Sunil,<br> <br> Both.<br> <br> Yes, Sunil, I am a liar. I do lie on an occasion. I do it to save the innocent from harm and in response to a question that is confidential or I am not at liberty to say. But I don't lie for a living. <br> <br> As to being an idiot, I am in agreement with you there too. I am a total idiot. I once locked my keys in my car, and another time I locked my keys in my apartment. How idiotic hey? Another time I was cleaning a sugar shaker, got so into cleaning it I tipped it to the side and made a huge mess all over the table. <br> <br> But as idiotic as I am, I can still see that your 20+ posts over the years regarding terrorists always have three things in common:<br> <br> 1) They always try to get the reader to agree to better conditions for the terrorists 2) They ask misleading questions <br> 3) They never contain praise for the United States <br> <br> I think you are using a common tactic of many lawyers to get a jury
to agree with you. This was outlined in the text, "Getting to Yes". I studied some of this in my undergraduate courses.<br> <br> Here is how it works;<br> <br> First ask a misleading question that nobody would say no to. For example,<br> <br> "You agree that the US should not be torturing its prisoners of war?<br> <br> Well obviously, Yes, no rational person would agree with torture. So they say, "Yes".<br> <br> Next, the negotiator asks, "Don't you believe that the accused deserves a fair trial?"<br> <br> Well, again, any rational true blue American would say "Yes" to that. <br> <br> Then you ask, "If someone is innocent they should not be detained correct?"<br> <br> Well, again, any rational person would say, "Yes". <br> <br> With getting your audience to say "Yes" three times, it is not a far cry to get the fourth "Yes" of letting most of the terrorists go because the government doesn't have resources and evidence to get a legal conviction, they
may only have enough evidence to know that the person is an individual that may have intent on doing real harm to the US. <br> <br> The fallacy that Sunil engages here is that there is a difference between being found "Not Guilty" in court and someone actually being "Innocent" of wanting to do harm to the US. In domestic issues that difference is not as big of a difference. But, when it comes to national security issues, that difference is exaggerated to potentially include the deaths of thousands of US civilians, like in 9/11. <br> <br> The mere fact that many of these men go home and whop their wives is reason enough for me to want to detain them until we can find they are not a threat to lives in the US or anywhere for that matter. <br> <br> As to proving my points, Sunil, I believe I have made my case, and it is my opinion, so I don't need to prove my opinion. It is my opinion and I gave you my reasons, based on what you have presented to me over
the last 3 and 1/2 years. You and others don't have to agree, that can be your opinion. You can call me an idiot, an asshole, or whatever makes you feel better or to relieve your uncontrollable rage. I feel the same towards lawyers that free convicted child molesters and say they were just doing their job. <br> <br> As to my comments that you defend convicted child molesters, well you already agreed to that being the case, so no need to prove that one. <br> <br> You say, "I wouldn't put you in charge of cleaning catboxes or diapers"<br> <br> Thanks Sunil. I appreciate that consideration. I am sure one of your friends would be more qualified for that position. <br> <br> So I admit to both giving an occasional white lie for good intentions and definitely being an idiot. But, I don't advocate for the release of convicted child molesters and the release of terrorists, both bent on doing harm to other innocent people. <br> <br> Best to you Sunil,<br> <br>
_DJA<br> <br><br><b><i>Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> Donovan,<br><br>First, you are a liar. You lie that you only attack those who attack you. <br>You launched this recent character assassination, now joined by Dick <br>Sherwin, after I asked you a simple question.<br><br>You lie about my opinions and statements. Here, picked at random from the <br>list of links you provided, is one of my posts:<br><br>'Dick,<br><br>Is torture illegal? Is the President allowed to permit torture? Are he or<br>those who torture in our name immune from prosecution?<br><br>Sunil'<br><br>Please explain, if you can, how this is support of terrorists or enemies of <br>the United States. Of course you may be busy lobbying the Senate to support <br>the Administration's bill to set up kangaroo courts and permit evidence <br>obtaied by torture
