Party simply doesn’t believe in the use of force against America’s enemies in the world. I don’t believe that is true, but episodes like this one may lead many Americans to wonder whether it is. If enough voters decide that Democrats can’t be trusted to keep America safe, Mr. Trump won’t have much trouble winning a second term in November. That’s one more reason Democrats should leave partisan politics at “the water’s edge” and, whatever their opinion of President Trump on other matters, stand together against Iran and dangerous leaders like Qasem Soleimani.

    1. “Their response thus far has been “Yes, but . . .,” adding worries that Soleimani’s death will provoke a violent response from Iran. Democrats have also suggested that the Trump administration has no coherent strategy toward Iran or that Mr. Trump shouldn’t have acted without notice to and permission from Congress.”
      Are all Dims emasculated beta males or pearl clutching ninnies?

      1. Beta males? Pfft!
        Gender neutral.

        Best line in Joe Lieberman’s piece:

        If enough voters decide that Democrats can’t be trusted to keep America safe, Mr. Trump won’t have much trouble winning a second term in November.

  7. Here’s betting every spare Iranian rocket, tank and artillery gun is sitting under some minaret in Tehran. War is Hell. It’s supposed to be lest we fall in love with it. I’d recognize the Geneva Convention niceties when the Muslims do.

        1. By placing a weapons-grade uranium enrichment plant close to Qom, which is both a major Iranian metropolis and a holy city, Iran has, by every treaty which is cited in the Law of Armed Conflict, created an exception under which that site can be legally bombed after Iran has been notified (as the President tacitly did) that they, and not the US, are in substantial violation of the treaties protecting cultural sites and population centers.

  8. Maybe if Pelosi actually felt an obligation to do her job, she would exert her leadership and begin working to repeal the antiquated use of force resolutions that will soon be 20 years old.

    Anybody who thinks the Founders would approve of multi-decade war resolutions, excuse me use of force resolutions, has a couple of screws loose.

    But she’s too busy focusing on impeachment over a Trump phone call to be bothered with that.

    1. Thanks for the linked article. Repeal of the AUMF is long overdue. Pelosi should act.

  9. So now there’s this:

    US citizens do you want a murderous govt. who commits war crimes. If you greenlight this, blood of innocents is on your hands. No notification to Congress and disproportionate response.

    How about Trump get our troops out of Iraq right now so they can be safe? Oh, he won’t because the Green Zone is a big weapons and drug transport hub for war contractors. What are the lives of our children and other people compared to all the money being laundered/moved through there? Nothing.

    1. It’s a war, Jill. People die — some innocent some not. The jihadists declared this war on the West. We’ll win it like we do every war: by whatever means we need to employ. If that means blowing up every mosque turned arms depot from here to Tehran, that’s what we’ll do. The diplomats will tut-tut and fret about but they know deep down it’s pointless. The fundamental right is, has been and always will be self-defense. Everything else springs from that font. You have to pick a side in a war. Tell us your pick.

  10. “The Human Cost of War on Iran”


    Since the post-9/11 launch of U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the corporate-controlled mainstream media has been remarkably successful at keeping the realities of war away from the TV screens. News executives have heeded the complaints of war hawks complaining about “unpatriotic” coverage of war and have clamped down tightly on images that might turn public opinion against war.

    Until recently, this censorship of war casualties included a prohibition on the broadcasting of images of military coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base. Ignoring the grim realities of war also has allowed for its glamorization through television programs such as “Stars Earn Stripes.”

    The absence of pro-peace voices in the mainstream media also has contributed to isolating Americans from the realities of war, stoking irrational fears, and contributing to the dehumanization of the victims of war as the faceless “Other.”

    The value of compassion for our fellow humans is often portrayed as weakness in mainstream media discourse – a development that must give immense satisfaction to Podhoretz and others of his ilk who railed against the “sickly inhibitions” against violence that infected Americans after the Vietnam War.

    As the stakes rise for U.S. involvement in a reckless and ill-advised Israeli military adventure against Iran, let us not forget that those who advocate such wars are almost always comfortably ensconced in locations and lifestyles that ensure they will never have to see a battlefield, a mangled corpse, or a deformed child in their lifetime.

    Elizabeth Murray served as Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East in the National Intelligence Council before retiring after a 27-year career in the U.S. government, where she specialized in Middle Eastern political and media analysis. She is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

    1. “let us not forget that those who advocate such wars are almost always comfortably ensconced in locations and lifestyles that ensure they will never have to see a battlefield, a mangled corpse, or a deformed child in their lifetime.”</blockquote

      My younger son went to Iraq during the Surge, and in his second month in-country died with seven other servicemen when their armored fighting vehicle was blasted by three 152mm artillery shells buried in the road as an IED, 15 years ago today. When we buried him, we discovered his face hadn’t survived the explosion of ammunition inside the vehicle. He was but one victim of the terror offensive against American and Iraqi Army troops sponsored by Iran’s Quds Force.

      This isn’t “an Israeli military offensive aganist Iran”. It’s Iran being held responsible for the deaths and mutilations they’ve sponsored in the Middle East for decades. Its outcome is largely determined by whether they persist in sponsoring attacks against us and our allies in the area.

  11. Under international law is one thing and the validity stops at our borders. If it’s a form of a treaty agreement it needs Senate Approval ond a Presidential Signature. Furthermore by our law only the Congress is responsible, in fact required to provide regulations to the military Congress does not include any organization foreign to our nation. Thus any quotes to the contrary should list the required linkage, the source and a number of other common items that have to be approved ‘in’ our country. Simply saying ‘the word court says’ means exactly nothing.

    In fact the key item is the legal requirement provided directly to our soldiers now as they were provided to me and others when we served.

    And I just finished a number of books about WWI and WWII where churches were used for artillery spotters, snipers or machine gun nests in Europe. Building abandoned some were used by enemy units to act as storage sites for ammunition bunkers.

    One cannot trip over the light fantastic even by mentioning in quick passing the name of a regulation without providing the exact location and title of the appropriate passage.

    Case in point is quoting the Decaraton of Indpendence or the introductory lines to The Constitution as if they were law instead of a ‘mission statement’ Especially when our congress has the deserved reputation of fobbing off their responsibilities on others.

    As active combatants we routinely were given Rules of Engagement with explanations if needed or requested and Status of Forces Agreements.

    The military never made that up for themselves though they may have had some input.

    There is no reason why the Congress didn’t do it’s job it didn’t mean open season except for self defense or the protection of others

    Now continue the discussion if you have served and if not treat it as the lecture portion with discussion to follow.

  12. Is it better to play fair or to win against barbaric, ruthless, direct and mortal enemies?

    Did the Pakistanis obey “international law” when they decapitated Daniel Pearl?

    Did ISIS obey the Geneva Conventions when it burned that Jordanian pilot in a cage?

    Is it fair for Iran to export terrorism?

    Did Harry Truman destroy any cultural sites in Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

    Harry Truman ended the war.

  13. As our troops wear a uniform and as they are in a war zone, I assume you’re referring to them.

  14. Anyone wearing a uniform is fair game as a target in a war. Any building used to house or protect those who wear a uniform shoulld be the same except it’s been a practice but not by regulation but now they are shooting up other countries religious facilities…’s MOAB time.

    1. As our troops wear a uniform and as they are in a war zone, I assume you’re referring to them.

Comments are closed.