• fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      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?

      • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

          • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            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?

            • fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.