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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
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
No sane team lead would accept a mission like that. That's just asking for massive friendly casualties.
Kicking in doors has an extremely high death toll, especially if it's a known base, of course they're going to level it instead of committing a team that's definitely going to get blown up by ied's and killed in ambushes.
In order to effectively suppress and seize that hospital, you're asking that at least 100-200 friendlies die during the operation to take a building that's a known travel route to their tunnels which house thousands of hamas and related fighters and their kit. Given the level of failure of the intel community in Isreal right now, no one operations side is going to take their word that it's safe to send a team into that hospital.
It's a hospital when it's in operation, right now it's a terrorist base of operations SPECIFICALLY because it was a hospital.
See: https://ground.news/article/hamas-has-command-center-under-al-shifa-hospital-us-official-says
In otherwords you value the lives of 100-200 IDF soldiers over the lives of many more Palestinian civilians. Considering you probably think 12,000 Palestinian deaths is a proportionate response to 1,200 Israeli deaths that's no surprise
That was best case scenario from a POV of someone who's done the job. Regardless of your keyboard warrior virtue signaling, no one sane is going to sacrifice their people to save a known terrorist base.
I didn't provide my personal opinion, I provided a description of why your view on the topic is insane.
Edit for clarification: The ELECTED officials of Palestine, HAMAS, their government, has taken their own people hostage and you expect the people who were offering a permanent peace agreement LITERALLY THE DAY BEFORE THE ATTACK, that had their peace party literally interrupted by an act of war by hamas, to sacrifice their own people to save potential attackers pretending to be victims?
I think it's very misleading how Israel and pro Israelis like to make all humane and heroic actions seem like they are not an option.
NOT destroying the hospital was an option whether you want to send soldiers in there or not.
I'm not there on the ground so I can't say or prove anything one way or another beyond the articles presented thus far. Mass media hasn't been reliable since AI's were able to pass the turing test last year, hell you or I could even be bots pushing an agenda.
The reality of the situation is that the IDF is under the impression that there is access to the HAMAS tunnels under the hospital which makes the entire hospital enemy territory. They can't enter it for fear of IED's and they can't leave it alone because it's full of enemies.
Personally I'd say implement a cordon with tanks/IFV's and try to run crowd control, but the response back from a higher up would be 'the ied problem'. I don't have a real solution, I'm simply pointing out (to the OG commenter) that their idea is untenable for even T1 groups.
I am hoping that through discussion perhaps a solution will be found, unlikely as it is, but I appreciate different views on the matter.
The reality is that the IDF can't announce an area full of dying patients and doctors and journalists and refugees as that and then start shooting anyone who dares leave, and do absolutely no effort to evacuate them properly, and then offer them a tiny amount of fuel to mock their misery.
Sorry but we are past the point of normal army operation. The only explanation that for me fits is that the goal of the IDF is to ethnically cleanse and genocide Palestinians. Sadly the ethnic cleansing part isn't exactly a secret either thanks to Israeli document leaks, so we know that was a part of the plan all along. This is why Biden and Bibi are having this weird haggle right now about forcibly displacing Palestinians or putting them under an even smaller open air prison.
I take it then that you didn't follow the majority of our actions either in history or during our engagements in afghanistan and iraq.
I take it you don't know anything about me and yet decided to throw this in, not sure what it's meant to accomplish. Make me look like I'm not informed.
Well, joke is on you. I'm an Arab, I watched the Iraq war unfold on the news growing up, my father watched it every evening, so I'd say from a very young age I've been keeping up with American (aka "your") actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially since they often directly affect life in Jordan (which is where my parents live). Really helps when you speak the language.
So now, are you going to make a real point or just point out things that you assume I don't know shit about?
I dropped facts that can be easily verified and compared against other facts, you drop an "I'm arab of course I'd know you americunt" But pretending like you 'know' all of it simply because you grew up near it? Hilarious.
Especially given your prior responses which clearly present you either don't know what you're talking about or are being disingenuous in order to muddy the discussion.
Not worth the time.
Why can’t any of the countries that are asking that israel don’t bomb the hospitals send their own special forces to rescue the hostages? They have hostages of many nationalities so for example macron could risk the life of french soldiers to minimize palestinian casualties. I don’t get why they have to sacrifice idf soldiers.
