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
Now, write an individual article for each child starved to death or bombed by Israel. I can't muster the energy to care about a single rape in the middle of a genocide.
We have rape kits in Texas that have gone untested for over a decade. If rape was important to the people enacting justice, we have a long list to get through before we can start worrying about rapes in warzones.
But justice isn't the intent behind articles like this. They want to justify the genocide with individual crimes.
I don't agree with this comment. Both of those acts are fucking awful. Anyone to be raped must be an awful experience and extremely traumatic. I understand that some who is raped are not dead, but still a vile act.
You should read that comment again. They aren't arguing that rape is not a vile act. They are saying that the people who are using this woman's horrifying experience as propaganda to justify murdering tens of thousands of people don't actually care about her suffering, they only care about pushing their agenda of Arab extermination. It is literally what the Nazis in Germany did to the Jews 80 years ago.
If you truly believed this, you would be offended by the political use of rape to justify the genocide of children.
You don't want to engage what my comment actually said, the fact that a single rape in the face of genocide does not an article make.
My comment was about the focus on this crime as an individual act justifying genocide and you want to refocus back to the singular act while not really addressing the editorializing of NYT.
You are playing the game the genocidal people want you to play instead of engaging this propoganda meaningfully.
That's bullshit. There are many news articles literally every single day about the civilians killed in Gaza. Meanwhile, on Lemmy, you have people still denying that Hamas sexually tortured women captured on October 7. Sorry it doesn't fit your narrative.
In my opinion, there is a huge difference between civilian collateral damage during a military operation and the use of rape as a weapon of war. We xan argue about how much force Israel is using and whether X amount of collateral damage is acceptable. But gratuitously raping people has no legitimate purpose, military or otherwise. It serves to sow terror and incite retaliation, which is why Hamas did it.
Neither rape nor civilian murder, or 'collateral damage' as you put it, is tolerable. But minimising the actual deaths and lifelong physical casualties, rather than just rape, of hundreds of people to just 'collateral damage' as though you would react in the exact same way if Hamas was bombing Israeli hospitals and schools, is [insert disparaging word here].
Unintended casualties is an unavoidable side effect of urban combat. Use your brain.
Roof knocking, phone calls to the building, and leaflets. Did you know that all three of these warning operations are conducted before the IDF drop a bomb? It's the highest standard in history. If you think these are intended casualties you're clearly brainwashed.
Yes, it is absolutely the highest standard of military forewarning and you've failed to provide anything that confirms otherwise (and you will never be able to). No amount of head-empty baby rage is going to change reality.
If you want to strawman my argument and put words in my mouth, you can go infect some other comment thread with your smooth brain. The concept of genocide requires more criteria than just "the death of innocents". Get a clue.
Downvote me, hate me, and quietly move on. The language of those that can't face the cognitive dissonance of a contradictory, inarguable fact.
We call this, projection.
You can't come to terms with the hate and slaughter you support, so you project your guilt to others.
I'm not hearing a counterpoint.
You don't counter coping techniques. It's not a logical stance and will not be countered by logic.
What an ironic statement. Unless you have some kind of evidence to refute my original statement your comments are going to be a pathetic display of zero self-awareness, but keep at it if you must.
My point is that bombing a building that you believe contains soldiers sometimes also causes civilian deaths. We can debate whether sufficient care was taken, but the justification is that the army believes that enemy soldiers were present. Same with cutting off aid shipments. We can debate whether Israel has gone too far in restricting humanitarian aid, but the justification is that Israel doesn't want supplies diverted for use by Hamas. What exactly is the justification for raping people?
Starving children is not a military operation.
You're full of shit.
Nope. As I said in my other comment, cutting off aid to Gaza in order to starve out the militants hiding in the civilian population is a military operation that is at least plausibly justifiable. And I acknowledge the argument that Israel has taken it too far.
But what is your justification for raping people? What sort of military operation is that, exactly?
By your twisted and fucked up logic, raping people is a justifiable military operation: you rape enough people some of them ought to be military personnel and it causes irreparable harm that may dissuade them to continue fighting.
Rape, civilian casualties, killing children….all of them are unacceptable. Now fuck off you nazi piece of shit.
You really went there? Ouch. Get help.
Man, ghouls will go to any extent to justify starving children and/or war crimes when the right people are doing it.
It is not justifiable at all! You don't bomb a town because there's a couple terrorists living there! Collective punishment is absolutely wrong.
Starving people to out militants is unconscionable. And, doesn't exactly work either. Hamas has stockpiled supplies. The civilians haven't. And if you kill all the civilians to find the militants, you've become just as much of a monster as the militants, if not even worse.
I guess the civilians could out the militants themselves, no? Then the IDF could take out the militants with fewer civilian casualties.
It's easy to criticize from your armchair, but what is your solution to the ancient problem of militants who commit heinous acts and then hide among the civilian population? If you don't have a realistic alternative, then complaining about civilian casualties is just virtue signaling. Lots of people on here have obviously never had to make a hard call to accomplish a mission. The IDF is using conventional military and siege tactics, while Hamas is using human shields and terrorist tactics. Civilians lose either way. That's war. At the end of the day, however, I would rather see Israel win, not Hamas.
