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.
This article makes it clearer.
It's a false analogy. Chiquita were paying the paramilitary to do its bidding.
No, it's like if you owned a massive chain of Italian restaurants that notoriously exploited people, and you were actively paying the mafia to intimidate your workers and to bust unions.
The judge saw through Chiquita's ridiculous fabrication, I'm disappointed to see you parroting it here.
After reviewing their modlog history, I think Masquenox displays a level of emotional incontinence that is effectively the same as trolling.
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.