Bombing a refugee camp vs nuking Nagasaki

[Edgetho]

I'm a supporter of Israel, my wife and kids are Jewish I've considered converting 3 times and I've been studying Kabbalah for over a decade now. I realize Israel must take steps to defend itself, but I'm having a hard time processing lobbing missiles into a refugee camp to take out one guy.

Then I considered how the USA used Hiroshima and Nagasaki to test plutonium vs uranium air burst vs surface detonation and wondered if war is just that fucking ugly?

Bushido Japs and radical baby-murdering muzzies?

Kill 'em all. Let God sort it out.

 

[Richard-H]

I'm a supporter of Israel, my wife and kids are Jewish I've considered converting 3 times and I've been studying Kabbalah for over a decade now. I realize Israel must take steps to defend itself, but I'm having a hard time processing lobbing missiles into a refugee camp to take out one guy.

Then I considered how the USA used Hiroshima and Nagasaki to test plutonium vs uranium air burst vs surface detonation and wondered if war is just that fucking ugly?

Hell, we carpet bombed a whole bunch of French cities - killing thousands of French people - in order that the Allied Armies could break out of Normandy.

DeGaulle approved.

The consequences of not breaking out of Normandy outweighed the horror of killing these French people.

Likewise, the consequences of Israel not destroying Hamas outweigh the horror of killing non-combatant Palestinians.

Besides, it's been the Palestinians choice to support Hamas, Hamas is made up of Palestinians, hundreds of unarmed Palestinians joined the Oct. 7 Hamas raid on Israel and participated in the brutalization of unarmed Israelis. Palestinian women and children participated in the beatings, rape and killings of Israeli hostages in the streets of Gaza. The Palestinians are guilty as hell.

It's Hamas that chooses to keep their combatants in close proximity to non-combatant Palestinians.

Yes, war is that fucking ugly.

 

[whitehall]

Americans were taught to defend FDR's policies regardless of the outcome. Evidence suggests that the holdout Japanese were desperate to surrender but Truman refused to negotiate and instead dropped two nuclear devices on civilians. Reports of the horrific radiation injuries were spiked by the media at the time. The argument has always been that the nuclear attack was intended to save American lives that would be lost in an invasion of the Japanese mainland but why did we need to invade the Japanese mainland? Today Israel is in the same situation after being attacked by a savage organization. Why aren't they justified in using a nuclear device to save Israeli lives.

 

[FranklinRoosevelt_FTW]

I'm a supporter of Israel, my wife and kids are Jewish I've considered converting 3 times and I've been studying Kabbalah for over a decade now. I realize Israel must take steps to defend itself, but I'm having a hard time processing lobbing missiles into a refugee camp to take out one guy.

Then I considered how the USA used Hiroshima and Nagasaki to test plutonium vs uranium air burst vs surface detonation and wondered if war is just that fucking ugly?

There are many Jews, Muslims, different people in America. Bigotry is not a problem here, but calling someone a bigot with no proof to back it up it is a weaponization of politics. It is extremely disturbing and immature, it’s reckless, and it helps nobody.

Calling somebody anti-Semitic for criticizing Israel is completely evil and anti-American.


I know Muslims I have plenty of Muslim former coworkers and friends. My sister is Islamic. I’ve said all of this before tons of times.

And when we have people in the media hyping up the fear of antisemitism, it doesn’t help anybody. The facts are actually, there has been one death in America attributed to Israel Palestine not of a Jew but of a young Palestinian Muslim American boy, murdered by someone who used to be his friend, but he was radicalized by all of the pro Israel propaganda in the media. The pro Israel people here laugh at it, they hit that disagreed button. They’re insane. Does that mean anti Muslim bigotry is a problem in America? no it doesn’t we are a country of over 350 million people there are going to be some really bad things that happened to Jews , Muslims, Christians.

Most Americans are good people.



as for the bombing of the refugee camp, it is yet again another event in a series of lies from Israel. They will lie or exaggerate about the reason for the bombing. They’ve done this all the time they use Doctored videos, they did this with the Palestinian American journalist They killed with an Israeli sniper about a year and a half ago. Israel has been caught lying numerous times where they have been forced to say oh yeah, we did do it but it’s almost usually after the dust has settled

Realize this most important point perhaps in the past few years in a series of years they have been about 35,000 rockets from Gaza to Israel. They killed 68 people. In the meantime, Israel IDF has killed over 10,000 Palestinians. Now Israel is trying to claim that one of those rockete from Gaza killed more Palestinians at a hospital in Gaza than 35,000 rockets have done to Israel in a series of years

How the hell are we supposed to believe that. Yes, there’s good people in Israel and I respect Judaism and I’m a better person than the pro Israel scumbags who hate Islam. You are a better person than some of the anti Semitic people in this world. I hope that better people get into elected office in Israel. That’s what we can all hope for.