right now. Quick, attack Colin Powell too for opposing <br>torture and the violation of the Geneva Conventions. Even he can't stay on <br>board with this stuff any longer.<br><br>Dick, your statements simply show you cannot understand the idea that we <br>have the right and duty to stand up for what we believe, and that people who <br>love this country and its principles do not necessarily agree with you. The <br>road to a totalitarian state will be paved by people who don't understand <br>the need for honest dialog and criticism of government.<br><br>Donovan, I can see how your maturity and breadth of life experience <br>qualifies you to give career advice. I shall give it all the attention it <br>deserves. For my part, I wouldn't put you in charge of cleaning catboxes or <br>diapers, work for which you seemed qualified earlier. You would eat the <br>shit and then spew it on this listserve as you have been doing.<br><br>When you are no longer a fool, it will show in
your posts. When you can <br>attack my ideas by analysing what I've actually said, I'll be surprised. <br>It's easier for you to lie and proclaim your idiocy than it is to actually <br>do any work.<br><br>Prove your points or shut up, windbag.<br><br>Sunil<br><br><br>>From: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 @yahoo.com=""><br>>To: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam @hotmail.com="">, vision2020@moscow.com<br>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sunil and His Defense of Terrorists and <br>>ConvictedChild Molesters<br>>Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:30:34 -0700 (PDT)<br>><br>>Sunil,<br>><br>> I don't disagree with defending the rights of the accused. I disagree <br>>with giving any rights at all to convicted and self admitted child <br>>molesters over the rights of others. If someone is accused of child <br>>molestation, they should get the best defense possible. But after that, <br>>shy of a mistrial or rigged trail, lawyers shouldn't be
arguing, in court <br>>or on-line that they should be free to go to another city, unsupervised, <br>>that is FUBAR. To me, that is supporting Child Molesters over the rights <br>>of children and other potential victims. I don't care your logic, that <br>>self admitted and convicted child molesters should have those rights. <br>>PERIOD.<br>><br>> Second, I would never support putting you in charge of the nation's <br>>security. I listed plenty of emails that indicate your position on <br>>terrorists. It is my opinion, Sunil, that the tone and language of your <br>>emails combined, over time, indicate you sympathize with the plight of <br>>the majority of these individuals that wish real harm to Americans and <br>>Westerns. Others are entitled to look at those 20+ emails over the last 3 <br>>years and think otherwise. It is my opinion that any foreigner that states <br>>they wish real harm to the United States, its
elected leaders, its people, <br>>or its property, and has the ability to act on that statement, the <br>>military has the duty to detain that foreigner until her/she is no longer <br>>poses a threat. It is called National Security. National Security and the <br>>prevention of an immediate harm and death of the innocent take precedence <br>>over that of individual freedom of movement of US enemies.<br>><br>> Nobody is putting a gun to your head to represent convicted and <br>>self-admitted child molesters. That is your choice, and yours only. Nobody <br>>is forcing you to sympathize with the rights of people who say "Death to <br>>America". You could choose to represent the elderly, disabled, or millions <br>>of other poor children that are wronged everyday in this country with no <br>>shortage of work and just as little pay.<br>><br>> You spend way to much time on Vision2020 defending these people.<br>><br>>
But again, I am not going to argue with you. As you could argue the <br>>number of the dimples on a golf ball only number two, that is what you do. <br>>I am not good at legal argumentation, I cannot even spell half the time. <br>>But I can tell you my opinion is that convicted child molesters should not <br>>go anywhere unsupervised and that terrorists wish harm and can will bring <br>>harm to the US should be set free because of some legal argument, tell <br>>that to victims of 911. Your statements, so frequently and intensely, as <br>>you do on a public forum, in my opinion, is defending them, not their <br>>actions, but them.<br>><br>> Best,<br>><br>> _DJA<br><br><br>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br> http://www.fsr.net <br>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>=======================================================<br></sunilramalingam></donovanjarnold2005></blockquote><br><p> 
<hr size=1>Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman7/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39666/*http://messenger.yahoo.com"> Great rates starting at 1¢/min.</a>