JacksonLamb

joined 1 year ago
[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

You hit the nail on the head! This is exactly why I think the American attitude to the French is so peculiar:

Especially to 250 year old allies with whom we formed

American culture should remember the role the French played in the American War of Independence (and the French great great great great great grandfathers who died for you) instead of defaulting to that weird and crass "cheese eating surrender monkeys" nonsense.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, for the third time

I know you are focusing on one detail and ignoring context. You dom't have to keep reiterating that.

What you have come up with by doing so is not a convincing argument.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

How can it possibly be their forward position, though???

I just looked at a map and Quneitra city is right next to Golan heights (where Israeli control is well-established) and has the entire buffer zone (which IDF have occupied all year) between it and Syria.

Holding someone for 7 hours in their underwear with their hands zip tied is not about not wanting photos of your base. It's pretty obviously about trying to intimidate them into not reporting on an area.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

They keep saying that word. I think it does not mean what they think it means.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Assigning each war an Average number of journalists killed per year (total killed divided by duration) would visualise this even more starkly.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 5 points 17 hours ago

Running journalists out of town before they can find your war crimes sounds like the actions of someone who commits warcrimes.

None of this is exactly a stretch given the sheer scale of war crimes and cover ups we already know about from that army.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 9 points 17 hours ago (5 children)

Bizarre take. None of that explains stripping them down to their underwear blindfolding them and zip tying them.

It's also not some top secret base. It was 200 metres out from a city in a demilitarised zone that Israeel has said it is "taking control of indefinitely" i.e a land grab. The locals were warning the journalists that the Israelis shoot people.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

As far as I can see 26% of New Zealand's politicians identify as Maori, including the man who was Deputy Prime Minister during this haka.

Indigenous people are not monolithic.

New Zealand also has a carve out of Maori seats which is meaningful because it has proportional representation. This is what Australia could have eventually done with Indigenous Voice but there is no political appetite for it in Australia, plus the Aboriginal and Torres Straits people make up a far smaller percentage.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

I see no one has ever rold you the anecdote about how a bar turns into a nazi bar.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago

How is that relevant to who can and can't discuss Indigenous rights though? Surely the more people in the world who care about Indigenous rights, the better.

To answer your question the US has about 5 out of 435 members, Canada has about 12 out of 343 members. New Zealand has about 33 out of 123 members which is obviously a much larger proportion of their total.

I will never understand why so many Canadians and Americans seem so unaware of one anothers' Indigenous rights movements. You are neighbouring countries and some of your Indigenous nations are cross-border.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago

There is a huge difference between entering a war to help stop acts of aggression, versus going around supporting acts of aggression, helping to depose democratically elected leaders, or funding genocides.

I think you will find it is the last three that have attracted the real criticism over the years.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

A good democracy has checks and balances to protect minorities from mob rule /tyrrany of the majority.

That is actually what this protest is about - the ruling party wants to remove some of those legal safeguards.

New Zealand's political system has proportional representation. Maori will most likely be in partial control after their next election.

 

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."

 

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.

view more: next ›