278
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago

Looks like they got the head of the Revolutionary Guard too.

[-] WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

To be clear, FUCK Israel-

but if you're going to do this, this is the way to do it. War is hell, and the objective should be to do whatever is necessary to bring your opponent to the table for surrender or negotiation as quickly as possible and avoid a prolonged engagement. In any other era we wouldn't even be discussing this.

Again, though, for those in the back- fuck Israel.

[-] ShoeThrower@lemmy.zip 32 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That type of flawed logic is exactly what led to atomic bombs being used to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, and is Israel's supposed justification for their barbaric campaign against Palestinians.

[-] napkin2020@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago

Well without that nuke us South Koreans would still be one of many Japanese colony so I'm very much all for it.

[-] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 13 points 1 week ago

No you would not be, USA had the resources to commit to a landing in japan and have less casualties over all

You're not immune to propaganda, do not believe that nukes were ever necessary

[-] napkin2020@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

What led to the rather tragic decision was the fact that the Japanese did not consider surrendering. Japanese high-ups used their elite pilots like one-off missiles rather than to surrender, and hoped that 100 million Japanese people would 'shatter like a jewel'(一億玉砕), rather than, you know, be alive.

Landing option the US had, Operation Downfall, also included bombing the coastal defense with nuclear bombs and literally obliterating Japan as a whole, so I'm not sure if that would have caused fewer casualties, not to mention it would have been a painstakingly long fight, ultimately leading to more painful exploitation for the victims like Korea and Southeast Asia. Even after the first bomb was dropped, they did not consider surrendering.

I am not saying that the bomb was the only way the war could have ended(although that was something I implied jokingly), and I'm not ignoring the fact that countless civilians died from it. But I don't think any other options would have had fewer casualties, especially from the viewpoint of one of their many colonies that was brutally exploited and suffered.

[-] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

The Soviets were about to invade the Japanese empire when the US dropped the atomic bombs. They did this just to prevent Japan from falling in USSR's sphere of influence.

However, you might still be thankful as South Korea likely wouldn't exist otherwise, being instead merely the agrarian South of a juche unified Korea.

[-] WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)
[-] ShoeThrower@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Do you not think that deciding to commit a war crime by intentionally targeting and murdering over 200,000 civilians, was perhaps a bad call?

Or perhaps intentionally targeting journalists, doctors, first responders, schools, hospitals, entire apartment buildings, is actually acceptable because the conflict will supposedly end sooner?

[-] WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not a bad call.

As for your second point- in this situation is it acceptable or justified? Fuck no. Is it tactically the correct move, given what these pieces of shit are trying to accomplish? Yes.

[-] ShoeThrower@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 week ago

So, in your view, intentionally killing civilians is OK if they're Japanese, but not if they're Palestinian.

Fascinating.

[-] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

Yes they were ESPECIALLY Nagasaki

A second one was not needed, that is easy to prove and I remain unconvinced the first bomb dropped was necessary either.

[-] Ledericas@lemm.ee 23 points 1 week ago

Iran was barely doing anything the last few years? the sudden attack seems likes its distraction from all those protests.

[-] WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

Oh, it absolutely is. I’m not saying the attack is by any means justified.

[-] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 9 points 1 week ago

You talk just like a zionist under cover

[-] WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 week ago

I would take enormous offense if this comment wasn’t dumb as hell

[-] hoch@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Not everyone who hates Iran is a zionist

[-] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 7 points 1 week ago

You can hate iran. You can't justify the terrorist state of israel starting a war with iran wherr ton of civilians are dying though

[-] boughtmysoul@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

You know when you make a statement, then say “but” it negates the statement, yeah?

[-] Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 week ago

"I'm for euthanasia but I think we need to introduce it in a way that doesn't reduce access to healthcare"

What part was negated?

[-] Klear@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

OK, it works in this example, but...

Wait, shit.

[-] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 9 points 1 week ago

"The clock is broken, but it's currently right."

Something can be wrong 99% of the time. Pointing out the 1% doesn't make the other 99% good, or that 1% wrong as well.

this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2025
278 points (100.0% liked)

World News

47764 readers
2331 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS