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 !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
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
The problem is that according to due process, you need to prove somebody is guilty of something before they are jailed. These people weren't jailed, they were basically executed from a distance. The burden of proof is on the Israeli military to prove that they WERE Hamas, not on people horrified by the footage to prove the negative. And so far (and historically) the IDF seems to not care to do so, and in lots of cases have given "proof" as justification for one action or another that later turned out to be bullshit.
Not to mention the numerous cases of the IDF killing people in "Press" vests and helmets, or people literally actively waving a white flag. In my opinion, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt given their record.
Staying on the topic at hand, and only that, this is war. Killing an enemy on the field has no system of public review. Everything is internal. Neither IDF or Hammas has to provide proof of anything to anybody for any reason except when propagandantistic PR is at play (like you mentioned). At least not now. There will surely be tribunals after this war is "settled." The only direction proof goes is up the chain of command. I won't pretend to understand the complexity of target selection and acquisition (especially foreign nations and certainly not terrorists), but I know that that's how it works. There is no burden of proof, whatsoever.
Those are the cold facts.
Opinion, etc: I hope you don't read this as some kind of defence or exoneration of any malicious, evil, callous, or accidental killing commited of innocents. I unequivocally do not want or excuse killing civilians. Anyone who does is hideously evil. However, I think a reality check is necessary.
The "burden of proof" is a security blanket most of the world enjoys and vaguely understands. When they see some horrible violence of war, fed to them without context by compromised sources, it's easy to make assumptions and demand justice. And many of those times, you should, just ideally without the assumptions and propaganda. This isn't one of this times. I know that the IDF is commiting war crimes, but this video is just war.
What you are saying is just not true.
You can't go and kill unarmed, non combative, un-uniformed people however you'd like.
You do need to prove that the people you are killing are actually combatants. Especially when you send a missile down someone's head just walking on the street.
You're right, you can't do that.
Also you're wrong, you don't need to prove that. At least not publicly which is what you seem to be implying. Intelligence has to prove that these people, or some of them, are Hamas, likely of some significance, maybe not. Then they have to be identified, monitored, and tracked for a strike opportunity. Then, when the entire chain of command is in agreement that that's their guy and this is the best time, they attack.
In your version, the drone operator seems to have infinite ammo and gleeful fire-at-will orders. Killing anyone who is "just walking down the street." Maybe the soldiers on the ground operate that way, but not drones or jets.
"In your version, the drone operator seems to have infinite ammo and gleeful fire-at-will orders. Killing anyone who is “just walking down the street.” Maybe the soldiers on the ground operate that way, but not drones or jets."
Where are you getting this story from? I sure as hell didn't even come close to mention or talk about anything of the sort.
And regarding your statement
"Intelligence has to prove that these people, or some of them, are Hamas, likely of some significance, maybe not. Then they have to be identified, monitored, and tracked for a strike opportunity. Then, when the entire chain of command is in agreement that that’s their guy and this is the best time, they attack."
Do you have any source for that being the way they operate at every single strike. Any source that this is how it went down from what we saw? Or are you just guessing?
My money is on the later.
Why do you assume there's no proof?
Why do you assume I have that assumption?
Because of this sentence:
It's absolutely true. We don't know if IDF is collecting proof or not. And IDF absolutely does not need to provide proof to the public. Only to the people who are investigating the war. (Just like the person you are replying to stated)
"Neither IDF or Hammas has to provide proof of anything to anybody for any reason except when propagandantistic PR is at play"
That is simply not true. They do have to provide proof to somebody. You said so yourself. To the ones investigating. I can assure you. They are definatly included in these "anybody"
Why did you cut off the next sentence in the quote?
Killing obvious civilians is a warcrime. While there are circumstances where this is ambiguous, this example isn't - Israel needs to overcome the very reasonable conclusion that these were civilians and prove that they were enemy combatants.
Understanding that 60-70% of the Palestinians Israel have killed are children, this will be a tall order.
What makes it obvious?
I think that person has very strong pre-concieved notions... At this point a rock on the ground is "evidence" to them that the rock is in cahoots with Israel, because children in Gaza, because obviously.
