[flagged]
In what sense would it not have been ok?
Would their points have been invalid, on account of who was making them? Do you mean to say that whether an argument holds true or not, depends on who says it? That's not how reason works.
If all you mean to say is "There's a searing irony in seeing a serious criminal morally condemn a petty criminal", then sure, but that's not very insightful.
> Another word/concept used by the west to preempt/fight criticism of its crimes from the east.
You're leaping to the defence of a logical fallacy, because you find it politically inconvenient?
Reason does not bend to one's political position.
> I find it interesting that neither you nor anyone else who has responded to my comment has said anything about the core of it
Because I'm not interested in talking about that right now, I'm interested in seeing what's going on with your idea that one is somehow logically required to always talk about the USA.
My choice of topic does not make me a bigot.
> it shows your unwillingness to be a good "citizen" of this Planet
Going a little overboard, aren't we?
I'll remind you that you have no idea about my politics.