Europe
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
view the rest of the comments
Everyone saying Ukraine was less a threat to Russia than Iran is to Isreal is 100% right. That is a valid point. Thing is, just being a threat is not a valid reason to bomb another country. What Merkel fails to do is provide a legal argument for Isreal and US bombing Irans nuclear facilties.
It is just more of the 'Germany should stand behind Israel because of what Germans did to Jews in WW2'. I'd much rather see her 'stand behind victims of Genocide because of what Germans did to earlier victims of genocide'. German politicians are morally wrong with these arguments.
International law is neutral. It is obvious Iran did not start this war. Iran breaking agreements does not give anyone carte-blanche for bombing them, nor does Iran supplying weapons to Russia. Israel bypassed the UN as well. Netanyahu needs to be brought to The Hague. Trump and Khominei too while we're at it, but I guess those would be separate cases.
Notably, Iran did not break any agreements. America did and Europe toed the party line.
By working on nuclear weapons Iran very much broke the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Iran did not work on nuclear weapons since 2003 as has been maintained by the US intelligence community as late as this year.
This. Claiming Iran has or has worked on WMD is the same fake casus belli as was given with Iraq.
To be fair to Trump, he hasn't invaded Iran, like Dubya and Papa Bush invaded Iraq: he more like Clinton in that he lobs some missiles to get people minds off of how he's fouling things up otherwise in the US and world.
I get what you're saying but there would have been so many better ways to start that sentence...
Not yet.
and I doubt it will happen.
IIUC, Iran would be harder to invade and occupy than Iraq: it's over 2x the size, has about 2x the population, it's more mountainous, and the regime now might be twice the age, and presumably twice as entrenched, than Saddam's was in 1991.
Granted, it's GDP is lower than Iraq's (now and perhaps before 1991) and IIUC, its arguably more heterogeneous, and Saddam before June 1990 was less antagonistic to the US than Khomeini or Khamenei, so maybe you have a point.
Just because it makes even less sense than then invasion of Iraq doesn't mean TACO will not try anyway
Agreed, and there might be some anti-Trump/anti-American types that want to see him try it.
IAEA, which has confirmed 60% and above enriched uranium in Iran. There is no reason besides nuclear weapons to enrich uranium to that level. Nuclear reactors are mostly run on 3-5% enriched uranium and 20% is pretty high.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/americas-spies-say-iran-wasnt-building-a-nuclear-weapon-trump-dismisses-that-assessment
Iran enriched Uranium to higher levels likely as a mean to get to reopen negotiations. Still enriching is not equal to building a bomb. And if the CIA, who love going to war everywhere in the world, can make that distinction publicly, we shouldnt fall behind that.
It is just working on producing the explosives for that bomb. Honestly it ends up being semantics, if not planning to finish something, but working towards that goal, is working towards that goal.
This moment is when I realised the great loss of the closure of lemee, as we no longer can look at how c/Europe reacted to the article "Nuclear bomb for Germany" 3 months ago.
If I remember correctly, like the article claims, "nuclear hedging" was seen as scummy way around the NPT, not a direct violation of it.
Please don't see me as arguing "He didn't, and if he did it wasn't that bad"- I'm simply a different person from the one you argued before.
Another "Iraq has WMDs" dumbass
They're not working on nuclear weapons. They're enriching uranium, which can be used for nuclear weapons, but they're not building a nuke.
To run an nuclear reactor you need uranium enriched to 3-5%. The ONLY reason to enrich to above 20% in any sort of large quantities is to built nuclear weapons. The IAEA a UN agency has confirmed that Iran has produced uranium enriched to 60%.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf
Yet they were still not building nuclear weapons. You claimed they were building nuclear bombs, not that they were doing something that would plausibly maybe indicate they're building nuclear bombs. Enriching uranium isn't a violation of the NPT.
Iran is the only non nuclear weapon state to produce highly enriched uranium.
Yet there were still no findings that Iran indeed was working towards nuclear weapons. Just having the means to do it isn't the same as actually doing it.
(that we know of)
Where did wt:thon claim that?
Besides, IIUC, the actual nuclear bomb making is the relatively easy part: the technology is about 80 years old.
They claimed Iran was violating the NPT, which can only mean one thing.
As I don't know the details of this NPT, you probably have a point. ππ
Non-proliferation treaty.
Yes, but I've yet to read the Wikipedia article on it, or any significant bilateral treaties or agreements on this issue, between the US and Iran.
Also, the opposite is true. Israel is a big threat to Iran. Would Iran have been justified in bombing Israel first?
Totally, might use that argument someday because i find it difficult to explain to some people what 'unprovoked' means in this case.