Waterboarding Hyprocrisy

[SadisticNature]

The US has a long history of a double standard on waterboarding. They've done it cheerfully in the early 20th century invasion of the Philippines. They've done it somewhat reluctantly in the early 21st century. In the interim they've put people to death for war-crimes when US troops were waterboarded (namely the war-crimes trials in Japan).

One of the standards that would be consistent with US actions would suggest its acceptable to water-board someone as long as they are not white. I don't believe this is the actual case, I think its more likely something like "It's ok for the US to do it, but its not ok for anyone to do it to them."

Regardless the US seems to be rather hypocritical about this.

For the record: Early 20th century US Army song "The Water Cure"

Get the good old syringe boys and fill it to the brim.
We've caught another n!gger and we'll operate on him.
Let someone take the handle who can work it with a vim.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Chorus:

Hurray. Hurray. We bring the Jubilee.
Hurray. Hurrah. The flag that makes him free.
Shove in the nozzle deep and let him taste of liberty.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

We've come across the bounding main to kindly spread around
Sweet liberty whenever there are rebels to be found.
So hurry with the syringe boys. We've got him down and bound.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Oh pump it in him till he swells like a toy balloon.
The fool pretends that liberty is not a precious boon.
But we'll contrive to make him see the beauty of it soon.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Keep the piston going boys and let the banner wave.
The banner that floats proudly o'er the noble and the brave.
Keep on till the squirt gun breaks or he explodes the slave.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Chorus (variant at end):

Hurrah. Hurrah. We bring the Jubilee.
Hurrah. Hurrah. The flag that makes him free.
We've got him down and bound, so let's fill him full of liberty.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

For the record the Taft administration worked actively to portray the Filipino's as uneducated African tribesmen, hence the use of the n-word in the song.

American soldiers waterboarding a Filipino was actually on the cover of Life magazine, May 22nd 1902.

While we are on the topic of warcrimes, American generals gave the order to kill everyone over 10. No one was ever charged.

While China has actively protested changes to Japanese history books that downplay their atrocities, the US has largely ignored any protests by the Philippines about their downplaying the atrocities.

In fact despite experts having shown the claims to be outright false, they still describe those killed in the Phillipines as "freedom fighters" and not civilians and vastly reduce the numbers.

In WWII, Japanese and German prisoners shown to have participated in waterboarding were executed for warcrimes establishing a legal precedent that the US belives that waterboarding is a warcrime, and also a capital offense. Yet for several years in the 21st century they actively pursued it.

[MMI]

Isn't it a fact that all imperial powers, from Egypt, through Rome, Spain, Britain, France, Japan and to the USA sometimes have to use brutal measures on the territories they rule in order to prevent unrest and subversion among the natives, and if individuals have to receive harsh treatment to demonstrate the futility of resisting, then so be it. It isn't hypocrisy at all it is simply a demonstration of that true fact of life, some people cannot be reasoned with.

[SadisticNature]

The leader of the resistance in the Philippines was intent on establishing a democracy based on the US constitution. The US decided they needed to be in charge which meant destroying democracy and putting up a figurehead.

Also, the kind of atrocities committed by imperialist powers are exactly the reason imperialism has largely been abandoned.

And if by some people cannot be reasoned with you mean the Americans in said situation then by all means I'd agree. But the Philippines actively worked to throw off their Spanish oppressors and welcomed the US, in the belief that their Constitution did not support colonialism. The US decided to make the Philippines a colony and put down resistance resulting from this betrayal with orders like "shoot anyone over the age of 10".

I'm not saying other imperialist powers didn't do equally terrible things. I'm just saying the US has a long history of war crimes against non-whites, and tends to consider them as mild offenses, while the same acts against their own citizens are cause for execution.

[Saheli]

The US decided to make the Philippines a colony and put down resistance resulting from this betrayal with orders like "shoot anyone over the age of 10".

... is that a real example or a hyperbole?

[SadisticNature]

To be clear "The Philippines" meant the area outside the concentration camps established by the US within the Philippines so its hyperbolic in the sense that it doesn't mean actually everyone. But it did mean if you were on your property and over 10 you were to be executed.

The US Army was also involved in the systematic execution of 1300 Filipino prisoners of war in one incident in 1902.

