Originally Posted By ecdc LOL! Sad thing is, I think I have done that on here. I get riled up and those fingers get flyin'... But I do think the Red Cross would side with you on that.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo I used "do" for "due" yesterday, and I'm sure a number of suffix and transitory verb omissions, etc. etc.... But I’m used to making boneheaded mistakes like that. Even when I proof read, I seem to read over these sorts of typos. *sigh* C'est la vie, I guess.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***As long as you don't use "your" for "you're". That causes me extreme mental suffering, and I'd have to sic the Red Cross on you.*** lol. Your so funny!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think I've done the your for you're thing when trying to type too fast. (Perhaps on this very thread... ugh!) What I see ALL the time is "then" for "than". And not just as a typo, there seem to be a lot of people who don't know when to use each of those words, which surprises me. It's enough to make you pull you're hair out.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo Well it's beetter then you jumping off of a cliff that is higher then Mt. Rushmore. But Mt Rushmore is not higher then Mt Everest. Of course being bald is better then being stupid, and using "then" in place of "than" all of the time I suppose, but than what do I know?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Probably?? And you'd know this... how?>> <Do you have a better theory to explain his movements? And you know it . . . How?> How about the explanation that he himself gave that was accepted by the German intelligence services, and ultimately by us, seeing as how we let him go. Remember that pesky little detail about how the German intelligence service said that WE considered him innocent? But you still want to insinuate that he wasn't, which is telling. <<Later, after they learned the facts, they ASKED FOR HIS RELEASE.>> <About four years later, after Schroeder was replaced as Chancellor.. Yes, after they learned the facts. Which don't seem to matter to you. <<Good grief, Doug, you actually think you can post half-truths like your above paragraph and not be called on it?>> <If you have facts that contradict what I said, please post them. Otherwise we can go down the path where you make accusations, I deny them, and everyone else gets annoyed.> I already did. The German intelligence service said that we considered him innocent. That's a fact. What annoys people is when you deny facts like that and I have to go back and call you on it again, and on and on it goes. If you'd just admit to a fact like that, it could end. <<First of all, remember that the people saying this are covering their own butts.>> <Of course, the men serving our country are untrustworthy, while those making accusations are unimpeachable.> That's not what I said. <Couldn't it also be true that the authors of these memos, because they KNEW their actions would be scrutinized, went to an extreme amount of research and caution to make sure these techniques weren't torture?> It could be. But Occam's razor says it was CYA time.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But you still want to insinuate that he wasn't, which is telling.> That depends upon what you want to claim he was innocent of. <Yes, after they learned the facts.> Four years after the learned the facts. And now he claims the Germans tortured him too. <Occam's razor says it was CYA time.> I disagree.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But you still want to insinuate that he wasn't, which is telling.>> <That depends upon what you want to claim he was innocent of.> More insinuation without proof of anything. Telling again. The Germans said we told him he was innocent. If we thought he was actually guilty of anything, we wouldn't have released him. <<Yes, after they learned the facts.>> <Four years after the learned the facts. And now he claims the Germans tortured him too.> How do you know how long it took them to ascertain the facts? Certainly we know they took our word for it initially. How would you know how long it took for them to find out differently? <<Occam's razor says it was CYA time.>> <I disagree.> Naturally.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <More insinuation without proof of anything.> Again, this is not geometry class, not a criminal court. The standard is not proof. I think there's compelling evidence that Mr Kurnaz wanted to join the Taliban or Al Queda, and after being detained we decided he was innocent of having been a terrorist. <How do you know how long it took them to ascertain the facts?> Because of the date of the memo you keep referring to. You can't use the memos as evidence of one thing, and then forget they exist for another.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<More insinuation without proof of anything.>> <Again, this is not geometry class, not a criminal court. The standard is not proof.> And the standard for calling you out for insinuating something you can't prove is... just that. You insinuated something you have no proof of, and I called you on it. Other readers may make of that what they will. <I think there's compelling evidence that Mr Kurnaz wanted to join the Taliban or Al Queda,> And that "evidence" would be...? <and after being detained we decided he was innocent of having been a terrorist.> But we tortured him anyway. Lovely. <<How do you know how long it took them to ascertain the facts?>> <Because of the date of the memo you keep referring to. You can't use the memos as evidence of one thing, and then forget they exist for another.> Actually, this would just make things worse. If the Germans learned of his innocence and didn't ask for his release for 4 years, that doesn't speak well of Schroeder's government - too cozy with Bush??
Originally Posted By DAR <<and after being detained we decided he was innocent of having been a terrorist.> But we tortured him anyway. Lovely.>> Doug everyone knows I'm closer to your side on this issue, but I'm not okay with an innocent person being tortured.
