>>YOU stated that it was unreasonable- I was showing it was not.<<

Bruce, I said it was not likely that 6-year-olds are being employed as suicide bombers by the Taliban. I never said anything beyond that. Even if I was going to strap a vest to a 6-year-old, why would I give him the detonator???? I would keep it and detonate it myself as soon as the soldiers got near him. You can't depend on a 6-year-old to do that for you and surely terrorists are smart enough to know that.

I'd like to know which soldiers walked up and defused his vest because IRL no one would have gone near him--would you?--because no one could know how that vest is rigged up. It's terrible to say but you'd almost certainly have to shoot the kid to detonate the vest from a safe distance because you can't go near him.

>>Really? I guess you can't trust those English and Australian newspapers.<<

Doesn't make any difference, Bruce. You gave us two stories about the Taliban using 6-year-olds as suicide bombers and both stories were so similar--right down to the statement that they are doing this because they are running out of recruits--only a fool would discount it. It's all one big media, in case you didn't know that. All countries feed from the same trough because they really have no choice. There's only a relative handful of embedded reporters over there to get stories from. They are the perfect propagandists if they decide to be.

>>Who would you ask? The Afghan leader of the village, who brought the kid? The kid himself, as quoted in the article? The people who listened to him?<<

Well, Bruce, we all know that kids never lie. And we all know that kids can't be coaxed into saying things that aren't true. We all know that kids would never tell a tall tale to get attention. We all know these things just don't happen so therefore I can see that taking this kid's story at face value is a no-brainer.

>>Have you even TRIED to find any verification?<<

Since I don't believe the story, why should I? That's the job of those who believe the story. And they admit that they cannot verify it.

>>If not, HOWW DO YOU KNOW IT IS NOT TRUE?????<<

Because if it were true, we'd be hearing upside down and backwards about 6-year-old bombers and we don't. In point of fact, we have only one such story--this one. The 2005 one appears to be the same story. The story as it is told is not credible. And if a 6-year-old can foil these guys, why can't we??

>>Well, that proves a lot.
Oh, I guess YOU have a direct line to God and do not need to look at any sources of information.<<

I looked at yours. Let's go over it again, Bruce. You gave me stories of 12, 13 and 14 year olds being recruited. That's not what we were talking about. You gave me stories of children being used as shields. Again, that is not what we are discussing here. You gave me stories that had not occurred in Afghanistan nor were perpetrated by the Taliban. Once again, that puts you off-topic.

You gave me two stories of the Taliban using 6-year-olds as suiciders but the stories are so similar right down to using the same rhetoric and yet were two years apart suuposedly written by two different reporters in two different countries. Doesn't seem right, does it, Bruce? I mean, even you have to admit that doesn't seem right.

Because it's propaganda and only a fool would deny the US is largely fighting a propaganda war in the Middle East and the problem with that is that, inevitably, the propaganda ends up convincing the ones who initially put it out there. And that is what is happening here.