Almost 90 bombs were dropped in one region in just 24 hours.

Russia unleashed an unprecedented bombardment in southern Ukraine overnight in what local officials described as a “massive attack” in the conflict which has continued to rage even as the international community’s attention has moved to the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

The Ukrainian Internal Affairs Ministry on Monday morning said Russia dropped at least “87 aerial bombs on populated areas of the Kherson region - the largest number for all time.” At least eight people were also injured in other Russian strikes carried out in the Odessa region further to the west on Sunday night.

    • hanekam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Genocide Joe? 🙄

      People are really working to rob that word of all meaning

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “We are all domestic terrorists”

        That’s what they do.

        Edit: They even called the congressman who pulled the fire alarm to delay voting so people could read the bill, an insurrectionist.

      • RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Are they? Or do you just not consider Arab people humans? Maybe specifically Palestinians are the bad ones we can exterminate, in your mind?

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or do you just not consider Arab people humans?

          Its been standing US policy to dehumanize Arab people since at least 2001.

        • RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I see downvotes but I see no interaction with the two true assertions that make for this argument. Biden has the immediate power to stop this. And the this is a genocide of Palestinians.

          • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            And how exactly would he do that? I wasn’t aware he was The King of Israel. Should he threaten to nuke them?

            • RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Israel is a client state of the US. Biden could simply threaten to revoke aid and they would immediately stop the bombing. Their defense minister said so outright not long ago.

              Liberals tell you they’re powerless so they can pretend to be good people who simply have no means to stop the status quo. Don’t believe them on either part.

            • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe

              • check notes

              Stop sending billions in bombs to them knowing they’re gonna blow up Palestinian kids with them.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/05/24/ronald-reagan-wasnt-afraid-to-use-leverage-to-hold-israel-to-task/

              In addition to not vetoing UN resolutions, Reagan took several actions that many in Israel and the United States perceived as anti-Israel. For example, on June 7, 1981, less than six months after Reagan took office, Israel launched a surprise bombing raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, and, in so doing, violated the airspace of Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Reagan not only supported UNSC Resolution 487, which condemned the attack, but he also criticized the raid publicly and suspended the delivery of advanced F-16 fighter jets to Israel. Moreover, over the strident objections of Israel and the pro-Israel U.S. lobby groups, Reagan approved the sale of advanced reconnaissance aircraft (AWACS ) to Saudi Arabia, which Israel then viewed as a hostile state.

              A year later, in August 1982, when Israeli forces advanced beyond southern Lebanon and began shelling the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in Beirut, Reagan responded with an angry call to Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, demanding a halt to the operation.

              In addition, during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Reagan intervened directly when Israel threatened to blow up the Commodore Hotel in downtown Beirut, which housed more than 100 western reporters. As David Ottaway, who was then the Washington Post Middle East correspondent and was in the building, pointed out, the Israeli defense minister did not like the media coverage the invasion was getting and wanted to close down the media center.

              Biden, on the other hand, even though he had an hour’s notice, failed to intervene to stop Netanyahu from bombing and collapsing the 12-story building that housed the offices of Al Jazeera and the Associated Press in Gaza during the recent bombing campaign. He also failed to publicly condemn the attack, let alone challenge Israel’s contention that the building sheltered Hamas military intelligence assets, despite AP’s insistence that its staff had no evidence that such assets were or ever had been present.

              In addition to allowing the UN resolutions to pass and suspending the F-16 delivery, Reagan also restricted aid and military assistance to Israel to help force its withdrawal of troops from Beirut and central Lebanon.

              Therefore, if in the future some members of the Biden administration or Congress want to join the international community in condemning Israel’s behavior, or in conditioning U.S. assistance or arms transfers and face resistance from Republicans, they need only point to the precedents established by President Reagan in the first instance.

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Top UN officials have called this a a textbook case of genocide in all aspects. Even BEFORE Oct 7.

        You are a modern holocaust denier. A special thing to observe.

        • hanekam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Asserting that Joe Biden hasn’t committed any genocides is not denying the holocaust. You know this very well, I think.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you have to choose between Hitler and Stalin consider voting for a third party or not voting.

      Voting for any person means you approve of their actions and you are complicit and responsible for them.

      • Pogbom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Voting for any person means you approve of their actions and you are complicit and responsible for them.

        I don’t think it means that necessarily. It’s just as valid to vote strategically against an even worse party if they have a chance of winning. It’s not morally contentious to vote for the lesser of two evils.

        • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you keep voting for the lesser of two evils there will never an incentive for a good one to show up because you won’t vote for them anyways.

          You’re too busy voting for Genocide Joe.

          • Pogbom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well I Iive in Canada but point taken. I’m still not sure I agree that it’s on the voter to let the worse party win just to support a burgeoning better one. I’d say the responsibility is on that better party to secure their base and show a reasonable chance to win before asking voters to risk the worse party winning.