To conclude my post a quote from Roosevelt:

"Nineteenth-century democracy needs no more complete vindication for its existence than the fact that it has kept for the white race the best portions of the new world's surface." Theodore Roosevelt, 1897.

[DuncanONeil]

I doubt the "facts of your first paragraph are accurate. And the use of the phrase "concentration camps"is a deliberate attempt to cast them in a light that may not be deserved. As well as being emotionally charged.

To be clear "The Philippines" meant the area outside the concentration camps established by the US within the Philippines so its hyperbolic in the sense that it doesn't mean actually everyone. But it did mean if you were on your property and over 10 you were to be executed.

The US Army was also involved in the systematic execution of 1300 Filipino prisoners of war in one incident in 1902.

To conclude my post a quote from Roosevelt:

"Nineteenth-century democracy needs no more complete vindication for its existence than the fact that it has kept for the white race the best portions of the new world's surface." Theodore Roosevelt, 1897.

[TwistedTails]

... is that a real example or a hyperbole?

Sadly, the example is quite real.

[DuncanONeil]

Since you included WWII Germans in your evidence set of those punished for "waterboarding" your "non-white"argument is destroyed.
Further more "abuses" are not the reason for the collapse of imperialism!

The leader of the resistance in the Philippines was intent on establishing a democracy based on the US constitution. The US decided they needed to be in charge which meant destroying democracy and putting up a figurehead.

Also, the kind of atrocities committed by imperialist powers are exactly the reason imperialism has largely been abandoned.

And if by some people cannot be reasoned with you mean the Americans in said situation then by all means I'd agree. But the Philippines actively worked to throw off their Spanish oppressors and welcomed the US, in the belief that their Constitution did not support colonialism. The US decided to make the Philippines a colony and put down resistance resulting from this betrayal with orders like "shoot anyone over the age of 10".

I'm not saying other imperialist powers didn't do equally terrible things. I'm just saying the US has a long history of war crimes against non-whites, and tends to consider them as mild offenses, while the same acts against their own citizens are cause for execution.

[MMI]

I was trying to agree with you. By "cannot be reasoned with" I meant failing to submit to the imperial power completely instead of aspiring to freedom.

[TwistedTails]

Interesting bit of revisionist history there. But what the hey, any opportunity to do some good ol U.S. bashing right? Was there nothing recent you could distort? This is neither News or a World event unless of course your time machine is finally working. Would you mind citing a source or two? I'm interested in how you know what someone was thinking in 1903?

I support freedom of speech, so feel free to continue U.S. bashing. Just kindly do it in German, Chinese, or Russian on a Party approved message board.

Oh.. And try throwing in a fact or two. You know, Just for the fun of it.

[SadisticNature]

One of the great successes of conservatism is the ability to completely distort history but since you asked for sources here goes:

1) The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, 8 Vols (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press) 1951-1954 V254

2) "United States Indian Policy and the Debate over Philippne Annexation: Implications for the Origins of American Imperialism" The Journal of American History 66, no 4 (March 1980) 810-831

3) Eric T. L. Love, Race over Empire: Racism and U.S. Imperialism 1865-1900 (Chapel HIll: University of North Carolina Press, 2004

4) TR, The Winning of the west 4:200

5) Matthew Frye Jacobson, Barbarian Virtues: The United States Encounters Foreign Peoples at Home and Abroad. 1876-1917 (New York: Hill & Wang, 2000).

6) Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Phillipines 1899-1903. (New Havety, CT: Yale University Press, 1982).

7) James Blount, American Occupation of the Phillipines 1898-1912 (New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1913).

Along with several others.

As for knowing what people think. There are surviving records in the forms of: (i) Documented Conversations (ii) Collected Letters (iii) Policy Decisions and Documented Statements in support (for example to the senate or congress).

And what sources/evidence is your opinion that this is revisionist history based on? The fact that it doesn't jive with your idea of what America stands for?

[DuncanONeil]

Again this is old news! Kind of like saying that African Americans deserve something special, or reparations because of slavery.
No one alive in the US today has any direct contact with being a slave owner.

