Iranian channel reminds the world of the Dresden massacre . I wonder why America keeps wanting to overthrow Iran
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (130)
sorted by:
Israel
Israel literally does not care about Dresden.
Go big or go home. They basically did the same thing to the entirety of Britain over the 9months of The blitz, which iirc killed more. Granted this is only one city and doesn't take into account the other bombing raids, but if they want to be selective then sure.
It makes sense to level a place which houses a bunch of manufacturing, exactly the same thing that they did with London, Coventry and Birmingham.
Dresden was an entirely civilian target though, they bombed it for fun. To quote Churchill right after: "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed". Dresden was not the only city being bombed to shits, Cologne, Paderborn and Japanese Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All that needs to be remembered is that the allies aren't only "the good guys" is what one should take from this.
It makes sense to bomb tactical places like factories etc, bombing civilians for fun is what America's done for decades though, just look at the shit Obama's done.
I have an ethnic German radio show that played on the local NPR station on Saturdays and typically brought it up every few months. What's your point? The US government isn't trying to stop people talking about Dresden.
Frankly, I'm surprised they actually gave a more accurate number. Most of the time, people freaking about Dresden are giving way higher (and wrong) numbers.
Everybody brings up Dresden, but nobody brings up Tokyo. Kinda think Curtis LeMay was a serial killer, if we're being honest. Officially story is that the entire fire-bombing campaign killed under 300,000. Initial unreleased estimates is that the one in Tokyo may have killed 400,000 by itself.
So .. You can't find this tweet by searching for it, but it's still up.
https://twitter.com/PressTV/status/1625486990631378944
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40PressTV%2078%20years%20ago%20today&src=typed_query
Also, it was more like a couple hundred thousand murdered. Not 25k.
The 25k number comes from the SS themselves. The propaganda numbers literally just added 0's on their versions of the reports, which was then used for propaganda purposes. That's what got circulated to the press and other agencies, but the death toll was never even close to 100,000. Even the actual extent of the bombing shows this. Dresden, as a whole, was not targeted. Only specific sections of Dresden were targeted, and most of the city was not destroyed.
That fact that everyone here believes the lies from WWII is simply, well .. believable, actually. Especially for this sub.
... The SS lied about their number to themselves?
I suppose the Nazis were just another ZOG, right?
Couple hundred thousand? That's a lot, where are you getting that from?
History books? If you've read something else, you're reading propaganda.
Which history books? Provide references if you can.
he doesn't know what he's talking about. the casualty figures for Dresden are well documented. We know for a fact that the dead were somewhere between 22,000 and 25,000 for the Dresden raids, based on German statistics at the time.
The US did kill hundreds of thousands in bombing Japan if you add together all the firebombing and nukes.
I expected as much. That explains why he can't name any 'history books' that make this claim. I've noticed that leftists who tell others to 'read a book' can never name any books that they have read.
The typical redditor reaction to losing a debate or being confronted by any dissonance is to get pretentious and condescending. That's why they always default to "read a book" or something similar. It makes them feel superior to say it, no matter how obviously it isn't true. One thing about libs is that they have an unparalleled talent for embracing delusion.
The #1 component of "internet debates" I've seen over the past years I've wasted time on them, is that the other side tends to view the debate as "how can I make the other guy feel stupid and make myself feel superior" as opposed to debating the actual facts, or learning anything. It's all a mind game, an emotional and psychic fencing match to them. That makes it a total waste of time, which is why I started clicking disable inbox replies on all my comments on reddit years ago.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
I don't consider Wikipedia a trustworthy source, but I have to agree that 200,000 and 500,000 is too high. The highest I've heard is in the low 100k.
The actual German authorities said 22-25k. Goebbels lied and added a zero, because that was his job as propaganda minister.
It's obvious to anyone who knows about strategic bombing of cities to see that even the 22-25k figure was high, and it really isn't conceivable for it to be higher under the circumstances. The firebombing of Tokyo, for example, was far, far more destructive, on the same level as an atomic bomb (it killed more people than the actual nukes) and yet it only killed about 100k.
Also do not forget Paderborn, been to that city once, beautiful city and it got bombed to shits, a civilian target btw(though, tbf was supposed to be the center of the thousand year Reich, doesn't make it better though tbh). But America's the good guys who do no war crimes or anything.
Interesting seeing the arch-moron 'TheImpossible1' break character in order to defend the more feminist of two sides.
Turns out 'TheImpossible1' is simply the cuck he thinks everyone else is after all. Actually, he's also braindead: too stupid to see, for instance, that men are far larger to blame for feminism than women, and that feminism is merely an offshoot of the liberal ideology which he otherwise defends.
Also, long live the Islamic Republic of Iran. For all the pozzed nonsense they come out with on occasion, they're also one of the remaining voices of reason.
Not saying this was right, but Germany attacked first.
Whether they’re right or not, fuck Iran.
Iran is an enemy of the United States, and has acted as an enemy ever since the 1979 revolution that turned Iran into an authoritarian islamic theocracy.
The US couldn't care less about stupid tweets like this. While I agree that the Dresden bombing was a "terror" bombing undertaken gratuitously in revenge, so what? This was an accepted practice in WW2. This is nothing compare to what the US did to Japan.
It was controversial in the US/UK even at the time. It is important to note that in WW2, the "rules of war" we all just assume to be correct did not exist. They were created by the West in response to the destruction of ww2. Unlike every other nation, the US/UK actually had a conscience and the ability to look upon the bombing and say it was wrong, and to suspend further such attacks.
The main problem with Iran today is that it supports terrorism, launches attacks on commercial ships, attacks oil facilities in Saudi Arabia with drones, supplies terrorist groups in Syria/Lebanon/Yemen, and tries to get nukes so it can use those to make threats and destabilize the region. Not tweets.
Our "greatest ally" does the exact same shit.
I don't see why anyone would think that it does.
Both the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Land Warfare Convention did exist. These however deal mostly with treatment of soldiers and not civilians, is my understanding. This is also why mass murder of civilians is technically not a 'war crime', but a 'crime against humanity'. Correct me if you know better.
Dude... C'mon man.
Whatever 'conscience' countries have, they have because they don't want to get bad press.
There's no evidence that these kooks actually want nukes, rather than the ability to get nukes. Also, I know of no terrorist group in Syria supplied by Iran, while there are plenty supplied by the US. All the rest is true. That said, it's nothing the US doesn't do, and the US does much worse - like blow up European infrastructure.
Would I mind if the Iranian regime is overthrown? Yes. But only for as long as they are supplying drones to Russia - which is actually the only reason the West dislikes Iran suddenly.
It's corruption and hypocrisy all the way down in the West.
Like you say, those were basically for POWs at the time, and the USSR/Germany/Japan ignored them, though the Allies followed them and Germany generally respected the rules for Allies POWs.
No rules of war or treaties cover strategic bombing, instead, it's a cultural and social taboo mediated by the international press and their influence on democratic politicians.
