chicot

It has a certain symmetry to it

No, many of those in Abu Ghraib, in fact many of those in American custody are unlikely to be guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is why hundreds (if not thousands by now) have been released with no charge.

"Every time some jackass in a bar says to one of our returning heroes "Yeah, you were probably in Abu Ghraib" it will be the voice of the gutless who have protested the war that will bear the full responsibility." How exactly do you work that out? Antiwar protestors did not commit the abuses in Abu Ghraib, they did not blow the whistle on what was going on, nor did they report the stories. Yet somehow, if some drunk in a bar brings up the issue of Abu Ghraib, it will not be the responsibility of the soldiers that committed the abuses, not the responsibility of the soldiers that blew the whistle on them, nor of the journalists that reported it. No, it will be the evil antiwar protestors who will bear the "full responsibility". Truly remarkable

I'm curious as to why you have such strong views about the EU. Are you worried about the effect it will have on the US or are you thinking of moving to Europe?

Le Pen is also notoriously anti-semitic and has sought to belittle the holocaust by describing it as "a mere detail, a footnote in the history of WWII". Still feel so willing to sing his praises?

Your continued obsession with someone who hasn't posted in months seems a little odd. So he called the election wrong. So what. He was far from being the only one. In fact, I seem to remember a particular thread entitled "It's over guys". Wonder who posted that?

Also Paul Wolfowitz is about to become head of the World Bank.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you actually saying that the fact that there has been so few casualties on the American side is a testament to the civilized nature of the US?! That seems to be an utterly bizarre viewpoint. By that measure you could say that the British that landed in Australia and proceeded to slaughter the native aborigines were civilized since they suffered so few casualties on their side

I was thinking that myself. The defence has blown a hole a mile wide in the witnesses credibility. Unless the prosecution has something up it's sleeve, there's no way they should get a conviction in this case. "He's getting off on this, and he should." (Unfortunate turn of phrase )

My mistake. I think you're right, though that was just pure luck that he didn't. I don't think the rentamob in Fallujah actually killed the contractors either - my recollection is that they were killed when masked men hit their vehicle with an RPG and then left the scene. It's not really that worthwhile trying to decide which was worse though - both acts were appalling.

Likewise, I do not defend the actions of the mob in Fallujah - it was barbaric. What I object to, is this perception, perpetuated in my view by unbalanced media coverage, that their hatred came out of thin air and that nothing had happened in Fallujah before to contribute to it. Perhaps I am expecting too much, but I believe that in a free society the media has a duty to try and tell the whole story. I understand that the forthcoming movie about the battle for Fallujah is going to take as it's starting point the murder of the contractors, thus conveniently ignoring what happened when the US arrived in the city and further perpetuating this myth.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Certainly I hold the governments of the US and UK to a higher standard since they are democracies, unlike most Islamic countries. I'm not sure that the actual populations are necessarily more civilized - certainly western countries are more developed and have a higher standard of living and this obviously has some effect on behaviour. I think most people want similar things from life, no matter where you go - a good life, a family etc... When these things are denied to them, for whatever reason, they tend to become "less civilized". I'll go back to my earlier point - was the mob that beat the truck driver to death in the race riots in LA really any much more civilized than the mob that mutiliated the bodies of the contractors in Fallujah?

As I said, I'm not trying to justify what happened to the contractors. However, I do believe the media is constructing a very one-sided picture of what occurred in Fallujah and this (seldom-mentioned) incident certainly contributed to hatred of the US in Fallujah. They probably wouldn't cut off their heads, but are you so sure they would be in no danger? Wasn't a truck driver beaten to death by a mob following the Rodney King incident? Mobs are very ugly things, no matter what their nationality.

Hmmm ... perhaps Islamic law isn't so bad after all.

I'm curious. Are you aware of these events, that took place in Fallujah months before the contractors were killed, indeed before there had been any resistance whatsoever in Fallujah? US troops kill 13, injure 25 demonstrators Yes, the troops claimed they were fired on first (shades of Bloody Sunday) but the fact is that no US soldier was killed, nor were any injured. There were also British reporters covering the demonstration (no, they weren't from the friggin' Guardian) and they stated they didn't see or hear any shots before the US opened fire on the crowd. There was also another demonstration the following day in which several Iraqi demonstrators were killed when US troops, once again, opened fire. Don't get me wrong, there is no justification for what happened to the contractors - that was barbarism pure and simple. However, it seems that this event has been airbrushed out of history - it is hardly ever referred to in the British media and I would be suprised if the American media is any better. Everyone knows about the killing of the contractors, how many know about this? How many even care? Let me present a scenario for you: foreign troops arrive in LA and take over a school to use as their base. Residents protest and demand they leave the school so that children can then attend classes. The troops then open fire on the crowd, killing 13 and wounding 25. How do you think the population of LA would react?

Wouldn't you be?

Perhaps, but it is nevertheless true that Hizbollah enjoys widespread support among the Shia muslim community, which makes up about 40% of the Lebanese population. In any free and fair election, they are likely to do very well.

"Ah, yes...the voice of Muslim moderation, right?" Not quite sure what you're getting at with that? Syria intervened in Lebanon to halt a civil war that was raging between Muslims and Christians. Interestingly enough, Syria intervened on the side of the Christians, provoking condemnation in much of the Arab world. It's also worth noting that their intervention was actually supported by the US at the time. The link below is pretty good. Lebanese history

Initially, Hizbollah was in favour of an Iranian theocracy in Lebanon but has now changed it's position. There was an interesting article on the subject of Hizbollah and it's evolution in the friggin' Guardian. It's worth reading if you don't automatically discount it because of the source. Lebanon and Hizbollah

The situation in Lebanon is more complex than the US administration likes to pretend. You mentioned the tens of thousands demonstrating against Syria in your post, but failed to mention the hundreds of thousands that attended a pro-Syria demonstration organised by Hizbollah. Yes, Syria should leave Lebanon but, by the same measure, Israel should leave the Golan Heights, the Sheebaa Farms region as well as the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It is also somewhat ironic that the US is insisting that Syria leaves Lebanon before elections are held when they seem somewhat reluctant to apply the same logic in Iraq.

Not sure about the "vast majority". I remember seeing figures of "70%" being innocent being quoted a while back, though that's probably not accurate anymore. I'm not saying they should have a free lunch, but they shouldn't be tortured either. Besides it may not be so simple to decide immediately whether someone is innocent or not (unless they're actually caught with an RPG or planting an IED) and if you torture them in the meantime, you'll probably end up torturing quite a few innocents. In my view, saying that anyone should have no rights is the beginning of a slippery slope. A law has just been passed over here whereby someone suspected of something can be detained without any right to a trial or even of knowing what the evidence is against them.

So, what you are saying is that the US should take it's moral lead from a lynchmob in Fallujah? Besides, as the US itself has admitted, not everyone in it's custody is guilty of anything, which is why they release large numbers of them at regular intervals.

You realise, of course, that you have shatterred the illusions of all the older guys on TSW, who were dreaming that they too could pull an 18 year old hottie Seriously though, that's probably a very shrewd observation.

The thing is, if a Cocker spaniel attacks me, I like to think I have a reasonable chance of fighting it off. If a rottweiler attacks me ...

My worry with Rottweilers (and other heavy, powerfull breeds) is that, if they do turn on you, you've got big problems - their jaws are just so powerful that they can do far more damage than say a German Shepherd for example.