mikkey

Here is an update. The Italians are pissed off enough to start pulling their troops out... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4352259.stm --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

The Italian Prime Minister has said that the US forces had been advised of the car heading towards the airport and that it travelled at 40 KM/H (thats about 30 MPH)...... --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

You assume that the car was speeding towards the check point (which the Italians say they did not). You assume that there was no communication from the Italians informing the Americans they were coming. Let's see what the investigation shows. I would recommend people to interchange American with Italian (or in the other case American with Bulgarian) and then imagine what the reaction would have been in the US and on this board..... --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Fresh of the wire: Maybe the issue is that the stress of the occupation has made many US troops too trigger happy? --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

But many are saying that "you know" the troops made no mistakes. Well we don't know that - do we? Here is some of the latest comments from Ms Sgrena from BBC: So lets see what transpires. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Whitehouse says: It is amazing how many Americans here always jump to conclusions and always assume that their guys never make mistakes.... has been mentioned that somebody probably fucked up - and it might not be the italians.. lets see what the investigation shows. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Have you actually tried to find out what the UN does in regard to health, children, refugees etc.? I think a lot of people in the third world who owe their live to UN programs would disagree. Also, hvae you ever gone through the effort to review the number of successful peace keeping missions the UN has performed since WW2 (of which several are still ongoing). Me thinks that the UN bashing in the US is motivated by a policy to condition the population for a much more unilateral and aggressive foreign policy. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

I would not take information from "exiled opposition groups" to be accurate. Look what happend with Iraq. The main reason for the intel fuck up in regard to WMD's was the reliance on Iraqi "exiled opposition groups" who fed the CIA BS for their own interest. The CIA's mistake was not to really question the information - it fit their political masters too well. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Yes. And at Struthoff, too. Will never go there again. Too hard to stand. I have been to a couple of camps (but not Auschwitz) and it is a very useful and shocking learning experience. Everyone who can do so should. It made me become an opponent against any form of bigotry - no matter against who. Some SC posters with only thinly disguised racism against other cultures and religions should take a tour. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Ah, well then we're into a discussion of cultural imperialism. Is it morally right to force your culture on others who do not share it? What if their culture involves the ritual torture and sacrifice of every third child (a practice that, we'll assume, you find abhorrent)? Then is it still morally repugnant to make them stop (i.e. force your culture on them)? Now, what if the thing you find abhorrent is their treatment of women, or religious minorities, or ethnic minorities? Is it ok to force your cultural views (that minorities, women, etc, ought to be accorded relatively equal rights) on folks who don't share them? Tom, You making some good points and it only confirms that the "bring freedom" thing is problematic. Just because Iraq had elections does not mean they will adopt a western style society. And when do we interfere and when not? Does the US really want to play global police man? --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

The problem is that these peoples culture and religion is not aiming for women in bikinis. You are making the same mistake many westerners do - you don't understand their culture. There is a very great chance that the winners of the elections will be the religous shia parties - and they want to have islamic law implemented. The ironic thing is that SH regime was actually very secular. The people who very likely will win most influence do want a strict religous society. So the "freedom" thing might not be the outcome of the democratic process. So this will be interesting to watch, because if the Shia'a are allowed to they might just create an Iranian type of government (in a fully democratic process) and that would be kind of ironic. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

You guys are so funny.... Anything the UN does or not does - BAD. Anything happening under the Bush administration - GOOD. No matter what the subject, no matter what the facts. What do you guys expect Bremer to say - yes I fucked $9B up = $30 M a day for the period in question? $9 Bn are not accounted for. The Oil for Food program also lost a lot of money and is still being investigated. The program had also very difficult conditions to work under. Trying to regulate oil exports and get food and medicin into the country in return. This during a total economic blockade and with a corrupt brutal regime in place in Iraq. So you think Oil for Food shows how "bad" the UN is but when the US "looses" lots of money in Iraq - its not a problem. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

The article is a good example how to "spin". Democracy was not the justification given to go to war. Reasons given were a) Iraq is a threat with its WMD's and b) Iraq has not disarmed as demanded. Both reasons have been shown to be bogus. There are many brutal dictatorships around the world. Is the US to invade all those countries now? --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

I just fail to understand this urge to use anything against the UN. Here is an article that gives an overview of the report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4225353.stm I am not sure if the conclusion is right or wrong. What is interesting that the reason for the US right wing bashing of the report could be found in the following: and --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Difficult to ascertain how many there are. What we do know is that "only" about 70 or so people got murdered by firearms in the UK last year which is one of the lowest rates per capita in the world and it was a drop of 15% in comparison to the year before. Only in about 0.14% of all crimes firearms (excl. air guns) were used. Here is a good link about the latest crime stats: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1404.pdf --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

UN bashing is so popular here - its like watching Fox News People have been so busy talking about corruption in the "Oil for Food program" and used it to bash the UN. Here is a story about how the US occupation authority mismanaged $9bn. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4224661.stm Well the oil for food also worked in difficult conditions. Now are the UN bashers going to bash the US government for this? I wont - Just shows how easy big programs with lots of money get corrupted. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