The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, more commonly referred to as the Fourth Geneva Convention. This was in 1949 after WW2. It bans violence and other things against civilians, prisoners, the wounded, etc.
So? All a conscience is, is the "bad press" inside your own mind. All goodness is, is your choice to refrain from selfish/malicious acts based on your own higher principles. Who cares if the press acts as the conscience of western politicians? The point is that the West has one. Russia and China do not.
But I also reject your worldview that Western politicians are all sociopaths and lack any internal consciences. Of course they have consciences, and limit themselves regardless of the press. We can see this by seeing how different politicians acted differently. Nixon was far more willing to bomb civilians than other presidents like Johnson or Carter, even in the face of press criticism.
You don't spend enormous time, money, and bring sanctions on yourself with lots of nuclear program facilities, unless your goal is to get nukes. You don't pay a high price for something you don't want. You don't point to a 4th year college senior and say "there's no evidence he wants a degree, he just wants to have the ability to get a degree". No dude, he clearly wants a degree.
Hezbollah
Nah, the drone supply is a really minor, trifling thing compared to the much bigger problems with Iran.
The drone attacks don't even work anymore. The West started to supply Ukraine with a lot of air defenses, and after a few months, almost all the drones get shot down now.
The drone strikes were highly successful in October, a bit less successful in November with about 70% intercepted, and even less successful in December. The attack on Feb 9/10 had an 86% shoot down rate.
The latest attack last night caused no power outages at all.
It's a failed strategy. Sure, it forced the West to waste more money than otherwise on gearing up Ukraine's air defenses to a degree that otherwise would not have been necessary, but there is no evidence that this caused a reduction in other supplies. To the contrary, Russian attacks on civilians only caused military aid to ramp up to much higher levels than we saw in the 1st 9 months of the war. So the aid increased, the capabilities increased, and Russia failed to actually disrupt Ukraine's power grid for any significant length of time. The strategy backfired.
Crap. So we're screwed. Because the "international press" is corrupt, as are supposedly democratic politicians.
Conscience is internal. If it's the bad press they fear, it's not internal.
Because you have a very naive understanding of politics. They wouldn't get to that position if they weren't sociopaths, at least, the chances would be close to nil and they wouldn't get anything done. DeSantis? Sociopath. He'd order the death of half the human population if it would get him into office. And thank God for it, because he'd be a sure loser otherwise.
Different politicians calculate their interests differently, but for none of them is "civilian casualties" per se a consideration. Perhaps the bad press is, and Nixon cared less about bad press than Carter.
I think it makes perfect sense. Having the capability to quickly get a nuke gets them all the benefits without the associated costs of being even more of an international pariah. I do think they made a mistake, but now it's difficult for them to get out of the hole they've dug for themselves.
That's Lebanon.
And you're using $300,000 missiles to shoot down $20,000 drones. Seems pretty cost-effective to me.
Please, let's not pretend that the corrupt West cares about 'civilians' as anything more than propaganda. They sure as hell didn't care about Azerbaijan butchering Armenians, as you acknowledged.
Press is absolutely internal to the nation state.
Idk how you can interact with a significant number of people and actually believe this. I guess this must be a very russian way of thinking designed to normalize acceptance of its own leaders behaving that way.
They have nothing until they detonate a test like Pakistan or North Korea did, and at that point they have everything they want, as proven by North Korea and Libya, as soon as you reach the finish line, no one will touch you. They might be waiting until they can get a number of nukes, though, not just 1, because if they only have 1 or 2 they are vulnerable to Israel suddenly bombing the shit out of them with Saudi assistance in response to their test.
Hezbollah has been deployed as military units in Syria from the early days of the civil war. They are the major conduit of Iran's aid to Assad, since they're an Iranian proxy.
Sometimes. Russia also fires some very expensive cruise missiles in the mix, it isn't all Iranian drones. Ukraine also using some very low cost interceptors like German Gepards. Even not being cost effective though doesn't matter, since the West has a combined GDP over 20x that of Russia.
But in the longer term you are right. Modern air defenses are not optimized against extremely cheap missiles like the Shahed 136/Geran-2. Russia is doubling down on the mass production of the Shahed 136 in Yelabuga. Presumably Russia will be able to produce thousands of missiles per month and saturate defenses, eventually.
But the attacker always loses these wars of economic attrition against any prepared defender.
Shooting down the Shahed 136 with missiles is a non-starter because you can't make a missile cheap enough since the Shahed's extremely low requirements mean it can be far cheaper than any interceptor. Guns are also non-starters because their short range means you need far too many of them to cover an area as large as Ukraine. They might work for targets getting shot at a lot like Zaporizhzhia, but you can't provide comprehensive coverage. Using aircraft is also a non-starter since the cost from accidents and wear and tear alone are too high. You could use cheaper prop planes like COIN aircraft, but at that point there's a better solution:
The answer is obvious: you kill the Shahed 136 with smaller, cheaper drones. The drone interceptors do not need to be expended, either. They can simply hover above the Shahed and fire a payload of shotgun shells into it, or attach a satchel charge to it. They could also ram it, but since the Shahed is so slow and flies so straight, you don't need to waste your drone to bring it down.
But this system does not yet exist, and it should be developed immediately. Plenty of drones already exist, but you'd need a drone command point which is networked into the air defense network, and which can control a dozen or more drones at a time to cover a wide area of 20-30km. You can have smaller, cheaper shorter range drones pre-positioned on likely approach routes to blunt saturation attacks.
I don't think Russia will get production up in time to make any significant difference, but I hope our military leaders have enough brains to recognize that they need a new weapon to defeat enemy drones in general, and it needs to be tested and deployed sooner not later.
It's not internal to the individual. If you do not do something to avoid bad press, you have an external and not an internal motivation, so you're definitely not moral.
Every leader acts in this way. Yes, understanding geopolitics in any way makes it rather difficult to interact with normies who just believe what the TV tells them. The fact that Westerners are brainwashed into believing that their sociopathic leaders are the GOOD GUYS is a testimony to Western propaganda, and not anything else.
I see you have still not read The Myth of the Nuclear Revolution. Try it, I think you will like it.
Of course it matters. Who was it who said that he lost all respect for Napoleon once he realized how difficult it is to fight with a coalition? Every government has its own priorities, and even your government cannot control its puppets in Europe 100%, because they fear that if they let their people starve and freeze too much, they're going to have a bad time.
You forget that Russia's economy is many times larger than that of that corrupt puppet shithole non-country. And the West's blood money will eventually lessen or cease. Like Obama said: Russia cares more about Ukraine than the US and will therefore always maintain escalatory dominance.
The Shaheds cost something like $10,000. I'll be impresed if you can get a drone cheaper than that one which is also capable of taking it out.
Eh, you said 'cheap', which means that Raytheon isn't going to profit from it. That means that it's not happening. The whole point of these wars is to steer taxpayer money into the pockets of Raytheon and other merchants of death, as well as kickbacks and bribes for politicians, like literal Raytheon employee Lloyd Austin.