That video is evidence of nothing, but certain death of 4 unknown people, at an unknown location, recorded at unknown point in time.
Again, disclaimer: There's an active genocide in Gaza, performed by Israel against Palestinians. Hamas is a terrorist organisation.
The video shows 4 people in civilian clothes casually wandering along chatting while unarmed.
Putting aside the thousands upon thousands literal children Israel has slaughtered in the past few months while spewing genocidal rhetoric (because Hamas?), what evidence do you have that this isn't a warcrime and that they're combatants? The video contains absolutely nothing suggesting anything of the sort, and no evidence has been presented.
When people say they want to commit a genocide, then kill tens of thousands of civilians, I tend to believe them - why are you so incredulous?
Stop being hung up on the unarmed thing. All the badguys in movies are armed to make it clear to the audience and make it "justified". Unarmed soldiers and military personnel make up a much larger chunk of casualties than you realize. Terrorists don't just toss their guns to the side and claim immunity. They are still targets.
Anyway, I've made my points clear, I've explained various things using traceable, sound logic. You seem to have to not read it or comprehended it. I'm not going to waste my time with unreasonable, volatile people.
Literally zero evidence that this killing is justified in the context of a genocide that the Israeli government and IDF won't shut up about, where the majority of their targets are women and children.
Don't go pretending you know a thing about reason or that you've made any meaningful point whatsoever.
You still really don't understand how evidence works, huh?
They aren't listening, they're reacting, like the others.
Where's the evidence justifying the killing of these people? Or do we not care about the rule of law?
I guess in the context of the genocide Israel is committing there's not much room for that kind of thing.
You kill a bunch of people, you'd better be damn sure it's justifiable - you know - by looking at the evidence. Basic rule of law stuff.
Where's the evidence? We both know there isn't any - much like there's nothing that would justify Israel's broader genocide.
How do you think evidence works?
"Know" lmao.
"Basic", but too complex for you to understand.
Feel free to reach out if you'd like to take a break from defending warcrimes by a genocidal regime and provide any evidence.
Now you're just repeating the same words over and over again with no correlation. Holy shit. Did I get baited into a "discussion" with ChatGPT 1.0? There's no other explanation
Evidence that these civilians are in fact combatants. I'll wait.
Oh my god this is hilarious. I've sent 20 messages explaining that theres no evidence one way or the other, and you still parrot the same shit over and over again. Come on, rub your both braincells together, Karen, figure it out.
Your whole argument is that I'm a genocide denier, and I've stated many times saying theres an active genocide in Gaza, committed by Israeli forces. You literally have no argument.
Bad guys don't look the way you imagine. Real life is not a Holywood stage (I know some Americans struggle with this fact)
Let's try this one more time, all together now: "An out of context clip on twitter, containing unidentified people in an unidentified area, during an unidentified time, is not evidence".
Based on the level of responses you gave me so far, I assume you're confused by that as well.
WE, the people watching, cannot know, whether the targets were "The bad guys" (you know, pew pew pew), or the good guys. Being unarmed could be an indication, BUT IT'S NOT EVIDENCE. Life is not a movie, nor a Battlefield game.
Okay, this is as low as I can go I think.
There we go. The fact that there's evidence of the murder of a group of apparent civilians and no evidence they were combatants or expectation of it is the problem. You don't get to go killing whoever you please, shrug your shoulders and say "eh - I dunno - Hamas I guess - who cares". This applies doubly in the context of the ongoing genocide - Israel have made it crystal clear they can't be trusted.
To look at a genocidal regime killing a bunch of people that gave no indication they're combatants, shrugging your shoulders and saying there's no evidence they're not guilty doesn't cut it. It excuses the commission of the genocide (which is just thousands of instances of this kind of thing with an imposed famine and displacement), and represents a total disregard for the rule of law.
Christ almighty.
The one's doing the killing have to collect evidence. Not fucking random Karens on the internet who can only watch a twitter video and try to deduce information using their fucking salt lamp.
Do you imagine the bad guys to be "Hey Karen look at us! We have skulls on our shirts, and I'm wearing an eyepatch! Kill us, we're the bad guys It is important that twitter people recognise us!".
