Israel’s defense minister warned Saturday that “Tehran will burn” if Iran continues firing missiles, as the two countries traded blows a day after Israel launched a blistering surprise attack on Iranian nuclear and military sites, killing several top generals.

Israel’s military said the strikes also killed nine senior scientists and experts involved in Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s U.N. ambassador said 78 people were killed and more than 320 wounded.

Iran retaliated by launching waves of drones and ballistic missiles at Israel, where explosions lit the night skies over Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and shook buildings. The Israeli military urged civilians, already rattled by 20 months of war in Gaza sparked by Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, to head to shelter for hours. Health officials said three people were killed and dozens wounded.

  • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    24 hours ago

    What does that even mean? How is what a nation did generations ago relevant to two different nations in a totally different scenario?

    • flandish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      23 hours ago

      do you not realize there are people still alive today who were when the US nuked two cities?

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        No, what I don’t understand is what relevance that has to this situation. The US using nukes on Japan 80 years ago doesn’t make Iran making nukes justified. It doesn’t validate Iran not having nukes. It neither strengthens nor weakens Israeli claims of an Iranian weapons program, and it doesn’t make a preemptive strike to purportedly disable them just or unjust.

        It seems like you’re arguing that the US nuked Japan and therefore Iran, a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, is allowed to have nukes. Israel is falsely characterizing their civilian energy program, and we know this because of their backing by the US.
        It’s just a non-sequitor, particularly when there’s relevant reasons why US involvement complicated matters. .

        • flandish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          20 hours ago

          It is not that it makes them justified, you seem to think I support what the US did. No. I say that the US has no right to pretend to worry about and therefore control other nations when the US has a documented history of using them.

          If anything, the world could be “within its rights” to “preemptively strike” the US!

          • TheRealKuni@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            I say that the US has no right to pretend to worry about and therefore control other nations when the US has a documented history of using them.

            “Look, I know I used meth and got thoroughly addicted and it completely ruined my life and it has taken years to get to a place where I’m able to have a semblance of a life, but I can’t tell anyone else not to use meth! That would be hypocritical of me, since I did! No, no one has any right to ever share what they’ve learned through experience.

            This is the hypothetical situation you’re arguing for.

            • flandish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              also if an adult wants to do meth no other adult has a “right” to stop them.

              The US is NOT the world police. Sheesh. get uncle sam’s boot out of your mouth.

            • flandish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Yeah. because that’s how the world works. Let me sum up my point like this:

              US, Israel, UK - all genocidal colonialist projects who have nothing good for the world and should not exist as nations. And in the current “geist”.

              The rest of the world - also genocidal colonist projects who should not exist as nations.

          • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Yes, I understand what you’re saying, it’s not a complicated position.
            Your position is that national reputation matters more than anything else. And most pointedly, the national reputation of your allies matters more than any other argument.

            What I’m saying is, is that the actions the US, or any other nation, took before the people currently running things were even born have no bearing on current events. Nations aren’t people, and they don’t possess a national character that you can use to try to predict their behavior or judge them.

            Would the world be justified in concluding that it’s only a matter of time before Germany does some more genocide? Before Japan unleashes atrocities across Asia?

            If you’re getting down to it, the US can’t control other nations, beyond stick and carrot means. And the US has the same right to try to keep Iran from getting nukes as Iran does in trying to get them. Because again, nations aren’t people. They don’t have rights, they have capabilities.

            And all of that’s irrelevant! Because the question is, is Israel justified in attacking Iran? The perception of hypocrisy in US foreign policy isn’t relevant to that question.