The United States : Torture

[Hakaku]

TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- A training manual for Canadian diplomats lists the United States as a country where prisoners risk torture and abuse, citing interrogation techniques such as stripping prisoners, blindfolding and sleep deprivation.

 

 

The U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, gets singled out in a training manual for Canadian diplomats.

 

The Foreign Affairs Department do!@#$%^&*ent, released Friday, singled out the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It also names Israel, Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Syria as places where inmates could face torture.

 

A Canadian citizen, Omar Khadr, is in custody at Guantanamo, but Canada has long publicly said it accepts U.S. !@#$%^&*urances that Khadr is being treated humanely.

 

The government inadvertently released the manual to attorneys for Amnesty International who are working on a lawsuit involving alleged abuse of Afghan detainees by local Afghan authorities after Canadian troops handed over the detainees.

 

"The do!@#$%^&*ent in question is a training manual. It is not a policy do!@#$%^&*ent or any kind of a statement of policy. As such it does not convey the government's views or positions," said Neil Hrab, a spokesman for Canada's Foreign Affairs Department.

 

"The training manual purposely raised public issues to stimulate discussion and debate in the classroom."

 

"We find it to be offensive for us to be on the same list with countries like Iran and China. Quite frankly it's absurd," U.S. Amb!@#$%^&*ador David Wilkins to Canada said. "For us to be on a list like that is just ridiculous."

 

He said the U.S. does not authorize or condone torture. "We think it should be removed and we've made that request. We have voiced our opinion very forcefully."

 

Michael Mendel, the Israeli Emb!@#$%^&*y spokesman, said Israel's Supreme Court "is on record as expressly prohibiting any type of torture. If Israel is included in the list in question, the amb!@#$%^&*ador of Israel would expect its removal," he said.

 

Human rights groups have long called on Canada to pressure the United States to return Khadr from Guantanamo. They say not enough has been done for Khadr, who has been in custody since he was 15. Khadr is accused of tossing a grenade that killed one U.S. soldier and injured another in Afghanistan in 2002.

 

He is the son of an alleged al Qaeda financier, and his family has received little sympathy in Canada, where they've been called the "First Family of Terrorism."

 

Dennis Edney, one of Khadr's attorneys, said the foreign affairs do!@#$%^&*ent shows that Canada says one thing publicly but believes something else privately.

 

"Canada was well aware that Omar Khadr's allegations of being tortured had a ring of truth to it. Canada has not once raised the protection of Omar Khadr when there are such serious allegations," Edney said. "What does that say to you about Canada's commitment to the rule of law and human rights? It talks on both sides of its face."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas...ref=mpstoryview

 

This isn't so much about Canada or Khadr, it's about torture in the United States. More specifically (although by far not limited to), Guantanamo Bay.

 

Although it's not something that most of us reject as a fact, we just tend to completely avoid mentioning Guantanamo Bay. So when the US Amb!@#$%^&*ador says "the U.S. (...) does not condone torture" (but they don't authorize it either), it raises questions. By this vague response, I can assume that if torture is just done without any form of approval, disaproval, or general concensus, it remains ok and justifiable? Same goes for Israel; just because the supreme courts condone torture, does it mean that it doesn't happen anyways?

[Hoch]

In the past, I have worked on torture cases in the

Hague, and generally speaking international law

lawyers agree that what is suspected to have gone

on in Guantanamo Bay may, in law, amount to torture.

But that is the easy bit. Note that I intentionally used

the word 'suspected' because independent verification

is difficult to come by. Contrary to what many of you

might have read in the press the legal position is far

from certain (see below).

 

The hard part, or the difficulty lies in being able to

enforce the applicable laws against torture. Namely,

the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman or Degrading Punishments or Treatment

(1984) though others exist. This is compounded by

the fact that the status of Guantanamo Bay in inter-

national law is not precisely defined. On this point,

this is more of a political debate, but international law

is ultimately a slave to its political masters.

 

On this basis, I think it would be wholly inaccurate and

a gross exaggeration to state that prisoners in the US

risk torture and abuse without making reference to the

believed actions in Guantanamo Bay. Ultimately one must

recognise that because you have to add this caveat that

the United States profile against torture is diminished.

Nonetheless it is necessary to make this distinction so

as to accurately portray the position of torture in the US.

 

The US has long been a trailblazer in securing human

rights save for the black-eye that is Guantanamo Bay.