Your belief that every politician is a sociopath is utterly without evidence, and is instead solely rooted in your own ideology. I reject ideology, and I require concrete proof and evidence. I have been watching politics a lot longer than you have, and have seen more evidence than you have, none of which supports your claim that every politician is a sociopath. Maybe SOME are, but in western democracies, these people are generally rejected by the voters. It is uniquely a Russian thing to think that politicians ought to behave like sociopaths. Not even Chinese think that way.
I've already read that book and it 100% agrees with me, but even if it did not, I would still be right. The opinion of 2 america academics is not superior to mine. Your appeal to authority fallacy is rejected. If you have a point to make, or an argument to make, you need to make it honestly, not be a little shithead and point to a book and say I'm wrong like a tranny on reddit.
Also since you're a jackass and we both know your little gambit here was to cite a book you knew I hadn't read to declare victory based on the implication that the secret to why I'm wrong is hidden in said book, and you won't reveal what it is, instead you'll only point me to the book, and since you know I won't read it, you get to declare victory, allow me to point out forthrightly that your little tactic is bad faith, is wrong on the merits, and makes you a piece of shit for even trying it. If you think that book proves me wrong, you must actually articulate why using the arguments and evidence you learned from the book, instead of pointing at the book and saying I'm wrong. Again, just because some academics in the US have an opinion, doesn't make their opinion the gospel Truth.
And while I will never do this again, and will instead become hostile and "mean" to you if you pull this shit in the future, I pulled up a pdf of this stupid book in about 30 seconds and skimmed it. I can read very quickly. My job, after all, is to read through thousands of pages of case law to pull out a few choice sentences to use in my arguments. I found nothing in the book that in any way refutes the point I was making, which is that Iran has "nothing until they detonate a test like Pakistan or North Korea did, and at that point they have everything they want, as proven by North Korea and Libya, as soon as you reach the finish line, no one will touch you." Iran is only mentioned at pages 24, 103, 128. Don't come at me.
Why are you citing to relatively recent (2020) obscure books on geopolitics? Are you a university student or were you one recently? That book you cited looks like assigned reading for a class.
The West isn't fighting. It's just giving Ukraine free shit. Turns out you don't need to carefully coordinate that for it to work.
Yet 20x smaller than the Western countries supplying Ukraine.
Except that has been proven false now, hasn't it? Western aid to Ukraine has massively increased in the last few months. It hasn't decreased, as Russia and its fans had hoped.
And it doesn't matter if "Russia cares more than the US" because Ukraine cares a lot more than Russia, and since the West has GDPs more than 20x the size of Russia, the West doesn't need to care as much as Russia, the West can care only 5% as much as Russia does and still win. All the West needs to do is keep giving Ukraine ammo, which is among the cheapest of the aid given. Ukrainian manpower will do the rest.
High end weapon systems, while nice for Ukraine to have, are not necessary to stop Russia. The only way Russia could win is if, like the Winter War, Ukraine runs out of ammo. That will never happen. Ammo resupply would be the last thing to go from aid, and artillery ammo is very cheap at scale.
False. They cost $20,000 to $50,000 each to make, and Russia has to pay a lot more than that to Iran since Iran wants a profit margin.
They could be destroyed with a small re-usable commercial DJI drone that costs a few thousand dollars with some modifications, under the command of an air defense network.
A racing drone with a half dozen shotgun shells strapped to it, pointed down similar to a WW2 Schräge Musik, could be programmed to quickly fly above the Shahed 136, detonate the shotgun shells into the flimsy Shahed 136, and fly home. The Shahed 136 can't be made to be survivable. Even a single shotgun shell would likely kill it, since it would take out the engine or cause a fuel leak or just ruin the aerodynamics, all of which would cause it to crash. Doing this with a manually controlled operator wouldn't be easy, but if the drone interceptor is controlled by a computer, just as drones often are, it would be child's play.
You could also have a much more sophisticated hunter killer drone that costs $50k-100k capable of fully autonomous non-networked intercepts under manual control, which could use thermal optics to "lock on" to a Shahed 136 at long range then fly to it and kill it with some rifle caliber shots.
The reason the Shahed 136 is ultimately an easily countered weapon is that it is extremely slow, flies low, must fly in a straight line, and must leave the protection of Russian SAM and jamming systems. So cheap drones will eventually be knocking them down at the cost of only maybe $20 in ammunition per intercept.
Raytheon can sell the control stations for millions of dollars, but the individual drone interceptors can be very cheap and the cost per intercept can be very low.
US defense contractors are more than happy to work on lasers for the Navy, knowing that the cost per intercept for a laser is pennies. They can make their profit on the system itself, not the "ammo".
While the US engages in a lot of waste in military spending, it is not impossible or unheard of to develop and field efficient systems.
It's the most attested statement in human history. They would not be successful politicians if they weren't...
Not ought, do. 'Voters' don't matter, as like Machiavelli said, the prince should appear to be good without actually being so. I'm not sure how you can miss this.
So no different than usual?
This is a weird way to respond to a book recommendation. If you recommended me a book, I'd consider reading it, because your interests generally align with mine. This one I'd told about you before, but it seems that you haven't read it.
No one cares about nuclear weapons. In fact, having a small nuclear capability may encourage (as you admitted, I believe) a first disarming strike.
Because I found it interesting, and it contradicts a widely held belief - the idiocy that nuclear weapons are not going to be used. There are many common sense rejections of that claim, e.g. that Russia, US and China have all made massive investments in nukes, but this goes into a bit more detail, and I enjoyed it.
Not exactly free when it's exchanging it for the life's blood of its young men. And you do need to coordinate it, because everyone would want to free ride on helping the US empire rather than be commanded to send more of his money for imperial purposes.
Oh, so you admit that this is a war between NATO and Russia? Good to know.
I'm fine with it. I'd like for Russia to smash NATO as a whole, rather than eke out a victory against an isolated Ukraine. In the long term, things will be as Obama predicted.
Doesn't matter, since its GDP is vastly lower, and the people who use Ukraine as their puppet care less than Russia.
It's not 'waste' to fill the pockets of contractors, it's the entire purpose of military spending.
But you dont get it. The Woke are so bad, we must side with the enemies of America in order to defeat them! I mean, sure....we're defeating them through normal means and returning America to its normal state. But it's not fast enough! And there are too many untermench still in it! /s
I swear to baby Jesus, this place is becoming so much more retarded by the day with some of the people around here. I saw some people start simping for China because "At least they're not Woke." As if the Chinese arent the ones SPREAD THE WOKE AGENDA TO WEAKEN OTHERS!
So I just stopped caring about them. Russia must burn, Slava Ukraini, and Et praeterea Sina delenda est! Glory forever to Columbia!
I mean, good luck, but... I don't see that happening. At the very best, you're going to end up with a moderate woke empire: e.g. instead of banning the cutting up of children, there will be some checks on it rather than none.
Maybe you can respond to substantive points rather than strawmen.
It's just a fact. If you live in China, you don't have to worry about your children being cut up because your local school brainwashed him into believing that he was 'in the wrong body'. When did objectivity become bad?
