THE DEPUTY SPORTS MINISTER….THATS WHO !!<\/p>\n
JEFF CHILDERS<\/p>\n
The New York Times escalated its Iran support yesterday, in a treasonous story headlined, \u201cTrump Revels in Threats to Commit War Crimes in Iran.\u201d Exactly what the mullahs have been saying! But \u2026 what war crimes? Or are they saying he\u2019s just threatening to? And does the Times even know what \u201crevels\u201d means? One thing is true; it was all pretty surreal.<\/p>\n
The Times was definitely not reveling after reading a short but provocative Easter post from Trump directed at the Iranians. In three sentences, he dropped an F-bomb, called the mullahs \u201ccrazy bastards,\u201d and most controversially, mockingly ended with \u201cPraise be to Allah!\u201d\u2014 on Easter. It was shocking, blasphemous in two religions, and painful to read, which is exactly what was intended.<\/p>\n
But, rather than whine about presidential decorum, social media age restrictions, or worst of all, delve into why it might offend anyone, the Times complained about Trump\u2019s threatened targets: power plants and bridges. \u201cTheir destruction by American and Israeli forces would in most cases be considered a war crime under international law,\u201d the Times sagely opined.<\/p>\n
In most cases! Not always, I guess. But as we\u2019ll see, the words \u201cin most cases\u201d were doing a lot of work.<\/p>\n
In 2015, Obama\u2019s Pentagon updated the Department of Defense\u2019s Law of War Manual. Revised Section 5.6.8.5 said:<\/p>\n
Electric power stations are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a State\u2019s capacity to meet its wartime needs of communication, transport, and industry so as usually to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts.<\/p>\n
The section was revised three more times: in 2016 (Obama), and in 2023 and 2024 (Biden). Trump\u2019s DoD hasn\u2019t touched it. It says the exact opposite of the Times\u2019s loopy pronouncement.<\/p>\n
How quickly the Times forgets. In 1991\u2019s Operation Desert Storm, George Bush\u2019s military coalition bombed Iraq\u2019s entire electrical grid on Night One. Power plants were designated as priority targets. But there were zero war crimes charges against Bush or any coalition partner nation. There weren\u2019t even any \u201crevels in war crimes\u201d headlines in the New York Times.<\/p>\n
In Kosovo in 1999, under Clinton, NATO systematically bombed Serbia\u2019s power grid. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia investigated and declined to prosecute: No war crimes! Clinton got a nice library. In Libya in 2011, Obama and NATO bombed tons of infrastructure. Obama never got Congressional authorization for that one. And that time, the NYT editorial board wildly applauded, like a ward full of drooling mental patients at snack time.<\/p>\n
Even though under Obama\u2019s rules of war, power stations and infrastructure \u201cusually qualify\u201d as valid military objectives, the Times nevertheless quoted outraged Yale law professor Oona \u201cLoompa\u201d Hathaway (if that is their real name), who is a notorious Trump Derangement evangelist. Professor Oona Hathaway said, \u201cIt\u2019s so clearly unlawful and deeply misguided.\u201d Hathaway was baffled by all the war-criming going on: \u201cIt\u2019s hard to fathom how much the rules have been completely thrown out,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n
Later, the story paraphrased Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer and now full-time Trump critic, who unhelpfully said: \u201ccivilian sites can be considered legal targets if they are used by a military.\u201d (The story didn\u2019t use quote marks, which means Finucane\u2019s actual quote was even less helpful.) That one sentence from a critical source seemed to undermine the entire story. So the Times immediately pivoted to Pete Hegseth.<\/p>\n
\u201cMr. Hegseth, however, has fired and reassigned military lawyers,\u201d the story said, and \u201chas talked endlessly about increasing \u2018lethality.\u2019\u201d Endlessly? Whatever. In other words, the story tried to suggest in a cowardly way that there\u2019s some BlueAnon conspiracy to hide all the war crimes. But then the Times found its quote marks. Mr. Finucane added, \u201cIt is very disturbing because we don\u2019t know to what degree this rhetoric will translate to illegality.\u201d<\/p>\n
There it was. Finally, late in the story, the Times revealed its whole vile premise: progressives are \u201cworried\u201d President Trump\u2019s rhetoric might \u201ctranslate\u201d into war crimes. In the future. Even that premise was a lie. If you believe leftists \u2018worry\u2019 about war crimes, I\u2019d like to sell you an Everglades wildlife retreat. The truth is, they are praying for a war crimes miracle.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s your media reading lesson: Every \u2018expert\u2019 the Times picked to judge Trump\u2019s Iran policy was already on record as branding him lawless. That\u2019s who the paper presented as the voices of \u2018neutral\u2019 legal authority. The story erased the experts from Trump\u2019s side. It didn\u2019t even admit they exist. The Times used to be able to get away with it, because it was too hard to track down who all these crazy people are.<\/p>\n
But now, we have AI. So they won\u2019t get away with it for much longer.<\/p>\n
The Times invested a whole article predicting Trump\u2019s future war crimes, which is an implied admission he hasn\u2019t done any war crimes yet. But how about Iran? Does the Times ever turn its gimlet war-lawyer\u2019s eye toward the terrorist regime? Even a little?<\/p>\n
? Apparently not. The Times was completely mute about Iran\u2019s plan to defend its bridges. Yesterday, Reuters reported, \u201cIran\u2019s deputy sports minister, Alireza Rahimi, has called on artists and athletes to form human chains at power plants across the country on Tuesday.\u201d The deputy sports minister \u2014that\u2019s how far down the chain of command they are now\u2014 explained, \u201cWe will stand hand in hand to say: Attacking public infrastructure is a war crime.\u201d<\/p>\n
Um. You know what definitely is a war crime? Using human shields. Human shields are a war crime under the Geneva Convention, the Additional Protocols, and the Rome Statute. So.<\/p>\n
The good news is nobody has reported any Iranian volleyball or soccer players lining up on bridges. And if the deputy sports minister \u2014not the regular sports minister, but his assistant\u2014 is now calling the shots \u2026 well, Iran is running out of options. You serious, Clark? That should have been the story.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
THE DEPUTY SPORTS MINISTER….THATS WHO !! JEFF CHILDERS The New York Times escalated its Iran support yesterday, in a treasonous story headlined, \u201cTrump Revels in Threats to Commit War Crimes in Iran.\u201d Exactly what the mullahs have been saying! But … Continue reading