Hacker News Reader

Comment by GW150914 | Hacker News Reader

To me this circus around this particular assassination just appears to stem from having to justify sanctions against Russia by the UK.

I’m not going to touch the majority of the bait you’re laying out and instead merely note that the “circus” was probably more a result of the extensive and expensive decontamination required over a large area. Oh yes, and the civilian who died and her partner who was affected. That kind of thing tends to make people pretty upset, no need for sprawling conspiracies of the state required. Personally it didn’t seem like much of a circus unless... did you see the decontamination tents and get a little confused?

View on HN

Are you upset about the droning of civilians with very little oversight? Are you upset about the kidnapping of civilians into cargo ships to act as prisons without jurisdiction?

This attack killed four people, let's say there have been 20 times as many, so 80 deaths overall. do you believe the CIA, Mossad, Iran secret services, China secret services, didn't kill more?

You seem very dedicated to making this a case of “everyone is bad, so no one is bad.” I’ll repeat that old saw, two wrongs don’t make a right. The injustices and acts of violence committed by America against others don’t justify, excuse, or mitigate similar acts by Russia.

Now, can we get back to the topic at hand without these diversions? You were claiming that the “circus” of the UK being outraged by the use of a chemical weapon to attempt to murder two people on their soil, and the incidental killing of a third and injury of a fourth (both civilians) was a “circus” I think. I’m still interested to your non-diversionary response to my take on why that would legitimately anger not just the government of the UK, but anger and terrify its people.

My point is not that everyone is bad. My point is that this is par for the course. We don't live in a world of law. We live in a world of civilian law separated and insulated mostly in countries, and over that, anything goes. We are not at war because our wars are financial now but it is very normal for the kidnapping and murder of people that a security threat to a country.

My point was that, if you switched and the murdered was a nuclear scientist and the assassins were Mossad agents (like it happened at least once), no one was surprised or made sanctions because of it.

You are committing a category error right there. There is a difference between "is" (as is "we don't live…") and "ought" ("I find it morally repulsive and it's wrong"), you can't argue one with another. Though it's a very popular rhetoric device to cover morally dubious deeds

Reply on news.ycombinator.com