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
I still think that there is a difference in intent between killing children in a bombing campaign and directly and individually targeting them in an armed raid.
I'm sure the families of the dead children are greatly comforted by a difference in intent.
Never said that nor implied it.
I mean ya did.
The intention is the same, the justification is different. You'd need to be blind to not see that.
It's not like they weren't murdering people on the ground before the raid took place. They are still doing it right now, but you'd rather not acknowledge that.
Lets be clear on one thing, both sides were killibg people long before this. No side in this conflict is innocent, no side is fighting purely for freedom, no side is right.
Still, I see a difference in a military bombardement, where civilians were warned to leave the area beforehand and a suprise raid in which civilians and children were the only targets and people were raped abducted and tortured.
If you do not see that difference (without condoning either), it is you who is blind.
Does Russia get points for telling Ukrainians to leave before they started shelling? Invaders more often than not, tell civilians to flee (least of the reasons is to inflict economic disruption to their adversary).
One side has the vast majority of resources, the other is a refugee in their own home.
So for you being a "refugee in their own home" makes it ok to deliberately murder civiluans, women and children, rape and abduct?
Analysis isn't justification. For example, the book "Lord of the Flies" doesn't try to justify the terrible nature of kids but serves as a warning when you have an incredibly young society without moral leadership. And that's about where we're at with this situation.
The stupid lie that civilians were the primary target is still a lie, and is still stupid. Hamas has taken videos of it's members destroying tanks and other armored units, and stealing some of them during the raid. Before the raid Hamas got Gazans who were willing to fight to go with them too, and those radicals most likely are the ones who targeted civilians, Hamas militants may have targeted civilians too, but civilians weren't the primary target.
So you think that this one raid is worst than the many that are carried out routinely against Palestinians? Or are we gonna just ignore those for now?
The difference is that the IDF can do these stupid things to save face, while Hamas cannot. The difference between typical terrorist groups and the IDF/whole "Israeli" government has always been their capabilities.
Ok, what's that difference.
There is a difference between a military bombardement, where civilians were warned to leave the area beforehand and a suprise raid in which civilians and children were the only targets and people were raped abducted and tortured.
Leave to where sir, everywhere they've been told to go to has subsequently been bombarded, at what point is the warning lip service?
You do understand Israel has been routinely credibly accused of deliberate targeting of civilians including women (irrelevant, a dead adult is as abborant at any other) children and the rape of both during this very conflict.
Painting in shades of shit is regardless of the shade still going to be a shitty picture.
Of course it is a shitty picture. You ask leave to where? Right question, I don't have an easy answer, as Egypt obviously won't allow them in.
Let me post a different question: What should Israel have done after the 7th? What would any other country in the world have done differently?
So it's not really that different is it drive the effect is the same.
They could defend themselves sure. Most countries would have been hammered into the stone age by everyone else is they slapped back with such disparity of force. They've killed quite literally 10 times as many civilians by current reports most of which are children and destroyed any hope of livability within Gaza. It's really not difficult math man.
I don't know, maybe literally anything that doesn't involve murdering thousands of civilians? Use your imagination. The question itself is insulting. The people calling out Israel's atrocities have no obligation to come up with policy suggestions that are acceptable to the people committing atrocities.
Urban warfare is never pretty. If Hamas cared about Palestine they'd release the remaining hostages and surrender unconditionally. But they don't. Their leaders are safe in Qatar, and their zealots care only about murdering Jews, not about the people caught in the crossfire of the inevitable Israeli counterstrikes. If they cared about their people they wouldn't use them as human shields.
And yes, if you say that Israel shouldn't attack if there's a risk of civilian casualties you need to offer up an alternative that gets Hamas to stop attacking Israeli civilians.
Hamas is the only thing protecting Palestinians from fucking full invasion and settlement at this point dude. Israel has admitted their intention is to push everyone out of the country and settle the land for themselves. On national tv, from high level Israeli officials.
Shut up, genocide apologist.
Make me, terrorist supporter.
Trade hostages for hostages to secure the safety of the hostages, as Hamas tried to do day one, two, and three. Not bomb hospitals, ever, for any reason. Not bomb refugee camps.
Of course, if they stopped the illegal occupation and settlement, and stopped murdering Palestinians every single day, stopped imprisoning them, and stopped making them live under different rules than the settlers have, it’s very unlikely they would have ever been attacked in the first place. Hamas admits this attack was an act of desperation against the completion of the Israeli settlement and cultural genocide project. It didn’t happen in a vacuum. It was the direct result of the oppression Israel forces upon the people of Palestine.
This is simply not true. Hundreds of the Israeli casualties of Oct 7 were soldiers and police. Civilian witnesses/hostages from that day have stated that the Hamas attackers said they were shocked to find so few soldiers, and that they were there to fight the Israeli military and police
Yeah. Hamas didn't target children intentionally. However israel does.