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
I don’t want to see people die, but the US needs to suffer a wound like this.
Because that worked out so well the last time...
The last time they needed desperately to bring the public support for a war around bcs the ppl were very much against a war (with financial/imperial goals).
Ohhh ... yeah, I see, poor ship.
Monkey paw finger curls
You got downvoted, but with the current administration? A WMD response might be chosen. So it might lead to nuclear war... and a chain effect.
Then, suddenly...
"I don't want to set the world on fire~" 🥲
Keep in mind Trump was playing with the idea of nuking a fucking hurricane. Doesn't seem so far fetched.
It actually doesn't matter which administration it is. American policy has been extremely consistent since the founding of the country that if US is ever attacked, the response has to be so ferocious that it guarantees that such an attack will never come again from that country.
When the Mexican American war happened, the US won decisively and annexed half of Mexico. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, they literally burnt the country to the ground and nuked it twice for good measure. When Germany did something similar in WWI and WWII, they got bombed into the stone ages. When Al Qaeda did 9/11, the US bombed like a quarter of the globe to make sure this group is incapacitated.
Why wouldn't the US have a similar response here? The Ford carrier is the peak of American naval power, which is the basis for American hard power. A country attacking this ship is directly attacking the US military and threatening to undermine American power, and that's not something that's going to slide. If something like this happens, we might see an official declaration of war from congress, and whichever country attacked the ship is going to be made an example of.
Some may speculate that it's exactly what Trump wants - because then he can postpone elections.
Idk where this idea came from that he has any legal basis in postponing elections.
Even if Congress gave authorization to declare war, and Trump enacted martial law, the worst he could do is use law enforcement to intimidate voters. Which he's already attempting to do.
People like are terminally online. Your hatred for the US won't go the way you like it. If a country gets tries to attack this ship, then they're getting glasses, like actually. The US literally flattened Japan and nuked them twice because they attacked a naval port and partially damaged it. If some country tried to destroy the Ford Carrier, they're going to face a worse fate.
Hating the US isn’t a function of being online, just having and applying a well defined morality and being generally concerned with the wellbeing of people. I don’t necessarily dispute your take about the US committing crimes against humanity in response to such a loss. Such wanton violence is perfectly in character with the horrific evil that the US represents and that I am objecting to. Your casual acceptance of it is exactly why the US needs to be removed as the world hegemon.
But that's precisely the issue, your morality is neither well defined or consistent. If anything, I would argue that your worldview is irrational because everything is digested from an inherently hateful point of view. For example, in this hypothetical, if the US gets attacked, it would be rational for the country to fight back against whichever country attacked it. However, you would see it as war against humanity. The war against Japan, for example, was more than justified considering the genocides they were committing, but you would defend it if it means getting at the US. This type of worldview is simply irrational. I feel like you would be the type of person who blames the Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the US.
Oh, please enlighten us dolts. We are all waiting for you to explain how Iran has attacked the United States, justifying this oh so moral “defensive” war.
You really are a dolt, we're talking about a hypothetical situation where Iran does actually attack or sink the Ford carrier. That is a justifiable grounds for war for any country, not just the US.
Ok dickhead. The scenario we are discussing is that the US, that beacon of morality, attacks Iran like we are saying that we will. Then in response, the Iranians put the Gerald Ford to rest. I am saying that the US, and the Gerald Ford, and all of its little war criminal inhabitants, would fucking deserve it. I’m further saying that the world needs to see the US get this kind of bloody nose. Right now, the US considers itself to be impervious, and beyond the scope of actual repercussions for its own actions. Your statements echo that sentiment. Such a loss would go some way to change that assumption.
No, we're not. You're trying to change the hypothetical to feed your hate masturbation of the US. Just as a reminder, this is the hypothetical we're discussing:
All the other details are made up by you so you can justify indulging in the preconceived narratives you already subscribed to. Given the original hypothetical, if Iran were to attack and sink this carrier, that would be a direct attack on the US, therefore it would be a justifiable cause for war. This is true for all countries that have their flagship attacked and sunk. Your seething hatred of the US won't change this reality just because you don't like it.
But it's funny how turned out to be exactly as I said word for word. You have no morals, you're hateful to the point where it's irrational and you're trying to convince yourself that it's okay under the guise of morality. It's irrational to the point where you can't even help but make up details to alter a hypothetical. That level of dishonesty makes you a lost cause dude.
The entire reason why there is a thread here, the entire reason the Gerald Ford is positioned where it is, the entire reason why any American is discussing Iran right now, is because we are building up to an unprovoked attack on them.
You perfectly embody the deluded depravity of this shithole nation.
Jumping back in here to get your dickhead take on the fact that the hypothetical isn’t hypothetical anymore. Now that we are the aggressors, and your worldview thinks that being attacked justifies overwhelming violence in response, I suppose you’re all good with the USS Gerald Ford resuming poop operations at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea, right?
Sure, but the islamic regime chose to bomb 8 other countries instead.