Genocide Israel be genociding thread

[Brian]

1 minute ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Killing civilians is never the solution.

Tell that to the police bruh

[Uaarkson]

5 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Killing civilians is never the solution.

Both sides have no qualms killing civilians so that’s irrelevant. I’m speaking from a tactical perspective. 

[Air_Delivery]

5 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Killing civilians is never the solution.

It was the solution during World War II.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Just now, Uaarkson said:

Both sides have no qualms killing civilians so that’s irrelevant 

Again, you're picking sides.

[Uaarkson]

Just now, Air_Delivery said:

It was the solution during World War II.

Lmao this is what I was going to say, even in 1970 we didn’t give a flying fuck about civilian collateral 

[AbsolutSurgen]

Just now, Air_Delivery said:

It was the solution during World War II.

If you're a Nazi.

[Uaarkson]

Just now, AbsolutSurgen said:

Again, you're picking sides.

yep

[Uaarkson]

Just now, AbsolutSurgen said:

If you're a Nazi.

Bruh.

 

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

EN.M.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, AbsolutSurgen said:

Again, you're picking sides.

 

Yes, I am and I have zero qualms about it.  None whatsoever!

 

In fact, it makes me feel pretty damned good!

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Air_Delivery said:

It was the solution during World War II.

 

No it wasn't. This is just the thing America told itself to feel good about fire bombings and nukes.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Just now, Uaarkson said:

Bruh.

 

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

EN.M.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

The bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were worse.

[Uaarkson]

Just now, AbsolutSurgen said:

The bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were worse.

no actually they weren’t, the biggest firebombing raids in Tokyo killed more 

[Uaarkson]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

 

No it wasn't. This is just the thing America told itself to feel good about fire bombings and nukes.

Literally every nation with an air force was bombing civilians during WWII. It was an official strategy of every major ally, starting primarily with the British.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Just now, Uaarkson said:

Literally every nation with an air force was bombing civilians during WWII. It was an official strategy of every major ally, starting primarily with the British.

Does that make it OK?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings had a higher combined death toll, but the Tokyo Fire Bombing had the highest death toll for a single raid.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Does that make it OK?

 

That would entirely depend on one's perception of moral relativism.

 

From my perspective, when you're dealing with combatants of the relative strengths of the United States, United Kingdom, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Imperial Japan, it's essentially a "wash", morally speaking.

[Uaarkson]

3 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Does that make it OK?

You’re missing the point. None of the actions of Israel OR Palestine are justified. But in my humble opinion, Israel is just slightly less justified, given its position of overwhelming power and tendency to bully their neighbor. Would the Palestinians be doing the same thing if the tables were turned? Absolutely.

[Air_Delivery]

9 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

No it wasn't. This is just the thing America told itself to feel good about fire bombings and nukes.

There is nothing to feel good about, however it was total war. There was no scenario that would have ended without mass Japanese civilian causalities. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

Just now, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

That would entirely depend on one's perception of moral relativism.

I'm  not equipped for that.

Just now, Uaarkson said:

You’re missing the point. None of the actions of Israel OR Palestine are justified. But in my humble opinion, Israel is just slightly less justified, given its position of overwhelming power and tendency to bully their neighbor.

Correct.  No one is justified.

Hamas fired the first shot.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, Air_Delivery said:

There was no scenario that wouldn't have ended without mass Japanese causalities. 

 

Sure there was!

 

It involved a complete and total blockade of the Japanese home islands by the Pacific Fleet.  There could very well have been some instances of mass starvation, but the overall death toll would probably have been far less than either the use of the atomic weapons or Operation Downfall (the codename for the invasion).

[Uaarkson]

Just now, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Sure there was!

 

It involved a complete and total blockade of the Japanese home islands by the Pacific Fleet.  There could very well have been some instances of mass starvation, but the overall death toll would probably have been far less than either the use of the atomic weapons or Operation Downfall (the codename for the invasion).

And THAT would have been too much $$$!

[Air_Delivery]

4 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

You’re missing the point. None of the actions of Israel OR Palestine are justified. But in my humble opinion, Israel is just slightly less justified, given its position of overwhelming power and tendency to bully their neighbor. Would the Palestinians be doing the same thing if the tables were turned? Absolutely.

I'm not even pro Palestinian. I just take the view that you must be moral to have any moral standing. If Palestinians were shooting rockets even with Israel ending the settlements, I would be pro Israel. However as long as Israel continues to do what it does, they deserve all the rockets shot at them. 

