[flagged]
It was this or invade which would have easily resulted in more casualties. Pretending the US just nuked them when the other option was nothing is childish.
> - Its best friend, the country that's commiting a genocide in 2025 and that you cannot criticize.
Ongoing wars in 2025 and casualty numbers according to Grok:
- Russia-Ukraine War: Estimated 500,000–1,000,000 deaths
- Syrian Civil War: ~400,000–600,000 deaths
- Ethiopian Civil War: ~300,000–600,000 deaths
- Yemeni Civil War: ~233,000–377,000 deaths
- Myanmar Civil War: ~150,000–200,000 deaths
- Sahel Region Conflicts (post-Libya crisis, jihadist insurgencies in Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, etc.): ~100,000–200,000 deaths.
- Sudan Civil War: ~61,000–100,000 deaths
- Israel-Hamas War: ~50,000–70,000 deaths
Calling the Israel Hamas war a genocide doesn't hold up. Trying to claim that you can't criticize Israel on the internet is ridiculous.
Of course it's hard to get real answers on all these questions - Gaza's Hamas-run MoH is not exactly trustworthy, and don't publish a split of civilians vs combatants. And Israel, even assuming you do trust its numbers, doesn't publish estimates of Gazan civilians killed either.
"True death toll from conflict in Gaza is 41% higher than reported, study estimates" https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r73
Currently, Israel and the United States are luring starving Gazans with a pittance of aid into kill boxes using the intelligence front "Gaza Humanitarian Foundation". It's sick and depraved.
"a new leaflet with photographs of two burned children was released under the title "Dresden—Massacre of Refugees", stating that 200,000 had died."
"doctored with an extra zero to increase [the total dead from the raid] to 202,040"."
Israel-Palestine war will be notorious not for the mass casualties but for the massive, well preparared propaganda war. This will be studied for generations. Israel truly failed to counter this threat (among others) and is totally unprepared.
My understanding is that in Gaza, it is a common understanding that they are being subjected to a Nazi extermination campaign by people (Christian and Jewish Zionists) claiming the Holocaust made them do it (meanwhile, the Zionists stole reparations money from Holocaust survivors and considered the survivors weak).
I'm Jewish and I cannot tolerate this shit. It is an evil stain on our people that will mark us for millennia. Anyone who does not speak out at this moment is complicit in genocide.
> [...] it is a common understanding that they are being subjected to a Nazi extermination campaign by people (Christian and Jewish Zionists) claiming the Holocaust made them do it
That is not what Israel is doing. Israel is attacking a semi-state that invaded and slaughtered its people. That is the original and majority motivation for the current actions in Gaza.
Some Israelis, who are not representative of the majority but do have outsized political power, also want to resettle Gaza and take the land. I hope they are soon removed from office and from holding any power.
> (meanwhile, the Zionists stole reparations money from Holocaust survivors and considered the survivors weak).
Many of the original citizens of Israel were the Holocaust survivors, and the majority were the Jews ethnically cleansed from Arab lands.
So I'm not sure where you're getting this "The Zionists stole reparations" idea.
Israel has been conducting a campaign of (and even has openly described it in terms very closely paralleling the definition of) genocide against the Palestinian people throughout Palestine since decades before its for for-show semi-diseengagement from Gaza (heck, even for decades before it fostered the creation of Hamas while it occupied Gaza to split Palestinian resistance from its unified backing of the less Islamist, more pan-Arab nationalist PLO.)
> since decades before its for for-show semi-diseengagement from Gaza
So when Israel does do what Palestinians supposedly want - completely remove all its citizens from the territory and hand it over to Palestinians to control - then it's all "for show"? In what way exactly? What should Israel do then that would satisfy you/Palestinians?
> (heck, even for decades before it fostered the creation of Hamas while it occupied Gaza to split Palestinian resistance from its unified backing of the less Islamist, more pan-Arab nationalist PLO.)
You're kind of skipping over the part where Israel engaged in a peace process with the PLO, signed the Oslo accords with them, recognized them as the official representatives of the Palestinian people in the form of the Palestinian Authority, continued working towards peace with the PA until 2008 (ending in, as always before it, an offer for a two-state solution presented to the PA by Olmert, which they rejected). And has worked in security cooperation with the PA since.