One of the great successes of conservatism is the ability to completely distort history but since you asked for sources here goes:

1) The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, 8 Vols (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press) 1951-1954 V254

2) "United States Indian Policy and the Debate over Philippne Annexation: Implications for the Origins of American Imperialism" The Journal of American History 66, no 4 (March 1980) 810-831

3) Eric T. L. Love, Race over Empire: Racism and U.S. Imperialism 1865-1900 (Chapel HIll: University of North Carolina Press, 2004

4) TR, The Winning of the west 4:200

5) Matthew Frye Jacobson, Barbarian Virtues: The United States Encounters Foreign Peoples at Home and Abroad. 1876-1917 (New York: Hill & Wang, 2000).

6) Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Phillipines 1899-1903. (New Havety, CT: Yale University Press, 1982).

7) James Blount, American Occupation of the Phillipines 1898-1912 (New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1913).

Along with several others.

As for knowing what people think. There are surviving records in the forms of: (i) Documented Conversations (ii) Collected Letters (iii) Policy Decisions and Documented Statements in support (for example to the senate or congress).

And what sources/evidence is your opinion that this is revisionist history based on? The fact that it doesn't jive with your idea of what America stands for?

[Saheli]

Interesting bit of revisionist history there. But what the hey, any opportunity to do some good ol U.S. bashing right? Was there nothing recent you could distort? This is neither News or a World event unless of course your time machine is finally working. Would you mind citing a source or two? I'm interested in how you know what someone was thinking in 1903?

I support freedom of speech, so feel free to continue U.S. bashing. Just kindly do it in German, Chinese, or Russian on a Party approved message board.

Oh.. And try throwing in a fact or two. You know, Just for the fun of it.

Ok...I basically have zero knowledge of waterboarding in the first place. But this is obviously an explosive topic. So you are responding in a very emotional way, but I am not really sure I know what your views are on waterboarding as much as your views on SadisticNature's views on waterboarding. I am very interested in hearing (or reading as the case may be) your opinions.

[TwistedTails]

Ok...I basically have zero knowledge of waterboarding in the first place. But this is obviously an explosive topic. So you are responding in a very emotional way, but I am not really sure I know what your views are on waterboarding as much as your views on SadisticNature's views on waterboarding. I am very interested in hearing (or reading as the case may be) your opinions.

Actually we have not come to the point of dicussing waterboarding yet. We are still working
on narrowing the sweeping comments made in his first two posts into something that can be
discussed without open warfare

My personal opinions on waterboarding are simple. Waterboarding is a form of torture. Under
the 3rd and 4th Geneva conventions it became illegal for the 194 signing countries to practice
torture beginning in 1929. Prior to that time there were no restrictions on the use of torture
in military actions and such tortures were practiced by many, if not all, governments
as a matter of routine.

Cheers
Twisted

[DuncanONeil]

It is not a response to Sadistics view on waterboarding, other than the fact that he is choosing to use occurrences from the absolute beginning of the 20th century as proof of how the US is acting and deceiding issues today.

Ok...I basically have zero knowledge of waterboarding in the first place. But this is obviously an explosive topic. So you are responding in a very emotional way, but I am not really sure I know what your views are on waterboarding as much as your views on SadisticNature's views on waterboarding. I am very interested in hearing (or reading as the case may be) your opinions.

[SadisticNature]

Kindly support this. I said that there were parallels, and I've drawn some parallels I haven't stated it corresponds exactly to how the US is acting today.

It is not a response to Sadistics view on waterboarding, other than the fact that he is choosing to use occurrences from the absolute beginning of the 20th century as proof of how the US is acting and deceiding issues today.

[SadisticNature]

Interesting bit of revisionist history there. But what the hey, any opportunity to do some good ol U.S. bashing right? Was there nothing recent you could distort? This is neither News or a World event unless of course your time machine is finally working. Would you mind citing a source or two? I'm interested in how you know what someone was thinking in 1903?

I support freedom of speech, so feel free to continue U.S. bashing. Just kindly do it in German, Chinese, or Russian on a Party approved message board.

Oh.. And try throwing in a fact or two. You know, Just for the fun of it.

You accuse me of trying to change the topic.

Yet you have not mentioned a single thing relevant to the topic in this post. Instead you initiate a bunch of diversions, and when I respond to any of them you accuse me of going off topic. That's quite the double standard.

[TwistedTails]

You accuse me of trying to change the topic.