 

[Joe]

Hamas is terrible. Most of all because they are used to absolve Israel of its sins.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

I'm  not equipped for that.

 

How is that even possible?!?!

[AbsolutSurgen]

3 minutes ago, Air_Delivery said:

I'm not even pro Palestinian. I just take the view that you must be moral to have any moral standing. If Palestinians were shooting rockets even with Israel ending the settlements, I would be pro Israel. However as long as Israel continues to do what it does, they deserve all the rockets shot at them. 

 

No civilian deserves to have a rocket shot at them.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Uaarkson said:

And THAT would have been too much $$$!

 

It would've been cheaper than the invasion and by that point in 1945, Japan had all but collapsed anyway so I doubt the blockade would've been necessary for too long.

[Air_Delivery]

3 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Sure there was!

 

It involved a complete and total blockade of the Japanese home islands by the Pacific Fleet.  There could very well have been some instances of mass starvation, but the overall death toll would probably have been far less than either the use of the atomic weapons or Operation Downfall (the codename for the invasion).

This would have just kicked the problem down the road see North Korea. 

[Guest]

The current rocket attacks have nothing to do with settlements

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, Air_Delivery said:

This would have just kicked the problem down the road. 

It wouldn't have kicked it that far, only a few months at the most.

Besides, the use of the atomic weapons wasn't primarily to convince Japan to surrender, it was to show the Soviets that we had a brand new toy for the post-war world.

[Fizzzzle]

1 minute ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

It wouldn't have kicked it that far, only a few months at the most.

Besides, the use of the atomic weapons wasn't primarily to convince Japan to surrender, it was to show the Soviets that we had a brand new toy for the post-war world.

It was kind of both. It was also a bluff, we used all 3 of the nukes we had made (one to test) and couldn't have made any more for probably a year or so. The US wanted the world to believe "we could do this all day."

[Air_Delivery]

5 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

It wouldn't have kicked it that far, only a few months at the most.

Besides, the use of the atomic weapons wasn't primarily to convince Japan to surrender, it was to show the Soviets that we had a brand new toy for the post-war world.

Its impossible to say what would happen to Japan if we just blockaded it. I am doubtful the government would fall apart and they could have become an even more extreme cult similar to North Korea. 

Imagine if we had to deal with Japan today the same way we have to deal with North Korea. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

10 minutes ago, Air_Delivery said:

Its impossible to say what would happen to Japan if we just blockaded it. I am doubtful the government would fall apart and they could have become an even more extreme cult similar to North Korea. 

Imagine if we had to deal with Japan similar to how we have to deal with North Korea. 

 

It's not even a remotely close situation.

 

By mid-1945, Japan was absolutely finished!  Its armies had been pushed back from its Pacific defensive perimeter and had no means to replenish.  Its navy was sitting at the bottom of the ocean and had no means to manufacture more ships.  American B-29s had complete and total air supremacy over the home islands and could reduce what was left of its cities to smoldering ash at any time.  The only place where the Japanese military existed in any significant concentration was in Manchuria and the Soviet Union was looming just over the border having just polished off Nazi Germany.

 

Even if the government had become more extreme (a doubtful proposition considering the internal dynamics of the emperor), there would've been absolutely nothing they could've done except watch their civilian population starve to death.

[Fizzzzle]

4 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

It wouldn't have kicked it that far, only a few months at the most.

Besides, the use of the atomic weapons wasn't primarily to convince Japan to surrender, it was to show the Soviets that we had a brand new toy for the post-war world.

I do find it interesting that the US and Britain were already gearing toward the cold war during 43-45. There's a valid argument that they only decided to fully commit to an invasion of France once it became clear that Stalin was going to win the war and the invasion of Italy had stalled. To them, a Europe dominated by commies was in many ways worse than a Europe dominated by the Nazis. 

 

Then, of course, once the Soviets did eventually beat the Germans into submission and effectively controlled 80% of Europe, they would undoubtedly turn their attention towards their old enemy Japan, as they did in our timeline.

 

The US was under pressure to end the war as quickly as possible before the Soviets could get too involved. I wonder if that may have even been an influence on the decision by Japan to surrender.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

4 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

I wonder if that may have even been an influence on the decision by Japan to surrender.

 

I have zero doubt that it was.

 

Better to quickly surrender to the Americans than risk having the Soviets landing on Hokkaido.

[mclumber1]

49 minutes ago, Air_Delivery said:

Everything Hamas does is justified as long as Israel keeps building settlements. 

 

Bombing a bus is justified when Israel builds a settlement?