That’s the article title, not OP. What I think they were trying to do was specifically quote the UN’s words in the title, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was an intended double meaning.
As for OP, they’re trying to follow Rule 4, “post titles should the same as the article used as source.”
As for this publication, International Monitor, likely because they have to use quotes to be appear neutral and not cross various libel/defamation laws. While the UN says it, they could be sued in a country that does not agree.
I don’t disagree that I prefer a publication that doesn’t feel it necessary to hedge their bets behind quotes, but at the same time, not all publications have the resources to “fight the good fight” as it were. They are simply not positioned geographically and financially to be able to put up that fight, unfortunately. I really don’t know if that applies to International Monitor or not, if they’ve got money coming out their ears or aren’t stationed in places it might cause legal issues, they don’t really have a lot of great excuses.
Why the fuck is OP using quotations?
The UN says its a war crime. Not a “war crime”.
Because the article headline - of which the post title is a direct copy - uses quotation marks.
That’s the article title, not OP. What I think they were trying to do was specifically quote the UN’s words in the title, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was an intended double meaning.
As for OP, they’re trying to follow Rule 4, “post titles should the same as the article used as source.”
As for this publication, International Monitor, likely because they have to use quotes to be appear neutral and not cross various libel/defamation laws. While the UN says it, they could be sued in a country that does not agree.
I don’t disagree that I prefer a publication that doesn’t feel it necessary to hedge their bets behind quotes, but at the same time, not all publications have the resources to “fight the good fight” as it were. They are simply not positioned geographically and financially to be able to put up that fight, unfortunately. I really don’t know if that applies to International Monitor or not, if they’ve got money coming out their ears or aren’t stationed in places it might cause legal issues, they don’t really have a lot of great excuses.
Anyway…
Do you have any sources for this being done / being even theoretically possible?
You’re right, but it is an inarguable fact that the UN said it is a war crime. They shouldn’t need to hedge it with the “alleged” quotes.