Hinderaker , Mirengoff, Johnson And Otis Cannot Understand “What’s Wrong” With Tangerine 2.0’s “Pre-Confession” — To Genocide. Huh.

~ condor

This is tragic-comical — the boot-lickers can’t even tell… how preposterous their defense of the war crimes — and war criminal — has become.

First it was John Hinderaker, and then, Paul Mirengoff and Bill Otis, then most recently, Scott Johnson — each hoping, lustily, for Tangerine to bomb them back to the “Stone Age” — and/or to “wipe out their whole civilization”.

There are names for that conduct: genocide — and crimes against humanity. Violations of the Geneva Convention — and the laws of war.

But these idiots bemoan all right thinking people… for pointing out that this emperor not only has no clothes, but is also a raving genocidal maniac — on Adderall.

Or off it.

Damn. Out. See ‘ya tonight. TACO.

Unknown's avatar

Published by condor

3 thoughts on “Hinderaker , Mirengoff, Johnson And Otis Cannot Understand “What’s Wrong” With Tangerine 2.0’s “Pre-Confession” — To Genocide. Huh.”

  1. Hinderaker is such a disingenuous troll:

    And let’s not start on World War II. [Were] the fire bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, war crimes? Does the New York Times accuse Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower of war crimes? If not, why not?

    John already knows the answers to his own stupid questions, but he feigns smug ignorance to make a stupid point. As he well knows, our modern understanding of “war crimes” came about from the Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949, after the end of WWII. And yes, the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki would absolutely be considered war crimes by today’s standards.

    If John thinks we should withdraw from the Geneva Convention, he’s free to make that argument, and there’s a year-long process to do just that under Article 158. But John’s too cowardly to assert anything of the sort, so he pretends not to know what the Geneva Convention says, and assumes most of his readers won’t know the difference. (He’s actually right about that.)

    Like

    Reply

  2. Paul’s latest post is a monstrous disgrace. Exactly two months ago, Paul bemoaned Trump’s broken promise to Iranian protesters, resulting in a massive loss of life:

    I don’t think there’s any question that Trump’s statements helped fuel the protests. An indeterminate but probably large number of protesters joined the protests because they took Trump’s words literally and seriously. It’s safe to assume that some of them paid with their lives.

    …

    Once Trump told the protesters to keep it up, promised to help them, and effectively drew a “red line” around the killing of peaceful protesters, all of that changed. At that point, I believe Trump had an obligation to help the Iranian protesters. He did not.

    But today, Paul displays little regard for the fate of Iranian civilians caught in the crossfire of this war of choice:

    In the case of our war with Iran, again, we have no ownership of “the hopes, aspirations, and problems” of the Iranian people. There is an alignment between these hopes and aspirations and U.S. interests because complete overthrow of the regime would serve Iranian hopes/aspirations and our national interests.

    However, the cost to the U.S. of toppling the regime via invasion may be too high. If the administration so concludes, we violate no obligation to the Iranian people by leaving with the regime (or what’s left of it) intact.

    By all means, let’s destroy the infrastructure of another country, leaving its citizens to suffer and starve under a hobbled regime that clings to cruel power. What could possibly go wrong with that plan?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a reply to Rigby Maguire Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.