3 ms·

> Not everything requires pedantic justification, especially deranged calls for dehumanization and ethnic prejudice. It is Common Sense (and legally correct) th

> Not everything requires pedantic justification, especially deranged calls for dehumanization and ethnic prejudice. It is Common Sense (and legally correct) that coffee shops are not government agents just because they are registered in a particular place. Nobody claimed that coffee shops (or fishing vessels) are "government agents". The claim was that a fishing vessel registered to Russia has "ties" to Russian government. This claim is factually true. For instance, they pay some amount of taxes to the Russian government. This also holds true for a coffee shop: a coffee shop registered to Finland pays some amount of taxes to Finnish government.

unmole 5y ago
So, Osama bin Laden had a valid justification after all. /s > You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake: This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago
  You're comparing the murder of 3000 civilians to the act of cancelling cats from a cat show. These acts are different, as one is a peaceful act of protest, while the other is a violent act of war. If Osama bin Laden had initiated economic sanctions and boycotts (cancelings) against the U.S. would it have been justified? Yes!

unmole 5y ago

So, Osama bin Laden had a valid justification after all. /s > You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake: This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

baobabKoodaa 5y ago
You're comparing the murder of 3000 civilians to the act of cancelling cats from a cat show. These acts are different, as one is a peaceful act of protest, while the other is a violent act of war. If Osama bin Laden had initiated economic sanctions and boycotts (cancelings) against the U.S. would it have been justified? Yes!