dorbie

You need to listen to this one all the way to the end. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=876_1175800277

Not that O'Reilly didn't have some decent points, but I think Geraldo just owned O'Reilly. http://www.break.com/index/bill_oreilly_vs_geraldo.html I guess O'Reilly wasn't expecting this.

It was a serious piece the material was allowed to speak for itself.

I thought it was excellent documentary film making. You almost forget what that's like living in America.

For a man with a lot of medals, he certainly types a lot of bollocks. Yup, apparently they held the woman isolation and told her that everyone else had been released and if she just cooperated like they did she would be released too. It was an efective technique and AFAIK modern training doesn't tell people to gut it out for no good reason, it just ain't worth it. Phonies will believe whatever propaganda they want to believe no matter what, just witness the reactions during and after this debacle. I hope they broadcast his bollocks in Europe so he gets his ass sued in the UK, of course CNN won't dare. That kind of empty headed shit is for domestic consumption only.

There was nothing angry about it, there's a lot of misrepresentation in your posts to this thread and you're still dodging, you're still ignoring your ridiculous logical fallacy, and now your simply resorting to ad hominem when this is pointed out.

Standard interrogation techniques, but still relevant given the self-serving claims made and still being made about the televised statements.

So now you're saying that they were telling the truth when held captive and threatened by Iran, but now that they're home safe as free men in a free country they're lying? I'm impressed, you've got me convinced.

They all agree on using the scientific method to find the cause, and in fact now they almost all agree that both of the factors you listed contribute so strictly speaking you're wrong on the cause, it's just the quantity they're not sure on. It would be rather surprising if every scientist arrived at the same conclusion at the leading edge of an emerging and complex field of scientific research, a winnowing of conflicting candidate theories is how science works. On that point you have my complete agreement. So the central goal of your religion is for men to find salvation after death through Christ. The central goal of science is to explain, describe and predict the physical world for the living. Not much to compare there, and let's face it your central goal is all New Testament (ignoring the obligatory early prophecy just to rubber stamp the J. man) most of the angst arises from the literal interpretation of arcane Old Testament stuff.

No use paraphrasing it, here's the thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2732468 and here's one post from Darius11 that is noteworthy (bold added to show the specific quote): As you can see, he was quite serious. Respect.

Obviously being correct is not meaning everyone agrees. Which scientific theory holds the correct answer to global warming. Man made or natural? The two things you offer as theories are neither theories or mutually exclusive, you're fooled by the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. One thing you can be sure of, the answer to the question of "How much of the observed global warming is caused by man?" is nowhere to be found in your Bible. How do you propose we explore this immensely complex and profoundly important problem? I humbly offer science as the best way forward and invite you to suggest a better alternative.

You must have missed some of Darius11s posts.

Hey Darius11! Are you getting this? Got any LOL's to offer or have you stopped playing the apologist for the assholes that are holding Iran back?

Some truth to that, same with when the Brits were released, but this was prompted in part by his pendng trial, and the judge completely stuffed up the hearing IMHO. I see no significant evidence they're not keeping those they have enough evidence on for trial, detaining the high risk guys they're sure about regardless & releasing the small fry. They have mistakenly released at least one high(ish) value prisoner. Pretending there's no dilema here doesn't solve the problem.

That's a dodge. You don't even try to defend your logical fallacy. Pretending one thing is equal to another whenever it suits you is simply irrational, no matter how evasive you are when called on it.

The distinction is not moot for a society facing the jeopardy of releasing captured international illegal combatants while the conflict is ongoing and compelled unwillingly to make the tough choices that objectors carp about from sugar plum fairy land. Then why are we releasing them? If David Hicks is a danger, why is he being released? If others in Gitmo have cases similar to his, can we expect a bunch of releases soon? Hicks is not nearly the first to be released under a variety of circumstances, and as I have already said some have already taken up arms. You might consider those bad calls.

The Brits were in uniform and no state of war existed between Iran and the U.K. You make some completely illogical false analogy in blind pursuit of your political agenda. It leaves me wondering if you can actually discern the difference and staggered that either you might not be able to or think nothing of comparing U.K. soldiers in uniform held by a nation purporting to be non aggressive to terrorists and illegal combatants captured red handed fighting against us in a war zone. I don't subscribe to the billvon theory of "wildcard1 == wildcard2" whenever the asinine analogy suits me.

The distinction is not moot for a society facing the jeopardy of releasing captured international illegal combatants while the conflict is ongoing and compelled unwillingly to make the tough choices that objectors carp about from sugar plum fairy land.

So the Nazis we captured near the start of WWII were serving a sentence were they? Or were they just held and fed until the end of a conflict in which they were our sworn enemies? I thing it is possible to draw a distinction between his detention as a combatant and a sentence imposed for terrorist crimes. If you'd confessed to what this guy did in a French court you'd have been sentenced to 25 years in jail automatically.

Plea bargains are by definition coercive if this meets your criteria for coercion. John Walker Lindh had to make a similar agreement w.r.t. his accusations of mistreatment in his deal. He wants a do-over now because 9 months is a lot less than 20 years and he only confessed to joining the Taliban and bearing arms, not aiding terrorists. What do you do with P.O.W.s in a war on terror? There's no good solution. When you capture enemies in a conventional war their status alone makes them detainable until the end of the conflict or some structured repatriation. You don't try them as criminals, it would never be practical anyway. A war on terror including more conventional wars against regimes presents all sorts of problems with mixed status and and a lack of a distinct boundary to conflicts. The threshold for a Gitmo visit was higher than a stay in Abu-Ghraib for example. They already have gitmo releasees who have taken up arms again. There is no neat solution to this, it is a messy dilema. P.S. and of course we're no longer hanging illegal combatants from the nearest lamp post when caught in the field so you're left having to hold them.

Well there's no need for secrecy, they did pay for the surgery to fix my leg. I'm just asking incase I must avoid any lapse in coverage in future, for example through COBRA.

Well you're young, they stopped teaching in favor of social engineering a while back. That's what happens when you put arts majors in charge of young minds.

I had a similar thought, not that they believe the same thing (edit: but on reflection you're right although the Phelps' seem obsessed almost exclusively with sodomy) but they're definitely cut from the same cloth. With Fred Phelps at the helm they didn't stand a chance. It could be any one of us there with the wrong upbringing. We're only ever one generation away from ruin.

I'm guessing strictly missionary position.

There's rich irony in your accusations of hatred. Here's another link to the video incase anyone missed it. This is actually the most watchable footage of these assholes I've seen. http://www.break.com/index/most_hated_family_in_america.html Here's Fred himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e647x8xFKTs This last video provides much more insight into their church, clearly this guy is articulate and somewhat charismatic, I've previously only seen much more oafish spokespeople by comparrison. Well worth the time to watch IMHO. Also from their website: So according to them the gig is up. We're now officially screwed.