[GW150914]

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.

[gonmf]

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.

[lambdadmitry]

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