Death squads, coming to an Iraq near you.

[Rsak]

And that is why I am requesing the evidence.

http://www.icomm.ca/carecen/page46.html

This excerpt from the UN Truth Commission has only the following to say about the US:
"…t must be pointed out that the United States Government tolerated, and apparently paid little official heed to the activities of Salvadoran exiles living in Miami…[T]his group of exiles directly financed and indirectly helped run certain death squads."

The only other definitive conclusions I can find are from our investigation into the matter and it did not indicate any of the wrong doings that you claim are proven.

I fully admit to being ignorant to this issue and am seeking further information on the matter. What a show of character your have by attacking me for the state which I am willing to correct. However I cannot just search in google and find the answer to the question. There are far too many articles, blogs, and sites that speak with certainty that what you say is true or talk around the issue and elude to it.

History has shown that if you repeat a lie long enough people believe it. While I am not trying to say that this is a lie, I am trying to find the source for it rather then assuming it is the truth.

[Relbeek Einre]

And you go do that. I simply decline to help - past experience shows me such efforts to illuminate are pointless.

[Rsak]

Once again all you are doing is showing what a closed mind you have due to bias!

[Relbeek Einre]

You know, I have a lot more patience for you than I ought to, Rsak.

Cuz you remind me of my older son.

He's a very smart boy, very clever, and a very lovable child. That's the part that doesn't remind me of you.

But he will do ANYTHING other than accept responsibility for his own actions, including making ridiculously convoluted excuses. That reminds me of you.

You worked very hard to convince me (and nearly everyone else on this forum) that an intellectual debate or discussion with you is an exercise in futility. But when told as such, you imediately blame me while showing no signs of having considered that it's your own actions that are the cause. Very much the logical process of my son.

So I guess what I'm saying is you think like an eleven year old.

Oh, and your implied sense of entitlement to the font of my knowledge is also reminiscent of an eleven year old.

(I majored in political science in college. My focus was Latin American politics. Learned a hell of a lot.)

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

I accept responsibility for my actions and your assertions otherwise are completely and utterly baseless.

To say that any intellectual discussion involving myself is incable of happening is a clear case where you are ignoring the facts. On objective and factual issues I either acknowledge the truth, ask for more information, or disagree and provide reasoning and/or evidence. Due to the inherent nature of this board it very rarely is a factual discussion but a expression of opinion which very rarely has anything to do with right or wrong. Your form your own conclusion while I form another and that does not make either wrong.

The fact of the matter is that you continually fail to read my intentions and overreact to my posts. You see any kind of question as a attack towards the argument or a trolling when it was in all honesty a simple question. (Note I fully acknowledge being guilty of such behavior myself) And while there is some validity to the statement that my actions contributed to my reputation, it is also true that your actions as well as other have as well. You are so blocked into your stereotype of my behavior that you instantly assume you know what I am doing. I guess the largest difference between yourself and I is that I honestly don't hold a grudge and am willing to forget the past while it is very clear that you do not.

In this case it is very clear that you have received specialized education into a subject matter that I have never had the oppurtinuty to learn. It was never discussed during traditional school history or the basic college history I attended. I have no implied or stated expectation that you are obligated to share your knowledge, but I would expect the class and decency to not attack someone and look down on them for being ignorant of a subject while having no recourse to correct the matter.

The noble thing to do would be to fall back upon your experience in the subject matter and suggest a source or reading material that can assist in the learning.

[Relbeek Einre]

See what I mean? I don't attack you for your ignorance, despite your accusation (which only goes to prove my point about you.) I simply look on any efforts I might expend to remedy it as being quite futile.

As a side note, in college I had the opportunity to do a tour of Central America. Nicaragua, in particular. It used to be a trip to Nicaragua and El Salvador, but El Salvador (the supposedly "Free" capitalist nation) was so dangerous (in 1991) due to the still-being-funded-by-the-US government death squads that travel there carried too much risk. (The death toll in that country had reached, estimates at the time said, 70,000.) Meanwhile, allegedly "communist" Nicaragua, even with the Contras still striking here and there, was safe to travel in. (I was told the Contras took care to avoid anyplace there were Americans - go fig.)

I didn't take the trip, sadly, due to lack of finances.

[Rsak]

No I cannot honestly say I see what you mean. I can neither read your mind or claim to know enough about your son's behavior to believe that the comparison is in any way accurate.

You have stated with exclamation that I have no knowledge of Central American history as it relates to US foreign policy. And while I do not deny this I fail to see how you could expect any average citizen to have this knowledge, especially who was not a current event following citizen at the time these event occured.

How can that statement be taken other then a condemnation or attack that I have no knowledge on this subject?

The post that brought your response claimed no authority on the subject matter you brought into question and I stand by the validity of the statement. The training in questions occurs every day in our own country and others. The majority of the training does not result in death squads and I properly outlined a case where there was no logical reason culpablity could be assigned to United States involvement.

