Reply #83: Intentionally obtuse, huh?

[leanings]

Maybe you shouldn't be unintentionally incoherent:

"Using the murderer's own propoganda is probably the weakest way to defend SOA."

The murderers in question are South American army officers who are GRADUATES of SOA. The course catalog I posted is provided by the US Army, who are neither South American nor students at the school. Therefore, although you can feel free to consider the students at SOA murderers and the course list "propaganda", the course catalog isn't provided by the students and could hardly be considered theirs.

"Straw man. This is not about the level of professionalism of the entire US military. It's about SOA. Please stop trying to distract with your straw men,"

You do know that the US military runs SOA, right? Wouldn't the level of professionalism in an organization be reflected in one of it's operations?

Making the assumption that everything that the government does is evil or based on a lie is just as dangerous as gulping down everything they say

"Another straw man. No one said the govt is evil."

I believe IC stated that he starts with the assumption that everything the gov says is a lie. I assumed one regarded repetitive liars as evil. My mistake.

"More straw men. Even if true, it does nothing to show that the SOA did not do what they've been accused of.

Bottom line: You have no argument to make, and so instead, you've chosen to distract by defending them against claims that no one made."

I would say you have no argument to make. I'm not trying to argue that SOA grads didn't commit crimes. Show me where I made that inference. The post I made referred to the accusation that those who had posted the course catalog were murderers, which may have been a mistaken impression on my part due to confusion on someone else's, and pointed out the flaws in the reasoning used to arrive at that point of view.