Slashdot Mirror

So many Gypsies in Eastern Europe live in poverty because those countries are, by European Union standards, quite poor themselves.

That is a common misunderstanding, touted by the government and other parties responsible, to excuse their own behaviour.

"The World Bank report indicates that Roma in Romania are "poor, vulnerable and socially excluded" (28 Feb. 2014, 5). A report produced by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) that "draws on the results of the UNDP/World Bank/ European Commission regional Roma 2011 survey [4]", reports that approximately 81 percent of Roma are at risk of poverty compared to approximately 41 percent of non-Roma (EU and UN 2012, 24).

The US Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014 indicates that Roma face systemic discrimination by society, which affects them in the areas of education, housing, health and employment (US 29 June 2015, 1).

Amnesty International (AI) reports that the actions or lack of actions by local authorities have resulted in segregation of Roma on a wide scale (18 June 2013). Lunca states that "policy makers have not hesitated to enforce social exclusion by physically separating the Roma from the rest of the population" (FXB Center 8 Apr. 2015).

Sources report that there is systemic segregation of Roma children in the area of education (ERRC 16 Feb. 2012; WHO 2013, 2). The European Commission indicates that 26 percent of Roma encountered segregation in mainstream schools (EU 2 Apr. 2014, 3)."

The list goes on.

Source: https://www.refworld.org/docid...

There is no word "infrastructure" in the entire document.

Fucking illiterate cretin:

In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.

Most of a country's infrastructure has dual — both military and civilian — use, which makes its destruction a legitimate military objective;

So if soldiers drink water, so a waterworks is a legitimate target? If soldiers fall ill is a hospital a legitimate target?

The killing of civilians was not the primary purpose of Rico's raid.

True, the primary purpose of the raid was not to kill civilians, it was to terrorise them.

Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

The document you cite was written in 1977 — 18 years after the book was published.

No, it was not written in 1977. It was adopted in 1977.

How about we go back to the 8th of August 1945? That early enough for you?

http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=3ae6b396

Charter of the International Military Tribunal - Annex to the Agreement for the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis ("London Agreement")

Article 6

[...]

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility

[...]

(b) War crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, [...] wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

In some instances, relatives washed the corpse, and then, as a sign of respect, drank the water.

Here's a reference, in case anyone finds that incredible
Also, in some places they don't trust health workers, and actually attack them. They are afraid of the disease, but they are more afraid of the health workers.

Found the reference. Search terms: Africa corpse water.

"touching"? you have no idea. http://www.refworld.org/docid/... "Nigeria: Ritual whereby a widow drinks the water used to clean her husband's corpse; consequences for a widow's refusal to drink the water; whether a widow's refusal is interpreted by others as responsibility for her husband's death"

http://www.refworld.org/docid/... Considering often they have lots of wives...however I can swear it is not only the wives that drink it.

The US doesn't need authority from the UN to depose Iraq. Nowhere is it in the UN charter to give permission to depose any sitting government.

If that is correct then all of the current outrage at Russias action in Crimea is equally superfluous...

And the UN doesn't give orders for specific actions in war unless the action is a UN action. That hasn't happened since Korea and we are reminded often how big of a failure that was.

That is where you are wrong, the original 1991 Gulf War was a UN authorised action - see UNSC Resolution 678, which authorised member states "co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;"

http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bi...

While the UN are not the government of the world, they uphold international treaties which member states have agreed to, which include the recognition of the sovereignty of member states and the right for a countries government to govern. Multiple independent western courts have affirmed that military action with the aim of regime change is illegal under international law.