> -The bald eagle that is also the only country in history to have nuked two civilian cities.
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:
>It was this or invade which would have easily resulted in more casualties.
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.
There were still millions of Japanese troops outside of Japanese home islands all across Asia and the Pacific. The blockade would have had to be expanded and neither Japanese nor American leadership thought it was sustainable.
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.
Israel-Palestine war stats is really off, because the Palestinian officials also include natural deaths in those stats (8,000 per year in Gaza). So the total is more like 40,000-50,000, and most are combatants.
It's inaccurate to say "most" are combatants. The estimate is usually 2/3rds are civilians and 1/3rd are combatants.
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.
Genocidal comment. It is well known the stats are an undercount due to the genocidal starvation, disease, and deprivation, collapsing buildings on people that are never counted, and the many videos of e.g. Israelis burning children alive in tents.
Your numbers ignore the distinction between combatants and civilians killed. It also does not include those who are killed as a by product of the war. The number you mentioned is how many Israel directly killed. This ignores:
* 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.
It's hilarious that this figure keeps getting quoted with a link to a source that directly contradicts it.
> 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.
> -The bald eagle that is also the only country in history to have nuked two civilian cities.
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.
>It was this or invade which would have easily resulted in more casualties.
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.
There were still millions of Japanese troops outside of Japanese home islands all across Asia and the Pacific. The blockade would have had to be expanded and neither Japanese nor American leadership thought it was sustainable.
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.
2 replies →
Israel-Palestine war stats is really off, because the Palestinian officials also include natural deaths in those stats (8,000 per year in Gaza). So the total is more like 40,000-50,000, and most are combatants.
It's inaccurate to say "most" are combatants. The estimate is usually 2/3rds are civilians and 1/3rd are combatants.
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.
Genocidal comment. It is well known the stats are an undercount due to the genocidal starvation, disease, and deprivation, collapsing buildings on people that are never counted, and the many videos of e.g. Israelis burning children alive in tents.
"True death toll from conflict in Gaza is 41% higher than reported, study estimates" https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r73
17 replies →
Your numbers ignore the distinction between combatants and civilians killed. It also does not include those who are killed as a by product of the war. The number you mentioned is how many Israel directly killed. This ignores:
* 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...
It's hilarious that this figure keeps getting quoted with a link to a source that directly contradicts it.
> 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.