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
It's mostly about preventing future hostages now
I don’t know how you think these things work but bombing half the Levant isn’t going to make Israel any safer. It just means Hamas and Hezbollah (or whatever group replaces them) will be even more extreme and capable of recruiting militants. You can’t bomb your way to peace.
Let me fuck my way to virginity.
It isn't that they haven't learned. It's that they don't care. They want to kill. They are what would happen if serial killers and mass murderers become world leaders.
Lots of countries that bombed/killed their way to peace would disagree
Allowing them to rebuild their forces to get a mere 100 hostages back will just lead to more death in the future
Israel isn’t fighting a country. It’s, at least ostensibly, fighting terrorism and every civilian killed radicalizes someone. Israel will be less secure in the future because of how Netanyahu has conducted the war in Gaza, not to mention how he’s given settlers — who are terrorists themselves — free rein to steal land and attack West Bank Palestinians. (I say “ostensibly” because Gaza looks a lot more like a genocide than any sort of limited mission to crush Hamas and rescue hostages.)
Unfortunately, I don’t see Netanyahu’s strategy making Israel more secure in the long term.
The irony is that the hostages are safer with hamas. The Israelis are confirmed to have killed hundreds of their own citizens as part of rhe Hannibal doctrine on Oct 7th and have killed hostages in bombing raids.
The last time "bombing to peace" worked was in WW2, when the US killed 200.000 Japanese civillians with two nukes. The threat was clear. Surrender or face total annihilation.
There is a term for that. It is called genocide. But in the case of Israel they would first need to genocide all of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Jordan. So some 50-60 Million people. Then all the other Muslims will feel threatened and fight back, like the West and UDSSR did against Nazis Germany. So in the second round, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Yemen and Oman will have to be genocided to achieve "peace". That is some 200 million people. But then the rest of the world, except for Israels enablers in the US, Germany, UK and other few allies will feel threatened. So then the genocide needs to kill some 7 billion people.
That is the logic of the escalator "seeking peace" through killing everyone opposing him. When the US fought Japan, it was also liberating the countries around it. When Israel is fighting everyone around it, it is always clear that it will step it up to attack the next country and the next after that.
The nuclear bombing of Japan didn't need to happen. They were already willing to surrender even before that.
If you don't know of any conflict being ended with violence after WW2, you might want to sign up to some history podcast or something
You can't bomb ideas.
Let me explain how we can prove you're 100% full of bullshit.
If this had anything to do with security, bibi would resign, hand over reins to someone who didn't fuck up and let the hostages be taken in the first place, and Israel could come up with plans slightly more nuanced and thought through than 'Wauuugghh!!!'
He's desperate to keep power because hes Bibi, he'd use Iran getting nukes under his watch as an excuse for why he had to keep power, every failure from incompetence is just another argument for why he can't possibly be replaced.
You have a dictator, and it would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.
Your post makes me wonder which country you're from, and how you're so sure your neighbours can't barge in with a few thousand soldiers and capture 250 hostages
If you're suggesting that pre-Al Aqsa Flood-Bibi was too weak on Gaza, then well... Yeah
America, we had a similar surprise once.
Our reaction did not give us the assurance we desired.
Bibi is a corrupt tool, he incited the assassination of Rabin and he's basically a far smarter Trump.
Israel is doomed because of him, because for such an ideologue security is fuel and he won't let you stop until greater Israel or it's complete destruction, there is no middle ground.
Yeah, funny how out of all countries the US didn't go: "look, I get that you want revenge, but what we did after 9/11 wasn't productive in the least, so we're telling you to reconsider."
The US spent 20 years in Afghanistan, killed millions, traumatised/gave cancer to entire generations of their own soldiers and had nothing to show for it.
You couldn't be more wrong
We gave billions to the very country that supported the taliban and hid bin ladin for a decade.
And we destroyed the middle east, causing the refugee crisis that is hitting the world and causing trouble.
Not to mention we burned trillions.
We were epic moroms, manipulated by assholes like Pakistan and Israel when all we should have done was what Obama did, put a few rounds in bin ladin and thrown him off the ship.
Perhaps
But a) chances are it wouldn't have been so easy to just chopper in and out of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to nab him, and b) it's questionable that just killing one figurehead in retaliation for a massive terror attack that killed thousands wouldn't just embolden them
You're reaching, hard.
