Mark Gagnon

A murderer is convicted of killing someone, but he has retained his innocence the entire time.

Does the article then say, you know, the alleged killer, despite, you know, this killer being in prison?

But once legal action has been taken and he's been convicted in a court of law, does that no longer apply?

I see.

So take like, you know, World War II, right?

Or like, you know, the Third Reich.

Because of the Nuremberg trials, would these people be seen as war criminals within the Third Reich that were committing, you know, atrocities because of the Nuremberg trials?

Then the framing would be more to the effect of like, yes, this is less neutral, right?

So with that article specifically, what would be the standard of information or the standard of

knowledge, perhaps, that would make that article justified?

Would it be some type of military tribunal against the actors in the conflict?

Would it be a consensus from the UN and all other sort of global governing bodies?

What would that look like?

Well, I guess that would be my concern is that I would be, again, I don't know the totality of every geopolitical conflict, but I would assume that most nations and most governments are acting in such a way that they don't really think that they're committing any type of genocide in any capacity.

I don't think the Serbs thought that they were committing a genocide or, you know, the Turks.

You know what I mean?

Like, I don't know of any nation that we all would kind of be like, oh, that technically was a genocide.

Historically, I don't think any nation would ever say like, well, that's what we were doing.

I think they would say like, no, we were protecting our border or we were trying to, you know, care for our citizens and our ethnic group.

And they would denounce that framing.