Hacker News Reader

Comment by CLPadvocate | Hacker News Reader

Not a single one of these is even close to be a proof. All of them are just opinions of specific groups of people - most of them have their own agenda, so they can't even be considered to be unbiased opinions.

If we're talking about legal evaluation, then there is a strict formal procedure that collects and evaluates the evidence from both sides controlled by lawyers. And after the court comes to a final conclusion including appeals or whatever steps are provided by the legal system, then you may claim that something was proven.

For a scientific proof, the procedure is much more complex - basically you start with a claim and then you have to disprove or invalidate EVERY SINGLE opposite claim, fact or evidence. And there is actually no time limit here - scientists are still trying to disprove theories from the 17th century.

This is how things work in real world.

View on HN

It seems unwise to require centuries of investigation before we can start talking about an ongoing genocide.

We are after legal proof, not scientific proof. Science is too slow to stop genocide from occurring and hold those accountable.

Netanyahu is wanted for warcrimes by ICC. Is he convicted? No, he is a suspect. Is he trying to avoid getting arrested? Yes, just like Putin. Both of these countries are likely to have recently commmited warcrimes.

After WWII and 'Wir haben es nicht gewußt' we set up international organizations to avoid this happening again. Unfortunately, not everyone recognizes these organizations but that is also a tell tale of their intentions.

there are a couple of problems with these "international organisations": first and foremost - they are created by the few former colonial powers who were never hold accountable for their own war crimes - but instead gave them the additional power to judge over their former victims (and the rest of the world).

the second point is - these organisations are used to cement the status quo - which is also created by the colonial powers and has absolutely nothing to do with the reality in the world - thus on one hand making all conflicts unavoidable and on the other hand mostly illegal.

the third point is - the rules are not applied to all countries in the same way - e.g. Turkey occupied half of Cyprus and displaced a large part of its population, Turkey is bombing innocent people in Syria, Turkey keeps refugees that originally headed to Europe under very inhuman conditions - not only there are no sanctions for that, Europe is basically funding all of this. As Russia occupied Georgia and annexed parts of it, there were no investigations, no sanctions, nothing. As China occupied Tibet, there were no sanctions but huge investments instead. And there are many more examples.

If you want to have an accepted legal system then it may not be biased and has to apply to everyone without exceptions - what we have at the moment is not even a joke. It's the opposite of a legal system.

The countries which don't accept the current legal system have every interest to undermine its legal system by questioning it, spreading FUD, nitpicking on how it isn't perfect, playing the history card about colonies, and everything else from the dark triad handbook.

If countries such as China and Russia would recognize ICC, then these instances would've been investigated. For on paper they are worse than Srebrenica. The reason nothing happened with regards to Tibet is because of China's soft power. Same regarding Russia and Georgia, and if USA and IL are in cahoots with the Axis of Evil the West's soft power diminishes because the USA was the one keeping it all together. Hence you see the rest of West's defense industry scaling up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com