this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
64 points (97.1% liked)

News

23655 readers
3370 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, they say the best defense is a good offense.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

that’s offensive

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Ah yes, the famous defensive first strike.

[–] youstolemyname@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

"The self-defense strike occurred after the mobile multiple rocket launchers fired rockets in the vicinity of MSS Euphrates and mortars were fired toward U.S. forces,"

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes the US already were invading Syria, an offensive operation. This ain't self-defense.

[–] answersplease77@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

the same exact logic of russian self defense in ukraine.

[–] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago

"Yes, they fired mortars in a westerly direction, and we all know the US is 6,891 miles west of Syria therefore we see this as a direct attack on the US and will deal with it harshly."

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago

Highly doubt that Syrian army were interested in opening a front with the strongest military in the world, when they're getting pounded by Al-Qaeda on the other side of the country.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't believe a single word of that justification.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The tactic that is done all the time and has been since the first hominid saw the other hominid from the group on the other side of the hill running at them with a rock and decided to throw their spear before the rock got to be a threat is indeed famous.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Considering the region and "step on me harder" Blinken, I don't believe a goddamn word of that justification and I'm surprised you do.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This has nothing to do with their justification and everything to do with your suggestion that attacking what you believe to be a credible threat in self defense isn't a thing.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I didn't say it wasn't a thing. I'm saying that anything involving "defensive" and a Middle Eastern country from the US military is a damned lie right now.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Are you actually making the bizarre claim that no military group in the Middle East ever fires at the U.S. military first?

Because I think that's pretty much the entire tactic when it comes to the Houthis.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
  1. Way to derail the conversation about Syria with a country way that has little to do with it. (yes even if OP said middle east)
  2. Even with Yemen, the United States started. The yemeni rebels fought against an oppressive government, and the United States had to intervene in the interest of Saudi for many years before the yemenis ever responded. So your example does not disprove the claim.
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sorry... you're saying it's never self-defense if you were the initial aggressor years ago?

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
  1. Yes
  2. With their help, the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century was created in yemen
  3. They didn't hit once and just stop. Not that its okay if they did.
  4. Stop derailing please. You're not gonna successfully justify those crimes.
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What crimes am I justifying? Please quote me. Otherwise I'm just going to report you for incivility and trolling.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Sorry I'm no longer interested in such a derailed conversation.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Because you lied and I did no such thing. Good to know I can report and move on.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Are you intentionally misconstruing what I say? Because that is also not what I'm saying. The words I write are exactly what I mean.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is what you wrote:

Therefore, according to you, since you have now confirmed that the words you write are exactly what you mean, no military group in the Middle East ever fires at the U.S. military first.

Which is objectively false.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Read those words, all of them, with equal weight. Maybe you just need some contextual editing and a rephrase to grasp this.

Right now, statements from the US military involving both the words "defensive strike" and any Middle Eastern country are extremely dubious and should not be trusted.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You have now shown that your previous statement was false:

Because this:

Right now, statements from the US military involving both the words “defensive strike” and any Middle Eastern country are extremely dubious and should not be trusted.

And this:

I didn’t say it wasn’t a thing. I’m saying that anything involving “defensive” and a Middle Eastern country from the US military is a damned lie right now.

Do not mean exactly the same thing. There is a wide, wide gulf between "damned lie" and "extremely dubious."

I really don't think anything more needs to be done to demonstrate that you are being wildly inconsistent and quite dishonest, so I think I'll move on.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

I'm not going to play this game of semantics. You're right, they aren't exactly the same. Because I rephrased it for clarification I thought was missing. They mean the same thing. If you want to argue that removing heated language in the name of understanding fundamentally altered what I have to say, then that's your deal. I want productive conversations, not word lawyering. I get enough of that from fighting work with my union.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 3 weeks ago

I stand with Rojava