>The cameraman was even found lying on top of an RPG round.

Right, and they found a hijacker's passport in the rubble at Ground Zero too.

>The pictures recovered from their cameras show that they were sitting one block from a group of vehicles that were under small arms fire. The perfect place from which to launch an RPG attack

So, they had pictures of a Humvee, they had RPGs, and they had the perfect place from which to attack. Why then did they never attack? The most logical explanation is that they weren't terrorists after all.

Another possibility is that Reuters cameramen have joined the Iraq insurgency. That one seems a little less likely.

The pilot and gunner did not know this. Under the Rules of Engagement, when some of a group is armed, they are all combatants

In other words, if the chain of command mistakenly believes you've got a rocket launcher, the ROE permit an indiscriminate and unprovoked attack.

Thus the text provided by Wikileaks is accurate.

Look at this graph from your link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

During the time in which we have ice ages, CO2 fluctuates between about 180 and 280 PPM. Now we are well past the upper bound, at 380 ppm and climbing.

What causes you to believe we will continue to have ice ages now? The atmospheric CO2 concentration is not within the realm of previous ice-age cyclical behavior.

But, the next ice age is still coming, regardless if we select "Pol Pot" or "Party On". And we'll be buried under volcanic debris again. And we'll be the bottom of an inland sea again. A mere two or three ice age cycles from now, you'd never know the difference between "Pol Pot" and "Party On". Certainly in a couple million years or so, it would be nearly impossible to tell.

Do you really have a basis for this statement? In a couple million years some radioactive waste will still be radioactive, and I have been led to believe large amounts of plastic will still be around for at least a few thousand years if not millions.

Ice ages have happened in the past. But, "past performance is no guarantee of future results." And also realize we've changed the conditions. The climate of today has 2x the atmospheric CO2 concentration than the climate which has for the past few hundred thousand years regularly produced ice ages. On what authority can you state that we are still within the bounds of that cycle? Our fossil fuel use has driven the system well beyond normal operating parameters.

Is it just the tool that's the problem or is it hysteria

It's release unknown, untested organisms into the biosphere. Killer bees for example. Kudzu in the south is another warning sign. Snakes in Guam.

Everything we've eaten for millenia has been genetically modified for maximum yield and higher efficiency. We just have different tools now.

We can now directly modify genes. It's not the same thing as breeding hybrids, etc. There is no way to breed a strawberry with a salmon. Though if someone has tried, I'd like to see it on YouTube.

Eventually Mostanto could create a roundup-ready corn using artificial selection, the same way we've been doing it since we dug furrows in Mesopotamia.

The problem with this statement is that we can't keep some of that Monsanto corn to plant next year, the same way we've been doing it since we dug furrows in Mesopotamia.

The GM foods allow for agriculture in places that would normally starve.

I'm curious, at what point does your Christian outreach organization actually teach a man to fish, i.e. teach the poor in barren land to construct their own GMO crops, that they might survive without your charity and religious proselytizing?

To sum up, I doubt that teaching the poor to subsist on expensive, patent-protected GMO seed is in accord with the teachings of Jesus.

So you test the corn that comes out, and if there's no permethrin in the kernels, what difference does it make to you in the food chain?

The food chain is substantially larger than the tiny segment we humans eat.

they've come to the conclusion that it should be illegal as a result of their experiences with it and not because they're assholes?

Depends. Did they try it more than once? Did they smoke it throughout college and law school, like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas?

But let's say they tried it and personally didn't like it. So now it should be illegal for everyone?

The grandparent poster has a valid point.

Are you so dense as to think people can just up and move to other countries -- and take jobs that would otherwise be filled by citizens of those countries -- because they want to smoke pot, or for any other god damned reason under the sun?

I don't think it's accurate to call it evolution unless it is the product of random mutation.

When we splice the salmon gene into the strawberry, it's not random, and it's not a mutation. Perhaps the best phrase for it is "Intelligent Design."

Though it should be noted the self-proclaimed intelligent designers have a long history of hubris...

But if he chunks this case and leaves the defendant holding the bag, he's lower than even the lowest bottom-sucker.

+5 unintentionally hilarious John Edwards reference! http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/160341/