Non-IT News Thread
-
@mlnews said:
Norwegian Air: CEO Says $69 One-Way Flights From US to Europe Could Be Available Soon
The airline is considering adding cheap flights from some U.S. airports, such as New York's Westchester County Airport, to Edinburgh and Bergen, Norway, CEO Bjørn Kjos said.
This is HUGE. And not only that, but this is our airlines, one of the two that we have been using for getting to and from Europe. AND Westchester County is the airport by our house (that we can't sell) in New York. It is a rural airport, absolutely tiny, way north of the city. SO easy to deal with and an airport that we have been using for many years so know really well. This will make European travel so much easier and less costly!
-
That is really cheap. That will certainly change how people get to and from Europe!
-
Doctors Without Borders labels US attack of civilian hospital a war crime.
The US has admitted to intentionally bombing a medical facility and killing nineteen Doctors without Borders workers but has been unable to reliably establish why the decided to bomb the facility. The MSF has pointed out that this is a breach of international law and constitutes a war crime.
-
This post is deleted! -
Randy Quaid: Actor Arrested in Montreal by Canada Border Services Agency, Wife Says
Quaid was arrested Tuesday morning for undisclosed reasons after checking in with officials in Montreal, his wife Evi told CBC News. Quaid was previously arrested in Montreal in April.
-
-
@mlnews said:
Doctors Without Borders labels US attack of civilian hospital a war crime.
The US has admitted to intentionally bombing a medical facility and killing nineteen Doctors without Borders workers but has been unable to reliably establish why the decided to bomb the facility. The MSF has pointed out that this is a breach of international law and constitutes a war crime.
This is a rush to judgement. Intentionally bombed? Yes. But why was it chosen as a target? Once that is disclosed, then work on determining if it was a war crime or not.
Mistaken targets happen. Does not instantly mean it is a war crime. Does not mean it is not either. That is the point of investigating and using the rule of law instead of the mob mentality of mass media.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Mistaken targets happen. Does not instantly mean it is a war crime.
US stated that it was intentional. That's not in dispute from either side. Doctors without Borders said that intentional, for whatever reason, violated the law and constituted a war crime. Maybe they are incorrect, but that is what they stated and what the US has admitted to. So that is the starting point.
-
@JaredBusch said:
But why was it chosen as a target? Once that is disclosed, then work on determining if it was a war crime or not.
Well that's not what they claim. They claimed that the reason for choosing it as a target wasn't part of determining if it was a war crime. I don't know if that is correct or not, but that is the claim that as a protected hospital, no one had a right to bomb it.
Are you sure that it is true that "why" it was bombed is a factor?
-
@JaredBusch said:
That is the point of investigating and using the rule of law instead of the mob mentality of mass media.
Right, which is why only what was admitted to on one side was stated and what was claimed by the other was pointed out as what they claimed. No opinion added in the post.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
US stated that it was intentional. That's not in dispute from either side. Doctors without Borders said that intentional, for whatever reason, violated the law and constituted a war crime. Maybe they are incorrect, but that is what they stated and what the US has admitted to. So that is the starting point.
Yes, it was intentionally targeted. My point was WHY was it intentionally targeted.Once that is known, THEN it is valid to begin discussing war crimes.
A mistaken target can still be intentional. That is not in question. Because the mistake was choosing that target. Not that the mistake was they missed another target and hit the hospital.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
No opinion added in the post.
No, I am adding my opinion against all the rush to judgement the mass media seems to be making.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Yes, it was intentionally targeted. My point was WHY was it intentionally targeted.Once that is known, THEN it is valid to begin discussing war crimes.
Is that true or opinion? I honestly don't know. But this conflicts with the statement from Doctor's without Borders. Are you confident in this statement? I feel like this is just opinion as to what does and does not constitute a factor in determining a war crime. I have no opinion as I just don't know how war crimes are determined. But Doctor without Borders likely has some experience.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
No opinion added in the post.
No, I am adding my opinion against all the rush to judgement the mass media seems to be making.
Are you sure? What judgement was made by mass media in this case?
The "opinion" in question is if "why" a target is chosen is a factor. Maybe that is fact, but you are claiming that Doctors without Borders is wrong. So there is a dispute here. One is right, the other is opinion (or just wrong.)
The media reporting, at least here, is reporting what was said - not what the status is.
-
@JaredBusch said:
A mistaken target can still be intentional. That is not in question. Because the mistake was choosing that target. Not that the mistake was they missed another target and hit the hospital.
Does it being a mistake make it not a war crime? Honest question. Just because they regret having done it, or regret getting caught, or regret how much damage it did.... does that change the war crime potential? Many people regret the mistakes made in war, I'm unaware that that has ever been used as a factor in determining if something was a crime or not. Maybe it changes the penalties, but not the fact as to if it was or wasn't a crime.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Is that true or opinion? I honestly don't know. But this conflicts with the statement from Doctor's without Borders. Are you confident in this statement? I feel like this is just opinion as to what does and does not constitute a factor in determining a war crime. I have no opinion as I just don't know how war crimes are determined. But Doctor without Borders likely has some experience.
Obviously it has to be my opinion as you know I am not a lawyer, let alone a lawyer familiar with international law.
But mistakes happen in all fields including the field of making war. The difference between a mistake and a war crime is a significant issue.
-
@JaredBusch said:
But mistakes happen in all fields including the field of making war. The difference between a mistake and a war crime is a significant issue.
In general, yes. But the point in question, according to the article, was that DWB stated that what the US admitted to constituted a war crime. The US admitted the one thing. DWB stated that that admission made it a war crime.
That there is more "mistake" factors to consider would be new opinion injected. I'm not saying that it isn't valuable opinion, but that's where the opinion is being put in, right? The US is considered more than opinion when it admits to having done what it did. And DWB is quoted. The media didn't interject an opinion there, just stated what each party stated.
Now it may be DWB's opinion as to what factors do or do not constitute a war crime, I don't know how good of a source that they are. But I see no opinion in this case from the media who just reported what happened and what was stated.
The first time that opinion was added, beyond the statements from the group that was bombed which might very well be completely accurate, was the additional opinion that whether or not it was a mistake is a factor in being a war crime.
I don't have any reason to disbelieve that Doctors without Borders is aware of the law and accurate in their statement. They deal with this all of the time. They might be wrong. They might just be lying. But the media, in this case, didn't add anything that I can see.
-
This is so neat! and pretty! I love the Out to Sea colorway, just wish the band was silver instead of gold.
-
Airbus: Plane Manufacturer Files Patent That Shows Passengers Stacked Atop One Another
Airbus filed a patent application for a seating arrangement in its planes that would allow two stacked rows of seats. Drawings appear to show some seats can lie flat as a result, The Verge reports.
-