Therefore in my opinion it is wrong to use the interna-

tional law axiom that what is not explicitly prohibited is

inferentially permissible in an either or situation involving

torture and the US.

 

-Hoch

[Hakaku]

The US has long been a trailblazer in securing human rights save for the black-eye that is Guantanamo Bay. Therefore in my opinion it is wrong to use the international law axiom that what is not explicitly prohibited is inferentially permissible in an either or situation involving torture and the US.

In case you failed to read, it had nothing to do with any international law concerning torture, it was about a Manual created for Canadian diplomats, which list all the countries in which torture may happen if imprisoned. It's really just the United States' laws that are trailing behind, not the fact that the US is a supposed pioneer in securing human rights:

"In October 2006, a Republican-controlled Congress, with the strong backing of the Bush Administration, passed the Military Commissions Act. This law not only cons!@#$%^&*utes an assault on habeas corpus, it has effectively legalized the use of torture by the United States government. It is, in effect, a Torture Law."

Related article

 

If the US was such a 'trailblazer in securing human rights', then things such as racism, slavery, death penalty. and the American Civil War should have never existed in the first place. It also shouldn't have taken international pressure to make the US join the UN (whose headquarters were purposely chosen to be situated in New York).

You can praise the system all you want, but all humans should be allowed fair trial (reference to the Canadians : Khadr, and Maher Arar). Guantanamo Bay wasn't the only place listed as a reason why the US was stated as a country where prisoners risk torture, but was the main focus. The do!@#$%^&*ent didn't specify how torture was defined, but things such as 'forced nudity, isolation, sleep deprivation, water boarding...' were !@#$%^&*ociated to the US'.

 

Canada (asides Stephen Harper) isn't the only one criticizing the US, but other countries have as well (although not as direct). MSNBC reports :

3pTJnIXlFgkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pTJnIXlFgk

[Aileron]

Hakaku, get a grip. Where did you get that post - Generic Pla!@#$%^&*udes R' Us? All countries have a history of atrocities - the US is a trailblazer because it has a history of doing something about atrocities.

 

Since its Martin Luther King weekend, I'll use the Civil Rights movement. Yes, the US has predudices, but it generated the Civil Rights movement to correct that problem. The countries which violate human rights are the ones that supposedly never were racist to begin with, because in reality they were, buried it, and still are.

 

 

 

The problem is that terrorists are people who try to play two roles at the same time. They like to play both military and civilian roles depending upon the time. Generally they like to play soldier when interacting with a civilian population, when handling large weapons, and when they are winning. They like to play civilian when interacting with an opposing military population, when retreating, and generally when they are losing.

 

The reason for Guantanimo Bay is that the US correctly noticed that these people were acting a lot like soldiers when they were shooting at US forces in Afghanistan so they deserve to be treated like soldiers now. The terrorists are resorting to their old standby of trying to switch into a civilian hat.

 

To a soldier, humiliation and hard exercise is part of the job description. Soldiers captured in wars don't get trials. To a soldier, water boarding qualifies as 'a little hardship'. In a way, the Golden Rule is still being applied. The US is treating others like they would expect their soldiers to be treated.

 

Now to a civilian this would be cruel and unusual, but generally there is a certain social contract one undertakes when one joins a military.

[Hoch]

What he said

 

Just to add, torture is explicitly prohibited in the US

and, gasp, under international law. Hence the ref-

erence. No need to pretentious.

 

 

-Hoch

[Hakaku]

All countries have a history of atrocities - the US is a trailblazer because it has a history of doing something about atrocities.

True, but all countries having a history of atrocities does not make them trailblazers in human rights. And if you want to cite how the US doesn't accept torture, and follows international laws; then that's not quite true. The war on Iraq and Afghanistan would have never occured to the same extent; and the racism and predjudism that occured all around people who originated from the middle east wouldn't have happened either. Although it's difficult to change people's mindset, especially after 9/11, were the US a trailblazer in human rights, you'd think they'd learn from events that have occured around them. As I recall, the whole form of prevention of terrorism and military acts that followed (which override both cons!@#$%^&*ution and UN human rights), were and still are largely criticized to being the same as Canada's history with Japanese Canadian internment. - This is where Maher Arar comes in, he was deported to Syria and tortured, in an example of the United States policy of "Extraordinary rendition". - And also Khadr, who had alledgedly thrown a grenade and killed one US soldier, and therefore was accused as a terrorist and detained without any fair trial whatsoever at the age of 15. - Which also questions the use of Guantanamo Bay and torture :

