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.
-
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 OCTOBER 19 2025
-
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
If you beat up someone and then leave some money in their pocket, this is still an assault, not a boxing match.
The difference is that the US is beating up someone who was sitting quietly in a corner, while the EU is beating up someone who has been beating Ukraine to a bloody pulp for the past 4 years.
I do agree, and tbh I am trying to work through what a world without a "rules based order" looks like.
I do not want to defend Russia by no means, but why when Russia invades a neighbor it is bad, but when the US kidnaps a president it isn't(at least portrayed in the news as bad)?
Especially when both are threatening to invade Europe and allegedly sharing information?
It's still bad when the US illegally invades a country (without congressional approval) and abducts its head of state. The only people who don't seem to mind that are magas, and they don't seem to mind fascist russia violating international law either.
This juxtaposition is a bit of a strawman, because both examples are bad and anyone with a moral conscience understands that.
Tell me you are an American without telling me you are an American...
And what exactly do you mean by that?
Is saying "What trump did is bad, and the only people who support it are maga lunatics" something only an american would do?
No, saying that the problem with invading another country is that it is done without congressional approval is.
Way to butcher what I said for the sake of argument.
Adding what basically amounts to a footnote that he acted without congressional approval doesn't imply that the only reason it was bad was because it lacked congressional approval. It only means that he acted without the consent of the governed, and thus was an unconstitutional overstep of presidential authority.
You must be king of the scarecrows to have so many strawmen at your disposal...
What he did was bad, AND he lacked congressional approval. Not "what he did was bad because it lacked congressional approval."
Tbf, makes sense, should have read your comment more carefully.
After rereading it, I can see how you could get the wrong idea. The important thing to remember is that parenthetical clauses are to be read independently, without modifying the meaning of the clauses outside the parentheses.
Kidnapping foreign presidents is also bad. Maybe not quite as bad as 4 years of bombing and killing, but still bad. I'm no fan of Maduro, and I think Venezuela will be better off without him (but maybe only if it's also without his VP and her family's extensive control of the government apparatus), but this is not a good way to accomplish that.
So reality is complicated and nuanced, and media doesn't handle that very well. Especially not when they're increasingly becoming propaganda outlets for a fascist regime.
Not at all better off. What just happened, since the news is not going to tell you apparently, is the administration made a deal with the military to give up maduro and stand down on the operation to become the de facto power, directing the selling out of concessions through their now puppet civilian leadership.
There will be resistance when they start moving oil out, the army will commit abuses, likely including paramilitary death squads financed with drug and gun sales on black markets.
You're stretching it - it's not highway robbery when you catch someone driving a car with fake plates and smuggled goods in the back
Your scenario makes sense only from the perspective of basically the police and in international relationships there is no police.
Flying false flags is a valid reason for a country to board a ship, according to UNCLOS.
And america painted their planes as civilian ones.
This is a war crime. I am pointing it out because my point is that international law doesn't exist. The only differentiating factor is wether you are strong enough avoid being judged.
The existence of crime is not a proof of the inexistence of law. Not that I disagree with the general sentiment that international law is applied to the convenience of whoever is stronger, but the US doing something wrong and not getting punished for it has very little to do with France doing something specifically allowed
So countries should be entirely free to do anything they want and nobody is morally correct to stop them?
Of course not on either of the statements.
But I am wondering how can enforcement be done without concentrating power in one county like the US because as we can see this system is very easy to abuse.
For your information, Russia invaded European country. This would be closer to Venezuela seizing US tanker, not US seizing Venezuela's