Also, when people say "but what about the children", it sounds just as disingenuous as when conservatives say it. You should remember that Hamas and their ilk are not your friends, nor are they liberal or progressive or Marxist. They are brainwashed religious zealots who would happily torture and kill you if they could.
I have no love for Hamas and I want to see them eradicated.
You know what my solution is? Go in with boots on the ground and evacuate civilians wherever there's going to be a military operation. Make it a point to protect civilians and help them. Root out the militants where you can, evacuate civilians, and kill them. If there's a hospital where militants are hiding, declare it a truce zone and embed yourself in the hospital by helping doctors and delivering aid. Don't initiate any confrontation, and respect the truce. Your presence there prevents them from acting. Don't bomb the place.
It would mean more military casualties, but that's the price paid for being the good guys. We can't indiscriminately bomb the enemy and kill scores of innocent people. That doesn't help you win the war anyway.
The IDF is no closer to their poorly defined victory than they were months ago. All they have to show for is a whole lot of dead civilians, and hostages they killed themselves.
In fact, you are describing what most of the IDF operation has been. The most dramatic video makes the news. But look at the numbers instead of the emotional propaganda.
2.3 million people in Gaza. Almost 5 months of modern war in one of the mostly densely packed places on earth. 32,500 Palestinian deaths, including Hamas militants since the Hamas government doesn't count civilians and militants separately. That is 1.4% of the population. It is obvious that the IDF isn't just mowing down civilians or bombing them indiscrimately. All deaths are bad, yes, but 1.4% deaths is hardly a program of indiscrimate civilian annihilation. Should it be fewer? Sure, I'll give you that. But do you have the expertise to judge whether 1.4% mortality is good or bad, given the mission to root out Hamas? What should it be, realistically? How the hell would a couple of keyboard warriors like us know? Most people are just reacting to the tragedy, not really thinking about the logistics of carrying out the IDF mission. And make no mistake: murderous groups like Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah, the Taliban, the Houthis, and Iran are a menace to be destroyed. They are the enemy of civilization and have vowed to eradicate Israel and the Jews from the river to the sea. If the militants hide among the population, it will always cost civilian casualties to root them out. There could be fewer with even more restraint from the military, but collateral damage will never be zero as long as militants use human shields.
Nazis can fuck off.
This is exactly what I'm calling out, using individual crimes to justify genocide.
You won't even accurately address the crimes because they are so heinous.
We are talking about genocide. Starving children is in no way a military operation so you can suck that lie back up your ass.
Cutting off aid to Gaza in order to starve out the militants hiding in the civilian population is at least a plausible justification. Again, we can debate whether Israel has taken it too far, but using siege tactics doesn't make someone a Nazi. Nice try.
But what is your justification for raping people?
By your twisted and fucked up logic, raping people is a justifiable military operation: you rape enough people some of them ought to be military personnel and it causes irreparable harm that may dissuade them to continue fighting.
Rape, civilian casualties, killing children….all of them are unacceptable. Now fuck off you nazi piece of shit.
You mad, bro?
You're still a nazi bro?
Uh... What Israel is doing is 100%, undebatable a war crime. As occupiers they have a responsibility under international law to provide food and other life necessities to the people of Gaza. That doesn't change with the addition of an insurgency.
Whatever. The point of the article is that Hamas committed many acts of rape and torture on Oct 7. You guys don't like that narrative so you are trying to draw me off topic by focusing on Israel's crimes and making a false equivalence between overzealous military tactics and rape-happy terrorists. These are the kind of people that Hamas recruits. Think about it. Hamas is the enemy of civilization, not your friendly neighbourhood Starbucks revolutionary.
I won't engage with you anymore, but at least Hamas has the basic decency to not shoot children. Israel sure as hell doesn't.
Fixed your bad argument for you.
The point is that it is not collateral damage. The murdering of the civilian Arab population is the point of the IDF operations in Gaza.
There isn't a single rational person here who would argue that what Hamas has done and is doing is not horrifying and awful. But Hamas is exactly who Netanyahu wanted as the adversary in Gaza. He has set this stage very carefully in order to bring about the exact scenario that is being played out in Israel and Gaza right now.
You make a great point about Netanyahu. He's a terrible person. But he didn't start Hamas or write their charter for them, nor did he create the Iranian theocracy or force them to create and support terrorist proxy groups. Netanyahu is an opportunist. He took advantage of an existing situation and made it worse.
Also, unfortunately, there are plenty of people on Lemmy who do rationalize Hamas's actions as a justified "lashing out" by the victims. I don't buy that argument for a second. No society is entirely just and history certainly isn't fair, but that doesn't mean we should allow murder, rape, and torture as a response. The armchair revolutionaries on Lemmy disagree. What they don't realize is that most real revolutions look less like George Washington crossing the Potomac or Ukraine's Maidan revolution and more like Mao's Cultural Revolution.