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
Europe like other powers respects international law when convenient.
Look at western Europe when it comes to the Taliban vs Israel. They assisted a US invasion of Afghanistan and they support Israel.
Europe always supported Israel as a victim of WW2, this support has been misguided for decades IMO.
At least it is finally dawning on many European political leaders that we cannot continue to support Israel, because their crimes cannot be defended by "the other side is just as bad" anymore. Europe is actually moving towards morality in general, not against it.
Regarding Afghanistan that was an FN mandated operation supported by most countries in the world. And it had some pretty good reasons behind it.
But in hindsight the operation was futile, and the atrocious religiously fundamental regime that we hoped to replace with something better is back. Oppressing everybody especially women based on fanatic religious beliefs. IDK why you call it Taliban vs. Israel, because AFAIK it was originally Taliban vs. USA.
So no Europe does not only respect international law when it's convenient. Which is also why from day 1, USA was not allowed to use many European bases for their attack on Iran.
European countries have been following USA into questionable endeavors like the Iraq war, but already back then, many European countries were unwilling to help USA, because the operation was "questionable".
And as it turned out, the intelligence that allegedly justified the action, turned out to be false. Which to many of us was no surprise. But USA fooled many governments. My own government was investigated for the issue, and the conclusion was that they did the right thing, because USA was crucial for our defense!
So yes that part is sick. We are not perfect, but we are trying to improve. And Iraq was themselves an aggressor, so they weren't exactly innocent.
European countries bombed Sarajevo, against UN rulings not to intervene into the war.
European countries attacked and bombed Libya and allowed the murder of Gaddafi.
European countries attacked Syria with no UN authorization.
European countries currently sell weapons to Israel, not against international law but quite morally difficult to support.
European countries pay Libya and turkey to keep migrants in detention centers and not allow them into the EU.
In general not too bad for that many countries, but definitely not completely free from guilt.
All your examples are either false or interventions to prevent genocide.
Most if not all European countries have stopped selling weapons to Israel. Israel is no longer seen in Europe in general as a country it can be morally defended to support.
And how the fuck can you blame Europe when Arab countries continue to support Israel and USA?
Europe has near zero support for Israel, compared to UAE and Saudi Arabia that continue to support USA and Israel.
Again Europe is actually trying to stand on the side of international law, and none of the examples you use show otherwise.
You are being dishonest and you are propagandizing against the interest of truth.
Wait a moment..... Didn't Europe send forces during the US invasion of lran ??🤔🤔🤔
WTF? how can you be so uninformed? Iran hasn't even been invaded!!!
Last time Iran was invaded it was by Iraq, are you going to blame Europe for that?
The invasion of Afghanistan only later became a UN operation, after the invasion began. And Iraq was the aggressor in the 80s not 2003.
I'm not encouraging, defending, or supporting the Taliban in any way. It was just the first example that came to mind. Hell the Iraq invasion would've made a better example as that had nothing to do with the UN.
And I'm not saying there isn't a divide in Europe on Israel either.
But the countries in Europe for the most part have taken a stance to support Israel (examples being UK, FRANCE, and Germany) while also leading a military operation on a sovereign country.
There are many other examples and more the further back in time you're willing to go. The French campaign in Algeria for instance.
Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. But you point is true.
I agree, I was extremely mad at my government for falling for the American lies and joining USA in that.
This is sadly true, and the times I've heard that Israel is a democracy, as if that is an excuse. Why would a democracy have more rights to invade other countries? I am all for democracy, and I believe democracy is by far the best system of governance we have. But that doesn't mean we have a right to break international law, or help other countries when they do so.
That is consistent with my point that Europe has generally improved to respect the rights of other countries more. Israel is a sore spot in that regard, other examples since WW2 were typically driven by USA, like instating the Shah in Iran and destroy their democracy. There is no reasonable basis for the way the west has treated Iran after they rebelled against the Shah. Except the insane immorality of having an official government death warrant on Salman Rushdie. But that has never been an argument against any of the sanctions or threats against Iran.