 

Khadr has been reported to have been kept in solitary confinement, for long periods of time; to have been denied adequate medical treatment; to have been subjected to short shackling, and left bound, in uncomfortable stress positions until he soiled himself.1 2 3 Khadr's lawyers allege that his interrogators "dragged [him] back and forth in a mixture of his urine and pine oil" then did not provide a change of clothes for two days.4

 

The problem is that terrorists are people who try to play two roles at the same time. They like to play both military and civilian roles depending upon the time. Generally they like to play soldier when interacting with a civilian population, when handling large weapons, and when they are winning. They like to play civilian when interacting with an opposing military population, when retreating, and generally when they are losing.

(...)

How do you define terrorists when the US is the one invading other countries? How do you define terrorism to child soldiers? (in the case of Khadr, it is unknown as to wether he was forced to take part or not) The US is one of the only countries to use vaguely defined terrorism as an excuse, and the only G8 country to use any form of torture in war (and justify it) and detain prisoners without allowing fair trial if any whatsoever - in modern times. The US has 'refused to apply Geneva Conventions to prisoners of war from Afghanistan, and has misused the designation of 'illegal combatant' to apply to criminal suspects on U.S. soil. They further use the Military Commissions Act of 2006 as an excuse to allow torture legally.

[Aileron]

You only provided anecdotal evidence for Extraordinary Rendition. But, the source of the problem is that Syria violates human rights. Remove the human rights violators and the process couldn't happen. The US has done a lot to end the process of Extraordinary Rendition - the US recently toppled two regimes which practiced torture and were potential hosts for the practice. Call it my opinion, but I'd expect that this term is merely a political tool to transfer the blame to the US for the actions of other countries.

 

Besides, why would a Canadian diplomat have to be in fear of this? The only country we could extradite a Canadian citizen to is Canada.

 

 

For the purpose of this arguement, I'll define "terrorist" as a soldier who uses civilian disguise and civilian means to confuse their enemies about their iden!@#$%^&*y.

 

Khadr isn't a complete name - I'm guessing its not even a complete first name. That to me makes this accusation fishy, because crime victims usually have complete names. But, he's a perfect illustration of my point. Khadr was acting a lot like a soldier when he was throwing grenades around in Afghanistan, then he gets captured. Rather than accept a captured soldier's fate, he then tries to act like a civilian.

 

Soldiers captured in wars don't get trials. When Canadians in WW II captured German soldiers, they did not have a trial which proved the German soldiers were in fact German soldiers, nor did they have a trial to determine if the German soldiers actually did something in the war, and nor would they release the German soldiers if it turned out that they are fresh recruits who haven't done anything yet. Generally its regarded that the soldier should be gratefull that his captors didn't shoot him on sight, and anything beyond that is complaining.

 

Okay, so let me translte this accusation to something that isn't laywer-speak. You had this guy Khadr, who was captured. They put him in a cell, and made him stay there in a "stress position". By the way, real soldiers have to stay in "stress positions" all the time, they call it "standing in formation". The man soiled himself and urinated on the floor, probably because Khadr was supposedly part of an army, and the guards incorrectly !@#$%^&*umed that he had undergone training. The soldier's then cleaned the floor with the "Pine oil", probably some pine-scented cleaning product, and took him out of the cell.

 

That's not torture. That's a wannabe soldier with bladder problems. Now that I think about it if I was both so weak and so dellusional I'd probably not want to be giving my last name out too.

 

Besides, if we're so bad shouldn't he be wanting to be a victim of Extraordinary Rendition?

 

 

 

But back to the origional topic - answer me these questions:

 

Do Canadian visitors on the south side of Niagra falls need to watch their back for fear of secret police?

 

Do Canadian emb!@#$%^&*ies in major cities need to be moved into fortified bunkers outside the city limits?

 

Are the Canadian soldiers stationed at Norad in danger of losing their lives at the hands of their US co-workers?

 

Do Canadians living on your southern border need to worry about rocket attacks and border skirmishes by US extremists?

 

Are there huge city wide riots in the US, featuring burning the Canadian flag, the hanging of Prime Minister in effigy, and banners featuring various death threats towards Canadians, every time a Canadian says or writes something that offends someone in the US?

