He wasn't a combatant and he hadn't killed anyone. He was an innocent bystander and even the IDF admit it.
Not sure why you put so much energy into making up a fake scenario.
What part of "no matter who does it" did you not understand.
I'm embarassed for you.
I think arseholes are distributed evenly too.
If 5% of all people are arseholes, everywhere, then a country with 50 million people has 2.5 million arseholes. But a country with 1,428,000,000 people has over 71 million arseholes. This is why they seem to be over represented by the large nations.
You are right that we are more likely to notice them if they travel near us or communicate in a language we understand. This is why Estonians are more likely to think badly of Finns whereas South Africans are more likely to think badly of Nigerians.
Killing civilians doesn't avenge anything, no matter who does it.
One of the largest countries in the world and a hell of a lot of ethnic diversity, so it's hard to make generalizations. Kerala and, say, UP are very different. But here's my attempt.
Geopolitically as an entity it's currently suffering from some of the same things the world's other largest countries (China, US, Indonesia) are suffering from - namely: populist leaders and a large group of poorly educated people in the population propping them up.
Consequently there is way too much militant nationalism and complacency about aggression towards other nations, territorialism, persecution of certain ethnic minorities, religious fundamentalism. All the biggest countries have those traits at the moment, so it's not specifically a reflection on India.
In terms of resource and development it's dealing with a similar situation to other ex colony LICs - years of resource exploitation left it with a low GDP per capita and consequently major challenges when it comes to provision of infrastructure (eg pollution management), health, education, living standards etc.
India has made huge strides in the past but the current wave of populism relies on leveraging social conflict (as it does elsewhere in the eorld) so I think that growth has slowed. For the same reason the fault lines along ethnic, religious, caste lines - which colonialism entrenched or deepened within the region - are still a big aspect.
My personal experiences with Indian people is that just like from anywhere else there are good and bad. Cultured, well educated people are easier to deal with because there is more shared knowledge. Statistically speaking, many of the world's worst arseholes you are going to meet are going to be from India, China and the US, and that holds up.
That's an interesting theory but there are many churches where women are supposed to put on a hat especially for church.
Probably it has more to do with this rather ridiculous passage from Corinthians:
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. Source 1 Corinthians 11: 2-16
This is the problem with the trolley problem.
If it were replaced with, say, being told to shoot one group or another by a sadistic guard, the possibility of refusing to choose would be more obvious in terms of what it means morally.
The trolley is an inanimate object. It isn't making choices.
Political parties are more like the sadistic guard. They are making choices.
I would have though Australia or middle east would be hotter than California.
And you would be right. Outside of Death Valley, California does not get as hot as the Middle East.
Californians don't live in Death Valley.
The countries with the hottest temperatures in inhabited areas are places like Kuwait.
I don't think anyone is surprised. It was well known. It is surprising that the court made this ruling, though.
You may be right. It may have been an innocent attempt to turn the discussion away from this landmark decision and back onto the more well trampled ground of US politics.
I like hypotheticals myself, but not when they are used to mislead.
Chiquita was the entity calling the shots and the death squads were killing and intimidating anyone who went against their commercial interests, including politicians.
For that reason, the hypothetical above reads like an attempt to pretend Chiquita was somehow a passive participant.
I do see what you mean. I think when a dork engages in repeated personal attacks they cross the line for me regardless of their intent.
It's a philosophical question akin to Baudrillard's "simulate a robbery" idea.
Speechless that two people have come in here to defend United Fruit Company/Chiquita for its well known use of death squads.
Remind me not to post about Nestlé.
Israel have already said that they are not interested in the agreement.
To determine that, I will need two pieces of information:
-
do you stand to profit from the killing or intimidation of Palestinians?
-
are you one of the US Government's main sources of money and weapons?
Of course you did, or I wouldn't have commented on it.
Here is a wikipedia page that explains what a tankie is.
The decision regarding Chiquita Brands International took place last week. It came after 17 years of legal proceedings and a previous conviction in 2007
A U.S. jury in Miami has ruled that Chiquita Brands International is liable for financing the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a paramilitary death squad designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. during Colombia's civil war.
