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
Nope, I think this falls under the 'war' flavor, not terrorism.
So blowing up political leaders on the territory of a third party is perfectly fine? Let's say, if Russia cruise missile strikes Zelensky while he's on a visit in Paris, how do you think NATO will respond?
This is applying a double standard
In that case, I guess killing another country's prime minister and chief diplomat is fine.
During times of war it legally is.
Even though the killing of the diplomat may have been legal, conducting an attack on the territory of a country not taking part in the conflict is typically not.
Countries usually don't like it when you conduct assassinations or acts of war on their territory.
Yep, don't disagree. But to some extent, Isreal already believes that it is in a war with Iran.
In that case they should go ahead and declare war, at least if they care about keeping a sliver of legitimacy around their illegal assassinations. Let's see how well that goes...
Israel is 100% reliant on the goodwill of the international community. They've been working double time to wear it thin the past year, I'm honestly starting to wonder how far they'll push it. Without international support, they're just another small Middle Eastern country than can be walked on by Iran/Egypt/Saudi Arabia/Whoever has the biggest stick...
You can argue that it's in support of counterterrorism or denazification, but most of Israel's assassinations take place in third party countries.
Well that makes sense, seeing that they're a state regularly doing thing that would have any other state declared as a "terrorist state" or "pariah state".
Or to quote Nixon, it's not a crime when the president does it.
oh wow. I did not even think like that. So its definatively and act of war in iran territory by israel!
Both Hezbollah and Iran are both at war with Israel and have vowed to destroy Israel many, many times.
I did not realize it was formally declared. Is it like korea then?
I may be mistaken. I've done some Googling. Wikipedia tells me that Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Yemen declared war on Israel when it was founded in 1947. It ended in an armistice (basically a cease fire). In later years, Algeria and Morocco attacked Israel along with others. In 1979, Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel, it was the first country to do so. Jordan did so later, but I am not sure when. All of those other countries still are technically in a state of war against Israel. I don't see any mention of Iran being at war with Israel in the past, so I don't think Iran is technically at war with Israel.
yeah that is sorta big in that the reply that started this chain basically is saying if its war its war, but if not its terrorism. So if no state of war exists then it would be terrorism but of course the US hasn't been in a constitutionally declared war since ww2 but then congress has fromally sanctioned military action and then the war powers act allows some stuff with the president so there is at least some trail of formal action. But then we have the cia type of shit.
A lot of people in this sub don't seem to understand what the definition of terrorism is. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it is the use of violence against civilians for political aims. Hamas is a paramilitary organization, let's just call it an army for ease of discussion. There is currently an actual shooting war going on (no cease fire) between Hamas and Israel. Members of an army's leadership are legitimate targets during times of war.
Now, attacking an army's leadership in a third country (I'm counting Gaza as country 1 and Israel as country 2 for this discussion) can have big, negative repercussions for the country that does the attacking in the 3rd country. However, this assumes country #3 is trying to remain neutral. Iran is anything but a neutral 3rd party in the conflict. They have armed and trained Hamas for decades as well as threatened to destroy Israel many, many times over 40 years. For Israel, there was no real downside to killing that Hamas leader in Iran.
ok so the civilian bombings are more terrorism then and the assassination not so much.
Yes, deliberately going after civilians when there is no nearby military target would be terrorism. Attacking a member of a military organization's chain of command is a legitimate target.