 

[Augustine_]

I'm a supporter of Israel, my wife and kids are Jewish I've considered converting 3 times and I've been studying Kabbalah for over a decade now. I realize Israel must take steps to defend itself, but I'm having a hard time processing lobbing missiles into a refugee camp to take out one guy.

Then I considered how the USA used Hiroshima and Nagasaki to test plutonium vs uranium air burst vs surface detonation and wondered if war is just that fucking ugly?

Had the U.S. decided to genocide Japan because their religion said they deserved the land then it would be more comparable.

 

[whitehall]

Had the U.S. decided to genocide Japan because their religion said they deserved the land then it would be more comparable.

The U.S. declared war on Japan because the Japanese attacked an island that wasn't even part of the U.S. After four years the industrial might of the U.S. brought Japan to it's knees and American bombers were bombing the island in daylight raids every day. Japan was defeated on the air, land and sea but the eggheads were desperate to use the devices they worked so hard to perfect on human beings. Religion might not have been a major issue but the inbred bigotry was on display. Before the war the FDR administration dismissed the Japanese as nearsighted little yellow people who were unable to build a ship that would float or a plane that would fly. There was no plan to use a nuclear weapon on the Nazi monsters but Japan was an easy target. Today Israel is in the same situation. They were attacked in a savage raid and they have a right to bring the invaders to their knees any way they can.

 

[Richard-H]

Americans were taught to defend FDR's policies regardless of the outcome. Evidence suggests that the holdout Japanese were desperate to surrender but Truman refused to negotiate and instead dropped two nuclear devices on civilians. Reports of the horrific radiation injuries were spiked by the media at the time. The argument has always been that the nuclear attack was intended to save American lives that would be lost in an invasion of the Japanese mainland but why did we need to invade the Japanese mainland? Today Israel is in the same situation after being attacked by a savage organization. Why aren't they justified in using a nuclear device to save Israeli lives.

First, because nuking Gaza would cause the fallout to blow over Israel and every other country in the area.

Second, the Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child. Okinawa taught us that any surviving Japanese would do a mass suicide rather than be captured. An invasion would not only cost the lives of about a million allied soldiers but would result in the complete extermination of the Japanese people - like what happened on Okinawa. Nuking Japan actually saved Japanese lives.

Third, the Japanese were in the final stages of developing fighter jets - there was only a small window in time that the allies retained air superiority.

Fourth, there was no indication that any Japanese were prepared to surrender.

Fifth, the Japanese (it was later found out) had successfully tested a nuclear bomb off the coast of Korea. If the war had continued, they would have used atomic weapons against us.

Finally, given the above reasons, the Japanese would have very likely reversed the course of the war. They were not even close to giving up.

Truman did the right thing.

 

[whitehall]

Nobody in their right mind wants nuclear weapons to ever be used again but there are so many questionable regimes that have nuclear capability like N.K. that an incident is almost inevitable. When you factor in a weak American president and a fractured democrat party interested only in political power and destroying it's political enemies it is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Augustine_]

Today Israel is in the same situation.

If the U.S. had spent 100 years trying to banish Japanese people from Japan due to religious zealotry and then Japan attacked them, then it would be accurate.

 

[Blaster]

Killing Muslims is a good thing.

It is like killing rabid animals.

 

[Richard-H]

If the U.S. had spent 100 years trying to banish Japanese people from Japan due to religious zealotry and then Japan attacked them, then it would be accurate.

Who did the Israelis banish? About 20% of Israelis are Palestinians.

The Palestinians voluntarily left Israel just before the 1948 Arab League attack against Israel. Israel was right to not let them return since they knew Israel was going to be attacked and did not warn Israel. They were traitors against Israel. The Israelis would have to be morons to let them return.

 

[Augustine_]

Who did the Israelis banish? About 20% of Israelis are Palestinians.

The Palestinians voluntarily left Israel just before the 1948 Arab League attack against Israel. Israel was right to not let them return since they knew Israel was going to be attacked and did not warn Israel. They were traitors against Israel. The Israelis would have to be morons to let them return.

Just like Palestinians have "voluntarily left" northern Gaza the last few weeks

 

[Richard-H]

Just like Palestinians have "voluntarily left" northern Gaza the last few weeks

You should read up on an issue before posting your nonsense.

The person who first told me about the Palestinian exodus was the son of Palestinian diplomats. His parents were involved in negotiation with the Israelis when the Arab League attacked. They resigned and relocated to Saudi Arabia. The guy who told me this was a college friend of mine.

Now, the Palestinians refuse to admit the truth.

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[BackAgain]

I believe the comparison in the OP is flawed.

When the vile cowards in Hamas deliberately hide themselves and their weaponry within the civilian population of Gaza, Israel is confronted with a harsh set of choices: (1) attack the Hamas hidey holes or (2) refrain from fighting back against the scumbag terrorist pussies.

The point of leveling large swaths of Gaza city isn’t to kill the civilians. The point is to deprive Hamas of its terrorist vermin shitbags and to render the Hamas weaponry ineffective.

