The question is, why should the opinions of the largely impartial UN and human rights scholars be weighed equally to the obviously partisan opinions of commentators and governments?
But his neutral example wording makes it sound like most say it’s not a genocide not actually expressing in a neural way who’s arguing, or presenting facts on how it’s a genocide. He makes it sound like it’s still debatable
In response to:
Jimbo says:
Lmao
But his neutral example wording makes it sound like most say it’s not a genocide not actually expressing in a neural way who’s arguing, or presenting facts on how it’s a genocide. He makes it sound like it’s still debatable