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
If you have “martyrs” from a terrorist attack that are not the terrorists, you’re doing something wrong.
Wtf is that supposed to mean? Terrorists kill people and you shouldn't victim blame.
"Martyrs" I think seems to be the conservative Muslim politician lingo of saying "unjustly killed" or "killed in the line of duty" or "our honourable dead" somesuch. It is not surprising that extremists would use the same language, just like e.g. European far right organization have also used "honourable dead" style terminology, such as in the case of Golden Dawn in Greece for example.
That’s not victim blaming, bud. To the contrary.
Webster’s, definition 2:
That leaves aside the religious overtones of the first definition.
If you are treating deaths due to terror attack as anything other than tragedy, there is something deeply wrong with your society.
To suggest that it is in any way voluntary, or intentional for the sake of religion, is disgusting.
Are you equally disgusted when officials use the language of "ultimate sacrifice" for cops, firefighters, etc who are "killed in the line of duty"?
Or are you just triggered that the language used here reminds you of Iran, Hezbollah, etc?
It depends.
Were they killed in the line of duty? Did they make a choice that is at bare minimum well-intentioned? Or did they just happen to be there and died by bad luck?
Firefighter dies trying to save someone from a burning building? Sure, okay. Dies in a vehicle crash while responding? Maybe.
Dies by someone else’s actions and is never aware of any possibility of a choice? That’s not any sacrifice, let alone the “ultimate” sacrifice.
Here is an example from Canada: «‘He paid the ultimate sacrifice’: Hamilton solider remembered in Ottawa». This was a soldier standing sentry, who was shot in the back before even realizing he was a target. He just happened to be there when the gunman decided to go at him with no warning. Now, there are many things broken with Canada, but this turn of phrase is not one of them.
The "martyrs" referenced by the Turkish minister are people working at a defence industry. Arguably, the minister is reasonable to consider them as people engaged in the performance of a national duty. Hence the language of "sacrifice".
Now, we can of course have a discussion about the meaning of sacrifice, the problems with nationalism and militarism, alienation in modern society, etc. But beyond that, there is nothing extraordinary here, other than using a vocabulary that sounds muslimish.
I associate that term more with archaic Christianity (Joan of Arc and other old saints spring to mind) much more than Islam.
I think the phrase hits the exact intersection of nationalism, militarism, false hero worship for people who are just doing a job, and theocracy that in combination I find deeply repulsive, no matter which specific religion it is.
This has gone on long enough, but I just have to mention one last thing: non-protestant christianity is not "archaic". The Orthodox church for example classifies Maria Skobtsova -that woman was a legend- who got killed in WW2 as a martyr.
Have a nice day.
I’m sure once the paper gets ahold of the terrorists PR team for a quote, they’ll say they killed 5 infidels and had 2 martyrs.
But for now, it’s the government giving the quote, and they’re saying they killed 2 terrorists, and had 5 martyrs.
Editing to add: I don’t see martyr as a loaded term. It’s an honorific about someone’s death, when other words fail. It’s just a colloquial use of the word.
Anybody who is killed serving Allah is considered a martyr. Since every country with a majority Muslim population claims to be islamic, of course they will refer to people killed in fighting on their side as martyr.
That does not require particular nationalism or "conservative" religiousness. In the same way if Muslims say "alhamdullilah" which translates to "all praise is with Allah" it does not require to be super religious. It is an everyday expression.
It’s a very strange assumption to me that going to work and doing one’s job is “serving Allah”, let alone “fighting for Allah”
It is quite simple. If you believe and you do what is lawful and encouraged by the laws of Allah you serve him.
Now whether turkish defense engineers fall into the category of "encouraged" is debatable, but it is normal for the country to claim that, as Erdogan considers himself to be a Muslim leader.