Quite likely with the TikTok crap. The Russians were also spreading BLM and other stuff on Russia Today. But who is dumber, the one who feeds poisons to others, or the one who willingly quaffs it himself?
Oh, this is a very rational point of view. MUH RUSSHER is so bad, we must side with literal Nazis and war criminals to defeat it.
And why exactly is Russia so bad, may I ask? Because it invades other countries? Because ordinary people have no say in its politics? Or because unarmed women who protest the government are shot in the throat?
Comment Reported for: Rule 15 - Slurs
What slur?
The only possible ideas I have are “retarded” (which AFAIK is allowed here) or they think there is a slur hidden in the Latin (which is literally just Cato’s famous phrase modified to “And Furthermore, China must be destroyed.”)
What makes you say we're returning for my eye it seems we're getting worse, As for Russia I'd say it's heavily flawed but ultimately better then we are at the moment (This war between them and Ukraine is a pointless loss of life). As for Iran I don't have much of a take because IDK much on em.
Anti-Americans just use wokeness as an excuse. If the US had a civil war and we holocausted all the wokes and wiped out all LGBTs & twitter blue checks, and turned America into a nationalistic right wing empire, 90% of these people would shit their pants, panic, and REEEEEE out about how evil America is twice as hard, because their fundamental goal is to divide, weaken, and undermine the United States, not to promote right wing ideology.
A united right wing American empire would be their worst nightmare.
Projection much that, last I checked we don't bitch during good times unlike our enemies who claim they are oppressed despite having the elites at their backs
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
Comment Approved: This is an opinion.
"Anti-Americans", as you call critics of the US government, are critical of the actions of the US government, because they do not like the actions of the US government.
Hell, you can stay woke all you want. If you stopped exporting it to my country, and stopped invading others, and stopped inciting war in Europe, I wouldn't be forced to care about some shithole country across the ocean.
It is your fantasy, because you're never getting control back.
Bullshit. Your primary complaint about the United States is its culture, not its government.
You know I'm not woke, and have done plenty to fight the wokes.
The United States does not export wokeness. You people seek it out and bathe yourselves in it. You go out of your way to learn English. You go out of your way to watch American and British entertainment media. You go out of your way to not just watch it, but to look up to it as your superior, admire it, emulate it, and worship it. You ABSOLUTE FOOLS worship Hollywood atheistic jews and their cultural manipulation DIRECTLY, and your elites model themselves after it.
Don't blame us when your elites and your people go out of their way to ingest clearly labelled poison. That's your own faults, not ours. American conservatives like DeSantis at least strike back against infected woke factories like Disney. What has Putin done? Nothing except to empower the wokes by handing them an easily defeated foil to rally against.
The US hasn't invaded anyone since 2001 Afghanistan and 2003 Iraq, both justified, both supported by broad coalitions. That was 20 years ago, now. Russia, on the other hand, invaded Ukraine last year.
"you made me do it" victim blaming is the lamest, most pathetic excuse of the naked aggressor. It's a bitch move. It's what mentally disordered women say.
If you hadn't learned english, you wouldn't be interacting with the english speaking world at all. You did it to yourself. It's like if I learned Japanese and went on Japanese internet sites and then complained about the Anime nobody forced me to watch all day.
I don't have any fantasy of overthrowing democracy. It's not my fault you're demoralized. Of course the Right is getting power back. We had it under Trump 2017-2020, we had it under GWB 2001-2008. The pendulum swings both ways. We will win in 2024.
Will we eradicate wokeness? No, but we can and will erode and reduce its power. Unlike Putin, who only helps the wokes by being a villain for them to beat up on. At least with Hitler, Hitler actually might have won, and did win for quite a while until the tide turned. (in contrast to Japan, who had 0% chance of winning from the moment they started shit with the US) Putin has no chance of winning and just threw away whatever power he could have used in more useful and effective ways soaking Ukrainian fields with Russian blood and steel.
No, if its culture was as rotten as it is now, but it didn't export its culture, and didn't start needless wars every 15 minutes, I wouldn't care.
Yes, but as I've told you, when I say 'you', I mean Murica. Not you personally. Like you do for Russia, even though I'm not even Russian...
I didn't do that. The low IQ lemmings and the corrupt bought and paid for elites do. And yet I have to suffer for it. That is why I don't like America. Other than that, I don't have a problem.
It's not my fault what my elites do. I don't live in a democracy. I live in Europe.
With your aid. You could have helped Putin end the influence of woke Americans in Ukraine, but instead, you decided for literally no reason to hate on Russia. Why? Honestly, why? When my government says that it supporst Ukraine, my instinct is to oppose Ukraine, because I hate this good-for-nothing tyranny.
There was no justification ofr Iraq, and there certanly was no broad coalition. Your puppets El Salvador and the UK don't count. And in the meantime, you (USG) absolutely wrecked Libya, Iraq, and are now threatening the Solomon Islands...
Yeah, you literally provoked it. Made promises to Gorbachev you didn't keep, NATO expansion, 2008 Bucharest, Maidan coup, lethal arms to Ukraine.
By proxy, I would, because the woke poison is still pushed to other people here.
What are you talking about man, there's no such thing as 'democracy'. It's an oligarchy where you've been persuaded that you have the power in order to legitimize the actions of the ruling class.
LOL! For all the good that did. If the Chimpleton is 'the right', we are in deep, deep trouble. And Trump got zilch done, except for the Justices. Then again, uselessness, thy name is 'the right'.
Oh please, save your jingoism for the unlikely, not to say impossible case in which your corrupt puppet shithole non-country is actually victorious.
You should focus that hatred on your elites who bought into the woke shit and thus unilaterally imported it into your country.
You have infinitely more ability to influence your own elites than you have to influence America.
Because empire building and wars of aggression are wrong, a geopolitical threat, and morally evil, that's why. The last benevolent empire was the British Empire, and the United States opposed it and worked towards its disintegration, so why the fuck would we support Russia - not benevolent at all and instead quite hostile - to build a new empire through conquest and oppression?
If we let Russia eat Ukraine, it would just keep eating until we finally had to stop it. Hitler didn't stop with Austria or Czechoslovakia. The West sat back and let him gain power and ate his bullshit until Poland, by which point it was too late. If Hitler had not foolishly launched Barbarossa and instead focused entirely on knocking out the UK's empire, he would have won. The lesson here is that you stop the empire builders when they take their first bite. You don't allow them to eat in peace out of fear of war until they've made it crystal clear you're on the menu, because you're always on the menu.
"On March 18, 2003, the State Department made public a list of 31 countries that participated in the US-led coalition: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan."
At least Hitler and Tojo didn't play the victim.
They are puppets and traitors, all bought and paid for. They're totally fine with a supposed ally blowing up critical infrastructure. But yeah, you are correct. Infinity * 0 = 0. The only thing I can hope for is more sensible leadership in America that will lift its boot from our necks. Unfortunately, you don't have any control over your elites either.
