World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
While I agree with you that independent verification is mandatory in situations like this, I also believe that once you get that verification, your position will not change. You have only given yourself a 1% chance of changing your stance, which means, in my opinion, that the only refuge you are offering yourself is conspiracism if and when you are proven wrong.
I suspect the conspiracy will be "Israel killed the hostages themselves."
False.
No. I have given a very generous 1% chance of something said ONLY by an IDF spokesperson being the unvarnished truth. The concurrence of other sources would of course dramatically increase that chance, especially if any of them are themselves very reliable.
That's a very weird way to guess wrong.
Wouldn't be the first time or the last. That's not a conspiracy theory at this point, though, just what's most likely given the past behavior of all of the factions involved 🤷
I'm reserving final judgment until people of greater reliability than the likes of Donald Trump, Baghdad Bob, or Alex Jones chime in, though.
You don't see how automatically trusting the captors until proven otherwise is already evidence of how much you have embraced conspiricism?
I'm not saying that I trust Hamas. For the record, I don't.
I'm just saying that I don't trust the IDF either, infamous as they are for being caught lying constantly.
Right, but you know hamas believes jews should be wiped from this earth, and you know this current war began because of specific steps Hamas chose to take to attempt to make that goal a reality, you know the mistreatment they have displayed towards the hostages.
So for you to say that there is a 99% chance that Hamas is innocent of these killings, that's a specific choice you are making for conspiricism.
That's irrelevant. They're not in a position where doing so is possible, and killing their only leverage against a technologically and numerically superior force is not in their interest.
The Israeli people thinking that they did, on the other hand, is VERY much in the interest of the IDF.
Nope. Atrocious and barbaric beyond description as it was, October 7th was a political act, not a foolhardy attempt to kill all Jewish people.
Just because they're despicable terrorists doesn't mean that Hamas are stupid enough to think that the total eradication of all Israeli Jews, let alone all Jews worldwide, is something that is in any way possible.
And it's not a war. It's one of the biggest, most powerful, and most technologically advanced militaries in the history of humanity eradicating or displacing an entire people, using a tiny minority (that is nowhere near as much a threat as they pretend) as a pretense.
Talking about Hamas or Israel? Because the only significant differences with regards to hostages is that Israel has hundreds if not thousands as many that they abuse just as horribly as Hamas does theirs.
Again ignoring the qualifier, so I'm gonna make it a little more obvious:
As long as an IDF spokesperson is the ONLY source
Nope, that's a statement of how unreliable the IDF and their spokespeople have proven themselves to be. Repeatedly leaving out that part, though? THAT'S a specific choice.
No, Hamas, beliefs and actions are not irrelevant to the situation we are currently in. That is foolish.
Describing terrorists committing a terrorist act as a "political" action is incredibly forgiving of the behavior of terrorists.
An elected government invading and attacking a different country is an act of war, regardless of whether the nation they attacked is militarily superior. Hamas made a decision to go to war, and claiming they didn't is factually wrong.
I don't personally feel any need to justify the behavior of any right wing religious fundamentalist organization against their hostages. The fact that we are in a situation where two organizations fitting that description are behaving badly and you have chosen a side says something about you that it doesn't me.
Palestine is not a country. They're basically part of Israel. Israel controls their money, imports, exports, travel into and out of it, they're water spaces, air spaces, energy, trash, water, etc. It's not a war if a military starts killing huge amounts of civilians, which so what's happening here. It's a genocide. It was terrorism to get hostages to extract concessions on Israel's horrible policies towards Palestine, where they've been slowly eradicating people and taking territory for decades without any sign of help from the outside world in slowing their slow rolling ethnic cleansing.
If you automatically believe the IDF after their long history of blatant lies, then you've take a side whether you believe yourself superior and neutral, or not.
Hamas is the elected government of Gaza. GAZA AND west Bank are officially recognized as "the state of Palestine."
We have to be factual here.
Israel supported Hamas' rise to power, despite the objections of the Palestinians. Israel is responsible for the Hamas' power over Gazans. It gives their ethnic cleansing plausible deniability.
The Palestinians elected Hamas, did they not?