There is no way in which the current outcome was better for the US than if we had simply eliminated OBL, all our responses after Afghanistan directly hurt us.
They actually hurt Israel too, even though theyre too stubborn and ignorant to appreciate it, we had a number of divided groups that would never move lest someone gain advantage, now we have Iran ascendant with no force to oppose them.
We gave Iraq to Iran, because Israel thought they could use us to mow down anyone they considered a problem, and because our president was a complete moron.
I'd say you are the one who's reaching (of the hard kind) if you think I'm going to argue about whether the US response was well done
I'm just here to point out that your statement that Biden didn't use it as an example to warn the Israelis was utterly incorrect
Also, I think it's quite funny that you think they could have just sent in some specops squad to walk around Afghanistan with a picture of OBL and they'd have him by the end of the week or something
Firstly, you clearly misinterpreted my response, I was not against our aid in the Northern Alliance's retaking of Afghanistan.
Secondly, we had him pinned in caves near the border of Pakistan, we let him escape because that was the exact moment the ramp for Iraq was starting. That was my main disagreement, finish your first war before starting your second, or you lose both, like we did.
Thirdly, if our president wasn't a Texan and could, you know, reed gud, he would know the Pakistanis were screwing us for money, that's literally their whole economy, we busted them on this back in the 80s, they basically started the Taliban because they wanted a "friendly" (read: hostile to India) neighbor they could use with deniability, much like China keeps Nork around even though they're crazy idiots.
The ISI could have handed him over in a week, and we know that because they not only pulled him out of Afghanistan, they put him up in a lovely Bungalow down the street from their military academy.
Shame our president was such a complete idiot.
I agree on most points, except perhaps that the ISI isn't exactly as tightly run that you don't have strong internal factions. What happens in Pashtun doesn't necessarily jive with what happens in Islamabad.
I agree, the ISI is somewhere between a rogue arm of Pakistan, and it's shadow government.
But messing around in Iraq was stupid, and trusting Pakistanis for anything, moreso.
More words, while they kept shipping them weapons.
Sorry.
The Land of America you say
Do you think your leader is strong enough to prevent a few thousand Canadians from rushing the border for a few hours?
No, which is why it's a good thing we aren't occupying Toronto.
Ironically we did invade and occupy Canada once because we thought we could take their land.
It went very poorly for us, but unlike Israel we learned a lesson. Then again, we are capable of learning, but then again our politics weren't completely founded on our most backwardly hyperreligious messianic nightmare psychos back then.
Your zealots are a cancer on your polity, just like ours are. Palestinians didn't butcher Rabin.
Well, you're going pretty off-topic from your original statement that Bibi should have been replaced with someone that could have prevented the hostage-takings.
Also, you might want to read up on what happened to the natives that lived where you live now.
I'm going off-topic?!?! Do you know how responses work?
Yeah, they were genocided, much like Israel is doing to the people who lived there. Not defending that in any way, we were monsters and we need to make what reparations we can to them and give them decent land even though it wouldn't begin to make up.
Much like Israel needs to accede to the original UN partition plan of 48, which they will never ever do because secretly most believe in a Greater Israel.
Well that brings us to an interesting point
If you are unwilling to vacate from your clearly stolen land... Then why should the Israelis?
We made a deal, under which they stopped attacking us.
Crying about terrorism and whatnot is adorable when you literally walked in and sat down on their couch without asking.
And do you remember what happened to those that didn't agree to your deal?
The Palestinians weren't the ones who turned down Oslo, and again, they didn't butcher Rabin.
The very Palestinians who were in charge of Gaza for the last 20 years and are now posing as righteous were very commited to sabotage Oslo, and did so with numerous bomb attacks against civilians
Well tbf, Israel's crazies did all the work for them. Bibi too, he personally incited Rabin's assassination, then applied for his job, that's initiative!
You might as well argue that Hamas did all the work for their Israeli counterparts. So why would you first describe it so onesided?
They have nukes. During the cold war the nuclear option was the thing that terrified everyone. Israeli right now is a full blown Rogue state that abso-fucking-lutely will go nuclear if the US pulls support. Forget about the communist-capitalist thing, it's about some crazed colonialist who believe they should have everything or no one has anything.
The only hostage ~~that in Yahoo~~ netanyahu is trying to prevent, is him in some kind of jail cell.