Quote from: walkerpI think you mean "Did BOTH of us end up on rpgsite?"

Whadda mean both? Or is it just the guys you're talkin' about? :keke:

And this would be fun. I'm not the best at debate, but I know my Right-wing talking points!

Quote from: WerekoalaYeah - damn Canadians! Make sure you got the right guy before you detain him and hand him over to the US.

Pish - some people. :rolleyes:

He was detained by Americans during a routine stopover in an American airport. The Americans refused to let him contact the Canadian embassy, and instead deported him to Syria, and handed him over to Assad's intelligence agencies. If anyone but a branch of the American government had done it, we would refer to this as "kidnapping".

It was faulty Canadian intelligence information that led to his arrest, if I'm remembering correctly, leading to some high-level resignations I think. Unless I'm confusing him with another guy - there are so many to keep track of these days!

Quote from: WerekoalaIt was faulty Canadian intelligence information that led to his arrest, if I'm remembering correctly, leading to some high-level resignations I think.

True, and some high-level folks in the RCMP and CSIS were reprimanded or forced to resign.

Funny, though, that the American authorities who actually shipped Arar to Syria, where they knew he would be tortured, have not been forced to resign.

He was sent to Syria because he had dual Canadian/Syrian citizenship, and the faulty information from the Canadians indicated that his citizenship in Canada had been revoked.

Quote from: HaffrungFunny, though, that the American authorities who actually shipped Arar to Syria, where they knew he would be tortured, have not been forced to resign.

Why aren't we seeing more outrage in this thread directed toward Syria?  You know.  The country that actually tortured him.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy aren't we seeing more outrage in this thread directed toward Syria?  You know.  The country that actually tortured him.

Well, you know, they can't help it, being poor backward brown people and all. The outrage is clearly saved for the white folk in the West who should clearly Know Better.

Quote from: WerekoalaWell, you know, they can't help it, being poor backward brown people and all. The outrage is clearly saved for the white folk in the West who should clearly Know Better.

I don't know if you saw it when I posted a link to it earlier (or when it was originally published), but you should really read the article Can There Be a Decent Left? by Michael Walzer, which talks, in part, about why the left can only blame America for bad things.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIf anyone but a branch of the American government had done it, we would refer to this as "kidnapping".

If anyone but a branch of the American government locked people in a prison, we'd call it kidnapping, too.  Does that mean that we should let everyone out of jail?  Governments get to do things that citizens can't.  That's the way it is everywhere.

Quote from: shewolfAnd this would be fun. I'm not the best at debate, but I know my Right-wing talking points!

You need to dig below the talking points and understand the arguments that support them, otherwise you'll sound like Sean Hannity.  

In particular, I recommend reading just about anything by Thomas Sowell (but, in particular, Race and Culture, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, and A Conflict of Visions).  Another fun and easy source of information are books written by former leftists like Harry Stein's How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (and Found Inner Peace) or Tammy Bruce's The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values.  Former socialist Joshua Muravchik's book Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism is also pretty nifty and was turned into a 3 hour documentary by PBS (of all places) that you can order on DVD (good luck finding a PBS channel that's actually showing it).

If you want something a little more bite-sized, there is always the Wall Street Journal editorial page (some of which can be found at http://www.opinionjournal.com/), http://www.townhall.com/, http://www.jewishworldreview.com/ (they publish lots of conservative columnists), http://www.nationalreview.com/, http://www.weeklystandard.com/, http://www.spectator.org/, http://www.reason.com/ (libertarian rather than conservative), and http://www.spectator.co.uk/.  You can also find a ton of policy-specific papers at various right-wing think-tanks, including http://www.heritage.org/, http://www.aei.org/, and http://www.cato.org/.

ADDED:  I should point out that the final step here is to do some of your own research and try to validate some of the fact yourself.  Partisans on both sides have a tendency to spin, omit, and lie to make their side of the argument sound stronger, sometimes unintentionally and sometimes intentionally.  Some skepticism of any partisan source, left or right, is often warranted.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy aren't we seeing more outrage in this thread directed toward Syria?  You know.  The country that actually tortured him.

Because nobody on this board is defending Syria.

Quote from: John MorrowI don't know if you saw it when I posted a link to it earlier (or when it was originally published), but you should really read the article Can There Be a Decent Left? by Michael Walzer, which talks, in part, about why the left can only blame America for bad things.

This is one of the disconnects between traditional and rational world views. Traditionalists believe you should express your values just for the sake of expressing them - to let people know what you feel is right and wrong. Rationalists believe that to express views about something you cannot effect is useless.