 

 

I could go on if you like, but case in point this is the case of some liberal loon in the Canadian government who when asked to make a factual and functional guide had instead decided to turn it into a piece of political rhetoric. My two cents is that he should be canned and one of your newpapers should employ him as an opinion writer, because thats where his interests seem to lie.

[Hakaku]

You only provided anecdotal evidence for Extraordinary Rendition. But, the source of the problem is that Syria violates human rights. Remove the human rights violators and the process couldn't happen. The US has done a lot to end the process of Extraordinary Rendition - the US recently toppled two regimes which practiced torture and were potential hosts for the practice. Call it my opinion, but I'd expect that this term is merely a political tool to transfer the blame to the US for the actions of other countries.

No, the problem to start with was the fact that american 'intelligence' alledgedly had evidence against M. Arar, which was false. The americans sent him to Syria, knowingly he would be tortured. It wasn't only a failure on Syria's part (which is also listed as a country of torture), it was a failure on the American side. M. Arar had no proven connections whatsoever, he was just a mere Canadian (not even a Syrian), who now seeks answers and compensation for what he was put through.

He was detained during a layover at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunis. He was held in solitary confinement in the U.S. for nearly two weeks, questioned, and denied meaningful access to a lawyer. The U.S. Government suspected him of being a member of Al Qaeda and deported him, not to Canada, his current home, but to his native Syria, even though the nation is known to use torture on suspects. He was detained in Syria for almost a year, during which time he was, according to the findings of the Arar Commission, regularly tortured, until his release to Canada.

Besides, why would a Canadian diplomat have to be in fear of this? The only country we could extradite a Canadian citizen to is Canada.

Read the above statement.

 

 

Khadr isn't a complete name - I'm guessing its not even a complete first name. That to me makes this accusation fishy, because crime victims usually have complete names. But, he's a perfect illustration of my point. Khadr was acting a lot like a soldier when he was throwing grenades around in Afghanistan, then he gets captured. Rather than accept a captured soldier's fate, he then tries to act like a civilian.

I think this is playing childish, his full name is Omar Ahmed Khadr; he was born a Canadian. He threw one grenade, at which point he was said to be 'forced to join rebels'. A lot of the information involved in his case is quite far-fetched, as some important key issues were witheld, and parts of the story have changed since he was first captured (the US keeps witholding information, whereas some of it which could be used against them was leaked along the way, but too late to be used).

He was detained at the age of 15. Even if acting as a soldier, a child murderer, who could kill far more people, or serial killer under US laws are granted far more freedom and rights than Khadr will ever be granted. Is there that huge of a gap between soldier and civilian? Murderer and soldier? Is Khadr acting as a civilian being bound by shackles, masked, confined/waterboarded/etc. ? How is he being dragged in his own urine his own fault and acting as a civilian? He's not even allowed to speak, a freedom which all civilians elsewhere are granted, so how is he dragging pity on himself to be noticed? How can he have bladder problems if he can't speak, or ask to go to the washroom? -- You seem to grant them far more liberties then those detained actually have.

 

Soldiers captured in wars don't get trials. When Canadians in WW II captured German soldiers, they did not have a trial which proved the German soldiers were in fact German soldiers, nor did they have a trial to determine if the German soldiers actually did something in the war, and nor would they release the German soldiers if it turned out that they are fresh recruits who haven't done anything yet. Generally its regarded that the soldier should be gratefull that his captors didn't shoot him on sight, and anything beyond that is complaining.

Yes, but at that time, Geneva Conventions did not even exist, and neither did international organisations, such as the "United Nations" (read: Article 11.1). To further add, these prisoners could not be returned to the German to be judged, as they would just become soldiers again. Nowadays, the Canadian laws have changed dramatically from what they used to be (which were very similar to the US' current position). After events such as the Second World War, the FLQ, Japanese Canadian internments; people learn to change from their mistakes. So you can't compare fair trial in modern Canada to the US, because it exists in Canada; and prisoners of war, such as in Afghanistan, stay in Afghanistan and are judged according to their own government's laws, not our own (although their safety and human rights are !@#$%^&*ured by Canada). Unlike the US, who has never returned Khadr to Canada, or any other of its detainies.

 

Anyhow, even today there are still trials happening related to 'german soldiers' of World War 2. And I should underline the word trial, where the people are free to choose whoever they want to have as lawyer and defend themselves. There was a recent one in the news, so claiming that no trials exist under Canadian law is false.