Iraq attacked Iran at the USA's behest in 1980
But that was never in any way used as an argument against Iraq, only the Kuwait invasion was. The invasion of Iran was politically irrelevant in the west.
Okay.... So what do you think of lndia as a democracy ??🤔🤔
I do concede the point that they've improved. Though there do remain other examples such as Lybia, Saudi campaign support against Yemen, and how the French have conducted themselves in the Sahel
Europe has nothing to do with Yemen on either side. I also don't see why Libya is relevant, they've been a fucked up country for decades internally, with civil war and crazy leaders like Gaddafi. Sahel is a huge belt in Africa, and I have no idea what you mean with France behaving badly there lately?
Sorry but here you lost me completely?!
Ignorance doesn't mean this didn't happen
Yemen Libya Sahel
That's just wrong, Libya was in a civil war as I described, and Europe tried to go in to stabilize the situation. Inability to solve the problem of another country has nothing to do with colonialism or not respecting the sovereignty of that country. It was a humanitarian crisis that Europe tried to end.
This is not ignorance on my part, I even mentioned this situation, it is a complete abuse of a crisis to make a part that tried to help look bad.
Shame on you. 😡
We were allies of Gaddafi, we broke our pact, attacked him and allowed his murder. He may not have been the best ruler, but the country was stable. Look at Libya now and tell me whether they are doing better than before.
They were not in civil war; they had protests and the government had strongly repressed the protests killing people. Protestants formed and uprising and there intervened EU countries.
This was not against international law, but we did attack an ally of ours, which does not speak very well about the reliability of European countries.
Not in 2011 it wasn't. And the assassination of Gadaffi was 100% on USA.
Israel didn't exist as a state until after WW2 was over. Europe supported Israel because they equated Israel with the Jews, based on the fallacy that it's the natural order of things for every ethnicity to have its own nation state and the natural home for all Jews is Israel; and based on the prevalent European colonialist view that this nation-state rule didn't apply to Arabs or Africans.
No Israel was created because the world felt guilty about what happened to the Jews in WW2.
I would think that would be pretty obvious.
What's your definition of the world ??🤔🤔🤔
While I agree Europe bend rules sometimes, your examples are out of the place. Europe (NATO actually) assisted in Afganistan because it respected law - UN is authority in such cases and it authorized operations as per article 5 triggered by US. One can argue that Europe supported Israel but honestly EU part of Europe is just slow to react, even when they just need to withdraw support. I feel like EU didn’t want to support Israel (and looking at how mad orange man support was not according to expectations) but since it takes so much time for 27 countries to coordinate on foreign policy it was going by inertia.
Why would 27 countries have a common foreign policy ??🤔🤔🤔
They were supposed to be a commonwealth, right ???
Article 5 is NATO not UN. And multiple European countries partook in operations there against the Taliban (the Afghani government at the time) not just Al Qaeda before the UN mission became a thing.
You can also look at Iraq in 2003 which was neither in response to an attack or UN sanctioned.
As for foreign policy each country does maintain its own foreign policy to a certain extent. And yet the largest countries in the EU are staunch allies of Israel.
Since it was the Taliban who were sheltering Al-Qaida (and lying about it), as well as hosting other jihadi groups, that part actually made sense. There was no way to go after Al-Qaida without also confronting the Taliban. The complication was that the Taliban had been created and were still supported by the Pakistani ISI (their CIA equivalent) and by elements of the Pakistani military.
It could have been done diplomatically but that wasn't even attempted. And if supporting and sheltering terrorists is the main factor then I can think of some of their allies that they've yet to act against
I’m not saying Article 5 is UN. I’m saying UN authorizes NATO operations (including the one initiated by triggering article 5) meaning Europe’s participation in Afgan invasion actually example of following international law, not selectively ignoring it
NATO has nothing to do with the UN.
They later did make it a UN mission but from September through December it was an unsanctioned invasion
Sure, but that goes against the point you're trying to make.
How so?
I'd like to preemptively note that the UN resolution regarding Afghanistan didn't happen until December while the invasion began in September.