Although to be clear, I think Israel has not engaged in any meaningful attempt at peace since 2009, and has in fact done quite the opposite. Criticism of Israel propping up Hamas on purpose to weaken the chance of a two-state solution is a valid one, but it happened after Israelis got largely disillusioned with the idea of any peace being reached, given the multiple failures of PA leadership to sign 2SS deals with Israel, and the simultaneous launching of the Second Intifada.
They didn't actually do that; they continued to assert a set of layered security exclusion zones within Gaza where Gazans were forbidden to enter except under limited conditions, and continued to shoot unarmed civilians across the border within and beyond those zones, whether or not they were complying with the unilaterally-asserted terms.
And Israel didn't just randomly shoot at unarmed civilians, it shot at people approaching the border. Given that Gaza was controlled by a terrorist organization with a stated goal of carrying out attacks on Israel, and given what happened on October 7th, I think it's hard to say Israel wasn't justified in guarding its border to the extent it did. Had it guarded it better on October 7th, a whole lot of bloodshed on both sides could've been saved.
The buffer zone had different rules at different distances, and while you call it small it consisted of 17% of the land area of Gaza when Israel "completed" its "disengagement", and was later unilaterally expanded to 24% of the land area of Gaza.
What happened was that the state of Israel accepted reparations from Germany, and used it to build the State. This was controversial for many reasons, and was highly fraught politically. But that doesn't mean "the Zionists stole reparations", that's a silly and inflammatory way of looking at it.
It will be notorious for exactly that
And the complicity of the West.
The lack of boycott and scantions on the Israeli state is a damning indictment of the immense hypocrisy of us in the West
Shame on us, shame on them
I disagree with that part of the comment (and said so), but disagreed on a factual statement does not make a comment genocidal.
> The reality is most combatants are underground so Israel bombs civilians. This is in line with its war goals of ethnically cleansing Gaza so there is no contestation of its colonial claims.
This is simply false. Despite the common view of the world, outside of isolated incidents, there is almost no evidence that Israel intentionally targets civilians for bombing. It accepts civilian casualties, but only given a valid military target.
You can say a lot of bad things about what Israel is doing, and I do so. I'm against the current war and have very negative views of a lot of Israeli actions. But you're thinking things that you have no evidence for (and lots of evidence against).
> Currently, Israel and the United States are luring starving Gazans with a pittance of aid into kill boxes using the intelligence front "Gaza Humanitarian Foundation". It's sick and depraved.
This is both wrong, and doesn't make much sense. Why would Israel need to "lure" Gazans into kill boxes to kill them? Many/most are clustered together in refugee tents. If Israel were truly fine with bombing civilians, it could easily bomb these centers. Why would it need to "lure" anyone anywhere?
Here's an alternative possibility - Hamas, which the Gazan people themselves hate and are protesting daily, has been using aid to keep control of the population, by stealing it and selling it to civilians. The GHF is threatening this model, so Hamas is doing everything it can to get rid of it - including threatening its personnel (this is on record as having happened), and including causing problems, up to and including shooting Palestinians to make the operation of the GHF look bad.
What makes you so sure this isn't what's happening?
(Personally, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle and I don't know where exactly it is. This clearly threatens Hamas and they clearly have lots of incentives to make it fail, and have clearly tried to do so... but it's also possible that the criticisms of the GHF are correct, that it's poorly conceived and poorly run, and works in a dehumanizing way that has no chance to serve the population aid in an effective manner.)
There was no need to invade: as long as the naval blockade continued, Japan wouldn't get enough fossil fuels and other resources to threaten anyone. They probably would've been lucky to avoid mass starvation.
--and Washington knew that when it decided to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it also knew that the Soviets wanted invade Northern Japan: Stalin had already "offered to help out" in this way.
While there was a very optimistic view within the Navy that the Japanese would soon face starvation and surrender, it doesn't appear to match reality. The food situation wasn't so dire that Japan was in any danger of near-term mass starvation. Most of the shortages came from poor weather leading to a bad harvest - not something one can hope to continue - and there was ample evidence the Japanese would sacrifice millions rather than surrender. Indeed, nearly all of the high level Japanese officials questioned said they would have fought indefinitely.
I continue to tend to believe that letting a weakened Japan fight indefinitely would have been preferable to what actually happened (i.e., the nuclear strikes). The US lost a lot of prestige, esteem and trust that day that it has not fully recovered yet.
