@Melkath I think you replied to the wrong comment?
For reference I’m not from the US and I am highly opposed to:
a) Israeli colonization of the West Bank b) human rights abuses perpetrated against the civillians of Gaza c) the US paying for/ supporting anything to do with the above.
I’m sorry for the US’s internal troubles you mention too of course (and its weird, old presidents) but that’s not what this thread is about, and I’m not much interested in discussing them.
You’re injecting legal drivel to minimize events that have now occurred.
Either you are an opportunistic asshole, an unwitting weasle who needs to find lands to burrow under that aren’t quite as land bearing, or you are a spineless prick who will soften the foundation of the master you surrendered your spine to.
Admittedly, I’m having a hard time being cordial in internet conversations these days, but I am pretty sure my second paragraph isn’t patently false.
You asked “May?” implying that you are questioning why it may be complicate and they replied that they think that the article means he may be legally complicit which has a specific requirement that they helpfully provided.
They didn’t inject the “legal drivel” the original article did. You’re arguing against things that they didn’t say.
@Melkath ha ha ha nah that’s a real swing and a miss.
OP’s article is literally about lawyers talking about international law.
I was simply clarifying the point in the article because as you point out the headline “may” makes no sense from a layperson’s perspective if you haven’t read the article.
@Melkath I think you replied to the wrong comment?
For reference I’m not from the US and I am highly opposed to:
a) Israeli colonization of the West Bank b) human rights abuses perpetrated against the civillians of Gaza c) the US paying for/ supporting anything to do with the above.
I’m sorry for the US’s internal troubles you mention too of course (and its weird, old presidents) but that’s not what this thread is about, and I’m not much interested in discussing them.
You’re injecting legal drivel to minimize events that have now occurred.
Either you are an opportunistic asshole, an unwitting weasle who needs to find lands to burrow under that aren’t quite as land bearing, or you are a spineless prick who will soften the foundation of the master you surrendered your spine to.
Admittedly, I’m having a hard time being cordial in internet conversations these days, but I am pretty sure my second paragraph isn’t patently false.
You really need to chill mate.
You asked “May?” implying that you are questioning why it may be complicate and they replied that they think that the article means he may be legally complicit which has a specific requirement that they helpfully provided.
They didn’t inject the “legal drivel” the original article did. You’re arguing against things that they didn’t say.
And you really need to gaggle my ball sack.
Joe Biden just invested 50 billion dollars into genocide and told everyone to sit and spin on it.
But who are you arguing with? Nobody in the thread disagrees with you.
Removed by mod
@Melkath ha ha ha nah that’s a real swing and a miss.
OP’s article is literally about lawyers talking about international law.
I was simply clarifying the point in the article because as you point out the headline “may” makes no sense from a layperson’s perspective if you haven’t read the article.
Not sure why you’re projecting onto me.