 

Okay, so let me translte this accusation to something that isn't laywer-speak. You had this guy Khadr, who was captured. They put him in a cell, and made him stay there in a "stress position". By the way, real soldiers have to stay in "stress positions" all the time, they call it "standing in formation". The man soiled himself and urinated on the floor, probably because Khadr was supposedly part of an army, and the guards incorrectly !@#$%^&*umed that he had undergone training. The soldier's then cleaned the floor with the "Pine oil", probably some pine-scented cleaning product, and took him out of the cell.

 

That's not torture. That's a wannabe soldier with bladder problems. Now that I think about it if I was both so weak and so dellusional I'd probably not want to be giving my last name out too.

 

Besides, if we're so bad shouldn't he be wanting to be a victim of Extraordinary Rendition?

You're mixing things up and making a very bad defense, M. Arrar was a victim of Extraordinary Rendition, not Khadr. -- Khadr (at Guantanamo Bay) was put into a stress position, waterboarded, and when he soiled/urinated himself, he was dragged back and forth in his own filth while still short-shackled, where they added Pine Soil, before he was removed. He was also refused any independant medical treatment, refused fair trial, and refused to be handled/defended by anyone Canadian. If these are treatments you want to be conditioned to, your children, or your own soldiers, then go ahead. But it's a value not shared by Canadians; and most US soldiers are not treated as so, so it's very biased to claim that you're treating others who 'supposedly act as soldiers' the same way american soldiers are treated. Were that true, wouldn't Khadr be dead? Wouldn't there be hundreds of detained and captured american soldiers out there by Al-Qaeda?

 

 

But back to the origional topic - answer me these questions:

 

Do Canadian visitors on the south side of Niagra falls need to watch their back for fear of secret police?

Do Canadian emb!@#$%^&*ies in major cities need to be moved into fortified bunkers outside the city limits?

Are the Canadian soldiers stationed at Norad in danger of losing their lives at the hands of their US co-workers?

Do Canadians living on your southern border need to worry about rocket attacks and border skirmishes by US extremists?

Are there huge city wide riots in the US, featuring burning the Canadian flag, the hanging of Prime Minister in effigy, and banners featuring various death threats towards Canadians, every time a Canadian says or writes something that offends someone in the US?

 

 

I could go on if you like, but case in point this is the case of some liberal loon in the Canadian government who when asked to make a factual and functional guide had instead decided to turn it into a piece of political rhetoric. My two cents is that he should be canned and one of your newpapers should employ him as an opinion writer, because thats where his interests seem to lie.

1. No (Did Americans live in fear of Vietnamese so much that they'd be captured and taken back to Vietnam to be tortured?)

2. They are in a number of places, you just have to visit them (e.g. Cambodia).

3. Pretty irrelevant question, but the answer is no (Canada and the US are partners, not ennemies in many situations)

4. Who said anything about extremists? Were there ever Vietnamese extremists?

5. To re-answer: Are/Were there huge city-wide riots in Canada or Vietnam against the US? etc. etc.

 

Your questions can't really be applied to much (I fail to see how they relate in any way to torture), you can just take Vietnam as one of the best counter examples. The only difference is, Canada isn't going to war, and the list isn't even shared by the government's point of view.

 

And no one ever said the list or even manual was an "Amb!@#$%^&*ador stay-away safety guide for fear of being captured and tortured", it was a list of countries which practice torture (listed in a manual intended for Amb!@#$%^&*adors), no matter how much you want to deny the fact. You seem to define 'terrorists' as almost anything relating to ennemy soldiers, whether in connection to Al-Qaeda or not, whether they practice actual 'terrorism' or not; yet you can't give torture any meaning. So why can't others be allowed to judge based on evidence? Why does defining a part of America where torture exists become a war about Canada vs. America? We aren't at war, but doesn't our freedom of speech allow us to judge each other's actions? I never claimed Canada as perfect, nor is it anywhere in the original post, but deviating from 'torture in America', to 'Canadians should stay away from America because they're neo-nazies' is a bit extreme, no?

I don't see American amb!@#$%^&*adors running away from Syria, yet you acknowledge the existance of torture there. I'm sure americans as well as other countries have their own lists, should all writers be kicked just to become newspaper editorialists? Isn't the president's view on war only one man's opinion; should he too be kicked to become a journalist?

[Aileron]

Wow...um....

