I know you don't work for Twitter, but the point is Twitter has to be consistent if they want to be seen as an unbiased discussion platform.

If Twitter believe a military leader stating consequences to a foreign regime, or a law officer lawfully stating consequences of breaking the law consistitutes a threat against a group of people, they need to ban all military and police from the platform.

Alternatively, they could state that conducting lawful military and police work, which includes stating the possibility of a response to an action, is not considered a threat. Or that a 'government' or 'people who have broken the law' are not a protected group.

Yes he does. Obama threatened Assad repeatedly in public as part of his role as commander in chief.

Examining how people would handle Obama acting as Commander in Chief on Twitter is a great way to determine whether they're against threats by military leaders or simply against Trump.