Yet you have not mentioned a single thing relevant to the topic in this post. Instead you initiate a bunch of diversions, and when I respond to any of them you accuse me of going off topic. That's quite the double standard.

*looks back up the forum* Hmm, I don't even have to say how wrong that is. Yes I have. You just don't want to see it.

[TwistedTails]

So what did you want to talk about? You are probably not that interested in Philippine history or you would have called me out about this

after Bonifacios execution by the Spanish for treason?

When he was actually executed by Aguinaldo, or rather the First Republic. Oops, My mistake.

[denuseri]

Oh btw being a conservative or a liberal doesnt have anything to do with it. All parties and political factions are just as capable when it comes to distorting history to suit their own means.

[TwistedTails]

One of the great successes of conservatism is the ability to completely distort history but since you asked for sources here goes:

So your first thought in reply is to attempt to discredit me with a sweeping charge against conservatives?
Fairly typical, but I must admit being called a conservative left me with sore sides from laughing so hard.
I won't stoop to tossing a "Liberal" label on you though. It's a tactic used by those who have no other legitimate response.

One of the great successes of conservatism is the ability to completely distort history but since you asked for sources here goes:

1) The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, 8 Vols (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press) 1951-1954 V254

2) "United States Indian Policy and the Debate over Philippne Annexation: Implications for the Origins of American Imperialism" The Journal of American History 66, no 4 (March 1980) 810-831

3) Eric T. L. Love, Race over Empire: Racism and U.S. Imperialism 1865-1900 (Chapel HIll: University of North Carolina Press, 2004

4) TR, The Winning of the west 4:200

5) Matthew Frye Jacobson, Barbarian Virtues: The United States Encounters Foreign Peoples at Home and Abroad. 1876-1917 (New York: Hill & Wang, 2000).

6) Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Phillipines 1899-1903. (New Havety, CT: Yale University Press, 1982).

7) James Blount, American Occupation of the Phillipines 1898-1912 (New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1913).

Along with several others.

Followed by a nice laundry list of books.
Nice titles, but all that shows is that you can manage a library reference or internet book search. You still gave exactly 0 references.

As for knowing what people think. There are surviving records in the forms of: (i) Documented Conversations (ii) Collected Letters (iii) Policy Decisions and Documented Statements in support (for example to the senate or congress).

Yes, very nice use of punctuation, someone just skimming the post might think you actually said something here, But again you fail to build your case, opting instead for some vague references to "documents". 0 documentation provided to support your claims

And what sources/evidence is your opinion that this is revisionist history based on? The fact that it doesn't jive with your idea of what America stands for?

Well, I do have some familiarity with the topic, but my sources are not in question. Yours are. As far as "Not Jiving" with my idea of what America stands for you are quite wrong. I am well aware. You on the other hand appear to be intentionally ignoring the fact that much has changed in the world since the beginning of the 20th century. The world was ruled by the "Empires" at that time. You would have had a very hard time finding a government that did not employ such practices in war. To attempt to make the argument that the U.S. of today is the same U.S. of that time is simply ludicrous. Following that logic we would need to hold the modern day residents of Athens responsible for the massacre of Melos at the end of the Peloponnesian War.

You make several other statements which I consider to be either uninformed, or intentionally obtuse, but I will give you the "benefit of the doubt" and not address them.

Oh, and this thread is still not News, or World Events. It's politics, not very good politics, but still politics.

[SadisticNature]

Firstly, you attack both my claim and my supporting evidence, without providing a counterclaim or any sources of your own. I still contend the parallels to conservatism are striking, where this is often the predominant tactic in all sorts of debates (particularly evolution). I was not making the argument that conservatives are the only side who distort history. I was more claiming that the instant disagreement without any supportive evidence.

The problem with the historic justification of "well everyone else was doing it" is that it can justify all sorts of atrocities, including the holocaust (It's not like other empires weren't oppressing minorities through the use of concentration camps, torture and slaughter).

As for the choice of forum, there have been other talks about waterboarding in this thread. I find it interesting to look at the history of waterboarding by and against Americans, particularly since it shows that by Americans goes unpunished while against Americans results in executions.

As for the grammar comments, yes I agree that was rather poorly written, the point was to list the documents and I wasn't checking over my work very carefully.

I'll be happy to attack your grammar with equal zeal, there are plenty of mistakes you've made even in just this thread. I just don't see how that is productive.