While this is all very entertaining, the very definition of terrorism is using terror to achieve political or ideological goals. Otherwise it's just mass murder, genocide, or whatever.
So if the political goals of the Palestinian government are to kill as many Palestinians as possible, why are the anti-Israel protests not a joint protest of both Israel and Palestine?
Why is the role of Hamas minimized?
You may not know the answer or be willing to say it, but I certainly know the answer and am under no obligation to not say it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The actions of Hamas are terrible, and inevitable due to the equally reprehensible actions of Israel. That still has no bearing on the definition of the word terrorism.
No, the actions of Hamas were not inevitable. That is absolving them of moral culpability.
But thank you for proving my point that this is not a pro-Palestine movement, but rather an anti-Israeli movement.
Inevitable is perhaps too strongly worded. But it is very likely and completely unexpected. Netenyahu sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind, to the detriment of Israel and Israelis. Sure, there are movements such as Gandhi and Polish solidarity which were primarily non-violent, but they very much appear to be exceptions and not the rule. But I also love how the only point I raised against your statements is the only thing you haven't addressed in responses to me.
Well I am glad you see a distinction between Gandhi and Hamas. Some of you guys I don't think are capable of making that distinction.
But no, nothing Israel has ever done justified Oct. 7th. Hamas did not do that to liberate the Palestinian people. They did it because Iran paid them to and they knew it would kill a lot of their own people.
Gandhi's goal wasn't to get as many Indians killed as he could. Imagine if Hamas actually took inspiration from Gandhi though.
Occupied people have a right to resist under international law.
International law does not protect terrorism against civilians.
Were you not aware of that?
Obviously I'm aware of that.
I wasn't sure you were. It seemed like you were trying to suggest that Oct. 7th was a legally protected action.
What specific actions done by Hamas are you attempting to claim are legally protected?
I wasn't talking about specific actions at all. You were responding to someone talking about whether the existence of Hamas was understandable. I agree with him that it is. Armed resistence against occupiers is to be expected and it's protected by international law.
Terrorism is not protected by international law.
Well aware. Didn't claim it was.
If you weren't suggesting that Hamas is merely armed resistance and legally protected by the international courts, what was your last sentence in reference to?
Hamas is an armed resistence and they sometimes perform acts of terrorism. Life isn't always black and white. Thanks for the discussion, but I'm done here.
And there it is, little buddy proving that this is not a Pro-Palestinian, but rather a pro-Hamas movement.
Don't be a coward who runs away after taking the mask off. Actually stand by what you said and be willing to discuss it.
There's little point discussing your strawmen
If you don't want to be called out for being a propagandist for a terrorist organization, the simple solution is to stop being one.
I'm done with your bad faith sealion BS. Banned
I'm sure it emotionally feels better for you to pretend I am down with genocide than it is to actually confront and respond to anything I said.
Kind of seems like fox News level intellectual cowardice on your part though.
Lol I am not a conservative, but yes, block if you are unable to defend a position.
Islam prophet died and the only possession he had was a shield owned by his jew neighbour.
Any person of faith, including hamas, dont believe in “Jewish genocide” it goes against the religion.
I trust journalists that have proven themselves reliable, even as that puts them directly in the crosshairs of the genocidal apartheid regime.
Never claimed any such thing. Please stow your strawman.
What, Al Jazeera and Guardian? Ha.
Both have proven track record of genocidal tendencies. Both are proven terrorists even if only one of them is a designated terrorist organisation.
So taking any statement made by any of them unverified with a boat load of salt is not only prudent it is necessary.
There are way more far fetched conspiracies out there.
So your evidence of the conspiracy that Israel's policy is to murder hostages themselves to frame Hamas is that 9 months ago an Israeli unit killed 3 hostages while not realizing they were hostages?
That's pretty weak justification to align yourself on the side of Hamas here. I think you know that though.
It's more about their inability to respect the most recognizable sign of surrender. The problem is you think any criticism of the IDF is alignment with Hamas. These are people being murdered, pull your head out of your ass.
...I'm not a supporter of the IDF.
Di you want to understand the argument being made before choosing to argue against it?
After reading through your post history, all I can say is "Bullshit."
You shpuld have no trouble finding a single positive word against the IDF then.