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
We seem to be stuck talking in circles.
One of the belligerents released a statement that was demonstrably false in of itself. Pointing out that one of the belligerence is lying, is not taking a side
The other belligerent also has many issues. But pointing out their lying is also not taking a
We have to use our critical thinking skills at all times, and point out when either side lies to us, the documentation of the lies is useful for reconciliation after the war when the populations have to live together.
Getting stuck in a cycle saying what about what about what about, doesn't change anything. If one side is lying to us we need to dispassionately, and critically point that out. I've done that to the best of my ability, I apologize if my logic wasn't clear, if you would like to point out any of my logical fallacies I'm happy to work with you on that
The emotional reaction around the war is terrible, but I don't want to get involved in emotions when we're dissecting a clear and blatant lie by one of the parties.
Honestly resting your entire argument on, "why won't hamas just release them themselves mmkay?" is the one that got people going into circles. Your question has been answered in numerous different ways and yet you seem stuck on it.
No problem, but no one is talking about that, they are instead addressing your single flawed talking point. Hope that makes it clearer.
Okay maybe we should restart. And go through the logic. You can tell me where I'm making my mistake.
Assumptions:
A. Hamas said it wanted to release hostages no quid pro quo
B. Hamas states Israel isn't cooperating so they can't release the hostages
C. Inside of the Gaza strip, the Red Cross operates as a somewhat neutral party
D. Inside the Gaza strip The UN RW operates as a somewhat neutral party
E. At the Egyptian Rafah border crossing, Hamas has direct access to the border.
Logic:
If Hamas wants to release prisoners per A they could do it directly through C, D and potentially E.
Hamas not releasing prisoners, but citing B means that they were lying about A.
Where did I mess up?
B makes A difficult, even if Hamas uses C and D and even E, those hostages are still in danger because of Israeli bombing and constant deaths among people in C and D, as well as the constant bombing in E. Add to that the fact that Israel completely threw them under the bus and refuses to engage with Hamas to get them back is the biggest issue here.
So, here we go:
(1) not really, they cannot do it "directly" nor "easily" and yet they released 4 people already
(2) And two:
How does citing B mean they are lying about A? They could be lying about A anyway, and B could be completely true (and given what is happening today I am starting to think B is true, and not unlike Israel anyway).
Existing in a war zone is dangerous, capturing 200 hostages had danger. Not all of them survived. I think that's clear.
Releasing hostages also has danger, Israel absolutely could have mitigated that danger by negotiating. And the refusing to do so. That feels completely genuine, but I don't have evidence either way. They may or may not be lying
Because of point 1. Hamas has the ability to release prisoners, with a degree of danger, without the consent of Israel.
Moving people around in the Gaza strip, is within their capabilities, especially because they don't have to deliver to the border, they have a variety of UN and Red Cross compounds they could just drop anybody off at. And then make a press release
The issue in point 2 is not that Israel is or isn't cooperating, it's that it's immaterial to hamas's actions inside the Gaza strip. Israel not cooperating can enhance the danger and that's a fair thing to talk about. So Hamas could say Israel's not cooperating, putting hostages in danger, but we've released them to the UNRW compound at these coordinates. We did what we could. That at least would be an honest press release
So going back to 1, 2 because Hamas did not release prisoners, but issued a press releasing they couldn't release prisoners, that contradicts point 1. Of which they have full control over, not danger free, but they have full capabilities to do. This demonstrates they were lying about their intentions. At least at that time, for that reason.
I wanted to read this but I honestly have no idea what those numbers mean /: what is this numbering supposed to refer to? I used 1 and 2 to respond to you. Is this a continuation of your response?
Anyway about number 8:
I mentioned this several times but I feel like it's being ignored... Hamas did release 4 hostages through the channels you proposed. Do you need me to google this for you and get you the headlines? Because it's been all over the news for the past 3 days or so.
Yes. But we're talking about Hamas news release for many days ago.
The fact that they've released people through the channels we've discussed means they have that capability.
So several days ago when they said they couldn't release hostages because Israel wouldn't agree with them, is false on the face of itself. As they've demonstrated by releasing hostages through the Red Cross
I understand your position somewhat but I have no trust in Israel. You are saying Hamas is effectively lying but again it could very well be that both sides are lying.
Hamas militants said they will release more when the time allows it. Could also be a lie, but it's certainly one of the few chances Israel will get to get these hostages back alive and they are blowing it.
But during the time you were discussing this here, 4 hostages were released. I keep getting downvoted for mentioning it in places which makes me think some people are pissed off at this being a fact (not you).
I'm just trying to be logical. There is a statement here which I believe I've demonstrated as blatantly false. Calling that as false is a good thing to do, and I believe every critical thinker should acknowledge false statements when they have the evidence.
My point in this thread, is it is immaterial if Israel wanted to help or not, that had no physical impact on hamasa's releasing of prisoners.
Both belligerence in this conflict have demonstrable lies. There's no good side here.
Yes in the last several days more prisoners have been released. That's a good thing. It demonstrates Hamas is trying to negotiate. Or at least start negotiations. Good. Less people need to die. Though I believe the right play for Israeli military was to move in within the first few days, and occupy the city, and put a new leadership in place. The fact that they've waited two weeks is removing their global mandate. They've waited too long. Indications seem to be that their current strategy is to push the population as far south as possible, prevent them from moving north again. Turn the north part of the Gaza strip into a DMZ, with no Palestinians living there. Basically increase the pressure, I don't think that's a long-term viable strategy, but it appears to be what they're setting up.
But that's the wider conflict, I will respond to every comment on this thread saying my logic is wrong, I like logic I will defend logic, and I will acknowledge my logic is incorrect when prevented with evidence to the contrary. And the evidence has to be within the self-presented statements of this one Hamas statement. Calling out a lie, for a lie, when all the evidence needed to demonstrate it's a lie is in its own statement, is something I believe very strongly in. It has nothing to do with the overall political climate.
Israel going into Gaza would have meant a much bigger genocide than the one we see today....