• AbidanYre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Say it a little louder for all the dipshits trying to argue that a trump presidency would be better for Gaza than Biden is.

    • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Why aren’t the “But Biden!” people in this thread? It’s so very strange they seem to be absent (no, it really isn’t).

  • testfactor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I feel like the narrative surrounding the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has changed enormously since I was a kid.

    I remember learning that, while tragic, the number of lives lost in the bombing paled in comparison to the numbers of lives being lost and that would be lost in winning the war by conventional means. That it was a way to minimize further bloodshed.

    I’m not super well read on the subject, but is that not true? Or, if it is true, does it not matter?

    I’m mostly just trying to figure out what caused the shift.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Back in HS, I think I was told that it was a regrettable ending and we probably went a bit overboard.

        • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          I remember watching it. The problem with the video is that they seriously overestimate the willingness of the Japanese to surrender without giving any evidence to back this up. The Japanese were absolutely not willing to surrender. I mean, just look at their reaction after Hiroshima. There was a lot of debate AFTER an entire city had been razed to the ground. Japan was absolutely not going to surrender without a nuke being dropped.

          • reliv3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            The Japanese were attempting to negotiate surrender with the “neutral” USSR prior to the nuclear bombs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan The US wanted an unconditional surrender which included the destruction of the Japanese emperor, who at the time, was the head of the Japanese religion. To put this into perspective, consider the United States request similar to requesting the destruction of the Pope within the Vatican. Because of this, the Japanese were seeking better terms of surrender which did not involved the removal of their religious leader. What the Japanese did not know at the time was the USSR was not a neutral party, and they were secretly mobilizing their forces on mainland Asia due to an agreement Stalin made with FDR prior to the US entering the war in Europe.

            The reality is, once Japan learned that the USSR was not neutral and they were going to be fighting the US and the USSR in a two front war, this is when the emperor forced Japan to surrender.

            To put things into perspective, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were sadly, just another two cities leveled by the US. The US were performing night carpet bombing on Japanese cities as soon as 1944. Many of these raids leveled several square km of urban areas. https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=217. This is why people argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were probably not the catalyst to Japan’s surrender because the US have been leveling Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens, long before the two nuclear bombs were dropped. None of these raids caused Japan to surrender before.

    • cybersin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It depends whether you think killing 200,000+ civilians is a defensible act.

      300,000+ if you include the bombing of Tokyo.

      Nobody knows how a conventional war would have played out. To assert civilian deaths would have been higher is pure speculation and a gross attempt to justify the slaughter of noncombatants.

      Though it is likely that even without nukes, the US would have still razed these cities with conventional munitions, given the events in Tokyo.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      There’s also the possibility that because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear weapons have never since been used. What would cold war been like in that case?

    • scorpious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      My understanding is that even after Hiroshima, the Imperial Army attempted a coup to avoid surrender.

      The Japanese were not stopping. The only alternative at hand was a full invasion, which would have killed many, many more.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    11 months ago

    So… he knows that… like… Israel would be in the blast radius and Jerusalem and Tel Aviv probably affected by a shit ton of radiation….

    • rayyy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      You assume that these guy know much about anything except corruption, graft, and drug fueled sex orgies.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      He knows that he’s not the one who’s going to be pushing the button, but that his rabid out-for-blood base won’t even think about that. He’s just throwing them meat.

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nevermind all the other obvious reasons this is terrible but I’m sure Egypt would have some objections to being blasted by a nearby nuke.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Israel is rumored to have tactical nukes that are much smaller yield than the large ICBMs we hear about all the time. Super destructive force in only 1 or 2 km blast radius, which would even fit inside a small area like Gaza. Of course, in addtition to devastating Gaza, there would still be fallout and issues over Israel, and using them in this manner is definitely Not OK. However, I can believe that there are some deluded people in government (both in Israel and in the US) who would view that as acceptable.

      • pyrate37@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Russia would immediately nuke them. It would be the end game for Israel. Hopefully they aren’t that stupid.

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Russia wouldn’t get involved. Many of the Jewish Mafia reside in Israel and are essential to maintaining Putin’s power in the country. Russia in many ways would be more inclined to encourage Israel to use nukes to cause destabilization in US politics.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    The senator continued to call the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki “the right decision” by the U.S. That decision ended the war with Japan, but killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians between the initial blasts and the deadly radiation that followed.

    “Give Israel the bombs they need to end the war they can’t afford to lose, and work with them to minimize casualties,” Graham insisted.

    He didn’t directly suggest nuking Gaza, but he made multiple parallels between ending the war in Japan by using nukes and then basically says we should give bombs to Israel to finish the job without specifying what he means.