You have to be trolling. You just have to be. I refuse to believe people you're a real person writing all that unironically
Yes - the IDF need to provide the evidence, haven't, won't, and can't, but you defend them nonetheless.
What we have at present is evidence of a warcrime in the context of a genocide - it's encumbent on the IDF to prove this killing was justified.
A genocide isn't a single act - it's many acts like this one you're defending.
So, you "know" IDF has no evidence? How? Do you expect they contact every twitter Karen with evidence during an active war? Are you fucking high??
No, we literally do not.
Correct, but not to facebook/twitter Karens, nor to the public. Only to the investigating authorities.
I expect Israel to have a better justification for killing a group of people than "they looked Palestinian." - that's genocidal. This is a high-profile example largely because it appears so unambiguous. Israel are going to need to present the evidence that this was justified, or it gets thrown on the pile of killings amounting to that genocide.
We have video footage of a bunch of civilians being targeted in a drone strike - until they're shown to be enemy combatants (not happening) this is evidence of a warcrime. Your logic could be used to justify nuking Tel Aviv - we can't know the entire population aren't enemy combatants, and it's not for us to prove or ask for proof, so stop worrying about it, Karen.
If you believe the IDF need to prove the killing was justified, why are you defending them not doing so, and if you believe this is a genocide, why do you deny that the killings that make up that genocide are unjustified (remembering that they literally haven't been justified)?
I'm pretty happy to change my tune on this instance if credible evidence is presented, but I'm also comfortable saying that I know that won't happen at this point.
I don't think calling me a Karen for opposing warcrimes and genocide is having the desired effect, but you do you, champ.
Maybe they do, maybe they don't. It's not clear from the video.
We don't. No evidence they are civilians. No evidence they are combatants. If you have proof other than "they look civilian", give us proof.
It is not. No proof this is Gaza. No proof it's an IDF drone strike. No proof that it happened last week, last month, last year or last decade. If you have proof "IDK it looks like it", give us proof. And not just one of these things, but ALL.
Nobody said IDF don't have proof. They just don't have to share it with the public, no matter how hard you want it. I'm not defending them, I'm trying to show you that your logic is flawed, and you can easily be swayed by misinformation and propaganda.
What I believe is my deduction from actual, confirmed, reputable sources. Not a random twitter video. My opinion that is a genocide is just that - opinion. And unlike you, I don't claim I have proof. Because none of us have.
You're not opposing genocide. You're literrally sitting in your warm home, half a world away, reacting to random videos on the internet with an angry emoji for internet clout. "Genocide bad" is as useful as "Bad things are bad".
You said I have bad reading comprehension and you deduced that I called you Karen because you "oppose warcrimes"? Holy shit, either read again, or read more.
We'd need the IDF to justify the killings. They haven't won't and can't.
You think you can go shoot up a school, then say it was in self-defence without evidence and get away with it? How's the principle different here?
The burden isn't on those killed to prove their innocence - the killers need to do that. Rule of law - really simple stuff you seem incapable of grasping but get all pissy when I point that out.
...except the IDF admitting it was them. I know they have zero credibility, but when they admit to this kind of thing, I think it's reasonable to believe them.
Absent anything at all suggesting they were combatants in the context of a genocide Israel is committing? I've got a bridge to sell you.
Again, the IDF admitted to the killings. You saw video of a bunch of people being killed for no discernible reason, and you're defending that.
And the rest? You can stop reaching - it's not doing you any favours.
You haven't received a detailed breakdown of war and casualties via mail? Weird...
What the fuck are you on about...
You are literally insane. Nobody has to prove anything to you, you absolutely delusional person. You are a fucking civilian half a world away. I don't know how are you not getting this.
Karen "just knowing things" again
Just because don't know the reason, doesn't mean that IDF didn't have one, and no, they don't have to mail you the reason while the there's an ongoing war.
Okay, now I'm really done. This went from a fun 'feed the troll' deal, to talking to a mentally problematic person who thinks the world revolves around them and they should get detailed war reports delivered to them, to justify every war casualty.
All four show me that this is a completely meaningless conversation and a general waste of my time.