This decision comes after 17 years of legal proceedings and a previous conviction in 2007 when Chiquita was fined $25 million for illegal payments to the AUC. The recent verdict marks the first time an American jury has held a major U.S. corporation accountable for complicity in human rights abuses in another country, newsletter Pirate Wire Services explained.
Plaintiffs represented by Earth Rights International, an NGO advocating for corporate responsibility, have long sought justice through courts in both Colombia and the United States regarding this issue. The jury in Miami recommended a civil fine of $2 million for each family member filing suit, following two "bellwether cases" selected from over a hundred filed by victims.
Court documents reveal that Chiquita paid 3 cents per dollar for each box of bananas exported from Colombia to the AUC, an organization responsible for thousands of civilian deaths, including the eradication of entire villages, the murders of trade union representatives and rivals, and the kidnapping of politicians. Victims and their families had lobbied for years to sue Chiquita in civil courts, efforts that the company delayed through various legal tactics.
In addition to the payments, victims and ex-AUC commanders claim that Chiquita provided weapons and gasoline to the paramilitary forces in the Urabá region of Colombia. They argue that Chiquita executives knew these resources were being used to kill civilians and suppress unions near their operations. Chiquita has denied these accusations, maintaining that the payments were extortion made under duress, an argument previously rejected by U.S. courts.
Chiquita attempted to move all civil cases to Colombian courts, but its motion was denied, and the cases proceeded in the U.S. In 2018, Colombia's Prosecutor's Office formally accused Chiquita executives of aggravated conspiracy to commit a crime and attempting to hide these payments as "security payments." The investigation was suspended in 2019 but may resume under Colombia's new lead prosecutor, Luz Adriana Camargo Garzón, who has expressed interest in the case.
The Colombian Peace Court has characterized Chiquita's actions, including labor union repression, as "crimes against humanity."
This article makes it clearer.
The decision regarding Chiquita Brands International took place last week. It came after 17 years of legal proceedings and a previous conviction in 2007
A U.S. jury in Miami has ruled that Chiquita Brands International is liable for financing the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a paramilitary death squad designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. during Colombia's civil war.
This decision comes after 17 years of legal proceedings and a previous conviction in 2007 when Chiquita was fined $25 million for illegal payments to the AUC. The recent verdict marks the first time an American jury has held a major U.S. corporation accountable for complicity in human rights abuses in another country, newsletter Pirate Wire Services explained.
Plaintiffs represented by Earth Rights International, an NGO advocating for corporate responsibility, have long sought justice through courts in both Colombia and the United States regarding this issue. The jury in Miami recommended a civil fine of $2 million for each family member filing suit, following two "bellwether cases" selected from over a hundred filed by victims.
Court documents reveal that Chiquita paid 3 cents per dollar for each box of bananas exported from Colombia to the AUC, an organization responsible for thousands of civilian deaths, including the eradication of entire villages, the murders of trade union representatives and rivals, and the kidnapping of politicians. Victims and their families had lobbied for years to sue Chiquita in civil courts, efforts that the company delayed through various legal tactics.
In addition to the payments, victims and ex-AUC commanders claim that Chiquita provided weapons and gasoline to the paramilitary forces in the Urabá region of Colombia. They argue that Chiquita executives knew these resources were being used to kill civilians and suppress unions near their operations. Chiquita has denied these accusations, maintaining that the payments were extortion made under duress, an argument previously rejected by U.S. courts.
Chiquita attempted to move all civil cases to Colombian courts, but its motion was denied, and the cases proceeded in the U.S. In 2018, Colombia's Prosecutor's Office formally accused Chiquita executives of aggravated conspiracy to commit a crime and attempting to hide these payments as "security payments." The investigation was suspended in 2019 but may resume under Colombia's new lead prosecutor, Luz Adriana Camargo Garzón, who has expressed interest in the case.
The Colombian Peace Court has characterized Chiquita's actions, including labor union repression, as "crimes against humanity." The central issue in the U.S. civil court case was whether Chiquita's payments to the AUC materially assisted the group in its illegal actions.
