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 often feel conflicted about things like this. On the one hand, I want some consequences for the actions of the country that dropped the bomb. But this church didn't do that. The religion didn't do it either. But it was called the temple of Isreal. So it kind of set itself up to be a representation of the country. So there is a window. That said... the attack was on the school, so kids. Thats just no okay no matter what. If anything was on the table it would be the administration maybe. But I have a dislike for administraion in general, so maybe I'm biased there.
His family was wiped out, and they weren't legitimate military targets, so why should he be concerned about that?
That's the problem when moronic politicians decide to prove to the world that they don't really have a tiny dick, and start indiscriminately bombing innocent people. Eventually someone is going to shoot back, and they aren't going to be any more discerning about their targets than the tiny dick politicians were.
Attacking synagogues in the US does nothing whatsoever to the government of Israel, so no reason to feel conflicted. It's just plain bad.
A lot of American Jews are rooting for Israel and America to bomb any Muslims, for any reason, and Muslims aren't stupid, they know that. It's hard to get the Military's attention, but if you can get the attention of their supporters, maybe they'll start screaming to their politicians, who will reign in the military.
Or maybe it's just straight up revenge. As long as you keep killing my innocent family, I'll keep killing yours. It's hard to argue with that logic.
It's easy to argue with it -- "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," and all that -- but it's hard not to sympathize with it.
Exactly. The mans actions are understandable and reprehensible at the same time.
You don't have to celebrate his actions, but you can understand them.
If someone wantonly murdered your entire family, chances are the next actions you would take would not be rational.
To me, that feel extremely rational.
I want them dead. I kill them. Now they're dead.
Simple logic.
You need to learn what words mean.
Because, emotionally driven reactions that have zero actual connection to the inciting even is not rational in anyway.
Emotional responses aren't rational.
That's what I just said.
I was agreeing with you?
The new guy who just took over as Iran's Supreme Leader, got the job because his father was killed in the first rocket strikes. How do you think he's going to feel about having any kind of good faith negotiations with IsrAmerica?
Now consider that he also lost his mother, his wife, and his daughter. His entire family. And he's not alone. He knows LOTS of people in his close personal, business, and political life who suffered similar losses - those that lived through it, that is.
Trump got rid of the last guy, and got THIS guy instead, and made America his sworn enemy. And he's only 56 years old, with lots of life ahead of him. Who can possibly blame him if he dedicates the rest of his life to getting revenge on his, his friends,' and his nation's behalf?
I'm not sure my point got across. I wasn't trying to blame anybody; I was just trying to make a distinction between a logical argument and an emotional one.
No, I get it, and I appreciate you making the distinction. I was just expanding on the point that this guy has plenty of reason to strike back, and is almost certainly going to.
And when it happens, there will be a huge cry to demonize those who struck us, when we know damn well we deserve every bit of it.
Because ultimately, the overriding concept is that they aren't really human like us, so it doesn't matter if we blow up their innocent children and families over...who knows, The Rapture? OTOH, the entire world should be worshipping America, by bowing to our Supreme Leader, no matter how much he beats you and kills your families, and they have no right to be angry in return at our AMERICAN MIGHT.
Oh, yeah, and they have oil we can steal. And The Rapture.
Sure, there's every reason for him to want to strike back.
However, I disagree that that means he's likely to do it. It's kinda like Zelensky: he'd be entirely justified in telling both Putin and Trump to go fuck themselves, but he won't do the latter because the US' half-assed support is still better than Trump fully switching sides.
I expect Iran's leader to suck it up and do what's best for Iran in a realpolitik sense, not engage in suicidal total war just because Trump's America deserves it.
It is very easy to NOT sympathize with someone's plan to blow up children, if you're not a psychopath.
Government of Israel is not going to the synagogue in the US, but AIPAC is. I’m not endorsing attacking them though.
and thier supporters that arnt directly tied to AIPAC.
Idk man, I really hate what US Christians are doing right now, but I don't think shooting up a random church is going to fix anything. If this shithead wanted to take out his sorrow on someone, he should have headed to DC to attack someone actually culpable.
No one gave a shit that his family were innocent bystanders. Why should he care that these victims were. The people making the decisions are wrapped in layers of security. These people are why they have the power to make those decisions.
I'm not defending violence, but it does make more sense than you give it credit for. In the end violence will only breed more violence, but when your reason to care is gone,, when justice is never coming for the guilty, people will take their vengeance out wherever they can reach.
But you literally are, though.
No, I'm saying it's rational. I'm not suggesting it's right. It doesn't solve anything, killing more people won't bring his family back and ultimately will only justify more violence. It's an embrace of nihilism by someone who has nothing left to care about but petty vengeance.
What I'm saying is, if you start from the assumption nothing matters, then it is perfectly reasonable. I reject the premise, but the conclusion is logical for someone who doesn't. Strip a person of everything that matters to them, and they have no reason not to seek the cold comfort of vengeance against whomever they can access.
It's quite literally NOT RATIONAL to attack other Innocents for revenge of the death of Innocents.
There is, if it hurts those who are not so innocent.
No.
If you want to hurt the not innocent, then hurt those people directly. Not other Innocents. Anyone who thinks otherwise is human shit.
Again, I don't disagree that it's wrong. I disagree that it's irrational. Words mean things.
They do. Not the things you're trying to claim.
When a foreign nation drops bombs that kill your family, the proper response is to write a letter to the editor, or perhaps boycott products from the nation that killed everyone you love. I simply can't understand why this guy didn't write that letter and announce his boycott. So illogical.
That's quite the strawman you've constructed.
Attacking an American synagogue will only drum up more support for the ongoing genocide and war.
Also, the word "Israel" predates the "State of Israel". It is also a common first and last name in the Jewish world. "Beth Israel" means "House of Israel" or "Israel House", its not really grammatically sound so it can go either way.
The conflict comes because we're comparing two different forms of evil. All we can really do is observe and take notes for the history books