I think this comment shows how far removed is the modern person living in a sheltered, matcha-sipping western environment from actual human historical reality. Do you seriously suggest that during an active war one side would bring the other to trial rather than just destroy them?
Those were after Germany's defeat, and those put on trial were no longer active combatants.
I'm pretty sure no military in history has ever delayed taking out an active threat in order to conduct legal proceedings. They don't need to, because enemy combatants don't have to be guilty of any crimes to be valid targets under IHL.
I agree. Having lived with a civil war and with non-western roots I find the Western attitude to things like this to be hopelessly naive. It is the product of a golden age following the collapse of communism and the subsequent unrealistic "end of history" optimism.
So in the case of Sri Lanka, was the LLRC set up and subsequently criticised as a mechanism to lend legitimacy to the way in which government forces conducted operations against LTTE? If so, would its mere existence not indicate some level of societal buy-in to the idea that actions should take part according to some judicial form of 'justice'?
Huh? You have that backwards. Since the dawn of human civilization, when two societies went to war the winner usually annihilated the loser: steal anything of value, smash the artifacts, execute the men, and take the women and children as slaves. Thousands of cultures were utterly erased this way. It's only recently that warfare has become a bit more "civilized".
I was quite clearly responding to the GP’s assertion that some sort of ‘justice’ was carried out by one party on the other, which obviously isn’t remotely the case. You can save your cliched one liners.
These answers are assuming that the individuals killed were also those responsible. With Israel's stranglehold on media access to Gaza (perhaps better: open hostility), we will likely never know who was killed and what were the charges against them.
Responsible for what? In war, enemies combatants aren't slain as punishment for crimes, but simply because they're enemy combatants. Likewise prisoners of war aren't (typically) detained on suspicion of crimes, they're detained simply for being enemy combatants.
OP states that "one the defendants carried out the justice sought by the ICC". That's incorrect. One of the defendants went farther than any sentence the ICC would have decided.
As you say, this is an act of war (killing ennemies), not an act of justice (trial and prosecution) .
The Palestinian government Hamas broadcasting themselves kidnapping a 6 year old girl to the world is standard rules of war (let alone those much worse things they did that day, the kidnapping was just the first to show up on my feeds that day)?
> So was most of what was done on October 7th by Hamas...
Yeah, I don't think mass executing partygoers at a music festival has anything to do with "the standard rules of war."
Israel's response was obviously disproportionate but certainly fell within the standard conventions of warfare (e.g. executing enemy commanders being housed/protected by the populace is fairly standard.)
Using "partygoers" without mentionning such party happened on lands stolen with violence is a bit dishonest.
Hamas is an indirect creation of Israel, they wouldn't exist if not for decade of violence and humiliation from Israel. In the same vein, the Likoud exist because of the PFLP and maintain its power thanks to the presence of Hamas. Both the extreme right in Israel and the Islamist movements in Palestine feed themselves and survive thanks to hatred and have no reason nor any wish to make this conflict stop. Netanyahu and his minions were probably laughing at the sights of the victims of october 7 knowing this would only help them.enforce their politics.
The EU law applies, but companies get out of it by:
- encouraging you to take multiple tickets (so you can't claim compensation on the whole trip and becaise of missed transfers).
- saying it's not their doing (DB specialty).
- in some cases accepting an "alternate schedule" (typically by changing your ticket at the company's suggestion) will void any claims.
In some cases you have better chances hiring a taxi for 2000km and forcing the company to pay.
On the opposite, on (very expensive) French TGVs you get compensation starting at 30 minutes delay (connections counted) whatever the reason and SNCF will do their utmost to bring you to destination or ensure you get accomodation.
I used to work at one such company. The process can take a long time but it is mostly hands-off for the traveller and success rates are high once the case has been taken.
Edit: and also, these claim-assistance companies work on a winning fee.
That's a pretty short period in the grand scheme of things. Before you know it they'll be driving and just a year or two from leaving the nest and you'll wish you could have had more time with them.
Question: how to encourage such patterns within a team? I often find it difficult to do it during code reviews and leading to unproductive arguments about "code style" and "preferences".
Funnily, these arguments do not happen when a linter pops a warning instead...
I don't think the idea is to have a market of roads to chose from. It is to make the existing car market more efficient by fixing the externality of other people paying for the damage you do to the roads by your choice of (heavy) vehicule.
Is it true? We, the people, currently pay for roads, we would pay for them in the alternative system - so the total amount of the money we need to pay would not change, only some prices (or taxes) would go down and others would go up. Either we care about having food and we would pay high prices for them (with money we saved elsewhere) or we don't care and we wouldn't pay.
> Heavy semi-trailer trucks disproportionally damage the roads
Which is another reason why freight should be delivered by rail. Yet haulage companies have no incentive to maintain an efficient rail network, when they could exploit a subsidised road network instead.
OK, unaffordable is overstatement but increase in transportation costs will translate to some increase in prices and given that food is already around 25% higher (with some items 50% higher) than before COVID this increase will not be welcomed.
Even though it may change with technological developments, are you aware that EVs are the heaviest vehicles on the market, by somewhere around 140% the weight of ICE vehicle equivalents?
That's weird because there's no public road near me for miles and I can get 90% of the way to "town" without them.
I've also connected my private roads to a couple other private roads so no one has a monopoly on my way to town.
As for the "barriers to entry" mentioned in that article, is absolutely wild. My road and most the ones in our grid network were made with little more than a dude and a tractor (I think you can get suitable one for $10k off craigslist). I initially made mine with an axe, a light truck, and a rope (to rip out small trees) and there's nothing stopping anyone adjacent from doing the same if I'd block the road.
It would work beautifully for the last 10% of my journey. The only reason why there are no private roads for the las 10% is the county tax funds that road, and only a complete and utter moron would build a road when their "competitor" has a price of zero at the point of use. People commonly ask why the public road has a monopoly; it's not that they are a natural monopoly but rather that it's literally impossible to compete with someone with zero costs (tax costs already sunk) so places with public roads have ~no competition.
The second that road gets defunded by the public coffers, guy with tractor would show back up.
Private roads are actually pretty common, found in older suburban development and in rural areas. I live off of one that is about 300m long.
They are unpopular since they effectively require a very small private association to maintain them. They really hurt property values (one reason I bought my place at a bargain price). Most jurisdictions try to prevent creating them because they lead to disputes between neighbours, or poorly maintained private roads become a problem when an emergency vehicle needs to get down one.
The budget for local roads is also quite small, since they don’t carry much truck traffic. My township of 5,000 people or so has 3 part time guys who maintain the roads and a few pickup trucks and a dump truck for hauling the asphalt. That’s it.
The most expensive part of road maintenance is replacing bridges.
