World Politics

757 readers

81 users here now

Political news from around the world.

No U.S, U.K, Ca, Aus, E.U politics

Posts must be related to Conflict, Politicians, Nation-states, Electoralism, or International Relations

Posts and Comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-13

One Step Forward for the ICC, One Leap Backward for Peace (www.lawfaremedia.org)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Can you show me in that quote where it says there should be no consequences? Not that it will push people to the right.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What is the point of this article you posted?

Can you summarize in a simple sentence?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The ICC's current action is considered by the author to potentially not lead to peace but inflame aspects of the conflict.

The move might be one small step forward for some sort of symbolic justice, but it’s going to be a giant leap backward from reaching a far more important goal—peace.

Can you summarize the article, with quotes directly supporting your claims, in the way you see it?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So you agree this article is saying there should be no consequences.

Can you summarize the article, with quotes directly supporting your claims, in the way you see it?

No, because it’s a trash article.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Again, that doesn't show up in the article. I can see you want it to say that, but I'm sorry, the article is objectively not suggesting no consequences.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The consequences are the court ruling and the article is arguing against it.

How do you explain that the court ruling isn’t a consequence?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, you're trying to conflate their disagreement with this action with the idea that they disagree with any action, which you've thus far been unable to support with quotes from the article.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Can you explain this comment to me again only using quotes by Twilight Sparkle from My Little Pony?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

GG no re?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You’re asking me to support my argument using only quotes from your trash article even though I’ve explained my position to you very simply, so I’m asking for an equivalent useless exercise from you.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

You're claiming the author's opinion using the article, which is trash (according to you), so you can't use the article to support your claim. So your claim is unsupported, even though you say the article supports your claim?

Yea, no re.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If you can’t explain your position using Twilight Sparkle quotes, do you even understand what you are saying?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

While that reasoning is impenetrable, I am gonna have to stand firm in my opinion :)