You know full well that your buddy Senile Joe doesn't care about 'morally evil'. As for geopolitical threat, you didn't care when the USSR was in Berlin, now it's a bad thing that they take back their own lands?
(1) Britain wasn't occupying its own lands. (2) You opposed it to strengthen the US at the expense of European powers.
Balderdash. Ukraine was a constituent republic of the USSR, part of the Russian Empire since the 1790s, and wholly illegitimate as an independent state. Like your puppet Kosovo. The only part that you may have any claim to is the part that was stolen by Stalin from Poland.
Stalin knew Hitler was going to invade, he just thought that it would be after defeating the UK. If Germany lost fighting a USSR that was caught completely unawares, how would it have fared against a USSR that was armed to the teeth and expecting an invasion? Maybe Hitler could not have invaded. But then the USSR would have. Because countries don't tolerate a country that is growing in power and that may pose a security risk in the future.
So I think Barbarossa was quite smart, if not completely in its execution.
Great, when are we declaring war on the US for stealing half of Mexico?
Wow, you got ESTONIA into the coalition of the bribed and coerced!
Given that Estonia defeated Russia in the aftermath of WW1, a true win.
They did... Hitler falsely claimed the USSR was about to attack, and Japan attacked the US because of the oil embargo.
Maybe they stole the master race idea from Judaism.
The Jews generally weren't going around conquering others and keeping the native population as serfs.
Nah, they kept them as slaves.
Examples.
This is after the Axis bombed London and most of Britain to near rubble, so fuck off?
You fucked around, you found out.
Sorry, this is retarded even by your standards. Just what did the people in Dresden have to do with 'fucking around'?
But if they are, Ukrainian men most certainly are more to blame than ordinary people in Dresden, and yet you scream day and night about them.
Really odd of you to be taking this position, since you routinely ascribe to the old world notion that a nation, its government, and its people are all a single unit whenever you talk about Ukraine. You delight in Russia's mass shelling of civilian areas & mass targeting/killing of Ukrainian civilians. Russia routinely acts as though every last woman and child in Ukraine is a nazi with a Totenkopf tattoo, because because a handful of people in Mariupol's Azov Regiment were like that.
Back in WW2 times - which are the times Russia still lives in to this day - it was considered to be perfectly normal to treat enemy civilians as part of the enemy war machine, and also to see terror bombing as a legitimate tool of war. Hell, Russia engages in terror bombing against Ukraine even now. There are countless videos of guided munitions fired by russia into residential areas and apartment blocks. I think it would have been far worse if not for the international media haranguing Russia for it to the point where it seems like Russia has largely switched tactics away from trying to outright kill civilians, to instead indirectly kill them by targeting their power and water supplies in the middle of winter.
The West learned from Dresden and stopped. What was acceptable changed. The world outside the West refused to accept this change, as we've seen through countless examples of terror attacks in non-Western wars, and so the West does what it can, through sanctions, to impose its taboos on others.
I also find it amusing that the Japanese got it 100x worse than the Germans, and yet nobody gives a shit about them because they weren't white. (just like the Soviet and Chinese immense civilian losses, by far the worst of the war, are essentially ignored by the West in favor of much smaller atrocities against whites in europe)
I do? Can you cite one single instance? I don't think you can, because I've always condemned the shelling of civilian areas (whether Donetsk or Mariupol), while also acknowledging that Azov used it as a human shield in the way that Hamas does.
What actions are those? Do they address them as Zelensky bodyguards? I'm not convinced of these mad tales of Russian supposed atrocities, particularly because it's wartime and the regime loves to make up propaganda about its adversaries. Bucha, seems likely that the Russians did it (though I can't see what rhyme or reason those actions have), but I wouldn't be surprised if there was something else either. But even that wasn't targeting of children and women.
About that, remember the statement by the NATO apparatchik defending taking out Yugoslavia's power? But... but... that wasn't in winter. I'm sure they would have stopped if their terror bombing lasted into winter.
The West is pure dogsh*t when it comes to governments. The only thing that changed in the West is that they started to hold up appearances. This means that they pretend to not target civilians, while actually bombing weddings. They'll pretend to support a "rules-based international order", while bombing Yugoslavia when it suits them and destroying one country after another. And they'll condemn it when Russia shells Mariupol while shilling for their puppets who shell the city center of Donetsk.
Just like they steal Russian assets and impose sanctions because "it invaded another country", and didn't do either against the US when it invaded other countries and didn't do it against their buddy Azerbaijan (with whose genocidal leader Von der Leyen was recently taking photo-ops).
Hypocrisy is the state religion of the West. I'm sure you won't be shocked that the people who protect grooming gangs are bad people.
That is interesting. I wonder if that's not because the atomic bombs suck all the oxygen out of the air. Most people don't know a lot about the terror bombings to begin with.
The interesting thing is that Stalin lied about Soviet losses in the war. He couldn't make them too low, but the true figure of 27 million was just too much, so he decided to cut it by 1/4. 7 million Soviet citizens died during the war, and that was final.
I'm not going to dig around your post history if that's even possible, but I distinctly remember that when Russia started to lose early in the war, and switched to terror artillery bombardment of civilian areas, your attitude towards that was to defend it, and argue that the blood is on Zelensky's (and the West's) hands for continuing to resist, that the best way to save lives was to capitulate. This is, of course, the exact mentality that Russia wanted to promote through its terror campaign. "just surrender to save lives, bro, stop making us mass murder you"
Azov did not = Mariupol. The Azov controlled one part of Mariupol around Azovstal, and there were numerous other units in Mariupol resisting. The idea that Mariupol = Azov was always Russian propaganda. Russia massively magnified the Azov Regiment's significance because a handful of its rank and file had wehraboo tattoos (as did many Russian soldiers, btw, it turns out love for SS iconography isn't a uniquely Ukrainian thing).
Also, Ukraine tried multiple times to get Russia to agree to a civilian corridor to evacuate Mariupol. Russia agreed, then opened fire on those who tried to flee. So no, I don't agree at all that anyone used Ukrainian civilians as human shields.
There were tons of dead bodies littering the streets in Bucha, and in some cases video evidence of the Russian soldiers gunning them down for no reason. You speak of "rhyme or reason"? Soldiers murder civilians because they've been ordered to, or because they've been keyed up through propaganda, or because they're simply angry and out for revenge and a civilian is an easy defenseless target.
Plenty of the dead in Bucha were women and children.
How many other Buchas have there been, which we simply don't have the same degree of video evidence of? There is no reason to believe that the Russians acted uniquely in Bucha.
The US absolutely targets power infrastructure in wars, and it's ordinarily a legitimate military target. The big difference here is that Russia ignored those targets for a loooooong time, clearly indicating that Russia didn't consider them targets.
Then, late in the war, when Russia was coming up with new terror ideas for its iranian drone offensive, it settled on power and water infrastructure. And we know that shutting down the power has no effect on Ukrainian military units since they all have generators. Looking at the individualized facts of this situation, it is clear to me that the Russian motive here is to specifically try to break the morale of the Ukrainians through terror attacks designed to inflict hardship and death.
