Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon calls on Security Council to stand by his country.
“This is a moment to make moral decisions. Stand by Israel - or you will be partners in a dangerous silence", He said.
Israel is threatening nuclear Holocaust for the entire world if you do not support their genocidal warmongering. Which will likely end in nuclear genocide. That’s what I’m seeing here. Fucking great. Awesome. Love that for us.
This is all part of the very real Evangelical/Zionist rapture prophecy. Israel and all our western leaders are literally trying to bring about the apocalypse, they want it with religious furvor, so yes a nuclear genocide is to be expected from these people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Pinning this as it’s HUGE.
Live updates here:
https://apnews.com/live/israel-iran-attack
CNN is reporting a 2nd wave of attacks is ongoing right now.
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-strikes-news-06-12-25-hnk-intl
That’s a threat not a warning
Israel is threatening nuclear Holocaust for the entire world if you do not support their genocidal warmongering. Which will likely end in nuclear genocide. That’s what I’m seeing here. Fucking great. Awesome. Love that for us.
This is all part of the very real Evangelical/Zionist rapture prophecy. Israel and all our western leaders are literally trying to bring about the apocalypse, they want it with religious furvor, so yes a nuclear genocide is to be expected from these people.
Yeah but it just seems so batshit insane to me that it’s hard to fully fathom.
The moral decision is blindingly obvious and it’s not to threaten nuclear war to defend your rabid pit bull of an ally from retaliation, motherfucker.
The “dangerous silence” part rings alarmingly true, but not for the reasons protected.
Yeah this isn’t a small strike. They went after the leaders of Iran and their nuclear sites all at once.
Looks like they got the head of the Revolutionary Guard too.
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.
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.
Well without that nuke us South Koreans would still be one of many Japanese colony so I’m very much all for it.
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.
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
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.
Flawed?
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?
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.
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.
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.
So, in your view, intentionally killing civilians is OK if they’re Japanese, but not if they’re Palestinian.
Fascinating.
Iran was barely doing anything the last few years? the sudden attack seems likes its distraction from all those protests.
Lots of news recently about Iran enriching their uranium. It’s not a big surprise.
They were manufacturing consent
Don’t they always
Oh, it absolutely is. I’m not saying the attack is by any means justified.
Nukes have entered the chat
Removed by mod
You know when you make a statement, then say “but” it negates the statement, yeah?
“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?
OK, it works in this example, but…
Wait, shit.
“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.
You talk just like a zionist under cover
I would take enormous offense if this comment wasn’t dumb as hell
Not everyone who hates Iran is a zionist
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