Now, tell me how I'm a genocide denier, even though I agreed that there's genocide in Gaza, and tell me how I'm defending IDF, even though I think IDF and Israeli government are terrorists. That'll make a good point! Lmao
Continue living in your cocoon of safety and self-righteousness sucking up all the propaganda and every conspiracy theory, thinking that your reactions on facebook/twitter videos help the people of Gaza.
Whe could continue this circle of me trying to explain things to a rock, but I'd rather use my time elsewhere.
Believe it or not, proof doesn't need to be mailed to me, but it does need to be provided. It hasn't been. Who do you think it needs to be provided to, and when should that happen? It hasn't and won't go to the ICJ. Similarly, the world hasn't recieved one via the same public channels Israel used to confirm they killed these civilians. I guess there's still Palestinian children that still draw breath, so I'm sure they're prioritising addressing that.
Israel would be the school shooter claiming self-defence in this analogy. You don't get to kill a bunch of people, make excuses, and not prove them. Neither does Israel.
Again, supplying the evidence for the high-profile killing of multiple civilians via the same channels they used to confirm it was them would be sensible. The irony of someone busy arguing against the rule of law calling me insane isn't lost on me.
Yeah, but mostly just asking for evidence to justify the killing of multiple civilians rather than defending those killings.
Sure they shot up that school and admitted to it, but they probably had a good reason for it. Uh huh - I'm insane.
You understand that this makes you look dumber than most of the things you're saying right? Also, I know genocide is a big word and war isn't, but this isn't a war.
You're doing the stupid again.
Not a war - a genocide.
If you're to be believed it can't exist, and isn't needed in any case - Israel are probably fine, and can be trusted, right?
I think you need a reason to kill a bunch of people - there isn't one here.
We know a regime that's currently committing a genocide and a laundry list of warcrimes killed 4 people with no apparent reason to do so. On the one hand, I'm saying we'd need to see evidence justifying these killings to know they're not a warcrime. On the other, you're saying nothing is evidence, and because Israel doesn't need to provide the fictional evidence to me personally, it's all fine.
Noone can waste your time but you.
You're defending the warcrimes that make up that genocide.
You're defending the warcrimes the IDF is committing.
Is that the cocoon where we observe a bunch of warcrimes committed in commission if a genocide and assume it's probably fine? If a bridge isn't too your taste, how about some lunar real estate?
Me challenging you on your total desregard for the rule of law, warcrimes, or the ongoing commission of a genocide isn't a me problem.
I'll be sorry to see you go - it was quaint hearing about this genocide that's happening without Israel indiscriminately targeting civilians and your care for the rule of law as you defend the killing of those civilians while throwing around weak insults.
Yeah, just repeating the same things over and over again. Equivalent of a crazy cat lady.
Yeah - fuck me for needing a reason to belive a genocidal regime drone striking civilians isn't committing yet another warcrime, I guess.
Never mind that your logic could be used to defend the Nazis gassing millions of Jews because they don't need to mail me justification for every person they killed - we don't need to call for evidence - we need to give them the benefit of the doubt, right?
You are literally crazy, and you're creeping me out, weirdo.
The moron defending warcrimes during a genocide with arguments that would defend Hitler is creeped out by the rule of law - I'm shocked.
You've been in the process of fucking right off for about a dozen posts now - get to goose stepping, Rudolph Jitler.
Naw, just you.
Yet you keep coming back for more...
Is this some kind of humiliation fetish deal? I'm flattered but not interested - if nothing else, given the dumb, inconsistent nonsense you're spouting, I've got concerns about your capacity for consent.
What did I say about trotting on, again? Get to it.
You're flattered? You're getting creepier with every message.
Can you generate some more nonsense?
Yes - being flattered and disinterested in someone that just keeps coming back for more embarrassment is the creepy bit. It's long past time you fucked off - this block is for your own good.
Try to work on your credulity - assuming civilians (and UN aid workers yesterday) being executed in drone strikes by a genocidal regime is all above board is evidence of a severe cognitive deficiency.
Edit: I guess we can throw the Iranian consulate on to the pile too.
Hmm. Some more unrelated garbage and frothing rage. Do you want me to get the manager?