It’s not fun interacting with them when they often want to engage in ad hominems. This is why I have no interest in the tankie triad.
It’s not fun interacting with them when they often want to engage in ad hominems. This is why I have no interest in the tankie triad.
Can you specifically cite this? Specifically, I don’t see anything in the report that is as definitive as “was widespread”. The actual words I see in their report is:
edit: here’s a link to the actual report
From the official report, this is based on patterns that are described as ‘partially or fully naked victims’, but they specifically say that they cannot verify specific instances beyond this type of “circumstantial” evidence or eyewitness testimony. They even say:
Considering that these reports are often cited as justification for various war crimes and acts of genocide, it’s extremely important to be precise with language and delineate what is definitively known vs what is assumed.