this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
257 points (95.7% liked)

World News

48785 readers
2676 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ItsAFake@lemmus.org 44 points 2 years ago (4 children)

So, do we get to start calling what's happening everywhere world war 3 or is there like some committee that meets on this?

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 38 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Once some major players start conscripting people I think it'd be reasonable to call it WW3. This is the preamble

[–] AlfredEinstein@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hasn't russia been conscripting for a couple of years now?

[–] dlpkl@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (2 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bourff@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's a world war only when western european countries are involved. Otherwise it's just sparkling conflict.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird 1 points 2 years ago

TBF, we aren't even remotely close to the scale of international conflict seen in the 2 world wars. You have to be deeply ignorant to think otherwise. Again, we're not even close, not even like a tiny fraction in terms of scale.

[–] AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

It's not a war until the other side is able to fight back.

[–] bluewing@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

It's never a world war until it's over and the dust settles on the graves of millions around the globe.

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 43 points 2 years ago (1 children)

U.S. military forces today conducted strikes on seven facilities, which included more than 85 targets in Iraq and Syria, that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and affiliated militias use to attack U.S. forces. This is the start of our response. The President has directed additional actions to hold the IRGC and affiliated militias accountable for their attacks on U.S. and Coalition Forces.

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago

damn straight, feel the love

[–] Cipher22@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hopefully, they don't lose 1/3rd of their navy accidentally... again.

[–] DdCno1@kbin.social 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why are you hoping that they don't? Given the shenanigans the Iranian navy has been up to, promoting much of it to submersible status would be a good thing.

[–] Cipher22@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

Well, to be honest, this was a sarcastic comment to the time the US did accidentally sink more of their navy than intended. (A little more than 1/3 if their operational force.) The original goal was only 4 platforms IIRC. It may have grown a scotch before the end.

Which probably doesn't mean much to the sailors. Hind sight being 20/20 and all. Still a bit of an oops.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The attacks are the first of many expected to take place.

Washington Post's Dan Lamothe has said that while the U.S. struck more than 85 individual targets in Iraq and Syria, these were spread just eight general locations in those two countries.

U.S. officials have stressed that there is no plans currently to strike targets in Iran.

[–] pan_troglodytes@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago

we dont need to strike Iran directly. once their international assets get frozen they've got a limited window where they can do anything, and we just blew up most of their anything.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago