This cookie is used to distinguish between humans and bots. This is beneficial for the web site, in order to make valid reports on the use of their web site.
Remembers the user's selected language version of a website.
Registers a unique ID that is used to generate statistical data on how the visitor uses the website.Used by Google Analytics to throttle request rate.
This cookie is used to collect information on consumer behavior, which is sent to Alexa Analytics. (Alexa Analytics is an Amazon company.)
heytherehellogoodbye on March 12nd, 2026 at 22:27 UTC »
uhuh. Ok so next, why not put next to those countries terrorist groups that have in their charter the specific desire to exterminate those country's people, and then see how they respond.
myphriendmike on March 12nd, 2026 at 18:20 UTC »
What is the ICJ, why does it exist, and why should anyone care that Iceland wants to prosecute a case there? The constant appeals to international law, with little to no strength to back them up, do nothing but make Europe look weak and condescending.
boldmove_cotton on March 12nd, 2026 at 17:50 UTC »
Iceland is essentially admitting the evidence doesn't meet the legal standard for genocide, so their solution is to simply lower the standard. If you have to argue that 'other reasonable explanations' should be ignored, you aren't proving a crime—you're just engineering a foregone conclusion.
Imagine a murder trial where the prosecution says, 'Sure, there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the defendant was there, but we should just ignore that so we can get the conviction we want.' That’s Iceland’s logic here. Clown show.