Do people still do that? I don’t think I’ve ever seen it IRL, but then again I don’t live somewhere that’s known for it.

Cool, thanks.

It’s a joke. Please laugh. /s

And yet, everybody smashed upvote on this rage bait without reading it. Education and wealth only gets you so far.

TBF they didn’t really make direct factual claims here, they just quoted the sources, so even if it’s not true it’s not a lie. I’m not sure how often Fox News just straight up lies either.

X to doubt.

The analyst in “says analyst” was a guy on Twitter.

It is mentioned that PCHR recorded similar testimony from a Palestinian source later on.

Again, maybe, maybe not.

“Source I’ve never seen claims someone on Twitter heard something outrageous from an anonymous source”

Did this happen? Maybe. Is this upvoted solely because of people’s pre-existing biases? Yup.

If only it was a live modern person he would have gotten away with it.

Some of it could be down to the lighting, although the hair does look kind of red. In Ethiopia he definitely gets depicted as black.

Because I maintain that if the US govt disappeared, all the entities you currently consider “US-based corporations” would not disappear.

Publicly traded corporations wouldn’t really make sense or exist anymore, but certain private ones in the right industries might manage to go oligarch, and become/set up a new government. Most would be hopelessly unprepared and would be overrun, though. In my own answer there’s an anecdote about this.

People know what the Sinaloa cartel is, and might not know about the nuances of corporate structures, or even what a share is, but do have a vague idea corporations are complicated, and very dependent on law enforcement and litigation to function. I won’t argue semantics.

South Africa couldn’t keep it up. Israel is in a much, much more vulnerable position. They need Western governments to not only approve but actively bail them out of a region that hates them.

This is an arbitrary list of things and I don’t agree that all corporations have all of these

I’m curious why you’re willing to call them businesses but not corporations.

It’s definitional, a corporation is a specific legal structure. A single trader is not a corporation, but is a business. Ditto for Rome, which I’ve never heard called a corporation even though it was all about money.

They compete with rival cartels in all the same ways corporations would if they could (or already do when they can get away with it).

Civil war. In case you aren’t following the relevant news, the Sinaloa cartel is fighting with itself. A corporation can never do that - government laws set out very clearly who controls what.

And, that makes a huge impact on what kind of people run a corporation, and how they go about managing their business. Managing the loyalty of underlings is of little concern, while it’s about the only concern for a warlord. If a VP tried to run their own business with company assets, they’d just be jailed for breach of trust.

I saw an interesting argument a while back that asking for a one-state solution would actually be the best way to get a two-state solution.

Israel is dependent on the West, and in the West it’s pretty easy to mess with the arguments for or against a seperation. It’s just too nuanced and technical. On the other hand, “we want equal rights” is pretty much impossible to openly contradict in any way.

Drug cartels aren’t really corporations. There’s no formal structure, shares or board meetings, and sometimes they do just descend into civil war (like in Mexico right now). They’re businesses, but in some ways Rome was as well. The thing that makes them a funny historical edge case is that their primary business is transport rather than theft, and that’s down to the massive US/Canadian demand, the wealth behind it, and the inability of any recognised state to join the drug trade in their place and get away with it.

I mean, not as anything like a corporation. If they have to protect themselves with force, they’re a state or warlord, and will end up solving the same problems the same way.

Meaning no shareholders and no contracts, but on the other hand violent internal coups and endemic corruption (in the narrow sense of taking organisation money for yourself).

Edit: Funny story about this - a lot of big corporate guys don’t seem to get the distinction. They go and buy a bunker in New Zealand and think that will do them, but if you talk to the guards in charge of the bunker, they’ll say their plan when the apocalypse happens is to just kill their boss and move in themselves. Because there’s no state to stop them, and they’re better at violence than Mark Zuckerberg or whatever.

Yep. He doesn’t really seem to grasp the idea of having or maintaining credibility, with threats or anything else.

Nobody in Yemen is democratic, and Ukraine is acting in it’s own interests.

Wouldn’t Yemen be an imperial proxy of Iran, by any reasonable definition?

Except Ukraine and Iran are on opposite sides.

More like, war continues to change, but the age of guerillas is still ongoing.