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
Oh look, the bandwagon is here!
You know, the first news reported that Israel bombed an area and the Belgium empty office was a collateral casualty.
Yet here we are now at malicious intent.
Have you considered the idea that in their quest to level Gaza, which building belongs to whom never even crossed Israel's mind?
Or that their military is full of incompetent buffoons?
Took me a bit to realize this comment isn't pro-Israel.
Is arguing "they're not malicious in their enthusiastic use of bombs, merely incompetent" not worse? It implies they don't know how to do better, and thus are a very reckless uncontrolled threat, compared to just one that chooses to be evil.
It probably is worse. And consider this: they have nukes in their stockpile and are running out of regular bombs.
This comment brought to you by whippets
The dog or the nitrous oxide?
Yea
Yeah maybe it's an accident related to a complete lack of concern for which building they bomb, or maybe it's not an accident and that's why it's timed so conveniently. Who cares, fuck Israel either way.
If they hadn't built up so much bad will and distrust recently people probably wouldn't rush to this conclusion. But they have. So they get to lie in the bed they made
Oh I agree. But if we start using unproven scenarios to further demonize them, then we do no better than what they did to Palestine. It's hypocritical and follows the path they're taking. So what's the point then?
Yeah I see your point and agree to an extent. But if we don't assume the obvious explanation because of Israel and it's supporters generally casting doubt on basically any report of it's crimes until an unspecified "investigation" is (possibly) concluded at some point in the future, then we allow them to escape blame for their actions.
You must know that they will never admit this is what happened, and there is no plausible way to settle the issue in the fog of war (e.g. the hospital car park explosion from early in the war, still debated and unclear).
So your approach basically lets them off the hook. Going with the obvious explanation is kind of better imo
It might be. I won't say I know better.
You want to wait for an investigation?
So do you also agree that we shouldn't use unproven scenarios to demonize Palestinians or UNRWA just because a few of their workers ALLEGEDLY are members of hamas? And that we shouldn't cut of funding to the humanitarian organization the same day the ICJ ruling ordered Israel provide humanitarian aid? Because otherwise it would be hypocrisy right?
Oh no, please don't tell me that is totally different!
Nice loophole find after the post was deleted.
To answer your reply, I agree. It's exactly the same and it's a shame the bias exists so blatantly.
If the incident was a one off I could see that as true, like the US boat during the six day war when everything was hectic as hell and all communications had seemingly been cutoff. This is unfortunately not an isolated incident, and the benefit if the doubt should not be given.
If I bombed your house a d destroyed it, would you be totally okay with it if I told you there was no malicious intent and I was just trying to murder your neighbour instead?
Please don't take the name of one the best characters in Sci fi literature just be a trolling loser.
Depends on what's destroyed and how much you're paying as compensation.
You think people in gaza have someone to go cry out to in order to get their dead children and destroyed home back?
Sound mentality.
The topic isn't about the people in Gaza, it's about Belgium's building.
Bull-fucking-shit dude.
All of it, nothing.
Then we go to court.
Stop dodging the question.
No
The compensation is telling you that we've worked out a deal to take you to Central Africa, and what was previously the ruins of your house has been bought by a home developer for the ensuing reconstruction, during which Israeli citizens will be offered to buy it. You get no money.
Ok, let's see how Israel evicts Belgium to Central Africa.
You're a liar.
And a cheat.
I give the IDF zero benefit of the doubt after they straight up murdered the Reuters journalist with a fucking tank.
If this was a one off event sure.
These "concidences" just happen a little too frequently. Some might say you can notice a pattern...