Now, if the Russians had gone all out on power plants right at the beginning of the war, I wouldn't be criticizing it the same way at all. Context matters. Actions might look legitimate in 1 context, and illegitimate in another.
No, it's genuine. Your attitude on this is Russian projection.
The West takes pains to avoid hitting civilian targets, and once in a while, mistakes are made. The key difference is that it isn't intentional. Also our enemies, particularly muslims, invest great effort at hiding their terrorist meetings in the contexts of things like weddings in order to deter bombing, and to exploit it for propaganda if the bombing happens anyway.
There are countless videos of muslims combatants in iraq and afghanistan running full speed for the nearest mosque once they came under fire. IMO if your enemy is going to hide behind women and children or run into mosques, you hit the target anyway and blame the enemy for the result.
Serbia violated the "rules-based international order". NATO's bombing was 100% consistent. Of course the EU imposes much stricter rules on its own area than are applied more broadly elsewhere in the world.
I'm not aware of any country destroyed by the West. Example?
Ukraine doesn't engage in area shelling of civilian areas. The one time I heard of a Ukrainian commander doing it a little bit, he was reassigned and punished.
Russia invades to engage in wars of conquest and empire building. The US only invades to protect the West and preserve the West's norms of order.
Yep. The west did absolutely nothing to stop Azerbaijan, because Armenia is a client state of Russia and it was Russia's job to protect it.
And did Russia do anything to help Armenia? No. Looks like Russia is a pretty shit ally and nobody should ever be Russia's ally ever again. Armenia proved that a Russian alliance is worthless.
“If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that’s only statistics.”
In the West, the enormous death toll of the Soviets and Chinese are just meaningless numbers on a page. The Korean Comfort Women, which is a trifling and massively exaggerated thing, get enormous attention because South Korea is part of the West and never shuts the fuck up about it. Normies think 100% of comfort women were Korean, when it was less than half. Normies think 100% of the victims of the Holocaust were jews, when it was only about half.
The degree of attention focused on a thing warps the perception of that thing. This warped perception then gets recycled into "common knowledge".
As you also distinctly remember, I supported making peace on terms that you thought amounted to a defeat for Russia. Which then was foiled because the puppet non-country was ordered to not make peace, as Bennett recounted.
So yeah, the West and its puppet are 100% responsible for any casualties in the normal course of the war. They caused the war, they provoked it. Russia is only responsible for casualties that could have been avoided by Russia, say Bucha if Russia was indeed responsible for that, or Mariupol if you are correct that Russia decided to shell Russian speakers for literally no reason.
So they were using Mariupol as a human shield, like Hamas does in Gaza. Good to know.
That said, morality aside, I have questioned the judgment of shelling Russian speakers in the east. Folks who should be more inclined to be on Russia's side, and whom Russia wants to rule. Seems like a really stupid thing to do.
Any time this is pointed out, the 'Ukraine' apologists produce the same photo. So not exactly.
The last part, all true. That is why war is hell. No strategic, operational or even tactical objective was achieved by gunning down those people. On the other hand, that petty non-country had plenty to gain by faking it. However, I've not looked into it closely, so I don't see how they could have faked it - despite pro-Russia generally claiming that it is.
I have seen 'Ukraine' soldiers allegedly saying that they were firing on those wearing white armbands. But who knows if that was just a fake translation? See, I care about the truth, which you in many cases don't - you just want to say RUSSIA BAD.
So you have no evidence? Considering that you're still talking about Bucha months afterwards, despite Ukraine having a compliant media, I'd say none.
Allegedly, that was the transition to full war. Clearly, trying to reason with that so called country hadn't worked, so tougher measures had to be used.
I don't know about that. You 'know' a lot of stuff that you were told by the MSM, which you dismiss when it writes a hitpiece on your beloved GOP, but then believe unconditionally when it says something that you like...
Sure thing. The people who allow tens of thousands of young girls to be raped by Pakistanis, the people who'll allow millions of Americans to get addicted to opiates to increase a pharma company's profit, REALLY CARE about another country's population when they don't even care about their own.
You even used a passive voice! Who made those 'mistakes' in your wars of aggression?
And you are correct about that, at least if it's proportional. Throwing a MOAB into a crowd of 10,000 people because one Muslim combatant fled into it is not proportional.
Yes, the one where the rules are made by corrupt American bureaucrats, and the orders are given by Raytheon stooges.
Serbia, Libya, Syria, Iraq. I'm leaving out Afghanistan because the war there was justified.
You heard of it one time, so it must have happened only one time? They've been shelling civilian areas of Donetsk since the beginning of this war. Of course, you don't hear about that, just like you didn't hear that they were shelling a nuclear power plant because it was held by the Russians.
LOL! Dude, you go from sounding like a hard-nosed realist to a 15-year-old coomer addicted to Disney movies. WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS! YAY!
You know full well that this is not how things work, so cut it out.
And not only that, it funded its wars of aggression, no sanctions, which proves their hypocrisy.
Yes, that is a major problem. If you have a political lobby, you can get attention focused on your pet non-issues even if you are 0.3% of the population and you want to groom kids.
Ukraine: minding its own business
Putin: invades
Antonio: "how could Ukraine do this???"
No, defending a city isn't the same as human shield tactics. The Ukrainians tried to evacuate the civilians, but Russia surrounded the city and started to open fire on anyone trying to leave.
Russia would eventually kidnap the civilian refugees and force them to resettle in Russia, which confirms your empire theory of Russia trying to gain population.
You've got that backwards. I care about the truth 100% of the time and an open to being swayed by evidence. I'm not biased against Russia. I have some unfair bias against Azerbaijan, for example, because they are muslims killing Christians. I have no such bias in the Ukraine war. You, on the other hand, are super eager to believe total bullshit from non-credible sources if it fits your bias, and to reject settled evidence if it conflicts with yours.
There's extensive documentation of lots of examples of Russians killing civilians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_civilians_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
I don't take my information from the MSM. The fact that the Ukrainian military isn't dependent on the power grid comes from numerous sources I consider to be credible within Ukraine itself. Most notably, the fact that CIVILIANS can and do often buy generators of their own. Earlier last year it was more difficult for them to buy them because the military was taking them, but later on, there was enough surplus supply that a lot of businesses have them now. All OSINT types have been consistent that the power attacks pose no threat to Ukraine's military capabilities since they don't rely on the grid at all. If you know how military units work, you'd know that they rely very heavily on fuel, but not on the electrical grid.
So by "destroyed" you mean "bombed". Last I checked, Serbia is still there, same with the rest. Libya had a civil war where NATO helped the rebels (and they shouldn't have). Syria the US had almost no involvement in, in contrast to Russia which got heavily involved. The US only did strikes on Syria 1 time in response to chemical weapons attacks. Iraq, the US nation built up into a functioning democracy.
It's easy to be the "good guys" when your enemies and muslim terrorists, russia, and china.
