this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
-13 points (25.9% liked)
World Politics
742 readers
1 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This article talks about how people shouldn’t have consequences or it’ll push the population further right then go on to say this:
This is satire, right?
Can you cite where it says there should be no consequences?
Edit: to anyone down voting, not that these numbers mean much to me, would you care to back up the above user's claim? Because I think bias is showing through instead of actual consideration.
What do you think the consequences will be?
I can't even begin to make any sort of judgement on that, there are multitudes of mechanisms at their disposal I'm surely unaware of that could be employed. Netanyahu may be suffering his own consequences at home without help from the outside, creating a setting for the ICC in the near future to come after him in a different way with fewer potential pitfalls, though again I can't say what should be done. I can see the author's point in how this action could potentially not lead to peace right now, and agree.
It’s right in the preamble of the article you posted.
Have you read it?
Can you show me in that quote where it says there should be no consequences? Not that it will push people to the right.
What is the point of this article you posted?
Can you summarize in a simple sentence?
The ICC's current action is considered by the author to potentially not lead to peace but inflame aspects of the conflict.
Can you summarize the article, with quotes directly supporting your claims, in the way you see it?
So you agree this article is saying there should be no consequences.
No, because it’s a trash article.
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.
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?
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.
Can you explain this comment to me again only using quotes by Twilight Sparkle from My Little Pony?
GG no re?
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.
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.
If you can’t explain your position using Twilight Sparkle quotes, do you even understand what you are saying?
While that reasoning is impenetrable, I am gonna have to stand firm in my opinion :)