Hmmm should soldiers who already signed off their lived to save civilians die or should the civilians die?
I mean, they signed off to protect Israelis. If Palestine were Israeli citizens then maybe they'd have some obligation to risk their lives to minimise damage to them but otherwise why should they? Soldiers aren't expected to sacrifice themselves for foreign citizens. Hell some are just brutally sadistic towards them with legal impunity because the citizens of one government have next to no rights in the other aside from whats deemed diplomatically useful and even that is beyond the purview of the average soldier. Theres a reason America switched to using drone strikes on enemy infrastructure instead of sending their soldiers. That has the exact same trade off as well which is more civilian casualties and less soldier casualties. The bad thing here is israel is actively targetting civilian infrastructure and hamas is known to hide in such infrastructure, both things raising the innocent casualty rate immensely.
Got it, human life not worth much to Israeli soldiers if they are not Jewish and/or Israeli. By the actions of Isralis in the West Bank, I would say the Israeli government doesn't value "Arab Israeli" lives that much either.
No, but they are also not expected to keep an apartheid state running but here we are.
If you can't see how it's directly Israeli soldiers that "shoot through babies to kill a terrorist", then I can't help you. If you are unable to see how these people all died from Israeli missiles directly, that Israel could have not fired if it was a self-respecting humanitarian nation... then I can't help you, sorry.
You're grandstanding. I'm sure many soldiers care about the Palestinians plight in this situation because their human beings. I'm saying their not obligated to, not that they don't. It's not their responsibility as a consequence of their role. Even if it was do you think an individual soldiers is defining on the ground policy. Like command comes down to level a building and a band of soldiers just join together and say "no, I'll go in myself and confirm the threat alone" like some cheesy American movie.
What exactly do you think is a soldiers job? because they don't determine diplomatic policy. That's on politicians. One of their responsibilities is helping enforce that policy but they don't exactly have a choice here if they want to protect Israelis. Just quitting and getting discharged ain't exactly gonna stop hamas pulling shit like the October attack.
Everyone could just not do things. Hamas could've just not attacked in October and killed a bunch of innocent civilians. Hamas could just not keep the hostages they've taken and return them so Israel isn't incentivised to level Palestine to the ground to find them. This isn't a rational line of reasoning. If you're outraged and upset that's fine, frankly it would be weirder if anyone wasn't given this clusterf*ck of a situation. But that doesn't mean you can just make large generic points and obvious lapses in reasoning and not get called out on it.
I don't doubt IDF soldiers are human beings. I do doubt though that propaganda that dehumanized Palestinians makes it easier for them to kill.
That being said, I recommend the Breaking the Silence foundation where IDF soldiers talk about the kind of war crimes they are sent out to do as part of their missions and how wrong it is, and how much they are encouraged to shoot to hurt or kill.
https://youtube.com/@IKARlosangeles?feature=shared
Hamas is done. What Israel can do is not do things they are doing right now. I'm not talking about changing the past just challenging the ugly present created by Israel.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/@IKARlosangeles?feature=shared
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
This snek guy is likely a basement dweller going full keyboard warrior and pretending to be arabic as the cherry on top. I'm like 90% they're trolling
Pretending to be Arab? Are you fucking kidding me? 😂 This is your best criticism?
إسرائيل واجرامها كله والغبا اللي بشوفه مكتوب هون لثقبة طيزي انشاالله
The criticism was your integrity, not your alleged race.
Great google translate bro.
If you have to pull out a "trust me bro" instead of present facts of the matter that can be verified via search engines, you've already failed at the purpose of the discussion. I noted specialty along with direct information that can be directly corroborated with online reputable sources.
You backed your words up with 'trust me bro'.
Tell me who, in that conversation, would you more likely listen to, the person who provided a detailed overview and perspective along with their noted background or the person who just says 'i know everything about the middle east because I'm x race born in y town'?
You've only said I'm wrong without any substance to back that or presentations of understanding or experience, especially since you flopped entirely on the history aspect (especially if you are arabic, then you'd know the background of the USA is light in comparison). Either you're too emotionally involved in the information you've been shown IRL or, as I suspect, you're pushing an agenda rather than an opinion.
I think your statement didn't have any real criticism at all. You ran out of things to say so you just put forth a dumb statement that you can't even verify or proof or really point to.
