US president, holding nukes and saying things like "whole civilization will die tonight" is just state terrorism of the worst kind, ... so far, yes. It may become a war crime of genocide. Not sure why should I or anyone wait and see, before issuing sweeping comments about all of america, which made this possible, by working hard to building up the military capable of doing it and giving power to nutjob issuing the threats.

Be sure that this US threat is not just against Iran, it's a US threat aginst the entire world, and it will be taken as such by many, you war crime justifying tool.

Also pretty telling, that you're using intl. law to justify US attacks, instead of using it for what their purpose was,... which is to limit the ways in which states execute war. The same thing Israel was doing to justify murdering 20 000 children in Gaza, just constantly finding "loopholes" and using it retroactively to justify every single thing they did that someone contensted.

At least the Iran leaders are not out of control nutjobs, compared to US president, and electorat/cronnies who put him to power and gave him nukes:

CNN: Trump threatens Iran ahead of deadline: "A whole civilization will die tonight" (speaking about 92 million people)

You seem informed. Why did they do so? And what motivated them?

Sounds like a thing a state would not want to do to their neighbor out of the blue.

Just claiming something doesn't make it true. And also there's the whole scale thing.

> there's the whole scale thing

Sort of? I don't think that's really how war crimes work. Unless we're objectively in eye-for-an-eye territory, in which case we're not really talking about international law anymore. (To be clear, I think everyone talking about international law in this conflict is posturing. We've been collectively setting new norms for years, and between Russia, China and America, the rules seem to have inched closer to total war.)

It doesn't matter. Killing 34 something children like Hamas did vs 20 000 something children like Israel did in the same conflict.

Or threatening some water facility in a country with functioning air defense vs threatening entire population of 92 million with complete anihilation ("A whole civilization will die tonight" like Trump just said on behalf of all americans - credible threat from a nuclear superpower with enough nukes to spare), in a country where they can't really defend against this other than spreading the costs on enemy-allied countries.

There's bad, and there's 100x worse. And yeah, people should focus on stopping the 100x worse first, is my belief.

preparation for the initial strike has to have been going on for months

It can be any number of things. From spending hour or two just writing requirements, to giving an example of existing curated code from another project you wrote and would like to emulate, or rewriting existing apps in a different language/architecture (sort of like translating), to serving as a QA agent or reviewer for the LLM agent, or vice versa.

I kinda like how you can just use it for anything you like. I have bazillion personal projects, I can now get help with, polish up, simplify, or build UI for, and it's nice. Anything from reverse engineering, to data extraction, to playing with FPGAs, is just so much less tedious and I can focus on the fun parts.

Czechia has a very dense public transport network and if you want to walk a very nice network of marked tourist tracks. Not that different form 1989, except for marking an explicit cycling network since then.

Thankfully, not in the technology area. Eg. we in the post-soviet EU block are well beyond using fax, and stuff like that, ... :)

NY Times doesn't even know what NATO is, while writing a full-page article about it, so yeah this kind of ignorance about where USA has it hands and guns is not surprising, from some random on the internet. ;)

Primarily, countries should prosecute their own criminals. That's the whole sovereignty thing. If you don't, and these are international criminals, your country as a whole is what we call a state supporter of terrorism, or some such, if those international crimes have political goals and are directed against other countries and their people as a whole (and don't fit the high bar of self-defense). If the crimes are done by those in power, it's just state terrorism.

Actually, we call them "war crimes" and have done since at least WWII.

I'll rephrase my previous post for you, to make it clearer:

Lack of prosecution of high-level war criminals makes your country a state supporter of terrorism. (the claim in the post)

Because that's what US war criminal leaders do. They terrorize entire nation by threatening population's survival via destruction of all their power plants, which I assume includes nuclear fallout from their nuclear power plant.