[SadisticNature]

The whole: If you disagree with me do it in German, Russian or Chinese on a party message board is exactly the kind of statement conservatives make. Liberals tend to believe that America includes people who according to them are "wrong" or "misguided". Conservatives say if you disagree with them, you're a "socialist" or you're "unamerican".

[SadisticNature]

In page 92 of "The Imperial Cruise" you can see the cover of "Judge" magazine. (Judge magazine went on to become the New Yorker), portraying the Filipino's as Negro's.

Much of the work from the sources I've mentioned comes from there, with properly referenced direct quotes. However, I lack the time to copy them all out for you so I'd recommend reading it.

[TwistedTails]

In page 92 of "The Imperial Cruise" you can see the cover of "Judge" magazine. (Judge magazine went on to become the New Yorker), portraying the Filipino's as Negro's.

Much of the work from the sources I've mentioned comes from there, with properly referenced direct quotes. However, I lack the time to copy them all out for you so I'd recommend reading it.

Finally! an actual resource.

I was beginning to wonder why you were so hesitant to produce your source documents. Now I know. I would have been hesitant to admit that I made a statement like the original post based on a popular piece of quasi history too.

Not to worry though, theres still plenty to talk about. I may not agree with with the authors interpetations of all his source materiel, but he is a good researcher, his sources are verifiable and he references and quotes as appropiate.

For those following along or just arriving, This is a link to a google search for reviews on this book. You can pick and choose your own reviewing publication. If I suggest one I will be accused of either Liberalism or Conservatism in the choosing.

Google search link...
The Imperial Cruise by James Bradley

And the Authors Bio...
James Bradely @ Wikipedia

I would reccomend reading it too, his last work (Flags of our Fathers) was quite good.

So lets begin.....

The leader of the resistance in the Philippines was intent on establishing a democracy based on the US constitution. The US decided they needed to be in charge which meant destroying democracy and putting up a figurehead.

Please indicate which leader you are referring too. The first leader Andrés Bonifacio, a warehouseman and clerk from Manila, or Emilio Aguinaldo, mayor of Cavite El Viejo who took over later after Bonifacios execution by the Spanish for treason? Also if you would kindly check your "source" was the leader you refer too above a Democrat as you stated or was he actually an Oligarchist?

The distinction makes a big difference in understanding the tactics used by both the revolutionaries and the U.S. in the conflict.

Cheers
Twisted

[DuncanONeil]

So what! All that really means is that the ability to determine a peoples origin was not fully understood!

In page 92 of "The Imperial Cruise" you can see the cover of "Judge" magazine. (Judge magazine went on to become the New Yorker), portraying the Filipino's as Negro's.

Much of the work from the sources I've mentioned comes from there, with properly referenced direct quotes. However, I lack the time to copy them all out for you so I'd recommend reading it.

[TwistedTails]

The whole: If you disagree with me do it in German, Russian or Chinese on a party message board is exactly the kind of statement conservatives make. Liberals tend to believe that America includes people who according to them are "wrong" or "misguided". Conservatives say if you disagree with them, you're a "socialist" or you're "unamerican".

Nice editing, what I said was....

I support freedom of speech, so feel free to continue U.S. bashing. Just kindly do it in German, Chinese, or Russian on a Party approved message board.

Oh.. And try throwing in a fact or two. You know, Just for the fun of it.

You shouldn't edit something until it is out of context. It ruins your credibility. And there's the predictable Liberal vs Conservitave distraction again! LOL You may want to just abandon that tactic, it is not working. LOL

[DuncanONeil]

In the time it took me to prepare this page for response the language has been controlled.
However, the claim you make below it totally with out either substance or merit.
It is liberals that have driven the creation of the need for virtually every venue have signage in multiple languages, not the conservative. Such signage does nothing to bring people into the mainstream of the community in which they live, it merely serves to allow the separateness to become entrenched. Conservative position is to have all of the people that desire to come here to become a part of a homogenous whole. Such a whole is much stronger than the sum of its parts. To constantly make effort to display differences prevents the parts from melding into the unique entity it could be.
People are not label Socialist because they disagree, but because they advocate taking from those that produce and giving it to those that do not! Un-American is reserved for those seeking to tear the country down.

