The very stable genius is volatile mad.
Again threatens further crimes against humanity, as part of the crimes against peace.

Hmm. Why "Fuckin’" not "Fucking"? Is "Fuckin'" not fucking swearing just as much?
Who are "you" here, is it the civilians whose life essential infrastructure you threaten to large-scale intentionally war crime devastate, or is it all of the world whose access to medicine, food, fuels, etc you personally have caused to be blocked?

"Trump says will destroy all Iran bridges, power plants in 'four hours' if no deal", which would be mass war crimes, crimes against humanity
AFP: https://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/world-news/922094/trump-says-will-destroy-all-iran-bridges-power-plants-in-39four-hours39-if-no-deal/en?src=rss&utm_source=TheWALL360&utm_medium=Rss-articles&utm_campaign=rss&utm_term=Rss

"Trump says he is not concerned 'at all' that his threat to bomb Iranian infrastructure could amount to war crimes"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2026/apr/06/trump-iran-war-congress-us-politics-live?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-69d3f7718f086bcf9a2a1763#block-69d3f7718f086bcf9a2a1763

"Trump says Iranians should rise up against government if ceasefire declared", which is the same as saying that the Iran-theocracy should not accept a ceasefire, ebcause if the people rise up and self-liberate then the rulers will probably be lynched or sentenced to hang
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-says-iranians-should-rise-up-against-government-if-ceasefire-declared-2026-04-06/

The aggressor and losing "Trump says US should impose tolls for passage through strait of Hormuz, not Iran",
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/apr/06/iran-war-live-updates-trump-hormuz-oil-netanyahu-israel?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-69d402898f080da25b48c19f#block-69d402898f080da25b48c19f

The Hormuz Strait is not near USA.

"Trump threats cause dilemma for US officers: disobey orders or commit war crimes"
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/apr/06/trump-threats-dilemma-for-officers-disobey-orders-or-commit-war-crimes

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Principles of International Law
Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal
and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950,
Principle IV
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/nuremberg-principles-1950/principle-iv
This is current universal, mandatory, international law, recognizing that it
was not before then and is not now possible to defend one's war crime, genocide, etc actions
with "but I was only following orders", regardless of whether being military or civilian.
This is also reflected in USA's military law, making it mandatory to refuse such orders if able to.

─────
Quickly depart from difficult ground.
On enclosed ground, use stratagem.
On death ground, fight.
[…]
If there be no alternative but death, the soldiers exert themselves to the utmost.
In desperate places, soldiers lose the sense of fear.
If there be no place of refuge, there will be no wavering.
If deeply involved in the enemy’s country, there is unity.
If it be unavoidable, the soldiers will fight their hardest.
[…]
On death ground, make it plain that without fighting there is no chance of survival.
─────
Sun Tzu,
The Art of War, 5th century BCE,
Chapter 9: "The Nine Grounds"

This is applicable in very many scenarios in addition to actual battlefields combat.
Like right now in the Trumpanyahu vs Iran-theocracy war, where Trump has enclosed himself by being bamboozled by Netanyahu into the latest war of aggression with crimes against humanity, but did not have the competence to recognize the situation once entered so keeps persisting,
but the Iran-theocracy is on "death ground" where they have reasonable cause to believe that there is no surrender or retreat possible because either would mean their literal death, so believe they have no other path than fighting to everyone's end.

If one wants an opponent to quit,
then one must give the opponent actual credible opportunity to quit.

"UK prime minister under pressure for allowing US use [...] British bases for American air attacks against Iran that are specifically targeting infrastracture like bridges or power stations"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/apr/07/iran-war-live-updates-trump-hormuz-threats-deadline-strikes-middle-east-conflict?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-69d5069d8f087f6d3658e733#block-69d5069d8f087f6d3658e733

"Starmer warned he could make UK ‘accomplice to war crimes’ by allowing US to use British airbases"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2026/apr/07/doctors-strike-wes-streeting-snp-fuel-prices-nigel-farage-reform-uk-keir-starmer-labour-strait-hormuz-uk-politics-latest-updates?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-69d501668f088f86f87244cc#block-69d501668f088f86f87244cc

Farage on the other hand says he would make UK complicit in the war crimes, which are unconditional, depending on "end game" conditionality.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2026/apr/07/doctors-strike-wes-streeting-snp-fuel-prices-nigel-farage-reform-uk-keir-starmer-labour-strait-hormuz-uk-politics-latest-updates?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-69d5087f8f087f6d3658e74c#block-69d5087f8f087f6d3658e74c

'Pope Leo said on Tuesday that threats ​against the population of Iran are "unacceptable," in an unusual appeal hours ‌after U.S. President Donald Trump said "a whole civilization will die tonight" in a social media post that shocked world leaders.

"Today, as we all know, there was this threat against the entire ​people of Iran, and this is truly unacceptable," said the pope, who has ​emerged as an outspoken critic of the Iran war.

"There are certainly issues ⁠here of international law, but even more than that, it is a ​moral question for the good of the (world's) people," he said.

It is rare for ​the pope, who leads 1.4 billion Catholics around the world, to respond directly to a world leader.'
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/pope-leo-calls-trumps-threat-against-iran-truly-unacceptable-2026-04-07/

As a reminder, US VP JD Vance still claims being Catholic.

@b9AcE @rmblaber1956

Some US Catholic parishes used to have prayers at mass for the previous pope to die. (Source: I was friends with a monk.)

I presume they don't like the current guy either and are primarily loyal to Opus Dei. The new pope is openly critical of that organisation.

I goes without saying that praying for anyone's death in an open way is highly unusual.

@b9AcE @rmblaber1956

Vance is strongly tied to Peter Thiel who is having some sort of spat with the church related to calling Great Thunberg the Antichrist. (I wish I was making this up.)

Some Republicans are normal conservative Roman Catholics.

But others, like Newt Gingrich and Vance are in an extremist cult, which is still Roman Catholic.

Any organisation with over a billion members is going to have different factions and cults within it.

But you're right in that politicians are not going to want to be seen as too far outside the mainstream.