Taliban commander surrenders for $100 by accident

[Developereo]

^^

Brilliant argument. At about the same level of cogency as the rest of your posts.

Still no concrete sources? Only your speculation? Based upon "facts" from a tabloid, which by definition inflates stuff out of proportion? (not saying it didnt happen)
Thought so.....

I explained how the burden of proof lies on the claimant, not the skeptic.

To give you another example, James Randi doesn't need to prove that psychokinesis doesn't exist; the alleged 'psychic' needs to prove his claims.

The claim of him being a commander was given by a BBC reporter, look it up in the link i posted.
Also these will be details but since i was accused of reading disability: there was no police station, only a checkpoint.

The BBC 'report' was merely repeating the NATO press release, genius!

In this context, police checkpoint and police stations are equivalent: the salient point being a location where official police officers were on duty.

Did you look up your flawed logic yet? Logic on which your dribble in the last post is based upon?

Also, how would you comment on the application of your logic principles to the OBL-Pak example i provided?

What logic? Your post contains disjoint statements that you seem to believe have logical connection. Just because you string together a stream of consciousness doesn't mean anyone has to take it seriously.


Anyway, while you hit the English and logic books for a refresher (or intro), I will leave you at it.

You are not worth my time any more.

 

[Developereo]

^^

Brilliant argument. At about the same level of cogency as the rest of your posts.

Still no concrete sources? Only your speculation? Based upon "facts" from a tabloid, which by definition inflates stuff out of proportion? (not saying it didnt happen)
Thought so.....

I explained how the burden of proof lies on the claimant, not the skeptic.

To give you another example, James Randi doesn't need to prove that psychokinesis doesn't exist; the alleged 'psychic' needs to prove his claims.

The claim of him being a commander was given by a BBC reporter, look it up in the link i posted.
Also these will be details but since i was accused of reading disability: there was no police station, only a checkpoint.

The BBC 'report' was merely repeating the NATO press release, genius!

In this context, police checkpoint and police stations are equivalent: the salient point being a location where official police officers were on duty.

Did you look up your flawed logic yet? Logic on which your dribble in the last post is based upon?

Also, how would you comment on the application of your logic principles to the OBL-Pak example i provided?

What logic? Your post contains disjoint statements that you seem to believe have logical connection. Just because you string together a stream of consciousness doesn't mean anyone has to take it seriously.


Anyway, while you hit the English and logic books for a refresher (or intro), I will leave you at it.

You are not worth my time any more.

 

[Developereo]

^^

Brilliant argument. At about the same level of cogency as the rest of your posts.

Still no concrete sources? Only your speculation? Based upon "facts" from a tabloid, which by definition inflates stuff out of proportion? (not saying it didnt happen)
Thought so.....

I explained how the burden of proof lies on the claimant, not the skeptic.

To give you another example, James Randi doesn't need to prove that psychokinesis doesn't exist; the alleged 'psychic' needs to prove his claims.

The claim of him being a commander was given by a BBC reporter, look it up in the link i posted.
Also these will be details but since i was accused of reading disability: there was no police station, only a checkpoint.

The BBC 'report' was merely repeating the NATO press release, genius!

In this context, police checkpoint and police stations are equivalent: the salient point being a location where official police officers were on duty.

Did you look up your flawed logic yet? Logic on which your dribble in the last post is based upon?

Also, how would you comment on the application of your logic principles to the OBL-Pak example i provided?

What logic? Your post contains disjoint statements that you seem to believe have logical connection. Just because you string together a stream of consciousness doesn't mean anyone has to take it seriously.


Anyway, while you hit the English and logic books for a refresher (or intro), I will leave you at it.

You are not worth my time any more.

 

[The SC]

I don't think so. That $100 bill might be nothing for people like us but he may be in need for something more important may be for family. Life has become cheap and worst. Sometimes they take up arms for small money. Not everybody is charged with religion capsule. I feel pitty. But he made a good choice. At least he will live and won't kill anymore. Good for all

Thanks to India's 11 billion investment in Afghanistan, the "rewards" have started and "Taliban" are being "saved" by 100 dollars bill for their commanders, probably 10 bucks or less for ordinary fighters.
With the US troops in dire straits, it will cost them less this way then to kill a Taliban with thousands of dollars in weapons and ammunition, so for a cost effective solution for an Alice in a "wander" land it is a good fictional idea for a fiction novel.