We've been over this. Lobbying against Russia, restricting the Russian language, and being at war with the Donbas is not minding your own business. Neither is importing lethal arms from the US.
I don't know if I believe that.
Why exactly would it need to 'force' civilians to go to Russia? They're Russian speakers.
Not in my exp. You seem to be a hardline Cold Warrior stuck in the 1980s. That said, despite your assholery, you also have a good heart, which means that you can be fooled into believing that this is about 'fraydom' or 'democracy' or such other non-existent crap. It's a shame that the ruling class in the US is able to advance its own interests by fooling the population like that.
Like what, the journalist who has a near-perfect 50 year track record? Oh sure!
I don't even click on Wikipedia. If you suddenly think it's trustworthy, open the article for any Republican. Or transgenderism.
Yeah, I have yet to see an 'OSINT type' who wasn't a total jackass.
Which I don't, but the unfortunate thing is, that I don't know what source I can trust in a war environment. Either they're biased against Ukraine, or against Russia. So I basically end up saying "I don't know".
As opposed to what, sinking into the ocean?
Didn't they spend a billion a year training terrorists, and spend even more through proxies. The only saving grace was that Obama was relatively rational on foreign policy, and that he wasn't dying for new wars like most American politicians.
Russia was defending the government. That's rather different from stoking a civil war, which the US did, and which has caused all this destruction.
Dude, c'mon man. You destroyed the country.
People who don't castrate their kids and bow down before black people very bad!
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
There's too much crap here for me to know what is being referred to. Maybe "Ukraine doesn't engage in area shelling of civilian areas"? Even if that's what you're going for, that's not what we mean by the disinformaiton rule. Shilling for your factional specific narrative is not the same as spreading explicit disinformation. It's a much higher standard than what normally gets treated.
This sounds like confession through projection, because I can't recall a single time Antonio has gloated over dead Ukrainian citizens.
I don't even gloat over dead Azov Batallion members, despite their LARP'ing ideology and war crimes. But to be fair, I haven't seen that from dekachin either, not even for Russian solders (only for lol Russia losing, which is legitimate).
The only one who has, sadly, was our best poster SupremeReader... who calls Russian soldiers 'orcs'. I like to think that he doesn't really gloat over them and only does it to provoke people.
Germany fucked around and found out.
You realize you're comparing Zelensky to Hitler, which in itself is a win for me.
So Ukraine fucked around and now it's "finding out" by its young men being slaughtered.
Or do you support the bombing of Dresden because you think all the men were out to the front and only women and children burned alive? Wouldn't surprise me as you're basketcase.
I support Russia, genius. But your hypocrisy has to be called out.
Not really, Zelensky is a dictator backed by governments that are hostile to male existence. Ukraine-Russia was/is an idiotic proxy war that will do nothing but make women who run defense contractors very rich.
Just yesterday, you were blaming women for "voting for Zelensky" (who was the peace candidate).
So if voting for Zelensky is voting for war, as you claimed, then Ukraine fucked around and now it's finding out.
BTW, 75% of Ukraine voted for Zelensky. In the last free election, 34% of Germans voted for the Nazis.
Just to add: Zelensky's opponent, Poroshenko, was more hard line against Russia and would have been more confrontational and escalatory against Russia. Most of his support came from West Ukraine, which has always been the most gung ho against Russia since they know they're safe and they are the most Western oriented. Zelensky was the "moderate" choice who didn't want to piss Putin off and took a very defensive and conciliatory posture.
I'm aware. I've seen the posters of Poroshenko against Putin. I've pointed out that Zelensky was the peace candidate. Unfortunately, he did not hold firm when there were threats against him and gave up on trying to ensure peace.
And yet restrictions on Russian language media were introduced under him.
Well, it would only be finding out if women were drafted then, silly.
It has nothing to do with women... but you are a notorious dumbass.
if the axis were so wrong why was this history concealed from us? Surely if the allies were so correct, they wouldnt have had to conceal history and could be honest with us with everything right?
This is common knowledge Muslim shill
lol no it isnt and you know it. Im not a muslim shill, i dont support saudi arabia. but you are a zog shill
Do you support Iran?
Yeah, I read a whole book devoted to Dresden in college as assigned reading here in the US in my poly sci classes, two if you count Slaughterhouse 5 which is an extremely famous fictional book which prominently features the Dresden bombings.
The idea that the West tries to cover this up is laughable. Dresden is one of the foundational reasons that the West imposed a taboo on bombing civilians after WW2.
But like most of the things of the principles of West, it's one that solely applies to the West's opponents, never to the West, nor its allies (Ukraine, Azerbaijan).
Spare me your Kremlin propaganda. You don't live in reality. It does, in fact, apply to the West, and the West is not hypocritical in its application. The West takes great pains to avoid and minimize civilian casualties, and any time it makes mistakes, it is punished in the press for doing so, which is why our enemies routinely use civilian human shields to punish and deter air attacks.
You know who would NEVER use human shields? The enemies of Russia and China, because those motherfuckers wouldn't hesitate for a second.
Also, Azerbaijan is not a Western ALLY. The fact that Israel sells Azerbaijan weapons does not make it a Western ALLY. "In 1992, the U.S. Congress adopted Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which banned any direct U.S. aid to the government of Azerbaijan." Ukraine isn't an ally yet, either. It's a recipient of aid. Alliances are mutual compacts. Ukraine isn't obligated to the US or EU in any way. This will likely change once the hot war with Russia is over, though. Ukraine doesn't target civilians anyway, but Russia 100% does and has done so a great deal.
It's tiresome for you to call everything you don't like "Kremlin propaganda".
You're right. Hypocrisy to the West is like the water fish swim in. It comes so naturally that it need not even be mentioned.
Like when Biden blew up the family of an Afghan ALLY in retaliation for an "ISIS-Kh" terrorist attack?!
Yes, they do so to be able to get propaganda, and you want to deny them that propaganda. None of this has anything at all to do with regard for civilian casualties. They don't care.
It's funny that I can see that Putin doesn't care about civilians, even though the Russian army tries to minimize civilian casualties, but you can't. You think Biden is some sort of Disney prince.
This monstrous creature's statements show otherwise.
Oh, but that genocide is OK because Azerbaijan is our ALLY! Then you can kill all you want!
Well, good for them, I guess the Armenian lobby managed to get something done, because God knows they wouldn't do anything out of good intentions.
Come on man. They commanded Zelensky to not make peace, and he obeyed. He's literally their slave. "Ukraine" is obliged to bleed the flower of its youth to death for American imperialism.
You just keep repeating crap and imagining that it suddenly becomes true. Donetsk.
Yes, that was noteworthy for its sheer incompetence. Biden was like "blow something up, maaaan, anything! I just need to be able to say I did something!" white rage miley: "but we don't have a target." Biden: "ask the taliban for one!" #1 warner of chinese miley: "that's a fantastic idea, we can trust them."
"trustworthy energy suppliers" does not = ally. We have a lot more economic deals with China than with Azerbaijan, by your logic China is our biggest ally. lol.
