Defederation from Lemmygrad.ml

Lemmy.World Announcements@lemmy.world – 1629 points – 9 months ago

Hello World,

Today, after careful consideration and evaluation of recent events, we have decided to defederate from Lemmygrad.

Regrettably, we have observed a significant increase in hate speech and calls to violence originating from the Lemmygrad instance. Due to the severity of the posts and comments, we are not waiting for the next Lemmy update that will allow users to block instances.

At Lemmy.world, we have always strived to foster an inclusive and welcoming user environment. However, recent posts and comments from Lemmygrad have clearly violated our server rules and, more importantly, our core values. We firmly believe that hate speech and incitement of violence have no place in our community, regardless of personal beliefs or affiliations.

As always, we encourage all users to report any content they deem inappropriate or harmful. No matter one's stance in any conflict, Lemmy.world will always take immediate action to remove and ban any posts or comments that incite violence or propagate hatred.

We encourage everyone to continue engaging in discussions within the boundaries of respect and understanding. As we move forward with this decision, we remain committed to providing all community members with a safe and welcoming space. We appreciate your continued support and cooperation in upholding our shared principles.

Thank you,

The Lemmy.World Team

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments Show the parent comment

It's not that we're uninformed, it's that we disagree.

a lot of you are uninformed. You don't know what you don't know. I've fucking seen it firsthand. And it's not surprising, because a lot of these topics are fucking arduous to learn about, you don't just pick it up ambiently by browsing reddit and watching the news.

And a lot of you pretend that you know more than you know, pretend that others don't know anything, and that a video of this one guy from 40 years ago paints a complete and accurate picture of what's going on today. And have the balls to talk down to everyone else.

Like the other commenter said, it's more that we disagree than that we are clueless. Just look at the comments section on that video and the way people who eat the video up handle that information about today. It's reminiscent of conspiracy theory group think.

Also weird that you only focus on the US about the horrible things it has done. I can think of other governments--including my own--that have done and continue to do horrible things today. It's not the gotcha moment you all think it is.

I post one thing, you think it's the only thing I can post?

Up your game, then

a million Iraqis died on a lie in your lifetime. The bombings and sanctions after the Nayirah testimony killed another million people in the 90s. The Jessica Lynch abduction hoax was widely publicized, I'm sure you've heard of that one, Lynch herself came out against it. Fictitious witness accounts of a genocide in Libya led to a NATO bombing campaign that obliterated a once-prosperous country and there are now open-air slave markets in Libya. A large number of North Korean defector testimonies have fallen apart under scrutiny, as reported by the Guardian.

this is all stuff that's been in the news, that you've probably heard of.

I'm really not excited to go further in a thread where people upvote something like this in response to my earlier comment:

pretending that a video of this one guy from 40 years ago paints a complete and accurate picture of what’s going on today

Each and every one of those examples has been perpetuated by different people, save for the ones we can group by former Pres. GWB--an infamously known liar--for personal and/or political gain, and you can't possibly claim that they're all connected to a single entity in the US.

Regardless, everything you've said is quite off the mark. For example, the abduction of Jessica Lynch was real but it was falsely reported initially as a PR stunt to raise troop morale. The the NATO bombing campaign is also part of misinformation circulation online meant to shake trust in NATO that largely exaggerates its collateral damage. The open-air slave markets in Lybia are a result of the overthrow of the dictator Gaddafi and many years of instability in the area, and not as a direct & immediate action by NATO, which is even more disinformation. The false testimonies given by N. Korean defectors are a result of various factors including the defectors falling prey to influences like cash incentives and public pressure that aren't necessarily tied to a concerted intervention.

Like I said, up your game. And now I'm asking you to cite your sources and to stop hiding behind the convenient excuse of not wanting to spend too much time on this. Because if you're giving the time to type something up, you have time to look it up as well.

The only impression you're giving me is that you're on some weird tirade to denigrate the US with your own brand of propaganda and misinformation. And, I repeat, I say this as a non-US citizen and because it's so obvious. The only source you've given is ridden with conspiracy theory group-think. What other sources do you have?

this is why I was hesitant to list more examples, because I knew I might get a five-seconds-on-google shotgun response like this and then I would have to write an arduous reply with a lot more effort than you put in, and in the time it takes me to write that reply people see a few paragraphs with links and assume you wrote a slam dunk.

fuck it, I'm posting this now and then editing in more stuff as I go

for starters, your scary-looking "misinformation circulation online" link is talking about death figures due to the bombing. That's not the fucking point, the point is the removal of Qaddafi and the ensuing power vacuum and political breakdown in Libya. You get there in your next sentence, where you act like you're correcting me (and misspell Libya), but then take all the blame off NATO with a vague wave of the hand. Who do you think overthrew Qaddafi? Who armed and supported the rebels? Who bombed his fucking motorcade?

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna44234613

Through months of military stalemate in Libya it was an open secret among NATO allies that countries inside and outside the alliance were quietly but crucially helping rebels gain their footing against the much stronger forces loyal to longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

Covert forces, private contractors and U.S. intelligence assets were thrown into the fight in an undercover campaign operating separately from the NATO command structure. Targeted bombings methodically took out Gadhafi's key communications facilities and weapons caches. And an increasing number of American hunter-killer drones provided round-the-clock surveillance as the rebels advanced.