Most of the troops outside the home islands were in Manchuria, which Stalin was willing to sort out for us. Letting Stalin sort it out would have probably resulted in Stalin's ending up with Manchuria rather than what actually happened, which is that China got Manchuria back, but that supports my assertion that Washington chose to nuke Japan mainly to improve its competitive position against the USSR, not because nuking Japan was the only alternative to invading Japan (to paraphrase the assertion that drew me into this comment thread).
I could be wrong though. I'm just saying that I am not yet persuaded by the arguments I"ve seen that Washington had to either nuke Japanese cities or invade the home islands.
Again, that simply wasn't an option. The US did not believe it could sustain the blockade indefinitely. The American public was growing war weary and Japan was far from neutered - Japanese aircraft, submarines, suicide torpedoes and mines continued to inflict casualties.
The US would have been slowly bled without any end in sight for potentially years. Had the Japanese then sued for peace with extremely favorable terms that allowed them to keep the bulk of their expanded empire, the fear was that the American public demand the US accept it.
> Most of the troops outside the home islands were in Manchuria, which Stalin was willing to sort out for us
Japan had about 3.5 million military personnel outside the home islands in 1945. Only 665K of them were in Manchuria. They had 1.1 million in China, 190K in Taiwan, 127K in the Philippines, 107K in Thailand, 134K in Malaysia/Singapore, etc.
The Soviet Army couldn't fight them all.
First of all you count wars that started more than 10 years ago in the same category, so that's dishonest.
Second you use reduced numbers for Israel-Gaza war.
Third you call it Israel-Hamas war.
About the nuking of Japan: listen up, there is nothing you can say, it's a case of the midwit meme, anyone smart enough or dumb enough would tell you it's obvious nuking 2 cities is evil, it's basically the definition of evil, all men are at war so you nuke 2 cities filled with women and kids... Now it's the midwit's opinion that's curious, being just smart enough to repeat the brainwashing that's been done to him in a coherent way, but not smart enough to notice the holes in his arguments, the midwit always holds these surreal opinions like how nuking 2 cities was the only choice (and not done as a warning to the soviet union, because God forbids governments do something bad like this, it's instead a conspiracy theory, and the real life event is a cartoonishly evil side vs a cartoonishly good side, and everything the cartoonishly good side does is good and can be explained including nuling 2 cities etc.)
If only you could take a step back and reflect on what you wrote with an open mind.... but then again if this was possible there'd be a lot less wars, and the bad people would know it while being bad and not 100 years later have it explained to their grandchildren.
But hey who cares, the situation is so fucked up and the people so clueless we might as well be living in some sort of simulation so it doesn't matter either ways.
* People who died out of starvation (especially kids and newborns) due to Israel's blockade
* People who died due to lack of medicine due to Israel's blockade
* People who died to the worsening hygienic environment
The estimate we have from research in Lancet go just shy of 200,000 people dead [1]. Note that this was their estimate almost a year ago. Since then many more deaths took place.
And in short, whether you want to admit it's a genocide or not, no one can deny it's a one of the greatest tragedies of the century, and that Israel must be held accountable. Enough is enough.
[1]: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
> Armed conflicts have indirect health implications beyond the direct harm from violence. Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years [...] In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths . Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza.
The text is not claiming that 200,000 people at the point of publishing have died, it is estimating the number of deaths attributed to the conflict in the coming years.
But to stress again, even then this was assuming the war stopped back then, a year ago, and the public number also does not include the groups I mentioned earlier.
And this conflict is unique in how brutal it is for the civilians in Gaza. For instance the numbers used for the Russia-Ukrain war (500K-1M) are not those of civilian causalities. According to the latest UN numbers, it's around 13K for killed, and around 30K wounded [1]. Whereas in Gaza, the number of women and girls killed alone is more than double that (28K) [2]. The conflict is also unique in how many children have been killed, where it outnumbered the number of children killed in global conflicts in the last 4 years [3] (numbers from March, 2024)
What I'm trying to highlight is that when OP is attempting to undermine that conflict, they are not comparing the conflicts properly. Which leads to unjust assumptions, this does look like a genocide, and even if you want to fight this label. This conflict has been extremely devastating to civilians in Gaza, and perhaps is the number 1 most brutal conflict to civilians globally today.
[1]: https://ukraine.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2025-05/Ukrain...
[2]: https://www.unwomen.org/en/news-stories/news/2025/05/un-wome...