PS: I'm a girl. I don't live in a basement, I barely check lemmy these days, and while some of my comments may have been short and snappy, they are not trolly.
On top of that, your weird claim that I'm not Arab is serving what purpose exactly? 🤔 Trying to make me look like I'm lying? Even though I am Arab? Like why did you even add that part? I doubt it's just for "clarity" or to make a "point".
The phrase is in Jordanian dialect, you can't use google translate to get Arabic dialects /: only modern standard arabic
Surely a "smartass" person like yourself should know that?
Anyway here it is again:
اسرائيل دولة إجرامية ومن كل قلبي بحكي يا ريت كل اسرائيل كدولة وقضاء وحشي تخش فطيزي
EDIT: just saw your long ass edit... sorry I don't have time for this. You wanted a troll, I'll give you one rofl
Right. And your continued pushing to avoid the topic of the matter and instead focus on your race is what I was explicitly noting.
No one cares what race you are so why did you bring it up? If you had anything of effect to present here, you would've presented an actual statement that included any type of serious and realistic opinion instead of just going "I know best, I'm arabic".
Instead you are trying to bait out some type of 'gotcha' to change the conversation further into your incompetent identity politcking. Instead of participating in a discussion about options, you choose to make the conversation about you.
I claimed you weren't arab because your opinions are either nonsensical or completely detached from reality. Every Arab I've met has had a distinct respect for the empirical method and facts, neither of which you've shown any evidence of respecting, thus, more likely, you're pretending to be arabic in order to 'win' the discussion using your alleged personal experience for pity points from the public.
Show me the part where I say that people should trust me because I'm Arab, or stfu. Have a nice day!
I see you chose to stfu then.
I'm simply taking the conversation as seriously as you are.
Exactly, you have nothing to say.
It's not the IDF's responsibility to protect Palestinians, it's HAMAS', the legally elected government of Palestine... You know, the country which just launched an attack against Israel to which Israel responded with violence and then hamas hid behind civilians in a hospital.
Can't have missed it, it's been all over the news.
I thought it was the IDF's responsibility not to kill civilians directly? Does it matter which kind of civilians they are? Or does Israel like to play favorites where one Palestinian is not worth a tenth of an Israeli?
(and meh to your snarky comment)
Does that honestly come as a surprise to you? Nations states are inherently selfish, it's kind of their whole reason for being.
Ground News is missing the most important part. Nobody has seen the evidence to corroborate the statement. This is as credible as mobile chemical labs until that happens.
Second, this is what the Infantry exists for. No professional military is going bomb a functioning hospital without serious evidence of a large troop concentration there. Just saying you don't want to take casualties is not an excuse in international law or military culture.
Infantry are tasked to take the hill when it is strategically and operationally required, not when the enemy presents 'hostages' to which we cannot verify the identities of, nor confirm are not enemy combatants as the legal government, hamas, committed an act of war, Israel responded in kind, and in most full-war scenarios, the civilians are also considered hostile if they can be listed as 'military age'.
The age of throwing soldiers into the hill with abandon is way over, you require intelligence and operational equipment and engagement now. (drones, munitions, local assets to guide the engagement/translate, vehicles, etc). Israel had a complete intelligence failure and to prevent mass casualties going in with infantry, they used the next best thing, artillery.
One of the leading causes of death in the Canadian and American militaries during the last two decades of engagements was due to IED or VBIED's (vehicle born improvised explosive device), and every green military learned from this to do vastly more reconnaissance before wasting the LITERAL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER TROOP IN TRAINING throwing them uselessly at an enemy.
A fully qualified regular force of 11A(USA)/0010(CDN) is given around ~375k USD in training and development costs (per person) just to do their base job of firing a rifle, this does not include specialist training or anything beyond maybe how to effectively conduct a vehicle check point. All other skills require a vast amount of training as well as leadership courses, CQB courses, vehicle courses, medical check up, engineering courses, oreinteering courses, wilderness survival courses, etc.
Actions have consequences and where I would like the aggression to stop today, hamas still exists and their MANDATE of existence, their literal raison d'etre, if you will, is to eliminate all jewish people.
No one wants the killing of civilians, however the reality on the ground is the IDF using our weapons, uniforms, vehicles, and ammunition to gun down innocents and guilty alike, just like how we sell saudis weapons and how we sell weapons all over the world for abuse by various dictators.
