this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
94 points (99.0% liked)

World News

48035 readers
2231 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tja@programming.dev 55 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wait, so bombing hospitals is bad??

- some dude at IDF right now

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago

it's bad when Iran bombs hospitals because the IOF hides under them.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

I mean...

Honestly the whole "assassinating a leader is against the rules" has always felt ass backwards when the alternative is a shit ton of people with essentially no say in the conflict dying.

Let me take it back to Hammarubi.

All these shitty world leaders can just take turns killing themselves like the bloody Sneeches, until we eventually end up with leaders who think peace is worth a shot.

To me, that sounds like a self correcting and sustainable system. If a country's government starts a war, the most likely result would be that political leader getting merc'd by the government of the country they attacked.

[–] colonelsharki@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So you’re saying that Netanyahu is a legit target for the Iranians?

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago

The only reasons I can see that monster is still breathing is the power vacuum left behind would make the situation worse, and the US would royally fuck anyone who tried it.

[–] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"Leaders can have a little assassination, as a treat"

Not too often, just enough to remind them of their humanity.

If a country's government starts a war, the most likely result would be that political leader getting merc'd by the government of the country they attacked.

Depends on who's stronger. I don't think it's gonna lead to stability every time, unless the leaders realize it's better (read: profitable) to be at peace.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Depends on who’s stronger.

Now it depends on who is willing to throw enough bodies thru a meat grinder, bomb civilians, or nuke everything...

If assassinations on the table, none of that shit matters if you personally get killed before you order it used

Every aggressive country would prioritize personal defense and strategic assassination squads.

Which again, I'd see as an absolute win over thousands or even millions of people dying.

There's no down sound.

[–] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What happens if one country invades the other which doesn't posses the tech necessary to kill the leader? eg cruise missiles, bunker busters, or modern aviation in general

[–] Alaik@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Then that country would lose in a conventional war also?

[–] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Not really, there are some good examples of underdogs winning (without cruise missiles for example).

edit: and we're not talking strictly conventional. also that's not what "no downsides" means

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 5 points 1 week ago

You will end up with leaders that will not meet each other or leave their countries. You will end up with leaders eternally paranoid that at any moment they could be assassinated by a foreign power.

This will be a guarantee for much more wars, killing many more people than we already have.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago

Solve it the Klingon way: trial by personal combat.

[–] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The problem with assassinating leaders is that it turns the population into a headless mob, and plenty of innocents suffer tremendously anyways.

Modern military technology has made such concerns much less important, as any conflict is increasingly devastating.

[–] CalipherJones@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Yerp. Killing the leader leaves a power vacuum depending on the structure of the government. Power vacuums are the quickest way to a civil war.

[–] nkat2112@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

What if Israel and the Zionists didn't commit genocide and initiate wars?

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago

it would still be apartheid

[–] Birch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It'd actually be a nice tourist destination, food is great, glad I got to go many years ago in between murder campaigns.

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

it is still an apartheid state.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Iran has the right to defend itself

[–] CatherineLily@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Israel: You dare use my own spells against me.

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago

in a vacuum, if it was a dark comedy, it would be so funny how Israel complains about the things they have been doing non stop.

but it isn't, because the major countries are acting as if they believe what Israel says.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

Tough getting a spoon of their own medicine. Although the mullahs claim they were actually targeting something nearby, while the IDF just claims every hospital, school, or whatever to be Hamas HQ.

[–] herseycokguzelolacak@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Iran is just defending itself from Israeli terrorism.

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Iran did what they have been doing in Gaza.

[–] 3abas@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No they didn't. Iran didn't bomb every hospital and clinic in Israel repeatedly, Iran didn't bomb Israel fertility centers, Iran didn't ambush and shoot doctors and bury their bodies, Iran didn't drone strike ambulances AFTER coordinating their movement. Iran didn't bulldoze graves of all the people it slaughtered to invade a hospital and destroy its water lines, Iran didn't evacuate hospitals at gun point and leave infants to starve to death alone in hospital beds. Iran didn't do any of that.

Israel did all that, and more, and they bragged about it very loudly and posted all the evidence themselves.

[–] CalipherJones@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Ive heard a few Israeli spokespeople on the radio. Listening to their justifications is as hypocritical as it gets. Somehow strikes on Tel Aviv are the most despicable acts of all time while Israel is simply conducting the most glorious military operation ever. It sick.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's not like iranians leaders don't expect to be murdered. I am sure they have plan for replacements which may be smarter than thr current ones

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

they should do like Bibi and Ron away to Athens before the attack

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/4x-isr#3ac74765