this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
224 points (98.7% liked)

Flippanarchy

2230 readers
423 users here now

Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.

Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.

This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.

Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Rules

  1. If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text

  2. If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.

  3. Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.

  4. Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.

  5. No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.

  6. This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.

  7. No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.

Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
224
a bomb in london (quokk.au)
submitted 2 days ago by Deceptichum@quokk.au to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

It's kind of grimly amusing that before WWII, air power enthusiasts were certain that a few bombs dropped on cities would cause mass panic and the recipients would immediately quit fighting and sue for peace. Even though bombs were dropped on cities in WWI and it didn't do anything except piss people off.

WWII started and Germany dropped a bunch of bombs on London and it didn't do anything except piss people off. And then the Allies dropped 100X as many bombs on German cities and it didn't do anything except piss people off.

[–] SailorFuzz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

If London were Syria (or Palestine/Iran/Ukraine/etc)

[–] TwodogsFighting 41 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Someone should tell her.

[–] youcantreadthis@quokk.au 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That they still havent shut the fuck up about it?

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

About what? WW2 or the IRA bombing campaign or the 7 July 2005 islamic bombings?

There is an extensive list of terror attacks on London on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London Which one do we not "shut the fuck up" about?

[–] Pricklesthemagicfish@reddthat.com 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I don't understand this post? Make london ww2 again?

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's highlighting the discrepancy between media reactions to strikes in cities in the global south versus a western city, like London.

[–] Fiery@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago

Imagine the response if a Muslim nation bombed a school full of white Christian kids.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So east of Europe is now called South? Hmmmmm

[–] fun_times@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"The global south" is a well-established concept that has replaced the concept of the "third world" since the collapse of the soviet union (the "second world").

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Oh dang I though it meant south of the globe, like literally.

Today I learned something I didn't like.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 1 points 14 hours ago

Yep, Australia isn’t in it despite being a continent-sized mining town.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think that happened during the troubles didn't it?

[–] horseloaf@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Most recently, 2005 Wikipedia

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] village604@adultswim.fan 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There's quite a bit of difference between an IED in a bucket and a bomb from a military aircraft.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Really? Because the IRA detonated 1 ton of fertiliser in one bombing, causing one and a half billion in damage.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

how would you charactize the difference?

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Military hardware causes way more destruction.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You are confusing bombs for air strikes.Air dropped bombs account for 2% of war casualties 2015-2024, IEDs 21%, air strikes 45%.

The average deaths from any explosive ordinance is roughly 20 per "event" which may include multiple detonations and mixed ordinance.

[–] Pman@lemmy.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

While by number of casualties that may be correct a single military grade bomb can be something as small as a claymore on the onehand to as big as a MOAB which is designed to be the size of explosive as a small nuke without the nuclear fallout.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

the moab in 2017 killed 97 people. Not drastically far from ~20

[–] Pman@lemmy.org 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Was it targeting a civilian on densely populated area or was it targetted at a military structure with bunkers and lower density when out in the open during an attack? If it was more the former case it would be closer to the early death toll of Russian missiles striking apartment complexes in Ukraine but with greater destruction. A MOAB has a destructive capacity of approximately 18k lbs of TNT and is usually used in an air burst deployment where as IEDs are more of a small grade explosive used to kill undefended civilians or unsuspecting soldiers or to take out small vehicles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43%2FB_MOAB?wprov=sfla1

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

fair points but we can only go off what did happen not what might

Another thing to consider is that the MOAB is pushed out of a plane on a wooden pallette and uses a parachute and fins to drift to its target - something that would in general reduce its efficacy in hitting targets accurately and would affect lethality too

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Casualties aren't the only factor here.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

fair but I'd argue that targeting civilian infrastructure via terrorism is actually more effective in terms of disruption to targeting military targets.

[–] horseloaf@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

I stand corrected.

[–] Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Ouch. Grammar much?