Trump Celebrates Easter By Dropping An F-Bomb, Threatening More War Crimes
from the what-would-jesus-bomb dept
Before we get into this, let’s set the scene a little:
The latest Pew Research Center survey, conducted Jan. 20-26, 2026, finds that most White evangelicals (69%) approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president. And a majority (58%) say they support all or most of his plans and policies.
Let that sink in for a bit. The operative term here is probably “white,” but Trump has been embraced by the evangelical community, despite his being about as far removed from the ideals of Christianity as their arch-nemesis, trans people the Devil. (And let’s not forget I’m talking about the ideals, which are often preached but rarely practiced.)
Here’s how Trump handled Easter morning, one of the holiest (no pun intended) holidays observed by the people most likely to support him no matter what:
In Trump’s own words, at 5:03 am on Easter Sunday:
Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP
Now, I have to admit that when I first read this, I thought Trump was announcing some new celebration of US infrastructure before derailing his own train of thought. But it’s definitely not that.
It’s the other thing… which turns out to be Trump announcing planned war crimes. Again.
Both sides have threatened and hit civilian targets like oil fields and desalination plants critical for drinking water. Iran’s U.N. mission on social media called Trump’s threat “clear evidence of intent to commit war crime.”
Iran’s military joint command warned of stepped-up retaliatory attacks on regional oil and civilian infrastructure if the U.S. and Israel attack such targets there, according to state television.
The laws of armed conflict allow attacks on civilian infrastructure only if the military advantage outweighs the civilian harm, legal scholars say. It’s considered a high bar to clear, and causing excessive suffering to civilians can constitute a war crime.
While it looks like both sides in this war are willing to strike civilian infrastructure, the United States should be trying to take the high road (the one without war crimes). And if it can’t be bothered to do that, the administration should — at the very least — try to keep the president from publicly saying we’re going to commit war crimes.
But, alas, there’s no one willing to stop him. Pete Hegseth is definitely relishing his unearned role as the Secretary of Defense (“Back to the Stone Age.”) And he appears to be firing anyone who disagrees with things like drone-killing people in international waters and, you know, engaging in war crimes.
Both Trump and Hegseth have publicly claimed they’re doing God’s work by going to war with Iran, something that has been echoed by the same demographic detailed in the Pew Research survey.
Shamefully, they won’t see a drop in support despite Trump threatening war crimes, dropping an F-bomb, and promising to send people halfway around the world to hell, as if he were a god himself. And that’s a damning indictment of an entire segment of Americans who choose to treat their religion as a weapon and want the world to be remade in their own image — something they often accuse Muslims of doing. The irony is lost on them, along with the man they’ve chosen to treat as God’s appointed leader.
We’ve had a lot of low points as a nation, but usually we’ve at least tried to improve. That’s no longer the case. We’re under the rule of people who debase and abuse the nation they claim to love. Happy Fuckin’ Easter, you crazy bastards. Welcome to Hell.
Filed Under: evil, iran war, pete hegseth, trump administration, war crimes
Companies: truth social
Comments on “Trump Celebrates Easter By Dropping An F-Bomb, Threatening More War Crimes”
I wish I didn’t have to think “the president is going to drop a nuke if he doesn’t get his way”. I really do.
Re:
Don’t we all.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Don’t worry, we can just vote Democrat in the Midterms, and then elect a Democrat President in 2028, and in January 2029, we can start repairing everything with the current Constitution that let all this chaos and death and fascism happen intact! That’s what someone on Techdirt told me a few months back.
Re: Re:
Passive aggression is still aggression. If you want to tell me that I should go fuck myself, do that instead of this weaksauce bullshit.
Re: Re:
I mean, what other option is there? Getting yourself shot trying overthrow the government? Moving away and abdicating your vote, however disenfranchised it is by corporate lobbying and voter suppression? Mutter to yourself in a cafe about how no one else is doing what you want them to do? Posting random passive aggressive comments online just to try to validate your bias confirmation?
Spell it out, buddy. What’s the plan here? What’s something possible, practical, and ethical that everyone can band together and do? This is your moment. Epic speech time. Go for it!