Even were I to assume everything you have stated is true and accurate about the involvement and actions of Latin America it does not change the validity of my position on Iraq. Past results or actions do not accurately reflect those same actions will have the same results and given the fact that we really don't know if the same actions will be used the question of whether this plan in Iraq will work or not is truly unknown. There are certain cases where I supprot such training and there are cases where I do not. Some of those cases where I do not would include the types of cases in El Salvador you state are proven true.

In all honesty I see this exchange as a positive process because not only did I learn of a new area that I might research and learn about, but futher examples of human behavior negative and positive can be seen.

[Relbeek Einre]

See, you're continuing to exemplify the behavior even as we speak - I stated no such thing with exclamation. Again, you're simply inventing facts to shift blame rather than accept responsibility.

[Rsak]

Wow, you have zero knowledge of Central American history as relates to US foreign policy

.

Those are your words Relbeek, how else am I supposed to read them?

What is "Wow" other then an exclamation?

[Alannia_Raindancer]

One of these days, the Language Fairy is going to show up and bonk both of you really hard on the head, and I will laugh.

I realize that it's important to be as clear as you can when debating a point, but a misplaced or misused word doesn't invalidate an argument when people are not being pig-headed. In any case, the vocabulary war you two seem to be involved in is messing up my quest for knowledge, so stop it and get back to the topic!

[Klast Brell]

Relbeek Rsak
Please get a room.

[Rsak]

I realize that it's important to be as clear as you can when debating a point, but a misplaced or misused word doesn't invalidate an argument when people are not being pig-headed.

Generally I would agree, but there are times when such mistakes can be very key to the point in question. If you say "only reason" when you meant "a reason" this is very key to what ever point you are making.

The simple solution to these exceptions would be that when such a case is found a clarification can be provided and the discussion can move forward.

I am welcome to such a clarification in this thread because without one I am forced to interpret the comment in only one way.

[Relbeek Einre]

No, you're not forced to. And there was clarification, mulitple times, you just ignore it, like you so often do.

Just proves my point further.

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

It is disingenous to offer clarification and in the next breath offer continued attacks while claiming I am not forced to view it as anything other then an attack.

You claimed I was inventing facts when very clearly the way I interpretted your statements was the only way.

Have you offered any other plausible interpretation of your comments? No, you have simply said I am wrong in my view of it and that I am inventing facts. Since you have yet to point out one example of such an invented fact I am left with even more evidence that the initial statement was in deed an attack and your protests are to save face since you had no basis for the attack.

Your defense for such actions is a reputation and history from your view point which is completely and utterly unsupported in this very thread.

So again I ask how should I interpret this statement?

Wow, you have zero knowledge of Central American history as relates to US foreign policy

You are the author and the only one who can speak with any authority of what you meant to say.

[Relbeek Einre]

I already told you. A statement of surprise at your assertion in the context of a specific area of US foreign policy that you clearly knew nothing about. No insult intended nor implied.

I've noted the no insult intended nor implied like five times now, but you seem to be incapable of accepting it.

And I'm through debating semantics with you this time. I'm sure you'll manage to draw me in to another one soon.

[Rsak]

've noted the no insult intended nor implied like five times now, but you seem to be incapable of accepting it.

You are correct I am incapable of accepting it when you attack me in the same sentence.

But here is where we see the invention of facts. I have yet to make an assertion in the context of a specific area of US foreign policy that I clearly knew nothing about. Your basis for the belief that I would know anything about the unrelated context (El Salvador history) was flawed from the begining.

Since there has yet to be any refutation of the assertions and positions I hold on the subject of training special forces in Iraq which is equally valid with knowledge of El Salvador history or without it is abuntantly clear you chose to move the subject away from the subject and transfer it to the poster followed by a litany of insults.

I should know better then now to expect better behavior from you, but I am ever the optimist or one plagued by a short memory for such crass behavior.

[Relbeek Einre]

No, the context was the context of my suprise, not your assertion. ("You are taking one extreme outcome of training that occurs every single day and use that as the norm. If special forces training (SWAT, SEAL, Ranger, etc) was provided and then those individuals break the law of their own country after the trainers have left and there was no knowledge that they would use the skills that way then there is no transfer of cupability to the trainers," all of which flew in the face of what I knew to be US policy in Central America throughout the 80s and early 90s.) Sorry for the confusion.

[Rsak]

But how does that statement fly in the face of your knowledge?

It is completely accurate nor contradictory with any of your knowledge so the cause of your surprise is still a mystery.

[Relbeek Einre]

It is completely inaccurate. As relates to US foreign policy from 1953 to 1989, and to El Salvador and Nicaragua in particular, it was the norm, not the extreme. (And the Salvadoran death squads were the topic at hand.)

As you can see, you're already asserting untrue statements are factual.

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

When you set one small subset of all of the training we did in our history and then claim that is the norm you are dishonest. You flat out ignore the instances where we have trained the british, italian, germans, and many more nations with quite different results.

My statement was specific to Iraq and your attempts to divert them into a context that is not appropriate in order to disprove them is juvenile at best. It however is trumped by your inability to show what is innacurate about my statement, your repetition that it is false does not cut the bill.