If you click on the profiles of most people commenting on Facebook news stories, you'll see that they're not particularly anonymous. At the very least, their comments are visible to everyone on their friend list.
Printable View
People you personally interact with are far less representative of the general population than Facebook users.
People I interact with honestly have not talked about this at all. Which I guess is part of the problem.
But he's not talking about Facebook users.
People you personally interact with are far more representative of the general population than the self-selected tiny proportion of Facebook users who aggressively comment on news stories.
Indeed.
Physical interaction is real life. Trawling through the trolls in the dark recesses of the internet (and yes that includes aggressive comments on news stories as normal people don't do that) will find all the whackos out there.
There is a small proportion of the population that are fruitcakes, nuts and loons absolutely.
I am talking about Facebook users. Every single major and most smaller news sources post many or most of their articles to Facebook as well. I'm not sure how you have been able to remain unaware of this but this is not the dark recesses of the internet.
Meanwhile, global Britain:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7944346.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...-idUSKCN1BP2GG
Glad to hear from him at last. I'm a little surprised.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-my...KCN1BS0PH?il=0
The world has learned nothing. We are a planet full of Lewks.
The other side of self-determination.
At the expense of the self-determination of others.
Easiest way to deal with "rowdy" minorities.
https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma...-rohingya.html
A whole lot of assholes among Burmese "democrats."
Twitter Link
What the actual fuck.
They're not and neither are about 50 other countries including the likes of India.
Loki you're obsessive about international law, does that claim that they're not breaking the law since it doesn't apply to them stand? Does it make it right?
I would say that even if what they're doing is not technically illegal it is dead wrong and we should stand against it. But then again, I don't think international law is what determines if things are right and wrong so something can be wrong even if not illegal.
A) They're violating customary international law. Once enough countries ratify and follow a treaty, it applies to everyone. This is why pre-WWII international law applies to post-colonial states whether or not they signed the relevant treaties.
B) They're a part of plenty other international organizations that ban this type of behavior, including the UN.
C) For all your talk about what is right, if the action isn't illegal, then there's no mechanism for multilaterally punishing the wrong-doer.
I think you mean Myanmar. I mentioned India as another nation that hasn't signed like Myanmar hasn't.
Loki.
A Where is anything in law saying that it applies to non signatories? Absolutely the mighty might compel the weak to follow what the mighty have decided but that's not law. That's realpolitik which is what I have always suggested.
B. Considering over a quarter of the UNs members haven't signed this again where is it written that it applies to all UN states?
C. Bullshit. Of course there is: politics, diplomacy, realpolitik etc
Sanctions, threats, embargoes or even military action are all ultimately actions taken by politicians when it suits them to take that action not judges after a judicial trial. All this talk of law is a facade.
If the USA, China, Russia, UK, France and a couple of extra nations all agreed to launch military action against Myanmar tomorrow it would be "legal". If the same nations voted to launch military action against New Zealand it would also be legal apparently.
Rand, it would help if you at least wikied customary international law before we had this discussion.
specifically, the jus cogens status of the non-refoulement principle has been made increasingly clear for over 30 years. Deporting tens of thousands of rohingya back to Burma would be a clear violation. Instantly deporting the same population to Bangladesh would violate other laws. India could do it though. The west would not respond.
The rule in CIL is that silence implies consent. Absent jus cogens, if the state objects than it doesn't matter if its CIL
Sure there is. Because interstate interaction remains a fairly anarchical environment. The mechanism is a group of states deciding they want to work together and punish the wrong-doer. See the sanctions on Russia.Quote:
C) For all your talk about what is right, if the action isn't illegal, then there's no mechanism for multilaterally punishing the wrong-doer.
Do I have to cite the million studies that show sanctions implemented through the UN are more likely to work? Remind me how those Russian sanctions are doing.
So what you're saying is that when all of the world's major powers are implementing sanctions they're likely to work, whereas when the powers are divided or even the target of the sanctions then they're less likely to work?
Quelle surprise!
The only logical explanation is that the UN is magic.