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
Or maybe that's not what they are reporting in this article since the focus is on a specific strike. Here's another article of theirs
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy735xlv50ko
Seems to be very much against US-Israeli action
What’s the point of this comment? The U.S. is waging a war of aggression in violation of international law, deliberately bombing schools and drinking water facilities, and thereby committing the worst war crimes imaginable. And it’s doing all this in collaboration with the butchers in Israel, whom it protects from prosecution.
That doesn’t seem to matter to you in the slightest, since you still feel you have to stand up for the "proud troop" as an "upstanding American supporter."
This makes me sick—the U.S. president is a serious criminal and a pedophile, this awful country is ruled by organized crime.
GTFO
The point of this comment is that the BBC is not supporting the US or minimizing the deaths of Iranians in the article.
They are reporting the strike as part of the conflict not as support one way or another.
It's important to report on this because the US has a history of kinda losing it when Americans die. Which will be used as an excuse by Trump to continue the conflict.
The US is absolutely in the wrong here and nothing said in the article or anything I said even remotely suggested otherwise.
Please take a breath to read before trying to assign a moral stance to every comment.
I hope Iran keeps kicking the US's ass in this conflict
Isn't that exactly what the comment you're responding to is getting at? The discrepancy between the headline and the facts? So, the fact that a few U.S. troops lost their lives while their bombs blew many, many more Iranians—most of them civilians—to pieces?
Am I completely misreading this?
Edit: By the way, this is likely a news agency report that the BBC reprinted largely unchanged from a U.S. agency. That also explains why the BBC isn’t at all critical in this article. However, I can only vaguely discern that this outlet would generally be critical, which has to do with the “special” relationship between the UK and the U.S. You’ll never hear the BBC state with sufficient clarity that this war violates international law, nor that the U.S. is committing war crimes.
This is not meant to be an attack on this long-established organization. In my home country, Germany, the situation is no different, as our politicians also continue to cling to the U.S. as well.
Comment 1: The BBC is not caring about Iranian lives
My reply: Here's an article where the BBC reports explicitly on Iranian deaths
People seem to be trying to assign a moral stance to the BBC in this article, but it's a pretty straightforward summation of facts on a strike that occurred today. This is standard conflict reporting with no real moral stance being added.
They've gotten pretty damn close
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gjv02g54ko
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy91x2n29nlo
Can't find any reporting that the war is legal and completely okay.
If we want to delve more into my personal opinions, most Western nations do not want this war. I think they care more about the oil than the lives, but they still don't want it. You are right though most will not distance themselves from the US over it. Germany and the UK particularly love the US military since its foreign bases bring a lot of revenue to local economies. I applaud Spain for being brave enough to say what needs to be said and hope the rest of the EU follows
No, I don’t think you are. The person just seems very adamant at ‘winning the argument’ so it’s going to take all kinds of twists and turns and become a convoluted mess
In this case, it seems like the user has a whole bunch of smurf accounts to make their point ... just look at the downvotes. If you're not sure what a comment means, you wouldn't just downvote it right away, would you? Anyway, that's how I see it, but yeah, maybe after all these years I'm still misunderstanding this metric.
Maybe people are downvoting you for being a moron.