Re: Re:
Because you’re ready for a civil war, right, tough guy?
Re:
He might have a Thermonuclear Temper Tantrum.
Of course Evangelicals support him, they want the Middle East to burn to bring about the end times so white swordmouth Jesus can rapture them then fight the devil. We’re dealing with a cult who claim to love humanity but view most of it dead and see no reason to sacrifice anything to make the world better for anyone as the’re totally going to be taken to whites only country club heaven, even though they do no good works and dedicate more time and energy to hate than brotherly love.
Re: 'What part of 'Love thy neighbor' or 'Care for the needy' did you not get?!'
The ultimate kicker of course is that if it turns out Jesus is real and this is enough to drag his ass back down to earth I can’t imagine he’d be too thrilled by the people willing to see an entire part of the globe burn just to get his attention.
(The penultimate kicker is that if Jesus did come back ICE would ship his brown-skinned ass out of the US in a heartbeat and his loudest ‘supporters’ would be laughing and cheering on the deportation of the ‘woke lib’ who didn’t get the memo that compassion and empathy are weaknesses the entire time it happened)
I mean Trump’s definitely a moron, but the United States is not a signatory to the treaty that the “legal scholars” are citing, so it’s not a war crime by legal standards.
(Moral standards? Of course).
Re:
As a minor point, Nazi Germany wasn’t a signatory to any of those treaties either (mostly because they didn’t exist back then (some did)) but their higher-ups were held to that standard anyhow.
They dont need spys with trump in office
evangelical community, the Biggest fingers in the USA. Point at the Thing before you have ANY facts, and declare GOD does not like it. Then Take all the money.
Dear Trump, WHY are you in these wars? They had no way to attack us. They had NO reason to attack us. And the war was created by WHO? and with WHAT FACTS?
For everyday you have this war, you could give a free Flu shot to the SAME population as the USA, into other countries.
Re:
Epstein distraction. That’s all it was, nothing more, nothing less. Donald J Trump, the most peaceful president in US history, started a
warmilitary operation that sends US soldiers to die so that the news will talk about something other than his dead pedophile pal. That’s it.Re: Re: Re:
Don’t forget mid-terms. I truly believe he keeps extending and provoking in an attempt to get something to happen on American soil he can use that as an excuse to make that event a “national emergency” so he can take over the mid-terms and delay or cancel them.
He just needs some home-grown terrorist or Iranian national do something terrible inside this country.
Re: Re: Re:
And, you know, for the states to comply, because they’re the ones that actually conduct the elections.
Re: Re: Re: not a sure-fire plan
I do not think that elections were canceled or delayed following Pearl Harbor. The U.S. did, however, respond following the attack.
Lesson from Pearl Harbor: bomb someone, they may get angry and strike back. See, for instance, Iran.
Re: Re: Re:2
The attack on Pearl Harbor happened in December of 1941. If there had been elections that year, they likely already happened the month prior to the attack. The next presidential election didn’t happen for another three years. And say what you will about FDR, but I doubt he was fascistic enough to consider using the Pearl Harbor attack as an excuse to suspend any election, let alone a presidential election. That is a genuine worry with Trump because we know he’s talked about serving more than two terms as president and we know he’s not above trying to subvert American democracy. If there’s anyone who would use a terrorist attack on American soil as a pretext to shutting down elections—especially ones predicted to go against him and his party—it’s Donald Trump.
Re: Re:
It’s not just a distraction. Conservatives are, without exception, the world over, bloodthirsty savages just one small excuse away from committing genocide, holy war crimes, or both.
Until the GOP and it’s voters are forced into second-class citizenship and servitude for their sins since 2016 minimum this will all continue even if Trump goes.
As we’re figuring out the hard way when it comes to fighting fascism, zealotry must be met with zealotry.
What gets me is not the pedophile war monger’s unhinged rant, crashing of the global economy, or taking a sledgehammer to America’s status as an ally to the West and a global superpower- it’s that despite all this, he still has full support of Congress, the Supreme Court, and 30% of the US population.
The country has a rot to it’s very core that won’t be removed by ousting Trump alone.