Nothing anyone says on this board - or anywhere else on the internet - will affect the actions of al Queda, or the Iranian government, or Syria. But as members of democratic states, where free expression of ideas can shape public discourse and so have real effects on governance, we can criticize our own governments and hope to to have some effect, however small.

So if a liberal routinely criticizes the United States and never utters any criticism of North Korea, it's not because he necessarily feels the U.S. is the source of all ills in the world and North Korea is blameless. Rather, it means he feels he can have some small effect on the bad behaviour of the U.S., while criticism of North Korea is utterly hopeless and thus a waste of time.

Quote from: HaffrungThis is one of the disconnects between traditional and rational world views. Traditionalists believe you should express your values just for the sake of expressing them - to let people know what you feel is right and wrong. Rationalists believe that to express views about something you cannot effect is useless.

Nothing anyone says on this board - or anywhere else on the internet - will affect the actions of al Queda, or the Iranian government, or Syria. But as members of democratic states, where free expression of ideas can shape public discourse and so have real effects on governance, we can criticize our own governments and hope to to have some effect, however small.

So if a liberal routinely criticizes the United States and never utters any criticism of North Korea, it's not because he necessarily feels the U.S. is the source of all ills in the world and North Korea is blameless. Rather, it means he feels he can have some small effect on the bad behaviour of the U.S., while criticism of North Korea is utterly hopeless and thus a waste of time.

Wow.  That's one I've never heard before...ever...really...

I do like the insinuation that equates being liberal with being rational. It's cute.

Quote from: James J SkachWow.  That's one I've never heard before...ever...really...

I do like the insinuation that equates being liberal with being rational. It's cute.

Yes, Liberals are quite eager to tell you how they live in the "reality-based" community.

I wish *I* could get drugs like that...

Quote from: HaffrungThis is one of the disconnects between traditional and rational world views. Traditionalists believe you should express your values just for the sake of expressing them - to let people know what you feel is right and wrong. Rationalists believe that to express views about something you cannot effect is useless.

It's not useless.  It lets people understand you understand the full scope and context of the issues and it helps them understand the full scope and context of your opinions.

Quote from: HaffrungNothing anyone says on this board - or anywhere else on the internet - will affect the actions of al Queda, or the Iranian government, or Syria. But as members of democratic states, where free expression of ideas can shape public discourse and so have real effects on governance, we can criticize our own governments and hope to to have some effect, however small.

Actually, yes what people say in the United States does affect the actions of al Qaeda, other terrorist groups, and other entities hostile to the United States.  Because when they see their actions generating criticism of the United States and not of themselves and their friends, it encourages them and makes them think they are winning hearts and minds.  Perhaps you don't criticize Syria or al Qaeda because you feel you are powerless to effect them, but the criticism of the United States combined with an absence of criticism of Syria or al Qaeda looks, at best, like an extreme lack of perspective and, at worst, like you think the United States is worse than Syria or al Qaeda.  To al Qaeda, it looks like they are winning the hearts and minds of the Western left.

Quote from: HaffrungSo if a liberal routinely criticizes the United States and never utters any criticism of North Korea, it's not because he necessarily feels the U.S. is the source of all ills in the world and North Korea is blameless. Rather, it means he feels he can have some small effect on the bad behaviour of the U.S., while criticism of North Korea is utterly hopeless and thus a waste of time.

But it looks and sounds like they have no criticism of North Korea and feel that the United States it he source of all the ills in the world.  After all, how is one supposed to tell the difference between silence as the result of approval and silence as the result of feeling that criticism will be useless?  If you really want people to understand how you feel, you need to state it rather than assuming that they'll understand it.  And the reluctance that many seem to have on the left, even when asked point blank, to criticize a country like North Korea only feeds the impression that the left really is giving countries like North Korea a pass and blaming only the United States.

Further, the acknowledgment that a North Korea or Syria is a part of the problem, perhaps a significant part of the problem, plays a large roll is assessing the responsibility that the United States has for these problems.

In the case in question, perhaps one can find fault for the United States for sending a man back to a country where there was a good chance that they'd be tortured but the United States did not, in fact, torture the man.  Syria did.  And the United States did not gather the intelligence that led to the deportation of the man to Syria.  Canada did.  So why is the United States being held uniquely responsible for the situation and the sole guilty party.  Double standard?  It sure looks like it.

To be even more specific, if you acknowledge that the ruler of North Korea is an unreasonable nut who has been kidnapping people for years and is letting millions of people starve to death in his country rather that open things up, it sounds far less surprising that US efforts at diplomacy with North Korea have gone so badly and looks far less like it's the fault of the US.