#taking-casualties

[taking-casualties]

[raggedy-spaceman]

Someone's jealous

[mugwot]

travel troubles

[antianakin]

There is exactly one criticism that I agree with my, very anti-Jedi, cousin on and that's the Jedi were TERRIBLE Generals. Generals may TRY to make sure their men mostly come back. But useless sacrifices are not only acceptable, but expected, the men are mostly expandable in war. The Jedi did not consider sacrifices like that acceptable or expected. Sure it did happen. It was WAR. But they tried their best to make sure it DIDN'T. The Jedi were terrible Generals. But they were the teachers and Leaders the CLONES NEEDED.

I'm not sure I'd ENTIRELY agree with that. I think I'd be willing to agree that the Jedi were perhaps less CONVENTIONAL Generals, and they definitely do seem to at least TRY to place the lives of their men above just tossing them away for an easy victory, but you can just as easily claim that keeping the men alive to keep fighting is a good strategy in and of itself.

The biggest piece of evidence I'd point to that the Jedi were actually perfectly good Generals is the Citadel arc and Tarkin's criticisms. The one real criticism he makes of the Jedi as military leaders is that they're occasionally too soft and will abandon a mission if it looks impossible to win without near total casualties (on either side). But he's generally fairly positive about the Jedi and if they were truly awful at their jobs, I don't think TARKIN of all people would hold back on saying so, even to the Jedi's faces.

And we DO see the Jedi willing to make sacrifices and accepting that this is a necessary part of war. The Citadel arc is, again, a perfectly good example of this. Obi-Wan and Anakin go in with like 3-4 men each I think and they come back with a grand total of 3 (Rex, Cody, and Fives). A LOT of clones die on this mission that they all KNEW was basically a suicide mission because the Jedi themselves decided that getting the information about the hyperspace lanes was vital enough to the war that it was worth losing multiple lives over (including their own).

So it's not that the Jedi don't understand that sacrifices are necessary in war or even that they avoid it entirely, they just avoid what they see as UNNECESSARY sacrifice for what might amount to a fairly minor victory. Keeping more of their men alive might, in the long run, be a better strategic choice than losing all of them on one campaign, especially if it's over like one uninhabited moon or something like that. There's nothing to say that the losses the Jedi deem acceptable are things that would've changed the entire tide of the war had they chosen to push forward instead.

The other good evidence that the Jedi acting this way would've been the WORSE choice is the Umbara arc. We are told and then see that Krell IS the kind of General who is willing to lose a lot of clones in order to gain victories in battle, and the clones do recognize that he has a lot of victories under his belt. But never once do they discuss whether those victories really MEANT anything or had a large impact on the war effort. It certainly never seems that the Republic is majorly pushing back the Separatists because of Krell's victories, nobody ever mentions that Krell gained them a major advantage with those victories or took out anyone of any consequence on the Separatist side with his strategies. And by the time he gets to Umbara, he's explicitly using this strategy to WEAKEN the Republic side and cause a loss. Several of his strategies WOULD'VE meant the Republic lost on Umbara and it's only the clones utilizing different strategies that put fewer of them at risk that they actually end up continuing to HAVE victories at all.

I'll also point out that the Jedi continuously getting their men killed en masse would've bankrupted the Republic a LOT earlier because they'd have to be paying for more clones a LOT more often than they did in canon and I can't imagine anyone would've considered that a particularly sound strategy and at some point I'm sure the Senate would've felt obligated to put a stop to it anyway and insisted on strategies that kept more clones alive for longer. So I'm not sure it's fair to claim the Jedi were utilizing BAD strategy by not just exclusively using tactics that meant most of their men were killed for every single victory.

So the ONLY criticism we EVER see of the Jedi's ability as military leaders is Tarkin claiming they're "too soft" and Tarkin is the kind of person who would likely say that until the Jedi started carpet bombing entire Separatist planets. Would it give them a victory? Yeah, sure, maybe, but that's the exact same strategy the Separatists are using and look how well that works out for THEM. Everything else we ever see seems to showcase that the Jedi are in fact perfectly good Generals, not just in that they're kind to the clones and are unwilling to carpet bomb Separatist planets, but also because they're just... good at this. They CAN be strategic, they CAN run wars if they want to. And I think that's the whole point of the Jedi in some ways is that yes, they CAN make war when they need to, they just actively choose NOT TO every time they can. THIS is why Qui-Gon tells Padme that he and Obi-Wan are there to protect her but that they can't win this war for her and they end up going off to fight off a Sith while Padme has to actually win the war with her own people and the Gungans instead. The Jedi don't WANT to be in the position of doing nothing but fighting, but they're absolutely capable of this kind of work.

