I think that in this context it means that they acknowledge that they are not the ones who decide whether it is or isn’t genocide but in their opinion it does meet the necessary criteria.
Deciding that facts are facts is not up to anyone. It’s an agreement we all take part in when we converse.
Genocide is very very clearly defined, and this offensive is very very clearly documented. This is not opinion. This is not going to wait for myself, you, or OP, or any of our feelings.
This is genocide. That’s it. The fact that we are still talking about this in this way is insane. We’re a year deep into …
I’m gonna let the kids at home fill in the blanks.
But the standards for an organisation like Amnesty International saying a state is committing genocide are much higher than a random person on the internet.
To make a claim like that, they have to have specific evidence satisfying the actual definitions in international law, which is what this whole report is about. It’s all well and good for you to go “well it’s obvious to me”, but that doesn’t meet the standards of evidence for a reputable NGO like them to make a statement like that.
They agree with your stance, so I’m not sure I understand why your response to them - explicitly - saying “this is genocide” is to chew them out for it.
“amounts to” meaning what exactly
I think that in this context it means that they acknowledge that they are not the ones who decide whether it is or isn’t genocide but in their opinion it does meet the necessary criteria.
Deciding that facts are facts is not up to anyone. It’s an agreement we all take part in when we converse.
Genocide is very very clearly defined, and this offensive is very very clearly documented. This is not opinion. This is not going to wait for myself, you, or OP, or any of our feelings.
This is genocide. That’s it. The fact that we are still talking about this in this way is insane. We’re a year deep into …
I’m gonna let the kids at home fill in the blanks.
Spoiler, it’s textbook genocide.
But the standards for an organisation like Amnesty International saying a state is committing genocide are much higher than a random person on the internet.
To make a claim like that, they have to have specific evidence satisfying the actual definitions in international law, which is what this whole report is about. It’s all well and good for you to go “well it’s obvious to me”, but that doesn’t meet the standards of evidence for a reputable NGO like them to make a statement like that.
They agree with your stance, so I’m not sure I understand why your response to them - explicitly - saying “this is genocide” is to chew them out for it.
It means they believe the evidence they have is sufficient to show that it is genocide when considered together.
What’s confusing you here?