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
Says it right in the article.
It says "US official says" that, it doesn't say it is indeed so (you know, as proven scientifically or by analysis by an independent source).
An individual belonging to a government that supports another government saying something that spins in a positive way the actions of the later government isn't in even the same universe as the standard of proof for something to be widely accepted as true.
Given the US' continued support of Israel in this, militarilly and diplomatically, statements of US officials justifying Israeli military choices aren't at all trustworthy, quite the contrary.
I choose to belive the experienced officials over the dumb lemmy users making baseless accusations against them.
How exactly do you know the never once named person, who is only and ever refered to as "US Official" and who made that comment, is "experienced"?!
Plenty of people in that article who put their name on the line along with their words say the exact opposite of the anonymous "US Official".
Clearly you just liked that statement (no doubt because it aligns with your political beliefs) and went backwards from there to assuming the anonymous person quoted making that statement is "experienced", which is fine amongst people who already believe the same politics as you but won't convince anybody with 2 brain cells.
Nah, I just don't believe you who provides no proof for your claim.
If that was a thinking posture you would have the same proof requirement for quotes from "US Officials" who want to remainn unnamed as you do for the person whose only claim is that you can't outright trust without further proof what's said by unnamed "US Officials".
It's quite funny that your counter to my point is to demand that I prove my claim that you should demand proof from anonymous sources.
I personally have never flown a fighter in combat, only seen it. But, a nefarious conspiracy theory doesn't make too much sense.
If you think politicians lying to make what they defend sound good is a "conspiracy theory", then you're just the right person to purchase this piece of really cheap river-crossing realestate I have for sale in New York!
I don't think a DoD official is going to lie for anyone, He'll just stay silent.
The only person in the article who said the words you quoted (that basically mean "it's all the same") is an anonymous official whilst every single one of the persons who are actually named there said the opposite.
Anonymous sources in the kind of positions in the state aparatus were they're authorized to talk to the press will absolutelly say whatever helps the message of "the boss" including outright lying about "what we think".
Have you been under a rock for the past 3 decades to still believe that when an anonymous source is quoted on the press what they say is generally way less trustworthy than when it's a named somebody???!
Must be true
Well if that paragraph isn't true, why would the rest of them be?