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. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating 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 10/19
-
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
The company is Greek.
The ship was owned by a US company:
"But the Suez Rajan case was unique at the time of the transfer because it was owned by the Los Angeles-based private equity firm Oaktree Capital Management. "
source
Great. You got me on a technicality. So it’s okay for any country to steal oil from another if that tanker, or it’s propeller, was once owned by the thieving country?
Once owned? You mean during the time the crime was committed?
Why is piracy okay?
Not piracy. Being held accountable to the laws in which there is proper jurisdiction.
You're making a strange nonsensical argument. Lets plug your argument into a similar theoretical situation:
Lets say a US company owns a truck and is transporting cocaine in the United States from a South American drug cartel to their drug distribution networks in Vancouver, British Columbia. The police pull over the truck and find the drugs. Being illegal they seize the truck and the drugs. You're arguing the South American drug cartel should be given their cocaine back because the cartel and the drug distribution network in Vancouver is outside of the United States. That makes your logic laughably naive, willfully ignorant, or maliciously in bad faith.
What gives the US proper jurisdiction? Iran did not agree to be sanctioned. Nor do they have to adhere to a law made in the United States, unless they agreed to it internationally. My argument is sound. Other countries don’t have to obey US law, unless they agreed to that law. This isn’t difficult.
The company that chose to operate within the US jurisdiction, in these cases, by owning the vehicles to doing the transport.
What kind of schoolyard logic are you working with here? Do you really have no idea how geopolitics works? No country has to have permission to sanction another. It is a choice one country makes to no buy from another. There is nothing preventing Iran from selling its oil to China. They're just not allowed to do it with anything that is owned by the US government, US companies and those countries that choose to follow the same sanctions.
They absolutely do if they're using something owned by the USA, in this case the tanker itself.
Your argument is naive, willfully ignorant, or maliciously in bad faith.
Indirectly Iran agreed to it with the use of a US owned tanker. Why did they think they could do that when it breaks US law?
I agree it isn't difficult. Don't want to be bound by US rules and law? Don't use US owned property, operating in US waters, use US banking systems, or any of the other countries that choose to follow US sanctions against a country. See how easy it is?
Just because you want something to be true, doesn’t make it so. Iran did not agree to be sanctioned. Therefore, any “laws” the United States implements is illegal. The owner of the ship is ancillary. It’s justification for an internationally illegal act. I wonder if you would defend China so vociferously if they played the same game with America? I don’t think you would. You are defending a crime. But, muh freedom…
You should take your own advice with this statement.
Factually false. You operate in the US or with US companies you're agreeing to be bound by our laws. Don't like it? Use non-US or non-US-allies companies.
Here's where you should apply your own logic: "Just because you want something to be true, doesn’t make it so."
I weep for the people of Hong Kong. China is systematically stripping them of their representation. However, Hong Kong is part of China. Its Chinese laws, inside of China. I have no say in what they do in Hong Kong. China is fully within their rights to do so even if I believe it will harm the Chinese people with regard to their long term prosperity.
I didn't even bring up China here, but curiously you did. 你是 中国人吗？
Here's another place where you should apply your own logic: "Just because you want something to be true, doesn’t make it so."
This is exhausting. The sanctions are illegal and condemned internationally. Any law approved and applied after that fact is immaterial. Get it. It doesn’t matter if the boat is American. It doesn’t matter if it was US dollars and an American company. The overarching sanctions are illegal, so any adjudication after is illegal. Capiche?
Those are the same three flawed ideas you've stated over and over again.
You are disconnected from reality if you're trying to pass that off as truth.
The. world. just. doesn't. work. that. way.
Capiche?
Then maybe we should change it. Or do you want to conserve the status quo and not progress into the future?
Please tell me one nation that has it all figured out whose rules we can use for the world. No one has. We have many different versions and the US is just one. You're complaining about the laws the US writes for itself and its citizens. Is it perfect? Far from it, but its much better than authoritarian regimes like Iran, Russia, or China writing the rules that everyone would have to follow if you get your way.
My concern are the sanctions, which don’t accomplish their goals, and disproportionately affects the people of Iran. It is an exercise in power, to demonstrate power, and is condemned by the world.
So for our thought experiment now, YOU'RE the one writing the rules: What rule (besides sanctions) would YOU put in place to accomplish the goals without disproportionately affecting the people of Iran?
We have an organization for this, the United Nations. They condemn the sanctions. Follow the UN. A rule: The Golden Rule. Don’t do anything to another country that you wouldn’t want done to you.
I've seen no sources say that. Back up your statement with a real source that says that.
Iran: US sanctions violating human rights of all living there, say UN experts
First, thank you for posting that. Second, you should be seeing the problem with it. Its not the UN, as a governing body, saying that.
From your source:
" the group of Special Rapporteurs and the Independent Expert on international solidarity, said in a statement."
This is a group of people hired by the HRC, not even a binding UN resolution either. The HRC is following its mandate to: "strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights ". They call out the results of actions, without addressing the reasons or actions to solutions to why those actions were taken. They're not wrong, but their statements are incomplete. Its okay for them though, its not their mandate to come up with solutions, just to call out problems.
Where is the UN's enforcement answer to curtailing Iran's nuclear weapons program? This is hard and confusing world or geopolitics.
The UN still sanctions their nuclear ambitions. Which I agree with, because it’s the UN. America is unilaterally doing the economic sanctions, which they do not agree with. It would be difficult for the UN to vote to condemn the US due to the structure of the organization (US led). So they have to do it with press releases. They did vote on the Cuban embargo and blockade. And every member country except the US and Israel voted to end it.
Id pay so much money to work on HR at a company where you have to take sanctions compliance training.
Your emails about "colonialism" would be fucking framed on my desk.
This is hilarious.
Glad you enjoyed it.
"I can declassify anything I want just by thinking about it"
Oaktree Capital Management doesn't sound very Greek to me. Maybe it's because the company is based in Los Angeles....
Your justifying piracy. It’s okay when we do it. But not when they do. How magnanimous.
This is the opposite of what magnanimous means.
mag·nan·i·mous
/maɡˈnanəməs/
adjective
generous or forgiving, especially toward a rival or less powerful person.
I know. /s
If it does business in the US, its a US company.
??? There are thousands of companies that do business in the US that aren't american.
Source?