This isn't a situation where 'stop, please stop' is going to work for either hamas or the IDF and the US leadership is basically nonexistent with the current administration and if 45 wins again, the USA will probably crumble worse than Rome.
Everything will simply escalate from here, and with the continuing fall of governments across the African continent and economies failing in the EU, it's not long before lines are drawn and an 'axis' is presented in the propaganda.
A few problems with what you've said.
You cannot just say all military age males are combatants. That's not a policy, that's an admission of a war crime.
Everything in the military is expensive. And yet no mission is accomplished without risk. If they don't have the intelligence to commit the infantry, then they damn sure don't have the intelligence to legally shell a hospital.
Hamas' stated mission is the destruction of Israel, however their 2015 charter states they're willing to accept the 1969 borders of Israel and Palestine.
If they had any intent to follow up on that they would've taken the peace agreement offered by netenyahu the day before they attacked the peace gathering. (Keep in mind lying to people not of the faith in order to trick them is literally part of the mandate as well, both the original AND updated as well as literal verses in the quran. (See below)
Just because they wrote down something not retarded you're going to pretend like the behaviour hamas has exhibited is just, what, a fucking accident?
Hamas ACCIDENTALLY flew into a concert of people celebrating peace in the middle east and killed a bunch of people because their gun told them to?
Or maybe the gun itself was secretly controlling these hamas people and hamas isn't to blame for any of the acts of terror they've committed?
Can you please clarify your position here because it seems borderline insane.
Quran
Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
Quran (3:28) - This verse instructs believers not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.
Quran (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths is with pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals - see Ibn Kathir vol 4, p 49)
Quran (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths..." For today's reader, the circumstances for betraying your word are not specified, leaving this verse open to interpretation. According to Yusuf Ali in his commentary: "if your vows prevent you from doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons, you should expiate the vow." (Presumably, whatever advances the cause of Islam would qualify as 'doing good').
Quran (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.
Quran (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" (see also 5:89)
Quran (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which means 'cunning,' 'guile' and 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Hadith and Sira
Sahih Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed companions by Muhammad's men after they were "guaranteed" safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
Sahih Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." In other words, lying is permissible when the end justifies the means.
Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an "enemy." The Quran defines the 'enemy' as "disbelievers" (4:101).
Sahih Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."
Sahih Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.
From Islamic Law:
Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression... (See the Permissible Lying section on the Sharia page for more)
"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie."
notes: Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to Muslim identity (i.e whether one is a Muslim or what that means). This is a Shiite term: the Sunni counterpart is Muda'rat.
Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."
Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression by saying something that is technically true, when knowing that the listener will interpret it in a different way. This practice has a broader application than taqiyya.
Muruna - 'Blending in' by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.
I have never said Hamas is free of war crimes. Only refuted your claims that they want a genocide. And please, I've heard all the evil Muslim propaganda bits already. You can't use the Quran to get around international law anymore than they can.
OH, did the law stop that attack on isreal? Is the law doing anything to prevent isreal committing genocide? Great, now that we're both on the same page where the law doesn't matter until after a conflict is resolved, then I guess we're stuck back at the muslim brotherhood continuing to commit acts of terror non stop.
Blatantly ignoring the creed with which thousands of people commit atrocities every year as if the law would stop these people who don't recognize the law as just nor applicable to themselves, how exactly is 'the law' doing literally anything to prevent any of this?
The Muslim Brotherhood is an Egyptian group. Come on dude.
Does no one know how to conduct even the simplest act of research? You know there's several entire websites dedicated to keeping people informed and you come over here like "but the Muslim brotherhood is an Egyptian group" completely fucking ignoring the entire history of the groups origins and their interactions and cooperation with al queda and hezbollah. Let me guess you think hezbollah isn't a terrorist organization because they have a few farms?
What the fuck is with the amount of people talking out their ass on these sites? Not even a simple Google search to reveal your opinion is full of ignorance.
So you didn't know and now you're trying to bluster your way out by conflating Sunni and Shia groups that wouldn't spit on each other if one of them was on fire.
Ah, another keyboard warrior that would prefer to push an agenda rather than acknowledge facts of the matter.
Well if you ever decide to pick up a history textbook or actually read up on the history of the area and the groups we're talking about feel free to hit me up again.
No thank you.