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
Sounds like a tankie party
Anti Imperialism? Tankieeeee
I've seen the people who claim to support anti-imperialism supporting Russian and Chinese territorial ambitions.
It's like when Americans talk about being for freedom. Do you take them on their word on that or look at what they are actually supporting?
The second of course. So did you take a look at what George Galloway's positions are on that?
No, I commented based on the above reply, if that wasn't immediately clear.
My understanding of your comment is that you implied that Galloway is "supporting Russian and Chinese territorial ambitions." As the above user called it a "tankie party".
Did I not understand that correctly?
I said it sounds like a tankie party based on the description from the OP of this chain. Then you (as I understand it) said it couldn't be because it is anti-imperialist and I replied how it sometimes it's a term tankies use without actually meaning it.
I said that anti-imperialism does not equate being a Tankie. Which seems to be the new favorite slander word for liberals to paint anyone who is critical of American imperialism for.
I feel like you're using "anti-imperialism" to describe what most would call a "tankie". Which would mean we are in agreement but we just use the terms differently or disagree about their meaning.
A tankie is someone who specifically condones and/or denies the Genocides (or extremely stupid economic policies) by Stalin or Mao, or apologizes for/denies every crime the CCP/Russia commits.
Anti imperialsm and tankies are two entirely different things.
I mean I agree with that all, though I'd say it also includes just includes simping for Russia, China these days. Especially supporting the invasion of Ukraine and so on. The OP's description gave eerie tankie vibes.
Their own site:
The whole article is, jeesh
https://workerspartybritain.org/2022/03/10/nato-and-russia-a-brief-history/
So yeah...
He is not saying he supports Russia. He is saying that the 2008 statement to include Ukraine into Nato was very provocative. Especially since Nato previously guaranteed that Ukraine would not become a member.
This is extremely difficult to understand for people who only consume liberal media where Imperialism is good and we were the good guys in Afghanistan. It does not equate saying "Russia good". It means "Hey guys maybe there's a reason why Russia is attacking Ukraine, maybe we can promise to not include them in Nato and then they will stop, because they have said multiple times before the attack that this Nato expansion is not something they're comfortable with and we promised them in the past we would not do it".
If you want to understand that position here is a clear video about it
The whole of the article is word for word the Kremlin peddled nonsense that you'd expect from a tankie. Whether you agree with it or not isn't really the point but rather that that's literally what people call tankie stuff these days.
I'm against Russian invasion though
Same. I'm also against Nato expanding though. Everyone creating their own giant war block is a recipe for ww3.
I'm not if it is by countries willfully joining it. Hell, I was for very long time against Finland joining NATO but Russia had to be Russia. Would you have been fine with Russia attacking us to prevent us from joining? Should be the country's own decision, not decided by Russia (or the US).
Tbh this is a bit off-topic, but I don't mind
We promised Russia not to expand Nato eastward. Which gets very well explained with multiple examples in the video I linked earlier.
The reason Russia is invading is literally the Nato expansion, they directly cited that. They even offered to stop and retreat if a treaty would be signed that Ukraine would not enter into Nato. Boris Johnson then personally went to Ukraine and told Zelensky to refuse because they would rather throw Ukrainians into the meatgrinder so they can place ballistic missles on the border.
The problem is that you are still under the assumption that Nato never attacks. But it does, as we've seen in libya Nato is not a defensive organization they steal people's oil and natural resources. Imperialism
Now we have Russia joining with China and Iran to create their own big war block. Just like how everyone got dragged into WW2.
If Ukraine wanted to join they should've been allowed to. It's their choice, not Russia's. What are they, some sort of Russian vassal or something? It's insane to justify a foreign invasion on the grounds that a country isn't following a foreign policy that you'd want them to.
I wonder why they wanted to join... And why Finland joined immediately after Russia attacked Ukraine.
As you keep avoiding, and the main point, Nato promised Russia to not do that.
If Russia would start putting Ballistic missiles in Mexico would that be fine with you?
I just think it's irrelevant. It doesn't justify an invasion! There's been a pinky promise after German unification 30 years ago (no actual treaties, nothing concrete) (E: even that level of assurance is debated) and that's being used as justification over attacking Ukraine and annexing parts of it. Ridiculous. Not to mention Russia pinky promised not to attack Ukraine and they broke that. What now, is the US justified in attacking them? Of course not.
Sure. Would you say USA was justified in invading them over that? I wouldn't. Not to mention USA invading if Mexico wanted to seek closer ties to Russia or China or whoever. That'd be an obvious violation of Mexican right of self-determination and imperialistic behaviour from USA.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
here is a clear video about it
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Tankieeeee
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.