this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2026
488 points (98.8% liked)

World News

51843 readers
2831 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world 231 points 1 week ago (14 children)

We just casually out here kidnapping heads of state now?

[–] Rhoeri@piefed.world 195 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It’s an open act of war. But at least no one is talking about how he fucked kids.

[–] AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world 49 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't know if we can wag the dog any harder, he's starting to come apart....

[–] Rhoeri@piefed.world 33 points 1 week ago

Yeah… we’re definitely pushing the upper limits of dog-wagging.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

It's definitely still be posted as a respond from the left.

The right is showing they don't care about kids getting diddle just like back in the day. Maga after all means back to a time when it's the victims fault.

[–] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 56 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If a country bombed Argentina and kidnapped Milei the US would retaliate immediately. But when the US pull this heinous shit it's fine. Always has been.

[–] HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When you have the US military on your side, you can do anything you want.

Why so many people are missing this obvious threat is beyond me. All nations should be shoring up their military defense, and fast.

Maduro is not a good person. But that's not what matters here. Plenty of countries have evil people at the helm.

What matters here is MAGA, with by far the world's most powerful military, is imposing its will on the United States and the world. If you think this kind of successful operation is ever followed up by "ok guys we got everything we wanted, let's stop now", give your head a shake.

We will know Russia traded Venezuela for Ukraine in the next few days. I bet the EU is in pure panic mode now. Would not surprise me to see a move on Taiwan too.

[–] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When you entertain the notion that the religious nutjobs who whisper to Trump's ear actually wants Earth to become a nuclear wasteland your disposition is bound not to be sunny anymore

[–] HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Well then, what's there left to lose?

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And many world leaders will defend it because they know US bastards could do the same to them.

[–] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

An old man with everything to lose if he ever steps down from power, the political and diplomatic literacy of a temper-throwing child with the nuclear launch codes.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago

I like how you mentioned nuclear launch codes.

Any nation without nuclear capabilities should see this as a sign to develop them ASAP.

I don't want more nukes in the world, but the US doesn't pull this shit on nuke capable nations

[–] ChristchurchAsshole@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If putin kills zelensky next week then trump won't be able to whine.

[–] waigl@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's not like Putin hasn't tried that…

[–] ChristchurchAsshole@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

I bet he's thinking about trying it again. After the attack in Kherson they have the perfect excuse.

[–] gnutrino@programming.dev 14 points 1 week ago

Never mind Zelensky, if I were Taiwan's president I'd be looking at the US creating a big naval distraction for itself at the same time as affirming that heads of state are fair game with more than a little trepidation...

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

First time the united snakes did it?

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Well no, they did the same in Panama with Noriega

[–] AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Again, Noriega surrendered after 2 weeks, he wasn't kidnapped the same night as the invasion started.

[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You don't believe this is anything new, right?

[–] AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world 56 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Imperialism and general fuckery, no.....but to my knowledge this is the first time the US has opened a conflict by just straight up taking the head of the foreign government.

Unless, of course, you've got something that says different.

[–] baines@piefed.social 21 points 1 week ago

gonna hand wave in Hawaii

Honestly, idk, but they've done worse/adjacent things so it's not shocking. 🤷 Just depressing.

[–] SillyDude@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Noriega didn't surrender until 2 weeks of conflict had passed.

Again, has the US ever opened a conflict by kidnapping a head of state?

[–] setsubyou@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago (2 children)

There’s also the US-backed coup in Hawaii where they put the queen under house arrest first thing.

[–] AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You know what, you got me on that one. I had forgotten about Hawaii. We definitely did those people dirty.

[–] baines@piefed.social 13 points 1 week ago

the only technicality was it wasn’t the ‘US government’ doing this, they just okayed it after

completely unrelated rogue gunboat guys, we promise

[–] baines@piefed.social 4 points 1 week ago

you beat me by 7min lol but this was my immediate thought

[–] SillyDude@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So the 60+ boats bombed were just a bit of pre-war?

[–] AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Are you saying air strikes are the same level of military involvement as the Invasion of Panama?

[–] flandish@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

i am. it’s manufactured consent at the minimum and a fucking act of war at the maximum. see what the us did in the gulf of tonkin for instance. the us does not care as it is a terrorist state.

i bet the new guy is … oddly friendly with oil corporations

[–] AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're conflating guilt or culpability with level of military involvement.

Did they result in equivalent loss of life? Damage to property? Commitment of forces on both sides?

One is a literal invasion. The other is missiles hitting fishing boats. Both are disgusting. Both are wrong.

But you cannot say that they are an equivalent level of military involvement.

[–] flandish@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

military involvement is a binary. if a nation state uses violence it’s used violence.

this is indeed an invasion. so was the missiles hunting boats. was 9/11 just planes and towers?

military action is a binary and this is why it’s so damn serious. but to say it’s different because the mechanism of injury to the target is not equal is to distract from the point: acts of war are always acts of war.

[–] AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

9/11 was an attack.

No foreign forces occupied territory of the United States, which would be the criteria for an invasion.

These are all well-established definitions in the legality of war.

Edit- and before we take the pacifist "there should be no legal war" approach, that may be so, but we live in a world where international law delineates just and unjust war, and applies strict definitions to do so, so when discussing conflict happening in the real world and not theoretically, it must be done within the confines of its practical definitions.

[–] flandish@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

so back up a bit. whats our disagreement? :p cause that makes sense too. see all war is illegal. nation states doing nation state shit.

all military ops are byproducts of nation state decisions. even if it is sinking a fishing boat murdering its drivers.

[–] AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Dis you reply before my edit?

It might be the case that war should be illegal, but it isn't. International law delineates just and unjust conflict, and when talking about real-world war rather than theoreticals, they must be viewed in light of existing laws, not what we want the laws to be.

[–] wicked@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Have you heard about the expression "moving the goalposts"?

[–] AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How?

One is strike operations on individual vessels operating in international waters and, while illegal and reprehensible, doesn't even come close to being equivalent to an amphibious landing invasion of a nation utilizing all branches of the US military.

Are you even remotely serious?

[–] wicked@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Your original argument was that this conflict was opened by kidnapping the head of a state.

Faced with a counterpoint, you're arguing it's not like a much more serious invasion.

True, but that's not invalidating the fact that it was not opened by a kidnapping.

[–] AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And?

Please point me to a single comment I've made on any post in the last 24 hours that indicates, in any way, that I don't consider the arbitrary abduction of the head of a foreign government to be a serious breach of international law.

You cannot.

What I won't let slide without argument are false equivalencies, half-truths, or misrepresentations of law.

When horrible shit happens is the time for more accuracy and specificity, not less.

[–] wicked@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

I suppose that depends on whether or not you consider the wars against the indigenous people here in North America actual wars.

load more comments (8 replies)