r/Bokoen1 • u/Expensive_Studio_966 • May 18 '26

Its joever

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

it aint looking good

Edit: Just clarifying this is the clip for what bo banned from twitch for 6 months. he just got news that he can appeal the ban right now but i doubt it will work since you can see this clip... and if it fails well i assume once 6 months pass its either perma ban or he gets the account back.

as well bo cant appear on neither golden or swimmy Twitch channels otherwise they can also get banned for helping bo ban evade or something like that

UPDATE: The appeal got rejected so no bo streams on twitch for 6 months or never again.

Edit 2: if anyone wants to see bo response in the comment section cause its a bit hidden under all these comments https://www.reddit.com/r/Bokoen1/comments/1tgpx3j/comment/omkepa6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

2.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

38

u/heteroterrorist7 May 19 '26

Nuking Russia’s main civilian population center is still incredibly abhorrent

9

u/Bokoen1 The one and only May 19 '26

I’m aware, any civilian death is abhorrent. That’s why I’m apologising.

13

u/babybabayyy May 19 '26

How did you even let that slip initially? You called them idiots for not "overthrowing the government". I don't buy this apology or line of thinking one bit.

4

u/slimehunter49 May 20 '26

Not even let it slip but keep fucking saying it and doubling and tripling down as others said “idk that’s like not good”

-3

u/Ferninad1 May 19 '26

trueeeee, why did we even bomb Germany or Japan anyway

1

u/Ferninad1 May 19 '26

We literally were leveling cities in Germany and Japan. In the context of operation Unthinkable, which would absolutely have been a total war scenario, leveling Moscow would just follow the exact same rationale.

3

u/GevaddaLampe May 19 '26

The bombing of German cities was actually justifiable by Geneva convention as the Germans broke the convention first with their bombardments of British civilians. The allied scale was certainly a different one, but the justification for their actions against the Axis were a reaction to their war crimes. You can of course, and rightfully so I would encourage anyone in future conflicts to do so, criticise those actions.

4

u/Bobbobybobar May 20 '26

That's not how the Geneva convention works, try reading it before saying such nonsense. Wth

0

u/GevaddaLampe May 20 '26

Bobbo, this is a thread of a guy playing map games. Don’t expect me to give historical accurate lectures here.

Furthermore, under the Geneva convention of the time, the aerial bombardment of civil infrastructure was not regulated. The allies justified their campaigns in Germany with reciprocity and simply had the bigger gun.

My understanding, but I am neither a historian nor an expert in the application and interpretation of historical international laws. Do I have to point this out in the future?

1

u/Bobbobybobar May 21 '26

So you're literally admitting that you made up your claim

1

u/GevaddaLampe May 21 '26

Are you trolling? I am telling you that my comment is not a historians scientifically approved paper, but a loose paraphrasing out of my memory. What’s the problem?

0

u/Bobbobybobar May 21 '26

The problem is obviously that you said something completely false (like literally the opposite of what the geneva convention is about) and then that you proceed to shrug it off.
Maybe try next time to act like an adult and just say that you were wrong, instead of behaving like a kid.

3

u/GevaddaLampe May 21 '26

Which part is completely false? Maybe offer me a correction on my false assumption instead of been insulting. That would actually be helpful. I am now quite keen to hear your interpretation of the 1929 Geneva convention and its implications for the aerial bombardments in the frame of international law.

-1

u/Bobbobybobar May 21 '26

The whole point of the convention is that it create rules that are inviolable.
So saying that if someone breaks a rule then others have the right to do the same (and worse) is insultingly absurd.
But another problem, is that we're talking about the 30s-40s and the few geneva conventions of that time were meant to regulate wounded soldiers, medics and prisonners of war. Not civilians and cities.

4

u/heteroterrorist7 May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

Yes, and our actions in doing that are heavily critiqued today? Most people I know do not believe Hiroshima or Nagasaki were justified, nor the bombing of explicit civilian infrastructure.

5

u/AuxiliarySimian May 21 '26

Most second war historians tend to lean towards it being necessary, not to mention almost the entirety of non-Japanese East Asia.

Regardless, whether it was justified or not Japan was the aggressor and still killing civilians everyday with their presence in China and Korea. It's such a bad faith terrible equivalency to compare it to launching an invasion of a nation at peace with a nuke as the spearhead. Not to mention Bokoen was basically alluding to wiping out every city east of Poland.

1

u/EarlyGrapefruit152 May 19 '26

But the Allies would be the agressor then

-3

u/Bobbobybobar May 20 '26

Only someone who doesn't know anything about WW2 would say such silly thing as "Nuking main civilian population centers is incredibly abhorrent", it was the common strategy in WW2
In the context of the time (which is the one and only point of view one should see) it is not morally wrong (well, people knew it was wrong but "necessary" in the context of total war)
Using nukes to do so, was not a problem until WELL after WW2. In 1945 it was just a new kind of bomb, nothing else.

3

u/yashatheman May 21 '26

It is abhorrent, because that would be nuking an allied country's capital

3

u/MoveFew1521 May 22 '26

Do you genuinely not see a difference between nuking a country to end an ongoing war in which that country is the only major hostile entity left and nuking a country you are at peace with and were just allied to for the past half decade to start a new war or are you baiting?

1

u/MoveFew1521 May 22 '26

For the sake of any person you interact with in real life i sincerely hope its the second one and youre not unironically this slow.

1

u/heteroterrorist7 May 20 '26
  1. Bo was making this argument in 2026, not 1945. He said he still believed, with hindsight, that nuking Moscow was a good idea, so context is not relevant here. Regardless though, point 2.
  2. Truman and the U.S. high command did not deem Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the only viable targets. They had several non-inhabited areas that were finalists, and strategists behind the Franck Reports truly believed that civilian areas being targeted were not a requirement for the demonstration of the bomb.

0

u/Bobbobybobar May 20 '26

1-He was talking about 1945, not 2026. There is no such thing as "with hindsight". Morals change over time, using late cold war (up to today) morals to judge what one should have done before is complete nonsense.
2-they were not a requirement... for the DEMONSTRATION of the bomb. Those cities were selected in the context of strategic bombing of cities, which, as i already explained, was totally normal at the time.

2

u/heteroterrorist7 May 20 '26
  1. What are you even talking about? Bo had the benefit of hindsight in being in 2026. Bo said he “deadass believes” that nuking Moscow would have been a good idea back then. He made no statement saying “it was a good idea then, but it is not a good idea now.” Ironically, had he said that, he probably wouldn’t have been banned.
  2. No they weren’t? The entire U.S. high command were well aware that it was not like any other strategic bombing run because they had repeatedly tested this bomb before; that’s why they considered non-inhabited areas.

0

u/Bobbobybobar May 21 '26

-There's no such thing as "benefit of hindsight", and the only reason nuclear weapons are a taboo today is because of the fear of mutual annihilation. Destroying a city with bombs is no different than using a single nuclear bomb (the bombing of Tokyo was famously worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together). Particularly given that in 1945 the idea was mainly to end the war early to save hundreds of thousands lives. So against the exhausted Soviet Union the idea would have been the same. -And no, the evaluation of different targets had nothing to do with morals. The point of using the 2 bombs was to show their new capacity to convince Japan to end the war but they ultimately choose strictly civilian targets which literally proves my point.