this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2025
416 points (99.1% liked)

World News

50204 readers
2525 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
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Because Trumpmerica is stuck firmly in Netanyahoos ass.

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

To be clear: this is Biden's genocide that Trump inherited and Democrats overwhelmingly support. Israel is stuck firmly up America's ass, butchering babies while living expense free on stolen land on American tax payers' dime.

[–] ZombieMantis@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

Same reason we don't prosecute any of the other war crimes.

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Because international law is extremely difficult to enforce without causing an international conflict.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

WW2 started because Germany invaded Poland and the UK said "Enough!". Was the UK wrong to start the conflict? They weren't attacked, or even under threat.

Yes. Enforcement means conflict.

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The UK had a defence treaty with Poland though. Had this treaty not existed, the UK would've probably done nothing.

The UK didn't start the conflict, it was Germany who forced them to act or lose all trust in upholding international treaties.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

International law is made of treaties. Enforcing treaties is enforcing international law. Doing so means conflict.

Of course the US had a defence treaty with Ukraine to convince them to give up their nukes. When Russia violated their borders the US did nothing....twice (2014 - Obama and 2022 Biden). So maybe they don't have any value more than the paper they're written on.

Nope, the treaty with Ukraine (purposefully) never specified consequences for anyone violating it. It only said (I'm paraphrasing here because I don't want to look it up) that the signatories will respect Ukraine's borders.

The US respects this treaty still and doesn't recognize Russia's claims to Ukrainian land. The lack of specified consequences for anyone violating it makes the treaty nearly worthless.

Signing "I will respect your border" is very much different from "I will defend your borders".

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 12 points 4 days ago

Because then Capitalism wouldn't exist.

[–] whiwake@lemmy.cafe 16 points 4 days ago (2 children)

What is this word prosecuted?

[–] axexrx@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

In this case, to bring legal charges against.

[–] whiwake@lemmy.cafe 10 points 4 days ago

That’s a thing we do?

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Against who? Trump? Putin? Netanyahu? Lmao

Laws are optional for kings.

Against the lower classes.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Crimes against the rich?

[–] brown567@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The worst crime in war, which is prerequisite to guilt for any other crime, is losing

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 3 points 3 days ago

Just responding to the headline prompt (which might be rhetorical) I almost feel like it might also be hard to "prove."

It's undeniably horrible and obviously deliberate, but when international conflict between powers is on the line, maybe it's more of a "soft weapon" to which the offender can point and go "Who's to say we directly caused their lack of food? Maybe we're just blocking trade that happens to be food because we don't get along lately? Sounds like their problem!"

Kinda like how how authoritarian capitalists love to exploit masses of people, then shove burdens like poverty, hunger, and a destroyed environment onto the back of the individual.

But this is after a ridiculously heinous chain of deliberate war crimes in a row observed the world over, and no prosecution is happening.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Starvation is a tool of Capital.

Our economies depend on the threat of starvation and homelessness, but too much makes people unruly, so we set limits.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Prosecuting war crimes are only followed or ignored by those with the biggest guns and bombs.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 2 points 3 days ago

Unfortunately with smaller nations, it's understandable that those with lesser military strength might "strongly condemn" actions but not be willing to pay a massive cost if the bully says "Lol. Make me."

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago

I'll take "Prosecutors are complicit" for 1000 Alex.

[–] Paragone@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Because the privileged, who profit from the status-quo aren't suffering, so why would they tolerate any violation-of the status-quo?

( prosecuting white-collar-crime, XOR abuse-of-autority, simply won't ever happen under any establishment-regime, in proportion to the effect of the actual crime or abuse-of-authority:

Authority is a downward-chopping-axe, not the upright-double-edged-sword that the various statues of Justice pretend our world wields.

Gaslighting is the most-established "communication" establishment has formed the world with.

From the oligarchy/monarchy-is-best-for-the-masses of Adam Smith & Ronald Reagan, to the rule-of-legalism gaslighting about being rule-of-Just-law.

"There is no group so conservative as a group of radicals who just won rule of their own region." has too much truth in it.

Humankind doesn't have the SPINE to be loyal to objective-integrity, instead of being loyal to political/ideological motivation, according to the entire-ocean-of-evidence, does it? )

_ /\ _

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

So why is it so rarely prosecuted?

$