this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
184 points (99.5% liked)

World News

48365 readers
2208 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
[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

there is the problem of people losing their limbs for generations to come.

but who cares right.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 13 hours ago

And how many die in wars if someone invades?

[–] lihmalahmalehma@suppo.fi 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Wrong. If nobody invades, the mines don't get laid out in the first place.

If it does come to that, the positions are ~~marked~~ mapped and they will get cleaned out. The reason for the treaty was that in some places mines were just spread willy nilly.

I still haven't seen your explanation for how this is actually an offense, but keep moving that goalpost 👍

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Specifically marked minefields were never illegal even with that treaty so......

[–] lihmalahmalehma@suppo.fi 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What I mean is marked on a map, so I guess "mapped". I'm not operating with my native language here.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah I mean the same the only thing that treaty was stopping was ap mines you could always have at mines and those can be rigged light to be jerry rigged ap.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

why the fuck make all that posturing around landmines, if they are not needed at all, and theres no indication it will?

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 13 hours ago

This guy has never heard of deterrence

[–] lihmalahmalehma@suppo.fi 3 points 1 day ago

Well, why the fuck does any country without an immediate conflict coming up maintain an army?

For a moment earlier it sounded like you were concerned with people losing limbs to mines, and there I would agree if mines were planted proactively.

But you're just offended by defense.

Tanks and goodbye!