This article in The Washington Post tells about reactions in the Arab press: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51954-2005Jan31.html --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Then how do you explain how gun crime has gone up since handguns and semi-auto long guns were banned? (See attached chart) The statistics contradict your theory... Are you now starting again? Isn't it enough that it has been proven that your assumptions do not hold water. Are you not capable of reading? I explained in DETAIL what was wrong with your "chart" (e.g. the inclusion of replica guns, the definition of "gun crime", the increases due to changed collection methods etc. etc.) and you still make those stupid claims. And you still ignore the updated numbers as per 2004 which show that the chances of being a victim of crime is at a 23 year low. So you don't listen when people explain the stats to you - you don't listen when people who have lived / live in the UK give you first hand information - no you just carry on and on. What is wrong with you???? --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

The numbers for "non-air guns" include replica weapons which showed large increases and skewed the numbers substantially. Check the facts. And use 2004 numbers which are available not 2002. Also again read the notes regarding change to reporting methods. The fact is that claims were made that do not stand up in regard to gun control. You don't want me to again repeat the key findings of the 2004 crime stats in the UK? I said early on in this thread that is unwise to start dragging other countries into the US gun control discussion. You can continue to bitch and moan but the fact is that the UK can not be used to make your point in regard to GC in the US. What you do in the US is up to you but dont try to drag other countries into it. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Somebody gave me the good advice to ignore you (see above) and yes I should. You are all over the place... Lets start with your initial post - the one that started the thread: BS Then you were on about how this was connected to the UK gun laws: BS Then you have been repeatedly saying that gun crime is up in the UK and it is not. 1) Overall gun crime is very low and that comes from the long standing control of guns. 1997 did NOT introduce gun control it just tightened it. So your assertion that 1997 was the start of gun control is BS. 2) Gun crimes using fire arms to rob people to kill people etc. are down! The only increases you see is kids stuff like using an airgun to shoot at property and use of replica guns. You want to use this in a GC debate? Give me a break. 3) You also repeatedly choose to ignore that all statistical sources at government sites make a big point that statistical methods and collection criteria have been changed which led to an ARTIFICIAL increase in minor offences. 4) A large part of the so called "gun crimes" you say have increased are the use of replica guns. In the last year the amount of "offences" using a replica gun (i.e. not a real gun) - increased by 35%. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1404.pdf You know why people use replica guns ? Because they can't get hold of real guns due to the strict GC laws! Those GC laws are terrible... So you want to count crimes using toy guns.. 4) Well the look again at the link with the updated information I gave you. http://www.direct.gov.uk/Newsroom/NewsArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4019911&chk=ot56Yw "Provisional figures show that there has been a 15% drop in gun deaths and a 10% drop in the use of guns. Firearm offences overall rose by 3%" and "There were 4,910 offences where handguns were used, a decrease of 570 offences or 10 per cent compared to the year ending June 2003. Imitation weapons were used in 2,560 offences, an increase of 660 offences or 35 per cent." The reason this is possible is because the Brits are counting the use of a piece of painted soap as a fire arm offence - comprende? So lets summarize: - You posted a dubious articel that claimed the UK to be the leading crime country in the world and YOU connected it to gun laws. - You made assertions that crime and especially gun crimes are up and up. - You finally concluded that this was the case because of gun control., i.e. gun control - crime and violence increases. You have been called on all of these: - The UK has some of the lowest rates of murder, assault, robbery etc. with a fire arm in the world. Know why? Guess. - Crime in general and violent crime using guns is falling and at a 23 year low. And how do you refute all this? Because minor offences including the use of air guns to shoot at property and the use of replica guns has increased. And as even your sources tell you the increase might just be caused by changes in collection and statistical methods. Duh! Go home Homer. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

And you continue to mirepresent the facts. Serious crimes using guns are DOWN. You are saying it yourself for gods sake: What you fail to mention from the same site: From the same sources you fail to mention: and and (how does that compare with the US?) and So these terrible "crimes" are kids shooting air guns at property....... You have been caught spreading BS and you wont admit it. "Real" gun crime is low in the UK. Crimes are at the lowest for 23 year. And you should have known that the initial article for the Telegraph was BS. Clearly a case of putting numbers against each other that should not be compared. And just for you again from the latest stats: The risk of being a victim of crime is now lowest since the BCS began in 1981. Violent crime down by 6% 10% drop in the use of guns 15% drop in gun deaths "We are witnessing the longest sustained fall in crime in living memory " --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

