But if you have questions rather than baseless charges, I'd be happy to answer them
Can we “have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity” at the same time as we take into account and “judge relativity and context” of the victimization?
Should acts by Hegemonic nations or international bodies (those with the power to act) addressing crimes against humanity gauge their response more by the circumstance of the victims in effort to do right by them or more by where the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity (a clearly defined term agreed to via treaty that you can look up) fall on a scale of atrocity committers?
If the focus should be on perpetrators rather than victims, should the scale we judge perpetrators on be based on all-time crimes against humanity or just ones by regimes still in power or recent crimes against humanity or only those exactly concurrent?
Can there be justice for victims without punishment for perpetrators or are the two inextricably linked in a zero sum equation?
In terms of actions against perpetrators, is there a difference between punitive and preventive measures? Is one preferable to the other in crafting a response?
I’ll stop here. Hopefully in answering with nuance and substance, Banks, in however many characters that takes you, you can deliver something worth gnawing on that relates to the topic rather than the personalities discussing it.