Armenia picked a side, and it picked Russia. Had Armenia allied with the West instead, we would have protected it. Nation states do not rush to geographically inconvenient parts of the world to help countries allied to our enemies, just because that country got wrongly attacked.
No country should ever ally with Russia (or China). When the chips are down and helping is inconvenient for them, they simply won't do it.
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
Comment Approved: This is an opinion.
Wrong about what?
What history was concealed?
Which they were.
Who 'concealed' it from you?
They're dead, Jim.
It wasn't concealed. These bombings were done in retaliation for the Blitz that killed 43,000 in 1941 and the launching of heavily damaging V2 rockets and other armaments that didn't explode on impact, so that they would cause more damage to innocent people.
The Nazis had been launching V2s indiscriminately into populated areas in England for half of 1944 before this happened.
You are full of shit, my fucking god.
I can't believe that you people are considered my opponents, it's a fucking insult to be compared to such retardation.
I never heard about it. Majority of people have never heard of it. It was concealed
It's not concealed. Here's a Wikipedia article on it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
Wikipedia also reveals that most of leftist ideology comes from frankfurt school which were all mostly of a particular ethnic group. But most people still dont know about that because like i said, these things are concealed.
I can't take anyone serious who says leftist ideology came from the Frankfurt School. It's easy to find prominent race grifts, feminists and all other kind of leftists before that.
Wrong. This happened right before the end of the war, and the stated justification was that it would demoralize the German people.
If the British and the Americans killed more civilians in one air raid than the entire Blitz did in 1941, that doesn't really speak well of them, does it?
The V2 did barely any damage.
How come people in the UK are 'innocent' and people in Germany aren't? Because of all the racist babies there?
I'm your opponent. Someone who actually knows what he's talking about, who doesn't shill for the Nazis and yet also does not downplay crimes against humanity committed by the Allies.
At the beginning of the war both sides tried to avoid civilian casualties and only attacked military targets. A single German bomber accidentally bombed London, which caused England to bomb Berlin, which sparked the Blitz as revenge. https://web.archive.org/web/20230109101126/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1413593/The-Luftwaffe-blunder-that-started-five-years-of-destruction.html
It not really anyone's fault that terror bombing became the standard for the war, although I've never seen anything that claimed Luftwaffe strategists were enamored with Giulio Douhet and his theories of destroying a nation's will to fight by terrorizing their civilian populace the same way the US Army Air Corps was. Indeed, the Luftwaffe's bomber force consisted entirely of light and medium bombers originally intended to tactically support the army.
Someone who knows what he's talking about. +100
If there's a building with 300 people in it, and I torch the place, what would you call it? But apparently, it's not a massacre if you do it while sitting in a plane.
It's not a massacre if it's a factory manufacturing arms for an opposing force.
Then it's collateral damage, it's significantly more morally grey.
They deliberately targeted civilians in Dresden and most of the bombing campaign of Germany
And the Germans did the same to London.
Cry more.
Unthinkable things today were common practice in WW2. It was because the people of the West got together and agreed that WW2 was needlessly destructive that the various taboos against things like bombing the shit out of cities took hold.
And your analogy is bad. When you torch a building by hand, that's a precision and intentional act. When you bomb an area from 30,000ft with dumb bombs in a WW2 bomber, you can't aim at shit, and at best can blow up a general area. All these bombing raids had military targets. Sometimes these targets were in cities, like the rail yard at Dresden. I don't think there was ever an incident where the allies went out of their way to intentionally kill civilians except for the American firebombing campaign against Japanese cities + the nukes.
So the difference with "sitting in a plane" is that you aren't trying to torch that building, and don't know it has people in it anyway. You're trying to bomb some military target and it just so happens that the weapon you're using is so inaccurate that you're going to end up hitting a lot of other things in the general vicinity.
World War II was the exception rather than the rule. Prior wars did not have similar levels of civilian destruction. World War I had some, as did the Franco-Prussian War, but mostly executions for francs tireurs.
They were using incendiary bombs, intended to set the whole city on fire. So what 'general area' is that? The population center, of course.
I find it rather hard to believe that the main target was the 'rail yard', not the city, and that the city just happened to be destroyed as a byproduct. Besides, the allies had an explicit policy of 'dehousing' German workers.
Didn't Truman's diary say about Hiroshima that he was comforted by the fact that at least it was a military target? One wonders what the military told him.
What if I'm in a plane and I try to bomb a civilian area? Seems like a lot of people try to exculpate those who rain down death from the sky.
Note that allied bombers were often brutally murdered by the Germans in retaliation for what they had done.
That was purely a matter of technology. Prior to WW2 strategic bombing did not exist. Plenty of old wars were famous for the mass murder of civilians, such as the 30 years war. Back then, if you wanted to kill civilians, you had to get your hands dirty. It was because of wars like that that Europeans finally started to realize that mass murder of civilians was a terrible and unnecessary thing, and to work towards imposing a taboo on it.
WW1 had chemical weapons. That was a lesson learned well enough to prevent their use in WW2, even during Götterdämmerung. WW2 had strategic bombing, the excesses of which led the west to impose considerable limits on it after WW2, as seen in Korea, Vietnam, the Israeli wars, etc.
All WW2 bombing had some incendiaries. It just made since to do so since the idea was to use regular bombs to blow a structure apart, and then incendiaries to light the exposed material on fire. Dresden had a mix as usual The only time you can truly say the goal was to create a firestorm was the firebombing of Tokyo, where the bombers overwhelmingly carried specialized incendiary cluster bombs.
Politicians lie a lot to make themselves feel better. Technically you can call any city a military target since they all had factories in them. The purpose of the nukes was to break the morale of the Japanese leadership and it worked exactly as intended.
This happened plenty of times, most notably with Germany doing it in a very openly intentional way such as with Poland and later Coventry, the London Blitz, and much later with the Baedeker blitz. The Allies told themselves that they were morally superior, and to come extent they were, but they also sometimes crossed the line, most notably with Dresden.
And FYI I agree with Winston Churchill that Dresden was primarily a "terror bombing". Churchill wrote on 3/28/45: "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land ... The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing."
People waaaaay overestimate the accuracy of WW2 bombers. There was no such thing as a precision raid on even a rail yard. A city was a reasonable size target to hit, and that's what they were doing.
I suppose you could also say "25,000 burned alive".
I'd say that the claims that it ended German capabilities and demoralized the population are more provocative than correctly calling it a massacre. Even granted that massacring civilians is justified if it furthers a war end, there are at best serious questions regarding how much the Dresden raid did to do that.
At least the atomic bombs ended the war. This is thought to have done nothing at all.
That's where you're wrong though. Not trying to be a Stormfag, but murdering civilians had been a major aim of Bomber Command for most of the war. They called it 'dehousing' German workers. If they happened to live there, then that's too bad for them.
Of course they didn't give a damn. Unfortunately, that's not how politics works. You don't get to the top of the greasy pole by caring about the civilians of your belligerent.
Very few people were actually murdered during the destruction of Georgia. So that definitely was not a massacre.