Yeah my bad, didn’t realise he was being held in a prison. The article linked is just a tiny snippet so I was missing context.

It’s not el Salvador’s responsibility to transport him back to the US.

I don’t think he is being stopped from leaving, but it’s up to the US to make it right, not El Salvador

EDIT: it wasn’t clear from the article that he was being held in a prison. My bad on that.

Absolutely should be released, but it is still not on El Salvador to send him to the US.

I think it’s a good point. The hypocrisy and double standards have really come to the fore in the past 3 years.

However, I think it’s partially due to a lack of empathy/inability to understand the desperation that drives some parts of the war machine, survive at any cost.

Land mines are a horror of war that bite long after the conflict ends. They are also one of the most cost effective ways of slowing/containing a large scale enemy assault.

Personally, I don’t know where I stand on this news, existential threats shift viewpoints drastically.

I think it’s fair to say: we should not use landmines, we should wish for other countries to not use them. However, I don’t think that they should be demonised. And they should be used as “reasonably” as possible. (E.g. securing a border or military base, not near a residential area). Of course when survival comes into play, soldiers will do what they feel they need to at the end of the day, and who are we to judge from the comfort of our screens?

I think the only time martial law can be seen as reasonable is in an outright state of war. And even then, only when it’s existential.

It’s kind of inherently the antithesis of democratic values.

I’m so annoyed at coverage of these issues and the economy as a whole. Journalists have to use the biggest numbers they can to make people think it’s important.

Ok a 64% reduction in profits is not good. But that also means that the company is still profitable and wants to fire the thousands of people, and in so doing harm the local economy, that gave it massive profits for decades.

A 64% reduction in profits cannot be the company making a loss. Yet the article claims that BMW and Mercedes are “also making similar large losses”.

Shareholders have been robbing employees blind for decades, and the second it gets a little bit less profitable we have to fire thousands of people?

And yes, I understand there must be some consideration of future proofing costs against a shrinking consumer base, but such drastic measures are solely aimed at preservation of shareholder dividends and value (see Boeing).