I'm not American -- don't just assume people's nationality because you don't like their arguments. >>I wasn't comparing them on an objective level (which I thi

I'm not American -- don't just assume people's nationality because you don't like their arguments. >>I wasn't comparing them on an objective level (which I think was pretty obvious), merely stating that they are all things that will be with those respective countries for a long time. See the note above, re that all countries I know of with terror problems thread on the limits of human rights. >>The U.S. Administration did not declare war, and labeled Taliban troops and supporters terrorists rather than soldiers, Afghanistan is a conflict against organized units which as standard behavior do terror attacks against civilians and misuse civilian dress. Anyway, it is continuing military operations since the invasion 2001, where the term is used in the standard press. I don't have a problem with the Afghan invasion -- and neither do neutral countries like Sweden which send soldiers there. If you harbor terrorists which attack other countries' civilians, you might get invaded. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing -- it is an incentive for countries to not destabilize other countries. >>So, do you waterboard people in your US prisons ? Do you torture them ? Desecrate their religious objects ? And far worse than that ? Check spr.org. How popular do you think these people would be, if put in US prisons? Second, I do honestly think the judgment on US here is harsher than e.g. the British and their handling of IRA, etc. Third, desecrating religious objects isn't illegal in civilized countries. (And is it really documented?) Fourth, lots of the stories coming from Guantanamo prisoners are certainly made up. There are innocent people incarcerated (all prisons have that). The guilty are in the terror business -- which is more or less the propaganda business. Edit: Grammar, sigh.