view the rest of the comments
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
What a genuinely stupid take. There is absolutely no question that governments have ignored intelligence, or allowed attacks to occur in order to bolster support for military engagements from the general public.
Seriously, how naive do you have to be to suggest that is a conspiracy theory or misinformation? We know the Bush administration ignored warnings from the CIA of impending attacks by Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. Whether you chalk that up to malice or incompetence is ultimately irrelevant when it led to a quagmire that has shaped decades of US foreign policy and military action.
If you don't think it is even worth discussing if far right crypto-fascist authoritarian like Benjamin Netanyahu is willing and able to let his own people die because the means justify the ends then you are not a serious interlocutor.
There is a difference between QUESTIONING a narrative and ASSERTING a cause or motivation.
Are you actually suggesting that there is no appropriate time in which to question if there is institutional corruption or an organized conspiracy within the government?
The difference is that you have absolutely zero evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) that would lead you to raise this question about me in good faith or engage in such loaded speculation.
The same cannot be said for government level inaction or malice that leads to the deaths of its own citizens in order to justify its own ends. We have MOUNTAINS of direct evidence that this can and does happen.
Just because SOME people make illogical leaps into conspiracy theory naval gazing does not mean that we just shouldn't question the transactional nature of any government narratives when bad things happen.
Stupid people are going to have stupid ideas regardless, and that should not stop the rest of us from maintaining our skepticism and using common sense when evaluating the progression of history as it is unfolding before us.
YOU ARE THE ONE CONFLATING THESE THINGS.
JESUS H FUCKING CHRIST, Nobody ever said it was a "false flag" you absolute fucking goon. All these conspiracy buzzwords were entered into the conversation or equation BY YOU. You are attempting to place the "tinfoil hat" on everyone's head, and then screaming SEE I GOT YA.
No, no you didn't. You are just arguing in bad faith because for whatever reason that is your modus operandi.
You're the only one here making that leap though.
My comment only highlights his history of doing things like this, and several times I say I don't think he was involved.
@Silverseren only says that the obviousness of the build-up makes more people wonder if netanyahu knew - which of course it does. They don't say he did either.
There will be conspiracy theories whether there is anything to base them on or not.
It's definitely reasonable to discuss whether Netanyahu was involved in something that benefits him and he is known for. As I said, at the moment it looks unlikely to me that he was. But come on! He has motive, means, priors and it's great timing for him personally. Acknowledging that all that is true doesn't mean agreeing to a vast web of conspiracy. All that is true but it it can still be a legit intelligence failure.
Uhhh, okay well which is it then? One second you say it is totally unreasonable to question, and the next you are actively agreeing that you would not be surprised if the government had allowed this to happen. I'm sure even you can see the hypocrisy in that.
I don't recall ever suggesting that there was, nor did the OP of this chain.
I'm willing to give you a pass on this point because I think this is probably true. However, let's not also act like the government doesn't intentionally muddy the waters and paint anything that is counter to their chosen narrative as conspiracy theories anyway...
That is entirely the point isn't it? The government & intelligence community are fully aware of this phenomenon, and use it to their advantage as one of their main tactics to either squash or foment dissent depending on their objectives.
The truth has already been eroded to such a degree that whoever controls the largest & fastest means of information dissemination is able to control the narrative. It takes people who are willing to entertain other perspectives to weed through the bullshit in order to eventually land at something that more closely APPROXIMATES the truth.
Wow, this is such a laughable conflation that I don't even know what to say about it really. Yes, there are morons who think that way, but I don't think anybody in this discussion is one of them as far as I can't tell. So, let's stick to higher level discourse that can be potentially productive.
Are you familiar with the old robot saying, "does not compute"?
Ah, interesting! I personally have no moral qualms with discussing possibilities.
But it's baseful speculation, based on Netanayahu's past actions.
He intentionally dialed up tensions as recently as the first round of protests against eliminating judicial independence.
A more apt anology would be if I was convicted sex offender and suddenly there were hundreds and hundreds of molested children, and people started "just asking questions" about whether I was involved. It's unlikely that I would have done something on that scale - I'm not a priest. But it's not a bad faith argument to discuss whether I could be involved.
I think you're mistaking some noncommittal discussion of the reality of politics in that region with a known bad faith argument.