You just don't bother to read? I have given the newest offical numbers from the Uk government for 2004. John was claiming that crime and gun related crime had increased since the UK government increased gun control in 1997. I have clearly demonstrated that this is BS. So now you want to change the subject. Firstly all numbers show a decrease in crime since 1995 and the latest numbers for 2004 show it continuing and are now at 23 year lows. So now you are hanging your hat on some stats regarding "contact with crime" and claim that is much higher then in the US and anywhere else. You have no idea how these numbers a collated and how the contact with crime has been defined. So tell me: How are these stats collated? How is "violent" defined? How do you know that the US numbers (source?) are comparable with the UK's? Which collection methods and which definition of "crime" and "Violence" were used? BS - the spike was 1995 - gun control was tightened in 1997 and crime has gone down since. Check the latest numbers. And again : The risk of being a victim of crime is now lowest since the BCS began in 1981. Violent crime down by 6% 10% drop in the use of guns 15% drop in gun deaths And: Do compare murder and assault with a deadly weapon rates per capita between the UK and US. That is so laugable. A high crime rate because of a small population? What knowledge do you have about NZ and Finland? I know both countries very well and they are not crime ridden countries. The stats used to start this thread are BS and remain BS. You can squirm and try to change the subject. John was trying make a point that suits him with BS information and he has been caught. You can jump up and down as much as you want but it does not change the facts. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

You continue to misrepresent the facts and as I said before I do not understand why you do so. Firstly: You started the thread with "England: Worst Crime Rate in the World" It has clearly been demonstrated that this statement (and the stats you used) is BS. Well again you are picking a snippet of information to make a false point. The facts are (source official government stats): The risk of being a victim of crime is now lowest since the BCS began in 1981. Key findings of the crime survey are; Domestic burglary down by 7% Car theft down 12% Violent crime down by 6% http://www.direct.gov.uk/Newsroom/NewsArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4019911&chk=ot56Yw you said: But it is you who is using bogus stats to "demonstrate" that tough gun laws increased crime in general - see your initial post. When it is shown that this is clearly wrong then the 2 things are suddenly not connected. The stats you are ignoring is that murder by firearm is extremely low in the UK - both in total and as a % of population and it is still falling (15% last year). Compare 70 -80 murders per year by fire arm to the US numbers (as murders per capita). Now, in regard to the "spike" in fire arm offences in 2002: I am not sure what the reason for that was. But taking the other numbers into account that show a drop in violent crime, the numbers probably are just in regard to people being charged with the possesion of illegal weapons in the wake of a tightening of gun controls. A fire arm offence is: This is the offcial definition of the UK law. Now you probably understand why it these offences increased in the wake of the tightening of gun laws.Nothing to do with being attacked by a person with a fire arm. Comprende?? Also, gun laws in the UK were tightened in 1997 but you continue to ignore the fact that gun ownership in the UK always has been very low and that guns have always been heavily regulated - even before 1997. So, you and your "supporters" are claiming "victory" when the premise you started the thread with is shown to be false and when the stats show again and again that further claims of yours are false. Now let me repeat: The risk of being a victim of crime is now lowest since the BCS began in 1981. Violent crime down by 6% 10% drop in the use of guns 15% drop in gun deaths "We are witnessing the longest sustained fall in crime in living memory " So the poor crime ridden citizens of the UK better abandon their gun laws. I find it a very stupid strategy to try to use other countries domestic affairs in trying to make the case against gun control in the US. Focus on the US. If you did deep enough you will find that the facts in most industrialised countries do not support your view (except Switzerland). You will also find that in no country with tough gun laws the population is against the regulations. So why are you hell bend in talking about other countries? Or are you again going to ignore the facts which I have found for you? Care to research things better in the future? --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

I give up - you are on a crusade and only see what you want to see. Absolutely pointless. Demonstrates my point. You just ignore the facts presented to you earlier in the thread and you continue with theses statements. Guns have been "banned" for a long time in the UK - the changes in 97 were a tightening of the law. And by the way here are the latest offical stats from the UK (released October 04): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3761626.stm#graph Note: There has been a 3% climb in gun crime, following a 2% rise the previous year, the figures show. But the figures, which cover the 12 months to June 04, also show a 15% drop in the number of shooting-related deaths. And here is the key: Also note this one: --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

You are using snippets of unreliable stats AND you have no first hand experience. I am criticizing that you make judgments about the UK judicial system and crime issues based on this. Most non-US posters are only discussing (and criticizing) US FOREIGN policy not domestic issues. I think it has been demonstrated enough that cross border comparison of statistics is very difficult and filled with abnormalities. Again, I just refer to the one you started this thread with and the numbers for e.g. Russia and New Zealand. I think what you fail to understand is that every country is different. There are difference in history, tradition, socioeconomics, demographics etc etc. I do not understand why you take a discussion about gun control in the US to the UK. There is only a very small minority in the UK against gun control. If you look at the stats available with all the flaws they have (as per my point above) - you will see that most rich industrialised countries with gun control have lower gun related crimes and murder rates then the US. Then again you have exceptions like Switzerland which has high traditional gun ownership and very low crime rates. Again there are lots of reasons why this is the case. What you want to do about guns in the US is up to Americans. In other countries like the UK or Australia the large majority is very happy with gun control and believes it makes them safer. Each to their own. I really don't think taking UK issues and using them for the purpose of the gun debate in the US is relevant. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.