141
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] kinther@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago

Yeah this isn't a small strike. They went after the leaders of Iran and their nuclear sites all at once.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

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

[-] WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca 20 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 12 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.

[-] WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)
[-] ShoeThrower@lemmy.zip 8 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 -5 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.

[-] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 8 points 1 week ago

Japan was already ready to surrender. This is unclassified now. So how was it not a bad call exactly? Assuming we both agree on my first assertion.

[-] ShoeThrower@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 week ago

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

Fascinating.

[-] napkin2020@sh.itjust.works -4 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 2 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 2 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 1 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.

[-] Ledericas@lemm.ee 11 points 1 week ago

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

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

Lots of news recently about Iran enriching their uranium. It’s not a big surprise.

[-] Mrkawfee@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

They were manufacturing consent

[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Don’t they always

[-] WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

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

[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Nukes have entered the chat

[-] boughtmysoul@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

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

[-] Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz 6 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?

[-] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 5 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
141 points (98.0% liked)

World News

47696 readers
1261 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