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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
GG no re?
Removed by mod
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.