Members of Sweden's IF Metall metalworkers' union working at Tesla service centres went on strike on Friday morning following a breakdown in negotiations over a collective bargaining agreement.
I just don’t know enough to be sure how I feel. Besides the two people he killed he also injured another 23. What was the thought process for the bomb? From the article and the pictures it was well above the waterline and so based on the size of the hole the bomb would never have sunk the ship. Was he just young and inexperienced, not realizing his bomb wouldn’t sink the boat? Was he malicious and just trying to kill people? Was he trying to scare people and not really cause any harm?
Depending on the answers to these answers he’s either a monster or an inexperienced kid and I can see cause for leniency or none.
Also, looking at the rest of his history I doubt he would have offered the same pardons he received.
As I understand the story, there was huge international pressure on Sweden to release these three men, because the bombing was deemed to be a justified defense against the company’s use of strike breakers by at least part of the unionist movement back then.
Sort of your freedom fighter is my terrorist and vice versa thing.
The terrorist Anton Nilsen was sentenced to death, but the hero of the fight against strikebreaking Anton Nilsen was released after 9 years forced labour.
It might be a case of present morals/ethics being applied to the past, but it’s kinda fucked up. It’s literally justifying murder and terrorism. Fighting against strike breaking companies is certainly a admirable, but doesn’t justify killing people.
I’m pretty sure a lot of people shared your opinion on the pardon even back then. I do. I think it would have been okay to grant some lenience to them because of noble motifs, like not handing out a life sentence instead of a death sentence or 20 years instead of life for his accomplices. On the other hand – WWII started a wild time in the world with revolutions, armed conflict (look up the strike culture in the US in the early 20^th century!), civil wars and full scale wars all over the place where the life of a human being was not worth a lot. Probably the morals regarding blowing up strike breakers of today and of 1908 are more alike than these of 1908 and 1917.
That’s kinda fucked up, dude killed some people, never apologized (just that he regretted they got killed at his trial), and dude gets a full pardon?!
I’m not saying he should have been executed, but a full pardon is insane.
After 9 years, most of which as forced labor. Perhaps a bit light of a sentence, but still quite a long time.
I just don’t know enough to be sure how I feel. Besides the two people he killed he also injured another 23. What was the thought process for the bomb? From the article and the pictures it was well above the waterline and so based on the size of the hole the bomb would never have sunk the ship. Was he just young and inexperienced, not realizing his bomb wouldn’t sink the boat? Was he malicious and just trying to kill people? Was he trying to scare people and not really cause any harm?
Depending on the answers to these answers he’s either a monster or an inexperienced kid and I can see cause for leniency or none.
Also, looking at the rest of his history I doubt he would have offered the same pardons he received.
As I understand the story, there was huge international pressure on Sweden to release these three men, because the bombing was deemed to be a justified defense against the company’s use of strike breakers by at least part of the unionist movement back then.
Sort of your freedom fighter is my terrorist and vice versa thing.
The terrorist Anton Nilsen was sentenced to death, but the hero of the fight against strikebreaking Anton Nilsen was released after 9 years forced labour.
It might be a case of present morals/ethics being applied to the past, but it’s kinda fucked up. It’s literally justifying murder and terrorism. Fighting against strike breaking companies is certainly a admirable, but doesn’t justify killing people.
I’m pretty sure a lot of people shared your opinion on the pardon even back then. I do. I think it would have been okay to grant some lenience to them because of noble motifs, like not handing out a life sentence instead of a death sentence or 20 years instead of life for his accomplices. On the other hand – WWII started a wild time in the world with revolutions, armed conflict (look up the strike culture in the US in the early 20^th century!), civil wars and full scale wars all over the place where the life of a human being was not worth a lot. Probably the morals regarding blowing up strike breakers of today and of 1908 are more alike than these of 1908 and 1917.