Somehow we all seem to believe — in recent times — that war can be waged in a more “civilized” fashion. It cannot.

War is what it is. And to say that it is horrific is a huge understatement.

In the olden days (as recently as WWII if not even more recently) wars included concepts like destroying anything that could assist the enemy. Cities were “laid waste.” Fields were plowed with salt. An old Roman Senator insisted that “Carthage must be destroyed.” The NAZIs bombed London. The allies fire bombed Dresden. We nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This mad list goes back for century upon century.

But I get back to the main question. What do we expect Israel to do when Hamas attacks (like 10/7)? Not right back? So, Israel has some obligation to refrain from fighting back at all? Or they are required to do so ONLY in a vasty more “civilized” manner than the scum who slaughter Israeli people?

 

[Arlette]

The OP is right. Killing Muslims is a good thing and killing Japs is a good thing.

WTF is wrong with you?

 

[Delldude]

First, because nuking Gaza would cause the fallout to blow over Israel and every other country in the area.

Nuking Gaza would end up with a nuclear response from supportive (Jew hating) allies of the Palestinians, like Iran who has a mutual defense alliance with Ivan.

An invasion would not only cost the lives of about a million allied soldiers but would result in the complete extermination of the Japanese people - like what happened on Okinawa. Nuking Japan actually saved Japanese lives.

Okinawan's were never exterminated.

the Japanese were in the final stages of developing fighter jets - there was only a small window in time that the allies retained air superiority.

Final stages? The first flight took place on 7 August 1945.....same day Hiroshima made the 6 o'clock news.

there was no indication that any Japanese were prepared to surrender.

Their army was collapsing rapidly.Bases on Pacific Islands were abandoned in place, still occupied. I believe it was due to the emperor's people telling him what he wanted to hear. He didn't believe one bomb could flatten a city.......couple days laer, he changed his mind.

the Japanese (it was later found out) had successfully tested a nuclear bomb off the coast of Korea.

Clip from Korea Times claims it was tested on August 12, 1945.

Allegedly, on the evening of August 11, 1945, a number of ancient ships, junks and fishing boats were anchored near a small inlet by the Japanese. Just before dawn on August 12, a remote controlled launch carrying the atomic bomb known as ``genzai bakudan'' (greatest fighter), slowly made its way through the assembled fleet and beached itself.
Japan Tested Atomic Bomb in NK Before End of WWII?

Problem here is Wiki says:

The Japanese program to develop nuclear weapons was conducted during World War II. Like the German nuclear weapons program, it suffered from an array of problems, and was ultimately unable to progress beyond the laboratory stage before the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender in August 1945.

Japanese nuclear weapons program - Wikipedia

Finally, given the above reasons, the Japanese would have very likely reversed the course of the war.

Kinda doubt it when you read up on it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Prior to that the Palestinians were considered to be somewhat less than human by the Arab countries. Then someone came up with the idea they could be used for political means.

Interesting how jordan, egypt and these other arab countries don't want any of these people from gaza in to their borders but they're more than happy to make a spectacle out of the calamity. Meanwhile, hamas leaders engross themselves in luxury and billions in qatar as they deny services and make demands on the people who voted them in office. Geopolitically, they are used as political footballs.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I'm a supporter of Israel, my wife and kids are Jewish I've considered converting 3 times and I've been studying Kabbalah for over a decade now. I realize Israel must take steps to defend itself, but I'm having a hard time processing lobbing missiles into a refugee camp to take out one guy.

Then I considered how the USA used Hiroshima and Nagasaki to test plutonium vs uranium air burst vs surface detonation and wondered if war is just that fucking ugly?

The us did NOT use hiroshima and nagasaki to test the difference between air bursts and surface detonations.

For one thing had you bothered to do the slightest bit of research you would find that both bombs were AIR BURST detonations.

They both detonated at over 1500 feet in altitude.

Dumbass

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The us did NOT use hiroshima and nagasaki to test the difference between air bursts and surface detonations.

For one thing had you bothered to do the slightest bit of research you would find that both bombs were AIR BURST detonations.

They both detonated at over 1500 feet in altitude.

Dumbass

I leaned that from a class trip to West Point over have a century ago. There was a display about the two bombs and said, matter of fact, that one was uranium and one was plutonium; one was exploded at ground level and the second was an air burst

 

[Soupnazi630]

I leaned that from a class trip to West Point over have a century ago. There was a display about the two bombs and said, matter of fact, that one was uranium and one was plutonium; one was exploded at ground level and the second was an air burstg

Bullshit.

It is true that little boy was uranium based and fat man was plutonium based but they were both airbursts.

Fat man detonated at about 1,650 feet over Nagasaki.

Fat Man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Little boy detonated at about 1,968 over Hiroshima.

Little Boy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One detonated about 300 feet higher than the other but both detonated at over1,500 feet. Making BOTH airbursts.

Whatever you think you heard is bullshit and your claim is an epic FAILURE