3 Ghazni elders killed by Taliban after uprising

[khushal]

LOL well first of all

a.) prove it's a commentary

then secondly

b.) prove that commentaries cannot ever be evidence

its people making comments but have no evidence to back up those claims. you have Faye claiming the jews were behind the 911 attacks, but has no evidence to back up her claims. Its the same thing you are doing.

[khushal]

how does that refute these as evidence though?

it does not refute these but you are using the same tactics as the bush administration back then. Using commentaries with no evidence to convince the public that Sadddam had WMD's.

[khushal]

Your and Khushal's claim is a confirmation bias.

your claim is a confirmation bias. you pick and choose commentaries(with no evidence to back up those claims) that confirm your argument. You ignore evidence that refute your argument.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

it does not refute these but .....

so then your argument is baseless .....trying to associate them with Bush doesn't make them Bush's arguments.

Hitler was a vegetarian therefore vegetarianism is wrong ...that's the type of logical fallacy you're using.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

its people making comments but have no evidence to back up those claims. .

The people involved are admitting it themselves, how is direct affirmation not evidence?

don't make red herring about Faye, Focus on this.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

your claim is a confirmation bias. you pick and choose commentaries(with no evidence to back up those claims) that confirm your argument. You ignore evidence that refute your argument.

So you're saying that when someone involved in the crime admits he's doing the crime means that it's a commentary and that it doesn't prove he did the crime? lol Because those are what the evidence I present describe.

Now IF that's your argument, then you're demonstrating precisely what confirmation bias is

doing your usual Khushal tactic of "throwing back the terms and hoping it sticks" doesn't mean the converse is true. lol

[khushal]

So you're saying that when someone involved in the crime admits he's doing the crime means that it's a commentary and that it doesn't prove he did the crime? lol Because those are what the evidence I present describe.

Now IF that's your argument, then you're demonstrating precisely what confirmation bias is

doing your usual Khushal tactic of "throwing back the terms and hoping it sticks" doesn't mean the converse is true. lol

Im saying that the comments made are not backed up by evidence. If I claim that the sky is Purple, it does not make it fact if I dont back it up with evidence.That is what Faye is doing and what Bush did about the WMDs. Your using the same tactics because you are desperate.

You dont know why the taliban are making those comments. It could be because they want to create tension between the americans and Russians. Reagan was denying they supported the majahadeen but the evidence was there that he was doing it so his comments meant nothing.
The obama administration denies the drone program but the evidence is contrary to the comments.

Why do you beleive this particular comment made by a talib joe shmoe but deny the other comments made by the taliban spokeman. We all know that you are biased. So your the one guilty of confirmation bias.

The sane world likes to work with evidence, not comments with no evidence.

[A.Alraeesi]

Why are you all so political?? :p

[faye]

I have doubts about the mans claim but the docu is pretty good. Qureshi is a good journalist.

the write up about the video, that i read, said he saw the dead body, at the end, but i don't recall him seeing the body. they could have just been scaring him with a fake drama.
it worked, lol.

[faye]

its people making comments but have no evidence to back up those claims. you have Faye claiming the jews were behind the 911 attacks, but has no evidence to back up her claims. Its the same thing you are doing.

did i actually say, the jews? i don't recall that khushal, because i don't think 'the jews' did it. it has not been proven who did it and there are alternative theories.
there are protests from architects, firemen, demolition men and others, in america, questioning the event and complaining that it was not proved that osama did this.
should i just believe everything that is told to me? you are being a hypocrite here, now.
for a person that demands others give evidence and proof i find it funny that you seem to believe the 9/11 story, outright.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

the comments made are by the people who are involved in the acts themselves, so if first hand account of the events is not evidence, then nothing is evidence. That's the most ridiculous argument. That's exactly why what you're doing IS in fact confirmation bias; because you won't even believe the Taliban when they admit to doing things.

Your counter reasoning that "it could be because ....fill in the blanks.....". is Texas Sharp Shooting.. And it would make no sense Since that would only justify a bigger troop presence to reassure the American hegemony. LOL





Obama drone program? show evidence he denies drones..

[khushal]

the comments made are by the people who are involved in the acts themselves, so if first hand account of the events is not evidence, then nothing is evidence. That's the most ridiculous argument. That's exactly why what you're doing IS in fact confirmation bias; because you won't even believe the Taliban when they admit to doing things.

Your counter reasoning that "it could be because ....fill in the blanks.....". is Texas Sharp Shooting.. And it would make no sense Since that would only justify a bigger troop presence to reassure the American hegemony. LOL

Obama drone program? show evidence he denies drones..

You have heard of disinformation. people do it all the time for a certain purpose. It is not regarded as fact unless there is evidence to back it up.

the drone program was just recently acknowledged.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...4rT_story.html

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Even if that's the case, where is your proof? Again reinforcing your confirmation bias; you have no evidence to refute the claims; you're merely inventing an excuse based on "some other incident"

and on that note, your claim that Obama only recently acknowledged drones is just disinformation :P

[khushal]

obama acknowledement is backed up by evidence. it is more than commentary. you are being intellectually dishonest.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

That's a commentary, which according to you isn't evidence, remember it could be disinformation. Just to make the Taliban think Pakistan themselves used the drones.

don't you hate when your arguments boomerang on you?