4 ms·

Bullshit article, no proofs, nothing but manifesting "it is so! believe me!"

by imcritic 2y ago

bediger4000 2y ago
Also, is avoiding international sanctions something to be proud of?
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  What does “international” mean? That’s just US and EU right? Isn’t every country free to do whatever it likes?
- eddyfromtheblok 2y ago
  The author's surname is "Bitcoin". Sounds like a ringing endorsement
- drysine 2y ago
  >international sanctions And by that you mean sanctions imposed by the US, the EU and some of their allies. I don't think that 15% of the world population living in these countries warrant calling the sanctions "international" as if they are in some way legitimate.
  - bediger4000 2y ago
    Thanks for that. I need to think about it. From that view, "international" anything isn't legitimate. There are always some country(s) where a given act is okay. The USA hasn't signed that treaty against land mines, for example, and isn't onboard with the ICC in the Hague. Malta and Panama do shell corporations that make Wyoming flinch. Banks in Cyprus, Guernsey and Isle of Man are widely considered to exist merely to launder money. So a country sanctioning or allowing something is a really weak basis, as you point out. But "countries with X% of the world population" is just as bad. Saudi Arabia is still an absolute monarchy. No telling what North Korea is, but a sanction from there does not represent the will of its people. Good point! Maybe no "international" anything is legit.
    - drysine 2y ago
      >a sanction from there does not represent the will of its people Do they represent the will of the people in democracies? I don't think they had a referendum on that issue. >Maybe no "international" anything is legit. Multilateral international treaties that states voluntarily joined are certainly legit, and so are UN GA non-binding votes and UN SC resolutions (although with that one not all people agree).

Bullshit article, no proofs, nothing but manifesting "it is so! believe me!"

bediger4000 2y ago

Also, is avoiding international sanctions something to be proud of?

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
What does “international” mean? That’s just US and EU right? Isn’t every country free to do whatever it likes?
eddyfromtheblok 2y ago
The author's surname is "Bitcoin". Sounds like a ringing endorsement
drysine 2y ago
>international sanctions And by that you mean sanctions imposed by the US, the EU and some of their allies. I don't think that 15% of the world population living in these countries warrant calling the sanctions "international" as if they are in some way legitimate.
- bediger4000 2y ago
  Thanks for that. I need to think about it. From that view, "international" anything isn't legitimate. There are always some country(s) where a given act is okay. The USA hasn't signed that treaty against land mines, for example, and isn't onboard with the ICC in the Hague. Malta and Panama do shell corporations that make Wyoming flinch. Banks in Cyprus, Guernsey and Isle of Man are widely considered to exist merely to launder money. So a country sanctioning or allowing something is a really weak basis, as you point out. But "countries with X% of the world population" is just as bad. Saudi Arabia is still an absolute monarchy. No telling what North Korea is, but a sanction from there does not represent the will of its people. Good point! Maybe no "international" anything is legit.
  - drysine 2y ago
    >a sanction from there does not represent the will of its people Do they represent the will of the people in democracies? I don't think they had a referendum on that issue. >Maybe no "international" anything is legit. Multilateral international treaties that states voluntarily joined are certainly legit, and so are UN GA non-binding votes and UN SC resolutions (although with that one not all people agree).