Gotta get this news from some random blog because imperial news won't talk about it.
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
6 points (100.0% liked)
World News
35867 readers
612 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yup, and this isn’t the exception to the rule. It’s the rule, as I try to explain: https://lemmy.ml/comment/12094932
About fucking time.
And we're going to make sure that no one forgets it either.
i don't think you know what the UN exists for..
In history books, the editorial remarks will say that it took Global Powers 77 years to acknowledge a genocide. 108 years if you start counting from 1917.
So glad the second league of nations exists; maybe the third one will take less than two years to say something (not do; let's not get too overly ambitious here) about an actual, livestreamed genocide, complete with actual video evidence of SV and people protesting in favor of the SVers and turning them into folk heroes. The guy was literally evidence that 'never meet your heroes' isn't a hard and fast rule; the more of a war criminal scum he was, the more it elevated him in the eyes of his fellow citizens.
The people literally presenting video evidence of their genocide are being told by the prior genocide nation it's not really a genocide and that actually everything in all that footage is actually okay. One wonders how the prior genocide nation more than just showing its face in public is actually vocally defending the latest genocide. If Naziland has any thoughts on the matter, better to keep them to itself than revive the public opinion that Stalin shouldn't have stopped at Berlin.
More like UNrelevant.
Remember, kids: Don't do genocide, or else after only two years of murdering people wholesale the UN might say something about it and let you keep murdering.
But if you try to liberate half of your country from illegally established military occupation and dictatorship they will immediately send 2 million soldiers against you, kill 20% of your population and bomb you till there is nothing more to bomb, then make you the most sanctioned country in history for 70 years and counting.
Do you have any idea how little that narrows it down?
I think he's talking about Korea based on the figures he used.
Yup
Remember, kids: Don't do genocide, or else after only ~~two~~ 77 years of murdering people wholesale the UN might say something about it and let you keep murdering.
Fixed it for you.
~~murdering~~ terrorism ftfy
so it took that long for it to even be acknowledged
lets see how long it takes for countries to stop selling Israel the weapons used in the said genocide
Hard to feel bad for the genocided when they become the genociders! Free Palestine!
It's anti-semitic to conflate judaism with zionism.
Jews were genocided by nazis, while zionists collaborated with nazis.
while zionists collaborated with nazis
Zionists used to collaborate with Nazis. They still do, but they used to too.
Israelis claim victimhood for their own deeds. Nothing changed the past 80 years.
If this is true then that's great news. Unfortunately the article seems to have been written by someone who is very clearly biased against Israel and not ashamed of airing that dirty laundry in public (which, fair enough, that describes me too, but I wouldn't trust me to write an unbiased article on the subject either) so I can't take this single source's word on it. I'll definitely keep an ear out in case any more reporting gets done on it from elsewhere.
Edit: To the people downvoting and replying to this: please read past the 'biased against Israel' part - especially to the bit where I say that I am also biased against Israel - before assuming that I'm some pro-Israel shill here.
SMH you do one ethnic cleansing and suddenly all the woke journalists are biased against you /s
You can avoid having your war crimes listed by not committing war crimes. Hope this helps!
This one weird trick
You can avoid grossly misunderstanding the point of someone's comment by reading the whole thing, too.
Wheter you acknowledge it or not, all media is biased. Why should someone be ashamed of being biased against genocide? Frankly, framing it as "airing dirty laundry" is beyond disingenous, straight up evil. Fuck off.
Unbiased reporting (or unbiased anything for that matter) doesn't exist. The sooner people realize that, the sooner they'll stop letting the imperial media pull the wool over their eyes.
very clearly biased against Israel and not ashamed
As is any decent person who's been paying close enough attention.
Not all biases are bad, and being biased against a fascist apartheid regime committing genocide is an excellent proof of that.
Having a bias against the Israeli government is having a bias in favor of accuracy and against atrocious human rights violations.
Did you not catch this part?
which, fair enough, that describes me too
I'm not saying the bias is a problem in general, it's just a problem for the trustworthiness of the reporting because they could be reading stuff into the source material that isn't there.
I'm not saying the bias is a problem in general, it's just a problem for the trustworthiness of the reporting
And I'm saying that you're wrong. Everyone has biases, and my comment above still applies when you're writing about it.
I'd trust reporting that's clearly biased in favor of the truth over the mealy mouthed forced neutrality of main stream sources any day.
Everyone has biases
Yes, which is why I try to get my news from more than one source so that I can tell whether or not it's just someone reading something into a thing that wasn't actually there or if multiple people with different perspectives have seen the same thing.
Bias is when you report the court ruling, the more you report the court ruling the more bias you have.
I guess you guys are ditching the strategy of denying the genocide now, and moving on to "biased tone" or some shit idk.
Did you not catch this part?
which, fair enough, that describes me too
I am also biased against Israel, for what I feel ought to be some pretty self-evident reasons. Reading comprehension in the replies to my comment has been surprisingly low.
Respectfully, you don't know what bias means. The way you're using it reflects that.
I'm not biased against American conservatives if I say I am against trump. Having a position isn't a bias in itself.
Respectfully, you clearly don't know how I meant it.
I am biased against Israel because I do not judge it impartially. I tend to assume the worst about it (which I believe is justified through many years of reading about the awful, awful shit it does to people), in a decision about which side gets the benefit of the doubt in some matter I will never give it to Israel, and I am disinclined to believe pretty much anything it says, even after I filter out the propaganda.
If that's not bias then apparently we're using different dictionaries. Try this one.
Unfortunately the article seems to have been written by someone who is very clearly biased against Israel
Can't take anyone seriously unless they're fair and balanced towards a genocidal military dictatorship.
I can’t take this single source’s word on it
Fortunately, they link to the original material.
Also can't take anyone seriously who can't read the comment they're replying to.
Did you not catch this part?
which, fair enough, that describes me too
I am also biased against Israel, for what I feel ought to be some pretty self-evident reasons, but a single highly biased source reporting something is not news.
Fortunately, they link to the original material.
Yeah, fair enough, I just wasn't up for reading the ~50 page report myself to find out if what they said was true.
I just wasn’t up for reading the ~50 page report myself to find out if what they said was true.
You could Ctrl+F to find the relevant bits fairly easily.
But this demand isn't skeptical, it is cynical. "I don't believe you because I'm offended by your tone" is miles away from "I don't believe you because I haven't seen enough evidence".
Crazy, ain't it? I'm pretty consistently amazed at the poor media literacy I find on Lemmy.
Israel is obviously perpetuating a genocide.
That being said, this source is not reliable due to obvious bias and/or being propaganda. When you see something like that you look for other sources that are fact based and dry.
It's weird, I see the same behaviours and fanaticism on Lemmy that I saw from Qs and f right wing nuts. Just coming from the left now. Fucking facts are getting hard to discern.
Judging from the number of downvotes my comment got, I guess I am too now.
And yeah, I've been calling it a genocide for more than a year now, but even I know not to take such a biased source's word without some corroborating reporting from elsewhere.