this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2025
43 points (97.8% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

403 readers
38 users here now

Militaria shitposting central! Post memes, tasteless jokes, and sexual cravings for military equipment and/or nuclear self-destruction!

Rules:

  1. Posts must abide by Piefed.social terms and conditions
  2. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  3. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

Related communities:
!forgottenweapons@lemmy.world

For the other, slightly less political NCD, !noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
PugJesus@piefed.social
43
NO TOUCH FALKLANDS (infosec.pub)
submitted 2 months ago by PugJesus@piefed.social to c/noncredibledefense@piefed.social
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Invading a small island owned by one of your biggest trading partners isn't a smart move, even if you manage to hold onto it.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Neither is trying to evict people from land you weren't using ~~and never have~~, at all. The Falklands were settled by the French, then the English, for 56 years before Argentina tried to assert sovereignty, and they were unoccupied when Europeans arrived.

Might as well legitimize Israeli "ancestral claims".

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

That's a fascinating line of reasoning you've got there.

If nobody was using it, why did they need to rock up in a battleship?