They aren't bragging, clearly they are worried about the wave of Hamas support sweeping through the leftist base. Israel support on the democrat side is waning, meanwhile the many decades of organizations like AIPAC supporting policies conservatives consider heinous will at the very least ensure conservatives won't support AIPAC.
The best gambit for pro-Israel is to get Trump in office and make people like Charlie Kirk the primary drivers of that agenda, because the party of abortions and faggots isn't supporting Israel. I'm fine with that, I liked how Trump dealt with Israel, it was fair and he actually negotiated peace deals.
I had "?" at the end of those points because I'm posing questions, as we simply don't know, yet we are sold that false dichotomy. We don't even know that it has to be 2 cities; it could have been two isolated military bases, or 1 on Mount Fuji where everyone could see, then one on some military base.
The point is the first and only 2 bombs were on cities, we don't know what effect dropping them anywhere else would have had.
Basically copy-pasting another reply: there is a false dichotomy and unfounded assumptions in that traditional defense for dropping the nukes on the cites. How do we know the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if the bombs were dropped on two other targets? What if one was mostly just a show of force that could be seen in the distance from Tokyo? It isn't simply "we blow up two large cities with manufacturering or we end up in an extended ground war."
Although the firebombing of Tokyo is usually used to justify the nukes, I'd argue that the firebombings help my position that large cities with civillian populations didn't need to be the target for the Japanese to surrender. As is oft repeated, the damage and deaths of the firebombings was greater than the nukes, yet the firebombing clearly didn't cause them to surrender. Thus, it logically was less the actual destruction of the nukes and more of the psychological terror of a mountain of fire capable of such destruction that lead to the surrender.
I get it, I used to think those cities had to be leveled -- it's what "the experts" have said since it happened -- but as I've thought about it over the years, I don't buy it wholesale. Like all good deceit, there is certainly some truth to the traditional defense of bombing those cities, but it isn't the whole truth.
There are loaded assumptions about hypotheticals in there. How do we know the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if the bombs were dropped on two other targets? What if one was mostly just a show of force that could be seen in the distance from Tokyo?
I use to parrot the same talking points about the nuke -- it's what "the experts" have said since the bombs were dropped -- but as I've thought about it over the years, I don't buy it wholesale. Like all good deceit, there is certainly some truth to the traditional defense of bombing those cities, but it isn't the whole truth.
As for everyone was bombing cities, "everyone is doing it" isn't a good moral arguement. As Jesus said, the wide road most people travel actually leads to hell.
My understanding of Tucker's argument isn't that dropping the bombs was the primary evil, but dropping it on civilians. I understanding manufacturering and whatnot takes place in cities, but it is quite the stretch to justify dropping a nuke in the middle of large civilian populations. Sure, legitimate military targets were hit, but the collateral damage was far too high.
In short, the choice of targets was morally worse than many other options.
Skull and Bones, like he said, had a contract with a government (Singapore I believe) that got them a bunch of grant money if they used a local game studio. The only stipulation aside from local labor was that they put out a game, so they dragged their feet until near the end of the time they were allowed, then put out the half-assed project.
Do they think that helps their cause? The verdict is out, people who buy games aren't looking to state media for what video games to buy or avoid. People aren't listening to state media on what movies to go watch, they aren't even really looking at sites like Rotten Tomatoes as much. Across the board, the shill-class professional reviewers are ignored.
The best part of his more recent appearance on Joe Rogan was when he said something like "I'm friends with people on both sides, know people who like Trump and people who like Biden," and Joe cut in with "you know people who like Biden?!?"
The Rock backtracked with "Right, I know people who support the Democrat party."
Yes, but they also should take the Biblical approach and stoned them the next day after a quick trial.