    So while someone might argue black and white letter of what he said isn’t “nuke Gaza”, he’s still implying something along those lines - the quick finish and a method that can do it.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      That’s because he’s a performative Christian, or “Christian.” He doesn’t believe in anything unless it help him get ahead in life - just like most politicians and other moderate-to-high functioning psychopaths and sociopaths.

    • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’ll never happen. He’s doing exactly what they want gay people to do, being “decently” quiet about it.

  • kerrigan778@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    There’s really no reason to ever report on or pay attention to things Lindsay Graham says. He has no real values or stands of his own. He is a spineless jellyfish that goes with the tide wherever it allows him to keep the most power.

    I have never seen any evidence of him ever voicing and sticking to an actual personal belief.

  • mycathas9lives@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s not clear how low these people will truly go. The bottom fell out long ago and we are going to see these guys get a lot worse. There are no boundaries to guide them. They will continue to reach no lows time and time again. It’s infinite.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    This should disqualify him from ever holding office again. I know it won’t, but it should.

  • StaySquared@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Lindsey is part of the swamp. He’s a Christian Zionist, a doomsday Christian. These types of Christians want to hasten the Day of Judgement. Pretty much they’re psychopaths thanks to the Scofield Reference Bible.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      I cannot for the life of me figure out why, if you believe in Christian Mythology, even to the point of wanting Judgement Day to come during your lifetime, why you would personally take efforts that you know are going to end in mass civilian deaths.

      Assuming you are right and Judgement Day is on the horizon, are you not damning yourself to the deepest pits of Hell by spending your time leading up to the Rapture ordering the slaughter of innocent people, rather than say glorifying and spreading the word of God?

      I don’t believe in any of it, but if I did, I sure wouldn’t be advocating for mass-murder right before God shows up to judge me for the way I lived my life on Earth.

      • StaySquared@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I agree with you 100%. In my belief, it is God who wills when Judgement Day comes. It is not the will of a human. Christians and Zionists together think they can some how bypass the will of God.

        • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’m getting a little tired of people using “Zionist” when they actually mean “Jew”. Jews don’t even have a “judgement day” or even the concept of Hell for that matter, so I quite frankly have no fucking clue what you think you are saying here…

          If you have criticism of religion, go for it. If you have criticism of a nation, go for it. But one by one I keep watching people like you knock down the “criticism of Israel isn’t antisemitic” house of cards by making it clear you don’t see a difference between an Israel apologist and a Jew, and are just using the term “Zionists” as a placeholder for “Jews” so you can make weird blanket statements about Jews…

          • StaySquared@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I wasn’t criticizing Jews exclusively. If I want to criticize a Jew or a group of Jews, I will. Idgaf quite frankly.

            Judaism =/= Zionism. I’m criticizing the secular political ideology in which cherry picks from Judaism and incorporates it into it’s political ideology. Some of the things they cherry pick when it comes to human relations… is pretty fkin Nazi-like, who am I kidding… worst than Nazi’s treatment of their opposition. Reference the Talmud regarding gentiles.

            Neturei Karta is the only Torah practicing Jews that I recognize as my brethren. Because they actually practice the teachings of the Torah. If you’re a “practicing Jew” in Israel… you’re doing it wrong. Not because I say so, because your Torah says so.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I can’t reinforce the idea enough that they believe god is eal and that they can trick a prophecy to being fulfilled by naming a british colony “Israel”.

      The biblical Israel is long gone and the current Israel is obviously a different state; you can “fulfill the prophecies” the same way by naming your dog “the kingdom of Israel”

  • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    11 months ago

    In case you’re wondering, these religious freaks believe that they can force Jesus to return by instigating WW3. So long as Israel is involved, they consider that to be fulfilling prophecy; and the nuclear, the better. I’m sure some of them even consider Trump to be the actual Antichrist, while as usual, most of them think it’s whoever the Democrats have in office.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      its also stupid because old country of Israel is gone and making a new colony and calling Israel also isn’t fulfilling a prophecy - its cosplaying. Might as well call your dog “Israel” and say it fulfills the prophecy

  • vortic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    I don’t understand why Republicans are so strongly on Israel’s side at this point. I think almost everyone was on Israel’s side on Oct 7th but since then there have been over 35,000 Palestinian deaths, including women and children, and their infrastructure has been obliterated. Israeli losses since Oct 7th only come to 260 soldiers.

    Why would anyone suggest nuking Gaza? Oct 7th was terrible but it wasn’t perpetrated by the millions of people in Gaza. It was perpetrated by the terrorist group that rules Gaza and, at this point, it seems they aren’t much of a threat.

    The only reasons I could see for nuking Gaza are:

    • To kill all Gaza s before the new crop of radicals being cultivated by Israel’s brutality become ripe.
    • To try to create a broader conflict with the Islamic world.