 

I don't have time to read all of that, but glancing it over I noticed that you actually bothered to come up with serious answers to my sarcastic rhetorical questions. BTW, with 2 I meant Canadian emb!@#$%^&*ies inside major US cities.

 

Look, I do have a habit of wasting time arguing with fools, but in your case I have to draw the line. I've seen more convincing arguements about aliens from outer space visiting Earth.

[NBVegita]

Actually the fact that Arar is a dual syrian/canadian citizen, they officially can deport him to any country in which he is a citizen. Simply because his home was not there does not mean he was not a citizen.

 

The first Geneva Convention was in...1869? ish.

 

As for Khadr, he did throw a grenade and kill a U.S. soldier. His father was considered, even by the canadian government to be highest ranking al qaeda Canadian national.

 

As for being a canadian citizen, yes he was born there, but spent a mere 3 years of his life in canada. So I do agree that he is a canadia citizen, but only under technicalities. (in the above situation Arar actually lived in syria for 17 years of his life.)

 

All of the Khadr boys have been through military training.

 

He has admitted (supposedly) of committing acts that would down right condemn a full grown man.

 

His torture is alleged.

 

As for being unclear if he was forced, he was in a military compound that was heavly !@#$%^&*ualted by air strike and one of the only survivors. If he merely had not thrown the grenade, after being discovered as one of the only survivors mind you, chances are he'd be back in Canada right now.

 

I mean put 2 and 2 together.

 

To be honest I could care less if they kill him today. One less terrorist in the world is better for me.

 

I wonder if you would think the same way if it was your father whom he killed with that grenade.

[AstroProdigy]

Aileron:

The problem with your arguments as they always are is you’ve warped all the definitions and rules that apply here. Almost everything you say in your argument is a fallacy.

 

You claim “terrorists” should be treated like soldiers even if they are in civilian clothing yet international law is very specific about the treatment of terrorists, which we don’t follow.

 

You’ve also purposely misstated the golden rule by changing the word to change the definition to what is actually the opposite of its intended purpose. The golden rule states to treat others as you would have them treat you. You either purposely or subconsciously replaced “have” which means “like to” with “expect” which would justify letting the Jews go on to genocide against Germans in response for the Holocaust.

 

You also seem to have mixed up your definitions for “soldier” and “machine”. A soldier is still a human being and under international law has rights. If you would like to not follow international law then the United States no longer has a claim to being a civilized nation.

 

The fact that the US still denies the immoral torture policies and people buy into it and make excuses for it as you do for example follows your other definition of:

The countries which violate human rights are the ones that supposedly never were racist to begin with' date=' because in reality they were, buried it, and still are.[/quote']

All I need to do is replace “racist” with “users of torture” and presto!

 

You then make the argument that it’s Syria’s fault for giving the United States the opportunity to violate human rights under a loophole. Under this very same argument people who higher hit men can claim innocence because they didn’t commit the act of murder directly, but simply gave the hit men the opportunity to do so.

 

The US supports some of the most notorious human rights abusers and is likely the only reason those regimes have managed to survive and continue their human rights abuses. We toppled some that do the same, but in effect we are neither a net supporter nor a net opponent of countries that violate human rights. The toppling of Saddam and the Taliban had nothing to do with the United States wanting to establish international law in those countries.

 

Under Extraordinary rendition he would have people in Syria or Egypt slowly pulling off his nails and cutting off his genitals so your argument that “it’s not the worst” has nothing to do with the making the argument that “it’s ok”.

 

You then make the classic neo conservative argument that everything that disagrees with them is simply the work of “liberal loons” or “liberal elitists” who are extreme in their views.

 

Nice last post, too, because it's clearly your way of admitting you can't prove your argument, but you don't want to admit it.

 

NBVegita:

Great argument as always, but you seem to have completely ignored the arguments of Aileron despite the fact that they were completely illogical. Those arguments would have made my old Logic and Critical Reasoning professor cry yet you chose not to touch them. Is it that the problems are already self evident?

Edited January 27, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[NBVegita]

Simply not arguing his point does not mean I agree with his argument.

 

This is the first time I've been on since work, and most times I only have limited time to respond.

 

I even had to put my last post together in chunks.

 

And to be perfectly honest I've only briefly read over his posts so I really haven't even analyzed his arguments lol

 

And I don't know why I'm posting every sentence on a separate line, I will stop doing that in my next post.