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
view the rest of the comments
That's fucking wild! Mexico is not South Sudan or Afghanistan, failed states ruled by warlords. It will start with "we're only targetting cartels" and conclude with "these terrorists are purposely using hospital staff as human shields, what would you have us do?!"
Wild take here but I don't really think the US should be bombing ANY other nation.
Not even Israeli or Russian troops in Palestine or Ukraine?
Correct. The US should stick to the tried and true method of supplying the weapons, teaching users how to maximize their effectiveness, and assist in the logistics of the altercations.
Or just stop sticking our nose into everyone else's business.
Into Russia's business? Because assisting Ukraine is not "sticking our nose in" their business any more than the fire department is sticking their nose in your business when you call to report a fire.
The US could just stop sending weapons to Israel and the fighting will stop too. As for Ukraine, Zelensky has tried to make deals with Russia before and the West told him not to because they promised they'd continue backing him with more weapons that would give them the edge, which the US is obviously reneging on now (which, to be fair, is something Trump sort of said he'd do, so you could argue that's been democratically decided).
Agreed on Israel, but you are WILDLY misrepresenting the context and tenor of the Ukrainian war.
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/
They were close to a deal during a relative high water mark (Ukraine had just taken Kharkiv back and a huge chunk of the east). They've only gone backwards since and whatever deal they can get now will most likely be worse.
They were not close to a deal. Putin’s desired endgame is “I own Ukraine”. Ukraine’s desired endgame is “Ukraine continues to exist and isn’t constantly hammered by Russian missiles and bombs”. There’s not really much room for negotiation there. Moreover, Putin has negotiated in demonstrably bad faith multiple times over the course of the war (and I mean since 2014, when they used unmarked soldiers to annex parts of Ukraine and “held a referendum”). I’m not claiming Ukraine is a flawless paragon of virtue, but at the same time, there are VERY clear good guys and bad guys in the Ukrainian government war. Russia is the bad guys.
I didn't ever say the Russians were the good guys. I'm saying the West is happy to keep Ukrainians fighting and dying for geopolitical reasons. Zelensky was elected on a platform of making a deal and ending the war, and he wasn't allowed to do that by the West.
Eventually there will be a peace, and even though it would be fair that Ukraine gets all its territory back, realistically that's not going to happen (and if it did, there's the question of what happens to all the Russian speakers in those areas). The deal he could've gotten right after the failed Russian invasion would've been better than whatever he can get now, especially with Trump now basically being in Putin's side.
It's just a case of the US continuing to push too far thinking you can just beat Russia with better technology, even though history has shown that Russian leaders are perfectly happy to just throw men into the battle until the enemy runs out of ammo.
Do you believe Ukrainians have no agency? Nobody but Russia is forcing them to fight.
They have, but they were promised the backing of the US, and now they're not going to have it any more.
~~Cool source bro~~
I was wrong, this is independent of Pravda in Russia. My bad.
So a Ukrainian news paper isn't good enough? I can find other sources for the same story if you like. Or you can search for stories that explore the background of Johnson's sudden Kyiv trip yourself.
Shit, my bad dude. You’re right, it’s independent of Pravda in Russia.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/04/29/opinion/story-their-lives/
Pravdas Ukrainian now? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda
Come on man, at least read the links you post.
Jesus, why did they choose that name? I get that it means truth, but surely it was tainted by the then 88 year old newspaper in the country that colonized yours? Imagine if an Algerian person, fed up with French interference in their media, founded the Algerian newspaper, Le Monde.
Seeing how popular the name is, I suspect it's just a very generic newspaper name, like how a lot of English-language newspapers have Times in their names. For example, India has The Times of India and The Hindustan Times, despite the name coming from a former colonizer.
I can understand that, but I suspect that neither calls itself The Times. In countries with a large newspaper known as a Times, The Times is called The London Times to differentiate itself
I'll note that for the latter, it's a failed state ruled by warlords because the US rolled in and fucked everything up.
Afghanistan was all fucked up long before that.
I mean it wasn't exactly a shining example of progress and order, but it wasn't a failed state.
Arguably, Afghanistan has never been united as a nation in the way we think about it, at least not for long. The cycle seems to be short decades of control under some power followed by decades of decentralization and local powers.
But Taliban was in power before the 2001 invasion.
Okay, and? Like them or hate them (jk you should hate them) but they had a state; it wasn't "a failed state ruled by warlords".
That's debatable
No it's not? A failed state is one in which the state can't punish a significant amount of non-state sanctioned violence, which wasn't the case in Afghanistan.
I suppose if you use that definition then when America invaded it became a failed state run by warlords and now it has recovered.
Yeah exactly. Now, being a non-failed state, they can start the long, gruelling process of cultural and political evolution. That's why you're hearing about Afghani human rights activists now but not ten years ago.
This statement is only relevant if your knowledge of history started in 1980.
I mean given that the war on terror started in 2001, we don't need to go back any further than 1980.
Well then, I guess it was perfect and stable prior to 2001, no need to investigate further!
No, it's a failed state because the cartels have more power than the government. Stop blaming your own country, traitor.
Do you have any idea how many candidates get murdered in elections in Mexico?
Or Russia?
Nobody gets murdered in Russia. They just accidentally fall out of windows because they're clumsy.
Weird non-sequitur, but okay.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant, but my point is that there are other countries that have similar issues to Mexico, but we don't bomb them.
Russia has nuclear weapons, which is the main reason.
And Putin is a great person and Orange's friend according to Orange.
Biden didn't bomb Russia either, this is a bipartisan policy.
Of course you can't just bomb Russia. I'm merely saying that the Orange has further incentives.
Russia doesn't share a border with your country, while being home to a number of brutal cartels run by ex US military special forces.
Also, we are literally bombing Russia by proxy right now.
Scare tactics 101 by the left.