Cool that's a nice workaround of the Geneva conventions - any threat you make while negotiations are underway is actually a negotiation strategy! The law tends not to be friendly to such workarounds in my experience, especially if it's trivially easy to enact ("be in negotiations"). Or perhaps you can help me understand what distinguishes this situation in the way you suggest.

▲

JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> any threat you make while negotiations are underway is actually a negotiation strategy

No, I'm saying there is no evidence the threat was made "to spread terror among the civilian population." If the threshold is just any act of war, which naturally causes some amount of terror among civilians, then the rule is meaningless. Whether it's done during negotiations is irrelevant.

I don't have a crystal ball into Trump and Hegseth's minds. But I don't get the sense the threats were aimed at the civilian population. Instead, they were aimed at leadership.

	▲	itsmek 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ah. Didn't he threaten to destroy every power plant and bridge in the country? Do you not find this threat credible? I think the US military is capable of it and obviously that's a threat against the lives of civilians. But it's not a war crime if it's "aimed" at the leaders or because Trump generally bloviates something like that? Any explanation I come up with is exactly the kind of legal workaround I'm talking about. "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will," > "just any act of war, which naturally causes some amount of terror among civilians" I think we just may be working with totally different perspectives on this since I'm struggling to see this the same way as you.