this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2025
284 points (100.0% liked)

World News

48456 readers
1730 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 82 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 74 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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.

That's a threat not a warning

[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah but it just seems so batshit insane to me that it’s hard to fully fathom.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not only that, it makes zero sense.

If the rapture is real and God will ascend anyone true to the word, then by definition they would be sent straight to hell since they literally killed millions/billions of people.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah like I don’t get it. You can’t force the rapture, and even if you could, doing so would force you to not be getting raptured. It’s so stupid.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Everyone keep in mind, Israel would rather destroy the entire planet with nukes than lose their sovereignty as a state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

Zionists are scum and not meant to be trusted or reasoned with.

You know how it's okay to punch Nazis? We can add Zionists to that list as well. They are both equally shit and should be treated accordingly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

The CIA under the Dulles brothers also stated several times in their documents that they’d rather have the world suffer nuclear annihilation than let a non capitalist or fascist system take hold of world hegemony. So I would add anyone who supports the CIA to that list.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The moral decision is blindingly obvious and it's not to threaten nuclear war to shield your rabid pit bull of an ally from retaliation, motherfucker.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

The “dangerous silence” part rings alarmingly true, but not for the reasons protected.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah this isn't a small strike. They went after the leaders of Iran and their nuclear sites all at once.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Looks like they got the head of the Revolutionary Guard too.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Well without that nuke us South Koreans would still be one of many Japanese colony so I'm very much all for it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

So, in your view, intentionally killing civilians is OK if they're Japanese, but not if they're Palestinian.

Fascinating.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Iran was barely doing anything the last few years? the sudden attack seems likes its distraction from all those protests.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lots of news recently about Iran enriching their uranium. It’s not a big surprise.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They were manufacturing consent

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

Don’t they always

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Oh, it absolutely is. I’m not saying the attack is by any means justified.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You talk just like a zionist under cover

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

I would take enormous offense if this comment wasn’t dumb as hell

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not everyone who hates Iran is a zionist

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Nukes have entered the chat

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You know when you make a statement, then say “but” it negates the statement, yeah?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"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?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

OK, it works in this example, but...

Wait, shit.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

"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.