1404
submitted 2 years ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 351 points 2 years ago

I never thought I'd see the day when a respectable blue chip company like Boeing is publicly outed as ordering an assassination. They fucked up royally. The timing of it all is too eyebrow raising not to be noticed by the entirety of the airplane-using world. Top down criminal investigation. Now.

[-] MyNamesNotRobert@lemmynsfw.com 122 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I kind of thought corporations aren't allowed to murder people but at this point I don't know anymore.

[-] hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net 108 points 2 years ago

Murdering people has been a normal part of corporations for a long time, but they generally do it to union organizers in the developing world.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 years ago

Let's be fair, they do it everywhere. They do it more in the developing world, but it's not exclusive there.

[-] Morgoon@startrek.website 80 points 2 years ago

In America it used to be you could just bribe your governor and they'd deploy the national guard to kill striking worker's families like the Ludlow Massacre and the Battle of Blair mountain.

[-] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 29 points 2 years ago

Ludlow Massacre and the Battle of Blair mountain.

It blows my mind how blatantly these events are not taught to anybody. Never forget.

[-] remus989@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 years ago

They're clearly allowed to do whatever the fuck they want.

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

I mean, there have been several huge instances of mass murder by corporations. Go look into the US’ history with strikebreaking and you’ll see just how bad it used to be. At least Boeing is trying to pretend it was a suicide, instead of just blatantly firebombing him in his own home.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 2 years ago

I don't think they are allowed. But I think they do it.

too big to fail. /s

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago

Now the corpos who order planes see that boeing is willing to do anything in order to get the job done...

[-] exanime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 103 points 2 years ago

well your first mistake was thinking Boeing was a respectable corporation (that ship sailed in 1997 when they dropped the "engineering first" priority in lieu of "business first")...

your second mistake is thinking any corporation is respectable ;-)

[-] flerp@lemm.ee 36 points 2 years ago

Their third mistake is thinking any corporation will be held accountable

[-] space@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Oh, you got caught doing some shitty business thing and now you're not making as much money. Here is a government bailout to make it up.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Or they got caught doing a shitty business thing fucking people over and get fined a fraction of what it made them.

[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 2 years ago

lol you're right.

In other news, if you search for flights on kayak and exclude Boeing planes, holy crap the tickets are insanely expensive.

[-] djsoren19@yiffit.net 20 points 2 years ago

Turns out people pay extra money to avoid death, who knew.

[-] mPony@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

next stops: buy Kayak and shut it down; Make it illegal for similar searches to be performed; make it illegal to disclose who makes the aircraft.

Unless citizens make it clear that they won't stand for bullshit, they will get bullshit.

[-] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Scary thing nobodies talking about is: if these Boeing-built bad parts are able to slip past inspectors, which we had (naievely?) assumed were given full access top-notch, and neutral, might the standards of other planes build-quality have also dropped?

How safe are the other company's planes?

[-] pickman_model@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Your guess is as good as mine.

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 58 points 2 years ago

Boeing is a major part of the military industrial complex. They own the politicians in both parties, the regulators, and the courts. Laws don't apply to them.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 40 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If you're the government, you want your military planes to work. It's in their interests to have whistleblowers. (Now there's lots of steps that are problems in realizing that.)

[-] Gabu@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

No. If you're the state you want shit to work. If you're part of the government, you just want to get your bribes.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago

Bribes being one of the steps that can be a problem.

[-] wanderingmagus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

I mean there may simply have been internal reports already, just highly classified to avoid "embarrassing" the nation and not accessible or known to the general public.

[-] Kalysta@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

I feel like “risk of door blowing off mid flight” or “25% of oxygen masks don’t work” is something the public is entitled to know about

[-] wanderingmagus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Didn't say they weren't entitled to know about it, just the reasoning that might've gone through the government's collective heads when not disclosing or looking the other way on Boeing doing an Epstien.

[-] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago

"Look, it turns out if you flip this switch on the Fa-18 and forget to turn it off after 1 to 5 minutes tops, your chances of 'uncontrollably inverting and ejecting at high speed straight into the freaking ground' go up tenfold. We've provided the USAF with a 1 hour iPad training about being touchy with the defrost function."

--Boeing, probably

[-] skulblaka@startrek.website 18 points 2 years ago

If they can't deliver a product that stays in one piece when not even being shot at, they aren't about to stay a part of that MIC for long.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago

The MIC has very little to do with making high-quality military equipment and much more to do with kickbacks and local jobs. Boeing and the other prime contractors are massively inefficient and often performing make-work jobs that no one in the military wants (like making more tanks).

[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I never thought I’d see the day when a respectable blue chip company like Boeing is publicly outed as ordering an assassination.

Why does this surprise you that a company, a large company, would order an assassination of someone? This doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

At the end of which some low level schmuck will be thrown under the bus and they will be fined a few million dollars grand total for all this shit.

this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
1404 points (99.0% liked)

News

35944 readers
639 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS