[rini17]

So far all evidence points to bodies being piled on one side. With only few exceptions. Going on over year and half without clear rationale other than vaguely "butbutbut human shields butbutbut propaganda".

By avoiding to admit this you are indeed defending the attacker.

[neepi]

I’m amazed at how you managed to trivialise the deaths of 1915 people in that comment. All people matter on both sides and everyone deserves justice. That only comes if we make accurate prosecutions which requires evidence and due process.

And how dare you make accusations along those lines. Your attitude contributes to the problem.

[rini17]

Fine, what steps were taken to accurately prosecute these 1915 deaths? Are there any people indicted and undergoing fair trial for that? Can you name them? ICC did, but then got practically canceled. So who is to do it and when?

Oh you can't answer that easily without trivializing these deaths yourself. Accusing others, that are suspicious of all of this, of "attitude" is easier.

[neepi]

I haven’t accused anyone less than everyone. There are bad actors on all sides (this spans more than “both sides”).

As for enforcement and prosecution the ICC warrants were justified and the situation that remains is tragic. You can thank the US for throwing a spanner in those works.

I’m not sure why you keep trying to put words in my mouth. Perhaps to justify your partisan position rather than my entirely neutral one? Sure feels like it.

[rini17]

Neutral position that defers to fair justice in a situation where such justice is highly unlikely?

[neepi]

It’s only unlikely because it’s politically inconvenient for it to be unlikely as the nations preventing it don’t want to be judged by the same standards.

[rini17]

That is "only" the strongest motivation in politics. And it ensures any fair justice will happen long after it would have mattered. So deferring to it is not really morally neutral here.