you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

Your original argument was that this conflict was opened by kidnapping the head of a state.

Faced with a counterpoint, you're arguing it's not like a much more serious invasion.

True, but that's not invalidating the fact that it was not opened by a kidnapping.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    And?

    Please point me to a single comment I've made on any post in the last 24 hours that indicates, in any way, that I don't consider the arbitrary abduction of the head of a foreign government to be a serious breach of international law.

    You cannot.

    What I won't let slide without argument are false equivalencies, half-truths, or misrepresentations of law.

    When horrible shit happens is the time for more accuracy and specificity, not less.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment