this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
101 points (83.4% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2121 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The killing of three U.S. troops and wounding of dozens more on Sunday by Iran-backed militants is piling political pressure on President Joe Biden to deal a blow directly against Iran, a move he's been reluctant to do out of fear of igniting a broader war.

Biden's response options could range anywhere from targeting Iranian forces outside to even inside Iran, or opting for a more cautious retaliatory attack solely against the Iran-backed militants responsible, experts say.

American forces in the Middle East have been attacked more than 150 times by Iran-backed forces in Iraq, Syria, Jordan and off the coast of Yemen since the Israel-Hamas war erupted in October.

But until Sunday's attack on a remote outpost known as Tower 22 near Jordan's northeastern border with Syria, the strikes had not killed U.S. troops nor wounded so many. That allowed Biden the political space to mete out U.S. retaliation, inflicting costs on Iran-backed forces without risking a direct war with Tehran.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 25 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Or how to keep global terrorism with a never ending supply of angry young people.

[–] Oneobi@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Fueling adversaries is good for the military sector.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 13 points 9 months ago

We could give that whole thing a catchy name, like military industrial complex or something.

[–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Your correct that military action does inflame people. But this action is trying to stop the people sponsoring the terrorist.

A better approach would be to stop sponsoring Israel's genocidal war on Palestine. This would decrease tensions and allow diplomatic options to become viable.

Israel had a cease fire, which appears to have been motivated by the US pausing delivery of weapons to Israel. As soon as the weapons were delivered they went right back at it. So the US does have considerable influence.

The people doing these attacks in Yemen claim they are trying to disrupt Israel and it's war on Gaza. Take away their moral cover and their support will weaken. They'll be seen as terrorists if they don't stop and will be politically easier to attack and politically harder to support.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But this action is trying to stop the people sponsoring the terrorist.

And how did it work out so far? Terrorism is the result of dis-balance of power which makes terrorism the only viable method of resistance. You can't solve terrorism with war. I like how you kind of managed to understand that in the case of Palestine/Israel conflict, but somehow stopped thinking right after that.

[–] bluGill@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Nobody knows how to stop terrorism. There are a lot of hypothesis. However they are either untested in the real world, or they have failed.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You need to solve the underlying conflicts?

[–] bluGill@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That is one hypothesis. While it sounds reasonable, we don't actually know if it would work. We also have no clue how to solve the underlying conflicts. (Other than simplistic things like turning the entire middle east to glass - killing many innocent people in the process).

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

we don’t actually know if it would work.

We could try, because we know that the alternatives don't work for sure.

We also have no clue how to solve the underlying conflicts.

I would say that the bigger problem is that people in power don't actually want to solve the conflicts at all.

[–] bluGill@kbin.social -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Try which? I've seen many ideas, we cannot try them all. Some of the ideas have been tried as well, but the proposers don't have enough history to know that or the results. Most of them will take decades to implement. This isn't an easy problem.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Try no to kill thousands of civilians in response.

[–] bluGill@kbin.social -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Do you also include civilians who are killed by someone else if we don't take action? While "we" can do better about killing civilians, whoever "we" is, there is a "someone else" who will kill civilians as well - maybe a different group of civilians, but they will themselves do some killing.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 4 points 9 months ago

I'm talking about disproportional response to terrorism - I thought it was pretty clear.