Re:
I forget who said it, but I once saw it framed as “If you want to know whether this is a Trump problem or a GOP problem, consider that the two most pro-Trump justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by the Bushes.”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The US is not a signatory to that treaty so what law, exactly, makes it a war crime?
Re:
You know, it’s probably a bad idea to be looking for ways to weasel out of calling a war crime what it is so you can justify, purely due to partisan politics/religious zealotry, that war crime being perpetrated by your government. That besides: If prohibitions against war crimes are off the table, the people who are victimized by those crimes won’t be eager to help the criminals. The next generation of people willing to commit terrorist acts against the government in the name of revenge will not hesitate—not even in the slightest—to commit their own war crimes. And that’s to say nothing of, say, a rival foreign superpower seeing those war crimes being committed without hesitation or remorse and being inspired to do a war crime of their own.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
So, no, you don’t actually have a law the US agreed to that it’s going to violate. Good to know.
And the reason I mention this is because you get so caught up in litigating these kind of arguments (yes it is! no, it is isn’t!) that you fail to actually win the issue. You can argue about war crimes all you want but no judge is going to come rule for you in any useful way. Just say that Trump is an appalling piece of trash who kills civilians and avoid the lawyering.
Re: Re: Re:
No, I don’t—but that shouldn’t fucking matter. Why? Because a good chunk of the developed world agrees on what constitutes a war crime. Doing a war crime and going “technically, we didn’t agree to abide by the laws that say our war crime is a war crime, so fuck you” isn’t a good thing. You’re the one who’s trying to litigate the war crime definition and do some insane rules lawyering to justify Trump ordering the United States Armed Forces to commit a war crime. I’m over here saying “Trump is threatening to do a war crime” because (A) it’s true and (B) it’s shorter than saying “Trump is threatening to do this thing most everyone agrees is a war crime but the United States isn’t technically calling a war crime because it didn’t sign a specific treaty that would make its war crimes definable as war crimes”, which is apparently what you think I should be saying.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
“No, I don’t—but that shouldn’t fucking matter”
Good to know. So now countries (and likely people) can be guilty of violating laws that don’t actually exist? That’s an excellent argument in this world. “Well, no, he’s not technically guilty of anything, but we just know it’s not a good thing ”
“lawyering to justify Trump ordering the United States Armed Forces to commit a war crime”
I’m not trying to justify Trump in anything because he’s an appalling piece of shit. I am trying to make the point that trying to get “legal scholars” to announce something that’s badly wrong is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Make the argument that Trump is being an appalling and evil person by bombing civilians. You don’t need the legal part of it, and it just gets you into the kind of trouble you are now. “Well, no, it’s not actually a war crime but it’s a war crime in my feels” is just embarrassing.
Re: Re: Re:3
Most everyone would agree that an action widely considered to be a war crime is a bad thing. So why do all this rules lawyering bullshit about whether the action technically counts as a war crime under international law or whatever instead of just calling the action a war crime? You come off as a war crimes apologist by trying to split the thinnest of hairs that nobody was asking you to split. I don’t care about whether an act is rightfully and legally labeled as a war crime under international law if the United States commits one—I care about the United States committing a fucking war crime.
Re: Re: Re:4
Because you’re going to spend the next six months bogged down in exactly this kind of technicality, just like the whole discussion around Gaza got bogged down in the exact legal definition of “genocide,” and that wasted a lot of energy that might otherwise have gone to, you know, actually helping the people of Gaza.
Do policy discussions normally go well when “legal scholars” start citing legal language about things and everything devolves into a courtroom back and forth?
“the United States committing a fucking war crime.”
I care about the fact that the United States is killing civilians, whether it’s technically a war crime or not.
Re: Re: Re:5
You’re the only one making this a technicality. I’m out here saying “if the United States commits a war crime, I’m calling it a war crime and condeming that shit” and you’re saying “well, if the United States does something that’s called a war crime by the rest of the world, it’s not technically a war crime because it isn’t part of the treaty that makes its actions a war crime under international law, but it’s really awful and we should absolutely condemn this thing everyone else calls a war crime even if we shouldn’t be calling it a war crime because it’s not covered under international law”. Fuck all the way off with this shit, man.
