crozby

What evil are you talking about?

Ron I agree with your entire post. I was just throwing out the question: Considering what has been proved, is it really so unlikely things like this have taken place?

My examples aren't meant to stem from one location. There have been trials in the USA, Britain and I think Belgium and Poland. My guess is the number of occurences of abuse is probably an order of magnitude or two above what made it into the public domain and is not limited to prison guards. Do they get to keep their Korans in their cells? If so I can see how taking away one of the few comforting things they have could be used to break down their resolve. If not then I'm inclined to agree with you.

Checkout the BBC report I linked to - healthy people cost governments more in retirement benefits. The ideal situation for any government that pays retirement benefits is for its citizens to pop their clogs the day after their 65th birthday (or whatever the retirement date).

Ummm no. The following things are proven to have taken place: Scaring prisoners with dogs Beating prisoners Women leading naked prisoners around on leashes Making prisoners simulate gay sex Putting naked prisoners in piles Raping prisoners Murdering prisoners With all that going on I find it pretty unlikely that a Koran or two hasn't been vandalised. How about you?

Given all the other shit that we know goes on during interrogations, does anyone here honestly doubt that Korans have been vandalised at one time or another?

Young people need protecting from addictive substances. When you say cross-hares, what you really mean is angry bunnies, right?

Yeah but they'll lose out on the fact that people will live longer. Cigarette companies have been exposed using this fact as part of their sales pitch. Wankers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1442555.stm

I find this kind of language a problem. Your government labels things as evil to get you all to sign up to intervention. But it has been proven time after time that there is no correlation between the amount of evilness going on in a region and whether the USA gets involved or not. It simply comes down to the USA doing what best suits its own interests, which is pretty much what all nations do.

I disagree. Burning things implies violence: Burning the American flag is symbolic of violence towards America. British idiots burned effigies of Bush during his last visit to the UK - that symbolised their hatred for the man and what they'd like seen done to him. The KKK wore silly hats and burned crosses - that was obviously designed to be intimidating to blacks.

oh blimey, please lets not turn this thread into a hair-splitting he said/she said/yeah but you smell thing. He was only making a light-hearted remark concerning holy wars and Bush's talk of a crusade. Maybe it loses something in transatlantic translation ... although you're Scottish aren't you? Anyway, it's irrelevant how some American dictionary defines crusade, its how it is translated in Arabic that matters. Anyone help with that?

The more kids see it the more likely they are to copy it. The rational justification is the harder you make it for people to smoke the more likely they are to quit. The less kids get exposed to cigarettes the less likely they are to take it up. This isn't about me. It's about protecting children from the tobacco companies. It's about helping the millions of nicotine addicts who want to quit but can't manage it. LOL, I would love to know the total number of smokers that have died from smoking related illnesses. I think the number would be large enough to be considered a 'major attrocity'. Do you have kids? Do you/have you ever smoked?

So, wait, are Americans who practice the Islamic faith allowed to read the Koran? Or are their hands too dirty? It's just more nonsensical bullshit from yet another one of the bigoted ignoramuses that litter both sides of this religious war.

Yeah it does. But we need our governments to protect us from stuff from time to time. Speed limits are one example of the government deciding what is safe for us. The illegality of crack cocaine is another. Do either of those things concern you? There is already a line drawn. I'd just like it moved so ciggies were on the other side of it.

Just because you don't have that point of view (neither do I) doesn't mean you need to pretend that billions of others don't. They clearly do.

Your argument might hold some water if smoking wasn't extremely addictive, but it is. We're not talking about freedom of choice here. We're not talking about the government removing the legitimate right of people to do what they want. If you were a smoker or an ex-smoker you'd realise that the vast majority of people who smoke are addicts. They don't stand outside their offices in the rain smoking because it is fun, they do it because they are addicts. They don't stink because they like the smell, they do it because they are hopelessly hooked on nicotine. If we were talking about chocolate here then your points might be a bit valid, but we are not. Have you ever smoked? If not, go smoke 20 a day for a couple of weeks, then try to quit. It's only then that you'll see it's not a matter of free choice, but of addicts paying huge amounts of their earned income to tobacco companies before dying prematurely. Smokers need these kinds of regulations. They change their environment which makes it easier to fight their addiction.

80,000 to 1. Wow!!!! And what's so funny is that ordinary Americans fail to understand why so many billions of people world-wide think the USA is a bunch of self-serving egotistical wankers.

I agree, they are definitely not fighting for anyones freedom. Have the insurgents even got a stated objective any more?

This line of argument, i.e. if you aren't a soldier you can't comment, is a bunch of arse. But lets for a moment pretend it isn't. It must then surely apply to bus drivers, politicians, pop stars, toilet cleaners, ballet dancers, MacDonalds employees and all other jobs. Taking it further, surely it applies to heroin addicts, murderers and rapists. How dare we criticise the actions of rapists if we aren't rapists ourselves!! Fuck, the whole jury system is by your standards totally flawed - the jury in a murder trial should consist of murderers shouldn't it? Obviously not. Ability to understand an issue is based on experience and/or knowlege: Someone who has studied the experiences of 100 alcoholics is better suited to comment on alcoholism than 1 alcoholic. Doctors are better placed to understand and treat cancer than cancer patients. The examples go on and on. Soldiering, whilst a noble profession, is no different than any other career in this aspect.

So if you weren't in this war you wouldn't be free? How come? Who is they?

This bit of the report confuses me: Under what circumstances would a state give an illegal immigrant a drivers license?

So you don't go along with the view that the Bush administration wanted regime change in Iraq, even prior to 9/11, and that all the WMD stuff was just bullshit to sell a war to the electorate?

Yeah, they forgot to mention Guantanamo.

Fair point. So what is the reason that Americans do these things and others, including I believe Canadians who have more guns per capita, dont?

so anyhoo ... why do people suppose that whenever there is a story in the news about a kid shooting relatives, friends or school teachers, it's always a kid from the USA?