Hacker News Reader

Comment by kbhn | Hacker News Reader

> Who has Trump committed genocide on?

Genocidal doesn't necessarily mean he's committed genocide; it means that he's prone to (and to some extent, fascinated by) mass acts of killing. The tweets about promising fire and fury on an entire nation of people (North Korea), telling Fox that we need to kill the terrorist families as well, etc. He gets off feeling like he's the most powerful man in the world.

He's a strongman, whose solutions often involve labeling entire categories of people as bad/evil (Muslims, Mexicans, the media). If you haven't noticed this you're either not paying attention or willfully ignorant.

View on HN

Genocidal means a proclivity to commit genocide. I believe you have do it once before you can be called that, in all fairness.

Generally, threatening war (and generally even going to war) is not considered genocide.

>and to some extent, fascinated by

We don't call people murderers just because they like watching CSI Miami.

In fact, the person Trump was threatening with his "fire and fury" remarks legitimately IS genocidal and has ACTIVE CONCENTRATION CAMPS in his country. Yet you think it's more important to criticize Trump for entering into a war of words, rather than the dictator himself?

Threatening a country that is threatening us isn't exactly genocidal. Killing families of terrorists is deeply immoral and murderous - but it's also in keeping with current U.S. policy (see Anwar al-Awlaki - both Trump and Obama administrations have killed Awlaki's children). Terrorists aren't a race though, so wanting to kill them and their families isn't genocide.

Don't confuse yourself. It's not the millions of people El Cheeto would kill in a nuclear strike on DPRK that are threatening the US, it is effectively one trump-like individual in charge of DPRK that is threatening the US.

Government has consequences. That's why democracy is so important. This is especially true with regards to foreign policy. If a country threatens another such that the threatened country's only viable defense is to attack the civilians of the aggressor, that would be a totally legitimate tactic of war.

Taking out North Korea's nuclear capability while preventing a counter attack on South Korea will probably involve the deaths of many innocent North Koreans, since North Korean artillery is spread widely throughout the southern part of the country. That is tragic, and no small part of why we've allowed this madness to go on for so long. But at some point a people must protect their security, and do what must be done.

> That's why democracy is so important

Too bad there is not a true democracy in the US.

> Taking out North Korea's nuclear capability while preventing a counter attack on South Korea will probably involve the deaths of many innocent North Koreans,

How about we concentrate on their leadership, instead of 'spraying and praying'?

That's not so easy. Decapitating the regime, even if we could reliably kill all the key officials, does not necessarily prevent a lengthy barrage of artillery on South Korea.

The US has never had a true democracy, and this is by design.

And you wonder why your side keeps losing elections.

If you're curious, I am on the left.

I'm not confused on this point. The people of North Korea have devastatingly unfortunate circumstances, and the thought that, in addition to living such grim lives, they may have to die to ensure our safety - it's unfair beyond the power of words to describe.

And yet, if I had to choose between a million North Koreans, hundreds of thousands of South Koreans, and tens of thousands of American soldiers, dying in a pre-emptive war - versus all that plus a few million more Americans and North Koreans dying in a nuclear exchange... Well, it's an obvious choice.

North Korea is approaching the point of being able to achieve mutually assured destruction. They could build a cobalt bomb, or spend a decade building ICBMS, but relatively soon the problem will be intractable and we will play nuclear chicken with an unstable murderous dictatorial regime.

You're identifying things which make him an authoritarian, a strongman, and an idiot, but that still doesn't make him genocidal. That has a very specific meaning.

Saying someone is prone to genocide because they are xenophobic is a massive stretch.

You just describes every American president . Trump is a fool, but the witch hunt is ridiculous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com