Do you not think that deciding to commit a war crime by intentionally targeting and murdering over 200,000 civilians, was perhaps a bad call?
Or perhaps intentionally targeting journalists, doctors, first responders, schools, hospitals, entire apartment buildings, is actually acceptable because the conflict will supposedly end sooner?
As for your second point- in this situation is it acceptable or justified? Fuck no. Is it tactically the correct move, given what these pieces of shit are trying to accomplish? Yes.
Flawed?
Do you not think that deciding to commit a war crime by intentionally targeting and murdering over 200,000 civilians, was perhaps a bad call?
Or perhaps intentionally targeting journalists, doctors, first responders, schools, hospitals, entire apartment buildings, is actually acceptable because the conflict will supposedly end sooner?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not a bad call.
As for your second point- in this situation is it acceptable or justified? Fuck no. Is it tactically the correct move, given what these pieces of shit are trying to accomplish? Yes.
Yes they were ESPECIALLY Nagasaki
A second one was not needed, that is easy to prove and I remain unconvinced the first bomb dropped was necessary either.
Japan was already ready to surrender. This is unclassified now. So how was it not a bad call exactly? Assuming we both agree on my first assertion.
So, in your view, intentionally killing civilians is OK if they’re Japanese, but not if they’re Palestinian.
Fascinating.