These largely unseen hands helped to transform the ragtag rebel army into the force storming Tripoli.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/covert-teams-from-nato-members-provided-critical-assistance-to-libyan-rebels/

(warning, Atlantic Council link)

As the battle in Libya appeared at stalemate, it was an open secret that foreign military advisers were working covertly inside the country providing guidance to rebels and giving tactical intelligence to NATO aircraft bombing government forces. [...] The assistance included logisticians, security advisers and forward air controllers for the rebel army, as well as intelligence operatives, damage assessment analysts and other experts, according to a diplomat based at NATO’s headquarters in Brussels. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue. [...] Foreign military advisers on the ground provided key real-time intelligence to the rebels, enabling them to maximize their limited firepower against the enemy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/france-sent-arms-to-libyan-rebels/2011/06/29/AGcBxkqH_story.html

French officials announced Wednesday that they had armed rebels in Libya, marking the first time a NATO country has said it was providing direct military aid to opponents of the government in a conflict that has lasted longer than many policymakers expected.

Surprise, it was the fine countries of NATO!

I wonder what sort of motives NATO countries had to intervene in Libya?

https://www.foia.state.gov/Search/results.aspx?searchText=C05779612&beginDate=&endDate=&publishedBeginDate=&publishedEndDate=&caseNumber=

According to these individuals Sarkozy's plans are driven by the following issues:

a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

b. Increase French influence in North Africa,

c. Improve his internal political situation in France,

d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi's long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa)

Shit, it was oil and imperialism!

And what about the public reasons for the intervention?

https://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-details-how-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/

Article title: U.K. Parliament report details how NATO's 2011 war in Libya was based on lies

subtitle: British investigation: Gaddafi was not going to massacre civilians; Western bombing made Islamist extremism worse

[...]

The Libya inquiry, which was launched in July 2015, is based on more than a year of research and interviews with politicians, academics, journalists and more. The report, which was released on Sept. 14, reveals the following:

Qaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians. This myth was exaggerated by rebels and Western governments, which based their intervention on little intelligence.

The threat of Islamist extremists, which had a large influence in the uprising, was ignored — and the NATO bombing made this threat even worse, giving ISIS a base in North Africa.

France, which initiated the military intervention, was motivated by economic and political interests, not humanitarian ones.

The uprising — which was violent, not peaceful — would likely not have been successful were it not for foreign military intervention and aid. Foreign media outlets, particularly Qatar's Al Jazeera and Saudi Arabia's Al Arabiya, also spread unsubstantiated rumors about Qaddafi and the Libyan government.

The NATO bombing plunged Libya into a humanitarian disaster, killing thousands of people and displacing hundreds of thousands more, transforming Libya from the African country with the highest standard of living into a war-torn failed state.

Well shit, this all sounds a lot like Iraq. Why do we keep falling for the same bullshit over and over and over again?

and misspell Libya

First of all get out of here with your angsty corrections of anybody's misspellings like it matters. English is not my first language and I take shortcuts to remember spellings. That's some playground shit and I expect you to act like an adult.

Second, limit your arrogance, which is also part of my original point. If I started arguing something about any of my fields of study and you seem less versed, that doesn't give me the right to berate you for it.

Third, stick to the point. If you want to argue specifics about each of those events that's fine and I'm taking the time to follow up. But keep in mind my original argument: that you are willing to exaggerate and misrepresent your points in order to undermine the West while turning a blind eye on other countries and interests that you favor while at the same time being arrogant about it.

If I started arguing something about any of my fields of study and you seem less well versed, that doesn't give me the right to berate you for it

what if I acted like I was well-versed and scoffed at your opinions about a subject you knew more than me about?

limit your arrogance

it's not arrogance, it's frustration. That's also why I pointed out the misspelling, to point out that you don't know about this topic and yet you are confident in your opinions about it.

Libya is not an English word, it's a country name — but that said, I didn't consider that your language might use a totally different script, e.g., in Chinese, Libya is 利比亚

Next comment: Jessica Lynch. Probably my last one for the night. Separate because there's no room in the last comment.

I'll post this now then edit things in, so you know I'm still writing and don't go "oh you conveniently ignored my other shit!"

Your link glosses over the important part. She was free to leave the fucking hospital. They didn't need some spec ops snatch squad in the middle of the night to steal her from her captors because there were no captors at that point, the Iraqi army had fled.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/hospital-staff-forceful-u-s-rescue-operation-for-lynch-wasnt-necessary

NASIRIYAH, Iraq – The U.S. commandos refused a key and instead broke down doors and went in with guns drawn. They carried away the prisoner in the dead of night with helicopter and armored vehicle backup -- even though there was no Iraqi military presence and the hospital staff didn't resist. [...] An Associated Press reporter spoke to more than 20 doctors, nurses and other workers at the hospital. In interview after interview, the assessment was the same: The dramatics that surrounded Lynch's rescue were unnecessary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm

Witnesses told us that the special forces knew that the Iraqi military had fled a day before they swooped on the hospital.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa2

Hassam Hamoud, a waiter at a local restaurant, said he saw the American advance party land in the town. He said the team's Arabic interpreter asked him where the hospital was. "He asked: 'Are there any Fedayeen over there?' and I said, 'No'." All the same, the next day "America's finest warriors" descended on the building.

"We heard the noise of helicopters," says Dr Anmar Uday. He says that they must have known there would be no resistance. "We were surprised. Why do this? There was no military, there were no soldiers in the hospital.

"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried, 'Go, go, go', with guns and blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show - an action movie like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan, with jumping and shouting, breaking down doors." All the time with the camera rolling. The Americans took no chances, restraining doctors and a patient who was handcuffed to a bed frame.

The military has disputed that they used blanks, but that's even worse if you ask me. It means they were firing live rounds, in or near a civilian hospital full of doctors and patients, with no enemies in sight, to provide background noise for a propaganda video.

I'm not getting into the media falsehoods about her supposed heroism, which she herself denies, because it's late and I'm tired.

I'm waiting.

2 more...