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
You can't blame the children dieing on anyone but the people responsible for actually dropping the bombs and shooting the bullets.
Violence is almost never the answer, and indiscriminate violence actually never ever is.
No one but the children are without fault in this conflict, but still far too many (more than 0) children pay the ultimate price. You can wage war without killing children, it just costs more. But if you can't pay that price then the war can't ever be considered just.
A 16 year old is a child, right? Let's look at some semi-hypotheticals and you tell me who you think is to blame:
War is hell, and it is complicated. Child soldiers will die, and there will be civilians caught in the crossfire. The is no track for this trolley that has 0 children. Any military has to balance the number of civilians killed vs the risk to its own soldiers vs the likelihood of killing their intended targets. If you expect them to sacrifice hundreds or thousands of soldiers just to avoid a few civilians, you grossly misunderstand how the world works. Most military forces will certainly be unwilling to sacrifice a single soldier for a single civilian, even on their own side.
Then Israel must be punished for their disproportionate response.
What is proportionate to the brutal murder of 1400 people, including women and children?
What is proportionate to the ongoing rocket barrages on civilians?
Seriously though - what do you think Israel would do if you were in their shoes? Would you unconditionally surrender and allow Hamas to commit genocide?
I would ask what you think is proportionate to the 10,000 dead civilians on the other side of the fence but I'm not going to do that, math is clearly not your strong suit. I hope they haunt you forever. I'm not a religious ethnostate, if I was in their shoes I would take them the fuck off.
Well killing 10,000 people is not exactly proportional. I guess technically it is since that proportion works out to 50:7.
I would move out of the area I occupied. I would feel bad for displacing an entire people for my own fucked up notion of the afterlife. I would feel horrible for allowing my government to perform genocide. I would feel powerless to change anything, but not powerless to stop supporting that government. I would sell any asset in the country, and start over somewhere else.
There is no "complicated political situation". There are only facts. 70 years ago, an invading army took over Palestinian land with the help of the UN and UK and most superpowers. Now there are those in Palestine who fight it and are being exterminated, and those who accept it and are still being exterminated, because Israel's intent has always been to seize control of the region and drive darker skinned people out, and this has been a selling point for the terrorist state of Israel to be established ever since day one, which is proven by letters from the 1940s between zionists and their supporters.
Your copypasta is old - it's been 75 years since 1948.
Your opinions are old. It's been 75 years since 1948.
You're just apologizing for war. Why? What's so good/important about war that you need to defend it? Why is it insane to expect nations to not kill civilians?
War is not a good solution and it should never be the first solution. But it exists and burying your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist is just naive.
By the way, every single one of those examples is real and relatively recent. Today, a 16 year old kid stabbed two border police in Jerusalem and was shot dead by a third. In May 2022, a 16 year old girl was ordered to stand next to an Israeli jeep while they were in a firefight with PIJ fighters. A 13 year old shot two people in January and was killed by one of the men he shot. There have been more than a few talking heads that have claimed the last one, but I doubt there will be any credible news reporting on it.
These are just a handful of examples from recent times. Most of them won't compare to what happens inside Gaza where the fog of war is going to be thick and intentionally so by both sides.
When kids kill you for trespassing on their land, maybe it's time to get the fuck out.
Legally and morally yes in amongst every country. Including Israel.
Ed: I should say according to the talmud no one is adult until 18.
Well, I can see you're not from Iran
I can only find this reference for the Talmud, which is pretty clear that it's only a recommendation to marry at 18 instead of 13
We're not talking about Iran.
The law in Israel civilly is 18, the rest is fairly basic and obvious.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_d%27malkhuta_dina#:~:text='the%20law%20of%20the%20Government,be%20preferred%20to%20Jewish%20law.
Did you perhaps mean "almost"? I thought you were taking the absolutist stance that the age of majority is always 18.
How does a citation from Shulchan Arukh suddenly become "according to the Talmud"? It's literally not part of it.
Yes almost.
Talmidic interpretation matters especially those that are accepted by the majority of that group and that's ignoring the fact that religious law is second to civil law in Israel so the talmudic interpretation is supporting but not definitive, civil law is.