The whole: If you disagree with me do it in German, Russian or Chinese on a party message board is exactly the kind of statement conservatives make. Liberals tend to believe that America includes people who according to them are "wrong" or "misguided". Conservatives say if you disagree with them, you're a "socialist" or you're "unamerican".

[TwistedTails]

Firstly, you attack both my claim and my supporting evidence, without providing a counterclaim or any sources of your own.

This surprises you? You have gone to a lot of trouble NOT to produce your sources. That tells me that you are simply parroting something you have read or been told, without bothering to do your own research to verify the accuracy of the statements. How do you expect someone to produce a "counterclaim" if you refuse to produce your documentation? Handy tactic if you don't really want a discussion. I see it a lot.

You have produced up to this point no supporting evidence. In fact up to this point I still contend the parallels to conservatism are striking, where this is often the predominant tactic in all sorts of debates (particularly evolution). I was not making the argument that conservatives are the only side who distort history. I was more claiming that the instant disagreement without any supportive evidence.

Here again you miss the point. You opened the topic, I challenged and asked for your sources. You refused to give them. You are again trying to shift this to a Liberal vs Conservative debate, sure it will distract readers from the fact that you have yet to support your claim, but I hate to break the news to you but a liberal with a healthy dose of common sense sounds a lot like a conservative and vice versa. I on the other hand will quote my resources if and when we actually begin to discuss the subject.

The problem with the historic justification of "well everyone else was doing it" is that it can justify all sorts of atrocities, including the holocaust (It's not like other empires weren't oppressing minorities through the use of concentration camps, torture and slaughter).

ROFL, Nice try, but that's not what I said, and you and everyone reading knows it. "That's the way it was" is a lot different than "well everyone else was doing it" It is not attempting to justify anything, it just states a fact. You can either accept that, or use the afore mentioned time machine to change history.

As for the choice of forum, there have been other talks about waterboarding in this thread. I find it interesting to look at the history of waterboarding by and against Americans, particularly since it shows that by Americans goes unpunished while against Americans results in executions.

News is recent.. as in NEWs and World Events. It is my opinion that this is politics. Its not an issue though, If the moderators feel the thread needs moved they will move it.

As for the grammar comments, yes I agree that was rather poorly written, the point was to list the documents and I wasn't checking over my work very carefully.

I'll be happy to attack your grammar with equal zeal, there are plenty of mistakes you've made even in just this thread. I just don't see how that is productive.

I was not attacking your grammar. That's not my style because, as you said, it would not be productive. What I was pointing out was this....

As for knowing what people think. There are surviving records in the forms of: (i) Documented Conversations (ii) Collected Letters (iii) Policy Decisions and Documented Statements in support (for example to the senate or congress).

Where you used a lot of punctuation to make it look like you were offering source documents, while producing none at all.

[DuncanONeil]

Just pressing the "Thanks" button is insufficient for this posting.
I am pleased to have someone that is calling into question the propensity of the Sadistic method of positing an argument.
Along with stating the consistent refusal of providing supporting data when requested.

This surprises you? You have gone to a lot of trouble NOT to produce your sources. That tells me that you are simply parroting something you have read or been told, without bothering to do your own research to verify the accuracy of the statements. How do you expect someone to produce a "counterclaim" if you refuse to produce your documentation? Handy tactic if you don't really want a discussion. I see it a lot.

Here again you miss the point. You opened the topic, I challenged and asked for your sources. You refused to give them. You are again trying to shift this to a Liberal vs Conservative debate, sure it will distract readers from the fact that you have yet to support your claim, but I hate to break the news to you but a liberal with a healthy dose of common sense sounds a lot like a conservative and vice versa. I on the other hand will quote my resources if and when we actually begin to discuss the subject.



ROFL, Nice try, but that's not what I said, and you and everyone reading knows it. "That's the way it was" is a lot different than "well everyone else was doing it" It is not attempting to justify anything, it just states a fact. You can either accept that, or use the afore mentioned time machine to change history.


News is recent.. as in NEWs and World Events. It is my opinion that this is politics. Its not an issue though, If the moderators feel the thread needs moved they will move it.



I was not attacking your grammar. That's not my style because, as you said, it would not be productive. What I was pointing out was this....

Where you used a lot of punctuation to make it look like you were offering source documents, while producing none at all.