That is wild. I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s noticed it.
1 Like
Thank you. My point was just to be hypotetical, since I wanted to see if there’s a point when killing civilians in war is not acceptable. When ”okay” turns to ”that’s nasty”?
Soo, I feel we don’t disagree on anything?
I judge the actions of Hamas (duh..) and I don’t see Israels current actions in Gaza are acceptable. It’s more than just collateral damage.
Hamas started this stupid war 2023 and thousands of innocents die to bombs and hunger.
You guys seem to have quite shitty history books then. 
1 Like
Ok. Back to this then.
&
.
So all the people in Gaza are responsible for Hamas attacking to Israel?
I have the feeling we’re speaking past each others now.
US unconventional warfare guys have been known to end entire bloodlines when necessary. Sadam Hussain, and a few others in Afghanistan just off the top of my head.
That was one of the first things of Trumps first term.
All the marchers, chanters, people that dug tunnels, hid and aided the fighters, etc.
Unless you duck out to a refugee camp, yeah. You’re feet on the ground, words turned to actions, and a likely target.
Bombs and bullets don’t check id’s.
2 Likes
95,000+ at Kirk’s memorial.
1 Like
Do you some counter examples?
Why don’t we discuss what is probably the most debated war decision ever made in all history. Should the Enola Gay dropped have dropped “Little Boy”? Nothing hypothetical about that.
That was some serious collateral damage.
2 Likes
“He wanted to save young men — just like the one who took his life,” Charlie Kirk’s widow just said.
“I forgive him,” Erika Kirk declared of his accused killer, without saying Tyler Robinson’s name.
“The answer to hate is not hate,” Erika Kirk said.
2 Likes
. They did.
I suck at this kind of stuff. I love people, but despise humanity, and have a very intensely self-centered way of evaluating worthiness of life or death.
Its like being at a concert and you can only hear the people closest to you. Everybody beyond a few feet just become mass and noise. At some point I was introduced to the heirarchy of Family, friends, fellows, countrymen and just use that as my default. I’ve been working for 25 years to feel more like a part of humanity, and more or less do at this point.
Some say that it should not have been dropped. Did the “end” justify the “means” to end the war?
Isn’t this @SepCalla question?
I think its about the same, yes.
But honestly, I enlisted to go to the gulf (got derailed), had 2 brothers serve during persian gulf 1, and to enforce the embargo on Iraq, another cousin in Afghanistan.
I wouldn’t blink an eye if the people in charge turned that whole subcontinent into glass if it meant they were safe.
On WWII, my grandfather had several brothers serve in Europe. And when I consider all of the back and forth, what it comes down to for me is “better them than me” as far as dresden and other atrocities.
I learned a long time ago that when facing a threat to hit first and hit harder. You might not get a second chance.
2 Likes
No immediate word of surrender resulted in Bockscar dropping “Fat Man”. Truman stopped there, but “Third Shot” was only about 4 days away from delivery if needed.
Two left considerable collateral damage.
1 Like
I think civilians dying in a war is alway tragic, but unavoidable.
But I also think the line between a Palestinian civilian and a Hamas operative is very much blurred. As is the line between a School or Hospital administrator and a high ranking Hamas member.
1 Like
There’s of course difference civilians dying in a war and war crimes. That difference is of course blurred. But not every situation is the same. I think most if us here don’t see that in war everything is alright.
More examples: When allied wen’t no Normandy pre-bombing killed collateraly thousands of French civilians. That was sad , but probably unavoidable.
Most of us would not say the same thing about the siege of Leningrad or Russians raping millions of German women. Or I least hope so.
Thank you for understanding my point. It’s hard not to see it as a war crime.
It definitely saved a lot of american lives. But at what cost? I personally don’t see it as justified. There could have been limited strike to a military base etc. as a warning.
My point is that bombing Gaza indiscriminately and starving the city is a huge warcrime.
How would they have made the strike severe enough to bring Japan to its knees? Be specific. As you know Japan willingly sacrificed their own pilots for their country.
It’s hard to say. We go towards the speculation anyway.
Japan could have continue the war after the A-bombs, but it didn’t. Would the knowlegde that this could happen be ebough? Hard to say.
A-bombs are definitely a interesting (and long debated) example, since they clearly had impact to the war as they did end it. That’s a big argument towards them.
But then we have the question why nukes aren’t used more often? Because they’re such an awful weapons and overkill.
This also shows the the original question in different light. If ending the war by any means is okay why not just nuke Gaza? Wipe out the entire population at once? If every Gazan is a potential Hamas fighter it would be a surefire solution.
And how many Hamas fighters needs to live in a city that it could be nuked? Should whole Qatar be wiped out too?
Where’s the limit?