Killing civilians is a war crime. Destroying civilian infrastructure is a war crime. I’ll call those actions war crimes regardless of whether the United States is part of whatever treaty makes those actions prosecutable as war crimes under international law. If you don’t want to do that, that’s your call, but don’t tell me what I can, should, and/or must call those actions. I won’t follow your orders and you lack the power to make me.
Re: Re: Re:3
Don’t mind me. I’m just watching a fascist argue that genocide isn’t a war crime because we didn’t sign a paper first.
Re: Re: Re:
Go and look up the Uniform Code of military justice dumbass.
Re: Re: Re:
The US is not the arbiter of what is a war crime if they aren’t doing it, and not a war crime if they are the one doing it. The US does not have to have signed anything. And the signing of anything doesn’t affect the reality of an action, nor the analysis or opinions of any human being.
Re: Re: Re:2
“The US does not have to have signed anything”
So you know nothing about international law, do you?
Re: Re: Re:3
The Nuremberg trials didn’t require Hitler to have signed anything.
You are more than 90°, but definitely less than 180°.
Re: Re:
This important observation is often overlooked:
“The next generation of people willing to commit terrorist acts against the government in the name of revenge will not hesitate—not even in the slightest—to commit their own war crimes.”
This is why sensible countries treat prisoners of war decently rather than (let’s say) publicly executing them: they recognize that one day, maybe tomorrow, their soldiers will be someone else’s prisoners of war and they’d like them to be treated decently. This recognition doesn’t have to be enshrined in law for everyone to realize that it’s in their own self-interest to adhere to it even when strongly tempted to do otherwise.
Back to war crimes: Trump is clearly trying to provoke a terrorist attack against the United States, so that he can declare a state of emergency and cancel the midterm elections. No, I’m not suggesting that he thought this up: he’s far, FAR too stupid to connect two thoughts together in this fashion. But the people around him aren’t, and they know that all they have to do is to tell him and his fragile manbaby ego that unless he issues threats and carries them out, he’ll look weak.
I can only hope that someone in the military has sense of duty and the patriotism to refuse the order.
Re:
Oh hi, Total. You sure got quiet after I called you on your bullshit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Oh, god, dude, I stopped responding to you because you were hyperventilating about whether a news outlet had responded quickly enough to an AI issue, and now you’re bringing it into a discussion about war crimes. Yes, buddy, Ars Technica not figuring out their AI policy is definitely the same thing as to whether Trump is going to commit a war crime.
Also, how long have you been waiting to keep complaining about a news outlet policy issue? Jesus, stalker much?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m never going to date you, Thad, so let it go.
Re: Re: Re:2
French oil company loses its shit; film at 11.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
I hope terrorists bomb your house and you kill yourself after you see the body parts of your family.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
You know what. We should hang people like you on tv. If you need a “law” to tell you that not bombing innocent children is wrong, you should be dead.
I bet your call yourself a christian to. Bet you rape children like all the good christians do as well.
Re: Re:
Charlie Kirk was in favor of public executions.
Re:
I predict that sometime in the next year, you’re going to complain about another nation committing war crimes against the US.
I’m going to point back to this thread and mention that since you said the US isn’t subject to treaties defining war crimes, any such action committed against the US isn’t a war crime.
Re:
It’s a human thing. You wouldn’t understand.
Re:
Republicans, man. When you’re not raping children, you’re bombing them.
Re:
So POTUS is threatening an entire civilization with genocide, and your response is “it’s not a crime cuz we never said we wouldn’t do a genocide.”
Right or wrong, the fact that that is your argument should be enough to tell you what a massive piece of shit you are.
If THAT is the sort of person their religion says is a GOOD person...
The latest Pew Research Center survey, conducted Jan. 20-26, 2026, finds that most White evangelicals (69%) approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president. And a majority (58%) say they support all or most of his plans and policies.
Even setting aside everything else I can think of no more damning statistic and reason to avoid like the plague US evangelicals and their religion than their steadfast and continued support of Trump because if that is the sort of person they think is ‘doing the lord’s work’ then there is something horrifically wrong with them and their religion.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Not a war crime. Perfectly legitimate target.
