So by showing that you were completely wrong about everything you said, I confirmed everything you said (that was wrong). Interesting tactic. Not sure of its utility, but interesting. “Thank you for showing I’m wrong, that just proves how right I am!”
Good luck with that.
Oh my god, just thinking about it has given me the vapors!!!
If only dodging was an Olympic sport…
Of course, the claim was not that certain nations have laws that define certain things as murder. The claim was that it is a violation of international law. I take it that your act of changing the subject and trying to substitute a totally different example means that you can not, in fact, show the relevant international law?
Nothing. There are no standards, everything is totally relative, and we can’t even define terrorism if China defines it as whatever they don’t like.
Will you be sending me your computer then? No objective standard of personal property, cultures disagree, yadda yadda. You do really believe that, right? This isn’t a rationalization to avoid defining terrorism? So when can I expect you to send me your computer?
Wrong, bullshit, and nonsense. Nothing has been “pointed out”. In fact, in the fact of numerous challenges to show why, in the history of modern espionage this hasn’t caused problems for nations who passports were used, it suddenly would now, people have remained silent.
Because, the fact is, taking out a terrorist with zero civilian casualties is cleaner and more humane than war or sanctions. You can “point out” whatever you like, but as long as you avoid the very simple facts, you’re not refuting anything, only avoiding.