Again, why are you splitting hairs in this situation? The main issue with this is that the US bombed another country, escalating an already tense international conflict.
Will the damage to infrastructure be different? Yes.
Will the act be seen as a lesser act of war? I don’t think so.
It’s shifting focus away from the main issue at hand. Yes, in the future, I’ll speak accurately about the attacks, but your point is purely academic when we’re talking about the material conditions around a bombing.
The problem is that bad faith actors often attempt to discredit one’s argument overall when they are not 100% accurate about the facts.
If I were making a formal statement in a professional setting, I’d want to be as accurate as possible, but on a forum post where the issue is one country bombing another, correcting someone on the nature of the bombings’ targets isn’t adding to the discussion in the same way.
It’s a good clarification, people are just on guard here. There’s a major difference between the two targets. Large swathes of a country become uninhabitable if you hit a reactor.
Fordow and Natanz are enrichment sites, and Isfahan is a research reactor, the impact of bombing these sites is not the same as it would be if an operational power reactor was bombed. This is not a minor correction, and significantly impacts how the events should be interpreted. Everyone who responded negatively to this needs to self-crit, the response here is embarrassing.
deleted by creator
There’s a difference between killing a general and bombing 3 nuclear reactors
deleted by creator
I will beat you the fuck up
Is that where you want to split hairs on this issue? You don’t get anything for being technically correct.
deleted by creator
Again, why are you splitting hairs in this situation? The main issue with this is that the US bombed another country, escalating an already tense international conflict.
Will the damage to infrastructure be different? Yes.
Will the act be seen as a lesser act of war? I don’t think so.
deleted by creator
Yes, it’s good to be precise with statements.
It’s also good to deliver precise information in a way that does not imply further misinformation. Take this statement:
If you reply with “It’s not X”, you inadvertently imply that nothing has happened. “It’s Y, not X” does not have the same implication.
deleted by creator
It’s shifting focus away from the main issue at hand. Yes, in the future, I’ll speak accurately about the attacks, but your point is purely academic when we’re talking about the material conditions around a bombing.
The problem is that bad faith actors often attempt to discredit one’s argument overall when they are not 100% accurate about the facts.
If I were making a formal statement in a professional setting, I’d want to be as accurate as possible, but on a forum post where the issue is one country bombing another, correcting someone on the nature of the bombings’ targets isn’t adding to the discussion in the same way.
I don’t mean to attack you, but read the room.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
This is such a weird thread and your tidbit of correction was totally inoffensive and benign
What’s the difference? Explain
deleted by creator
It’s a good clarification, people are just on guard here. There’s a major difference between the two targets. Large swathes of a country become uninhabitable if you hit a reactor.
bombing either reactor or enrichment site is equally reckless af
Fordow and Natanz are enrichment sites, and Isfahan is a research reactor, the impact of bombing these sites is not the same as it would be if an operational power reactor was bombed. This is not a minor correction, and significantly impacts how the events should be interpreted. Everyone who responded negatively to this needs to self-crit, the response here is embarrassing.
fair that assassination seemed like it would’ve back then but it did not
They attacked Iranian forces outside of Iran, that’s a little different.