That's the tragedy of the war in some ways, the Jedi ARE good at this no matter how much they wish they weren't sometimes. But being good at it means they can actually protect the Republic, their own men, and even the Separatist civilians better, so they're not going to just sit there and do things that will screw over a bunch of people. Yes, they're going to fight the war in such a way that they reduce casualties as much as possible, but reducing casualties also requires doing enough to not LOSE the damn war, too. It's a delicate balance they're trying to hold on to and I'd argue they manage it better than anybody else would've ever done in their position.

[lucifer-is-a-bag-of-dicks]

reasons not to leave food for the neighbourhood feral cats right in front of your downstairs neighbour's front door:

they will start to assume any food delivery left on the doorstep is for them and will chew it out of the bag and drag it across the yard if you don't get it in time (a considerable problem when your food delivery people are allergic to knocking on your door when they drop it off)

(to be clear, I am the downstairs neighbour, I do not feed the cats)

[thoughts-of-a-cryptid]

Imagine, Ratthi starts a nerf war. It gets out of hand. All the human's are out within the first few hours. Leaving only Three and Murderbot, who are taking it way to seriously.

After a week of being used as living shields all the human's are begging them to call it a draw.

[dayurno]

still thinking about it. she threw riko a peace sign 🥹

[dimplecki]

I feel like many of the "free Palestine" people don't know enough about the hamas terror organisation and its history. They are a group of violent radical Islamic people who seek nothing but to destroy Jews and Israelis. (No different than isis) They are not freedom fighters and they do not represent Palestinian people! They weren't elected by their people, they started a violent coup back at 2005 (when Israel army left gaza) and took control over gaza by force. They do not care about Palestinian people and they never did, they sacrifice their own kids for their violent agenda, and all they did for the last 20 years is try to start violent wars and war crimes against Israel and against their own. and not for Palestine. For the sake of killing Jews. So even if you hate Israel and you support the liberation of Palestinian people just remember that it does not include supporing the terrorists group hamas who are behind this current vicious attack. hamas are also holding gaza strip hostage. Don't support terrorism in any form. They are very good at psychological warfare and altering social media opinion. They cater to emotion rather than facts. Please read a little more history if you want to express an opinion

[stopthefeeling]

Ryan in a recurring role in 2024 is literally a dream come true

[thedarklinkfell]

Neet Mohan as Rash Masum

BBC Casualty

[taking-casualties]

it's so easy to see the galaxy in black and white, but grey? i don't know what to do with grey.

[byler-alarmist]

If your support of Palestine includes apologizing for SA on the part of Hamas, you'd better block me before I come for your ass

[bacon-sandwich-of-dionysus]

Girlies, why did nobody tell me Neil Newbon played a PRIEST on Casualty?!

H U H?!

What in the Fleabag-

Like, not being funny or nothing, I watched an episode of Casualty as a "haha I'm going into med school" joke and lo and behold...

Neil! Neil! What are you doing there, mate?! What's all this?!

Although, I have to admit... It has given me a pretty funny idea for some lore for my original work... Well, more like a character... I shan't say more until I get a proper idea down >;).

Still, it was like seeing your teacher outside of school - it really caught me off guard, lol.

[thedreadvampy]

On the offchance you share that anon's belief that criticising Israel is inherently antisemitic because it is the Only Safe Place For Jews, I have a couple of specific questions for you (beyond the general 'how is Israel both A Site Of Constant Terrifying Violence And That's Why The Arabs Must Be Suppressed and the safest place in the world?)

How many Palestinian lives is an Israeli life worth? 1? 5? 10? I think it's at about 125:1 against Oct 7 by current estimates* but that's going to keep climbing as starvation and disease combine with the still-constant bombing. How many lives is your safety worth?

Given that Israel is a nation state with a position on the international stage, is it inappropriate to criticise Israeli policy and foreign affairs?

If not, why is saying Israel is doing war crimes antisemitic?

If so, at what point would it become acceptable to criticise Israeli policy? Where is the line beyond which it would be appropriate to condemn its actions, if not when it's bombing half a million imprisoned civilians? Would it ever be acceptable? What are the implications of having certain states immune to criticism or sanction from the international community, where others are not**?

If saying "we're sad that there's a war in Gaza" is an antisemitic statement, what would a not-antisemitic criticism of Israeli policy look like?

[medicallymercury]

I’ve got nothing mushy to say about Charlie leaving but I did enjoy the tweet Lisa Bowerman (Sandra Mute my beloved) made about it

at least you survived the stabbing <3

[sixxtytoo]

miss girl (felt edition)