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.
I kind of thought corporations aren’t allowed to murder people but at this point I don’t know anymore.
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.
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.
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.
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 ;-)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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).
EDIT: The posts above and in response to this one both got modded, so I’m gonna edit this one because it looks weird out of context and perhaps wasn’t constructive.
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.
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.
when a whistleblower dies on the day of his deposition, you have to work really hard to convince me that it’s suicide.
They could have threatened to fly his family on a 737 Max if he didn’t kill himself
Boeing rep: Tragically, it appears that Mr. Barnett was discussing suicide in the lead up to his death.
They make airplanes tf is this mafia shit
They also bribe politicians to give them an excuse to sell those weapons. Gulf of Tonkin, anyone? Grenada? Panama? Af-fucking-ghanistan?
They are also involved in the military and aerospace industry. They also practically only have a single competitor in the passenger plane manufacture industry (airbus). So they are rich and powerful and do not shy away from exerting their influence to protect their interests.
Planes crashed more back then. Statistically speaking, safety has still improved over time even after the McDonnell-Douglas merger. Maybe it could have improved faster but commenters in this thread are saying crazy hyperbolic shit like “complete disregard for human life” which just doesn’t track with the actual accident rates. But conspiracy theories and corporate malfeasance sure do get a lot of clicks if you’re a news site. I’m sure executives were, are, and will continue to be profit-oriented while pretending to be something else, otherwise their business goes under.
Wow. That is chilling and very damning of Boeing. Like really…Boeing is that dirty? Surely not?
Friendly reminder that Boeing is not a plucky airline that can’t make safe airplanes, it’s an AMERICAN MILITARY DEFENSE CONTRACTOR worth billions. If I you threaten that arrangement with slander like the truth and facts, they are good friends with people who kill for a living and completely unashamed in paying for their services.
Put another way: there are plenty of people who will eagerly issue death threats, stalk you, and swat you over minor differences in opinion. Think what they would do over serious money.
Boeing makes the minuteman missles, directly profiteering from nuclear weapons which could destroy humanity many times over. They’re evil.
Do you have any fuckdamn idea how many innocent people died by the command of American fruit companies?
Capitalism feeds on blood, it always has.
United Fruit just turned into Chiquita and continued on like they didnt massacre people too.
Like really…Boeing is that dirty? Surely not?
I mean they were willing to knowingly keep producing unsafe air planes which lead to several crashes killing 100’s. So yeah, I really wouldn’t be surprised if they also do assassination to ensure their profit.
Boeing is that dirty? Surely not?
Why not?
International profit chasing entities just wouldn’t value profits over human life?
It is a corporations fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits over any other things. That obviously includes human lives.
Does a human life have a value to other humans? Yes.
Does a human have a value to a corporation? It has a value and a cost, if the cost is higher than the value of the human then it is a risk to the value of the company and can be liquidated.
“But corporations are supposed to care about people more than profits!”
Welcome to the real world, buddy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
Oh and have you any idea what Boeing has been doing for some years now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8oCilY4szc
Hint: it involves maximising profits while endangering people, to the extent that Boeing is literally assassinating witnesses so the extent of how recklessly they endangered lives for profit wouldn’t come out.
I’m not any defender of corporations, by any means, but I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a “close family friend” who “needed help one day” any more than some corporate HR; and “I don’t care what they say, I know that Mitch didn’t do that” isn’t exactly a solid argument to be basing things on.
Edit: I seem to have missed this on my first read:
Jennifer said she thinks somebody “didn’t like what he had to say” and wanted to “shut him up” without it coming back to anyone"…“That’s why they made it look like a suicide,”
I’m never surprised to hear something bad about Boeing, but this is just a woman convinced with, on the face of it, no other proof than what’s in her own head. Unless she’s got a recording or document, the article’s title could have been, “Family friend tells reporter a story”
And he said, ‘No, I ain’t scared, but if anything happens to me, it’s not suicide.’
He pretty much said “I think something may happen to me and they will make it look like a suicide.”
Unless she’s got a recording or document, the article’s title could have been, “Family friend tells reporter a story”
Yeah, it won’t hold up in court, and neither would it if she had recorded this casual, intimate conversation between two old friends.
Maybe, though, it’s enough to get the coroner to take another look at his death.
I’m not any defender of corporations, by any means, but I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a “close family friend” who “needed help one day” any more than some corporate HR;
You sure have a lot more faith in corporations than I do…
Maybe, though, it’s enough to get the coroner to take another look at his death.
He’s a high profile corporate whistleblower who allegedly committed suicide. Any coroner who isn’t already triple checking everything is way too corrupt or lazy to bother with another look.
He pretty much said “I think something may happen to me and they will make it look like a suicide.”
Did he state that somewhere else? Admittedly I haven’t been following the story too closely so I may have missed something there; but if he isn’t documented saying that somewhere credible, then all we have is her claiming that he “pretty much said” that. Is it likely he said it? I mean, I’d definitely be saying it if I was in his shoes, but one family friend’s claim isn’t enough to convince me that this should have been published as it was. I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it’s unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it’s always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it’s fact.
Maybe, though, it’s enough to get the coroner to take another look at his death.
Here’s to hoping
You sure have a lot more faith in corporations than I do…
I probably don’t, I’m just trying to present an argument with throwing on more layers of personal bias
This isn’t “I know Mitch didn’t do that”, it’s “he literally told me the specific thing that happened and he wasn’t going to do it”. What motivation does she have to just fully make up a conversation? Boeing has billions of dollars of motivation, she knew him from family get togethers.
There’s a few accounts on these threads that are really determined to remain neutral and open minded about Boeing, I blocked a different one with the same speech pattern recently
My pet theory: Some extra dirty psycho at Boeing probably had him killed. Probably to cover up specifics about themselves. It seems pretty clear Boeing is rotting at the head and has been for decades. All these issues that have come up since MAX are the result of deeply systemic problems, stemming from crooked, greedy psychopaths at the top.
But in the interests of being as rational and honest about this as possible, let’s also not forget that this article is based on her claim, and she’s the only one (so far) to make it. People have been known to seek attention with bullshit. It’s evidence, yeah, is it really unimpeachable? Well…
Think about it like this: if there was a dated and notarized statement in his handwriting saying the same thing that she claims he told her, that would be more trustworthy.
But again, pet theory, some Boeing sicko was covering their own ass by having him Epsteined. Totally plausible.
I don’t think this is the last we will be hearing about this.
What motivation does she have to just fully make up a conversation?
That’s my point: we have no idea. We have no information other than that her and Barnett’s mothers are best friends and that he was a pallbearer at her father’s funeral. She could be a well educated individual that is doing her best to make a point and draw attention to something, or she could be someone who believes tons of stuff that is blatantly false and is telling her opinion to anyone who will listen. Either way, (copying from my other comment) I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it’s unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it’s always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it’s fact."
I feel the same about the response given that I’m agreeing with everyone’s sentiments overall and only questioning the validity of a single source. Suppose I need to get a better feel for the site before trying to be more active.
I’m curious if some one who disagreed with you - on something that they found completely, obviously true - tried to convince you they were right by saying that their mom’s friend’s daughter made a claim about it, how inclined would you be to believe them or that daughter?
I think we all agree that Barnett suspected that something would happen; and we all agree that Boeing is a terrible company that is capable, and guilty, of terrible things. My point it just that there is concrete evidence of these things and articles should rely on something other than some person made a claim with nothing but, “it’s obvious” or “I know” to back it up
