A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
I should have seen that coming. It makes sense considering Iran was supporting the Assad regime.
Interesting too considering Iran is a fundamentalist Islamic state and Assad's Ba'ath party is secular. Blatantly so.
I guess religion is less important than playing games with political near neighbors.
Authoritarians support authoritarians.
Religion isn't religion isn't religion. Iran is Shia, "moderate rebels" are by and large Sunni.
Again, the Ba'ath party is 100% secular. Secularism is a cornerstone of their party. It has nothing to do with Sunni and Shi'a here, it has to do with a theocratic regime in a partnership with exactly the opposite.
...Yes, the Ba'ath party is 100% secular, and Tehran would rather deal with secularists than with heretics.
Secularists are heretics to theocrats. I have no idea what you think a heretic is.
No, secularists are nonbelievers, possibly apostates. A heretic believes in the same religion as you do, just the wrong kind of it.
oh, rarely really seen somebody contradict themselves so blatantly with their source. how come?
Where is the contradiction? Do you think a belief contrary to religious doctrine has to be religious?
Yes, cause that’s what the dictionary means: belief contrary to the doctrine of the religious system the belief is embedded in.
Like the doctrine that a god exists?
Of course you can come up with your own definition of words.
What definition am I coming up with here?
Are you saying the existence of a god is not part of the doctrine of any theistic religion?
using the word heretic to describe an atheist. It’s just not what it’s about. You’re not part of a theistic religion if you don’t believe in God. And if you’re not part of it, you won’t be a heretic.
Again, what definition am I coming up with here?
Atheism is contrary to theistic religious doctrine- namely, the doctrine that a god or gods exist. That's literally the definition of heresy as I provided.
What did I invent?
ok man, I tried, the dictionary was of no help, maybe consult wikipedia or turn to a priest. He will also tell you that an atheist is not considered a heretic. And if you go on like this with him, he’ll might make you a heretic. But only! if you are a follower of his religion already. Otherwise he just won’t give a flying fuck.
I literally provided a link to a Christian website talking about how atheists are heretics.
And "atheist" and "heretic" are literally the same word in Arabic, which means that, at minimum, 2 in 8 people believe that atheists are heretics.
On the contrary, from Wikipedia:
Heresy is any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs, particularly the accepted beliefs or religious law of a religious organization.[1][2] A heretic is a proponent of heresy.[1]
...
Heresy is distinct from apostasy, which is the explicit renunciation of one's religion, principles, or cause;
Atheism is not heresy. A heretic is a type of believer. You can argue you meant the colloquial usage as "divergent thought", but that's not the usage I used.
Either way, the point stands: not all Islam is the same thing, and the Tehran regime quite clearly has an easier time stomaching cooperation with secularists than with Sunnis.
Stop.
Stop what... breathing? I will in four years. And you and all the other people who hate me can get together and throw a big party.
The roots of the relationship goes back several decades.
By the late 1970s, the state apparatus of the Baath regime under Assad had consolidated into an anti-Sunni orientation. Official propaganda incited Alawite farmers against rich Sunni landowners and regularly disseminated stereotypes of Sunni merchants and industrialists, casting them as enemies of nationalisation and socialist revolution. Bitterness towards the Assadist regime and the Alawite elite in the Baath and armed forces became widespread amongst the Sunni majority, laying the beginnings of an Islamic resistance. Prominent leaders of Muslim Brotherhood like Issam al-Attar were imprisoned and exiled. A coalition of the traditional Syrian Sunni ulema, Muslim Brotherhood revolutionaries and Islamist activists formed the Syrian Islamic Front in 1980 with objective of overthrowing Assad through Jihad and establishing an Islamic state. In the same year, Hafez officially supported Iran in its war with Iraq and controversially began importing Iranian fighters and terror groups into Lebanon and Syria. This led to rising social tensions within the country which eventually became a full-fledged rebellion in 1982; led by the Islamic Front. The regime responded by slaughtering the Sunni inhabitants in Hama and Aleppo and bombarding numerous mosques, killing around 20,000–40,000 civilians. The uprising was brutally crushed and Assad regarded the Muslim Brethren as demolished.
You'd expect party unity between Syrian Ba'ath and Iraqi Ba'ath, but Saadam was labeled a fascist and the Syrian regional branch recognized Khomeni rather early on. Survival and having regional friends were more important than playing games.
Of course by international law they shouldn't be doing that.
But can you really blame them? Where is the international law that protects the people from a dictator? And prevent outside interference to keep that dictator in power?
If international law doesn't protect the people against oppression, then the people has little use for international law. And they definitely don't need an outside influence that support their oppressor.
For the same reason USA shouldn't have held such a grudge against Iran for their attack of the US embassy during the rebellion in Iran.
Unfortunately the ship has sailed on that one. And Iran is now a Russian ally.
Of course by international law they shouldn’t be doing that.
International law is a product of, and supported by, nation states. If the previously ruling government has fallen, it effectively doesn't have a nation that respects the binding of international law. When a new government forms, that government will most likely take up the mantle of support for international law in exchange for international recognition. Right now on the ground its a bit of a free-for-all, I'd imagine.
That's a good point, and I think that was kind of valid in Iran in 1981 too? USA has held a grudge against Iran for more than 40 years for that!
The USA grudge against Iran wasn't because of the storming of the embassy. It was holding Americans diplomatic staff hostage for 444 days and threatening to "put them on trial" if Iran didn't get what it wanted from the USA.
I haven't heard any reports of Syrians holding Iranian diplomatic staff hostages yet.
Iran says they are all out, so that's good.
For the same reason USA shouldn’t have held such a grudge against Iran for their attack of the US embassy during the rebellion in Iran.
Isn't it odd how the US doesn't trust a country that encourages people to chant "death to America"?
To be fair USA did sabotage Iranian democracy until it collapsed under American lies and Propaganda designed specifically for that, and then they instated a dictator.
But Iran has clearly gotten worse which was to be expected with a theocracy.