You have no idea what a war crime is.
Re:
Generally, war crimes are actions committed by a military force that violates international humanitarian law. Targeting civilian infrastructure and civilians themselves is considered a war crime. So is genocide—and if Trump follows through on his promise to destroy “a whole civilization”, targeting the civilian infrastructure of Iran (specifically its power plants and bridges) will lead to the deaths of thousands of people in Iran. This war was a war of choice. The deaths of Iranian citizens because of the actions of the United States Armed Forces is a potential consequence of that choice. But I guess you don’t see Iranians as worthy of life because they were born on a different patch of dirt as you.
Re:
Lemme guess: you’re… an engineer?
My favorite kind of idiot is the engineer who assumes that because they learned engineering they’re experts in all subjects.
Yes, this is absolutely a fucking war crime to target civilian infrastructure. Go back to coding, shit for brains.
Re: Re:
It’s even worse when it’s a tech bro because there are many tech bros who aren’t even good at tech, but still think they’re the smartest guy in the room. And any amount of “success” that is actually the result of a lack of ethics, an abundance of money, or the exploitation of others, is perceived by the tech bro and people lacking critical analysis skills as proof that the tech bro is actually a genius.
Palmer Luckey’s braggadocious talk about how he wanted to make petroleum-based food but learned that it was illegal and nobody wanted it, so he pivoted to building autonomous weapons systems instead is insane.
You may want to review the origins of American Evangelicalism. It skews so white that anyone else is the exception that proves the unwritten rule.
It’s the religion of the bitter racist. If they don’t get to live on this earth owning humans as slaves, then no one gets to live at all.
Re:
It depends on whether you use a definition of “evangelical” that excludes Black Baptists, I guess.
Re: Re:
You’re gonna have to turn a whole lot of blind eyes to pretend that black clingers-on make Evangelism something other than a white supremacy movement.
Or maybe I’m just crazy. Maybe the existence of the Association of German National Jews kept the original Nazis from being antisemitic.
You’re giving way too much credibility to tokens. Republicans can’t be racist! Candace Owens and Clarence Thomas are black!
American Evangelicalism always seems to have been a rationale
… for using very selective Biblical literalism as a justification for being extremely reactionary.
Re:
It’s a lot more about enforcing a social hierarchy with cishet white men at the top than it is about any particular holy book.
Trump’s latest comment is “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again”. You know, just in case the war crime thing wasn’t clear enough, let’s just come right out and say “genocide” (except in words small enough for the president to understand).
Have Techdirt reported on last year’s sanctions related to the International Criminal Court? They seem pretty relevant right now.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I.e. “some guy said”. Oh, they have to have 51% military application? No, that’s made up bullshit. None of that is true.
Bridges, railways, power stations all have huge logistical implications and are perfectly valid targets. Always have been.
You’re an idiot, and you have no idea what is a “war crime”. You just know that you hate Trump and everything flows from that.
Re:
If Trump orders the United States military to destroy power plants in Iran and thousands of people die as a result of that loss of power, why shouldn’t he—the so-called leader of the free world and the man whose orders the military must ultimately follow—hold the responsibility for those deaths as the man who made the choice to order those power plants destroyed?
Re:
You just know that you hate Trump and everything flows from that.
That piece of shit deserves every bit of hate he gets. He has nothing but contempt for anyone who doesn’t kiss his ass. Just ask all the ‘best people’ he hired then fired.
I would never wish cancer on anyone. Except him.
Re:
Your president is openly threatening genocide, you gaslighting piece of shit.
Re:
Clownface, since you are so cocksure about what it actually means you can explain it to everyone here, right?
I’m of course expecting crickets here, because a dishonest man will always avoid the truth.
Dude, wipe the shit from your clown nose.
Re: Re:
“I don’t have to explain it, it’s irrelevant!” — Bozo, probably
history lesson
In the past, I do not think that anyone would have been crazy enough to give the real nuclear ``football” to a senile lunatic. That may no longer be the case.