USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[EiZei 0]

Perhaps it would be wiser if schools taught people to not eat so much crap

Or maybe they should just give insurance companies protection from lawsuits if/when they start charging fatties more for health insurance.

I just wonder why does this need a separate law? Why are'nt these cases just thrown out?

[Supah 0]

Perhaps it would be wiser if schools taught people to not eat so much crap

Or maybe they should just give insurance companies protection from lawsuits if/when they start charging fatties more for health insurance.

I just wonder why does this need a separate law? Why are'nt these cases just thrown out?

I guess they dont want the judicial system clogged up like a fat mans arteries with all the fatties wanting money for their own lazyness and stupidity

[chops 111]

Quote[/b] ]NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Southwest Airlines kicked a woman off one of its flights over a political message on her T-shirt, the airline confirmed Thursday, and published reports say the passenger will sue.

Free speech deeply rooted in US culture?

Source

An isolated incident I know, but I can't imagine it happening in Western Europe.

Why don't you plz split it out and get it over with. This is the second time you have mention that "I can't imagine this happening in (Western) Europe."

Yeah fair point. . Last time I was proved greatly wrong too. But I've not heard any European head of state blathering on about "This is the greatest country in the woooooorld!" during a public speach. It just seems that there is an element of "We're the best, we're the best!" coming out of the US. Planet Earth is not a competition.

@Sputnik Munroe. That's my point. That it's law in public places, but in private it's a different story. Hence the term culture, not law.

[billybob2002 0]

Perhaps it would be wiser if schools taught people to not eat so much crap

Or maybe they should just give insurance companies protection from lawsuits if/when they start charging fatties more for health insurance.

I just wonder why does this need a separate law? Why are'nt these cases just thrown out?

How can you teach them to cut eating too much fast food if there are junk food machines in the schools? Physical Education has almost completely disappeared in elementary schools because of lawsuits. So, hardly no exercise for the younger kids.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah fair point. . Last time I was proved greatly wrong too. But I've not heard any European head of state blathering on about "This is the greatest country in the woooooorld!" during a public speach. It just seems that there is an element of "We're the best, we're the best!" coming out of the US. Planet Earth is not a competition.

Was the government at fault in this incident?

[EiZei 0]

Perhaps it would be wiser if schools taught people to not eat so much crap

Or maybe they should just give insurance companies protection from lawsuits if/when they start charging fatties more for health insurance.

I just wonder why does this need a separate law? Why are'nt these cases just thrown out?

How can you teach them to cut eating too much fast food if there are junk food machines in the schools?

Holy fuck, and the parents seem real pissy here for allowing even regular soda automats.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Perhaps it would be wiser if schools taught people to not eat so much crap

Or maybe they should just give insurance companies protection from lawsuits if/when they start charging fatties more for health insurance.

I just wonder why does this need a separate law? Why are'nt these cases just thrown out?

Now, some Legal Eagle please correct me if I'm wrong, but charges in cases such as these could only be brought by a Grand Jury (in certain states and certain levels of the federal Courts), and no doubt, due to various economic and social reasons which I cannot say I totally understand, there will be some fat people on the jury, as well as what Richard Hornberger refers to in "M*A*SH Mania" as "Confused Wool...evenly divided between well-meaning but dumb Jesus Wool and Educated Wool". The will of the people being what it is, I'd be surprised if differently constiituted grand Juries across the United States hesitated to move to indite fast food companies for the garbage they put out.

However, the idea that people can eat what is obviously an unhealthy source of protein and then claim that they didn't know the consequences is either a sign of today's compensation culture or a damning indictment of the U.S. Education system. I prefer to believe the former; that some people are too greedy and stupid to think straight and stop eating.

P.S. I do sympathise with those who genuinely have eating disorders and recommend they see a therapist, not a lawyer.

[billybob2002 0]

Perhaps it would be wiser if schools taught people to not eat so much crap

Or maybe they should just give insurance companies protection from lawsuits if/when they start charging fatties more for health insurance.

I just wonder why does this need a separate law? Why are'nt these cases just thrown out?

How can you teach them to cut eating too much fast food if there are junk food machines in the schools?

Holy fuck, and the parents seem real pissy here for allowing even regular soda automats.

You see, the schools need the money that those companies give them for their budgets. The average american does not like the words "tax" and "increase" put together including myself (ha, I don't even work). Gov. Schwarzenegger seems to have a plan about this junk food issue...

[booradley60 0]

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw will jointly present the Frank A. Nix Lecture at The University of Alabama on Friday, Oct. 21.

I'm gonna try to book it over to the BCC after Physics.

Quote[/b] ] The Frank A. Nix Lecture honors the memory of Frank Albert Nix, a UA graduate, business leader and member of the Alabama Commission on Higher Education. Nix died tragically in an airplane crash in 1996, the same year he had been honored as the alumnus of the year by the UA National Alumni Association.

The Nix Lecture was established by the Blackburn Institute to explore ethical leadership in the national arena.

The one-liners practically write themselves!

I'm no political commentator, as long as she doesn't fuck up the coin toss for the Bama/Tennessee game Saturday she'll be alright in my book for at least a day.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Perhaps it would be wiser if schools taught people to not eat so much crap

Or maybe they should just give insurance companies protection from lawsuits if/when they start charging fatties more for health insurance.

I just wonder why does this need a separate law? Why are'nt these cases just thrown out?

I guess they dont want the judicial system clogged up like a fat mans arteries with all the fatties wanting money for their own lazyness and stupidity

This has really gotten out of hand, Corparate America has lost money over man greedy for grain. Has the average IQ droped or is there an increase in greedy anal lawyers? People should use common sense. lets look at a food chain that got sued for its coffee being hot. the customer spilled it on thier lap and got pissed off, then sued. WTF! do you want your coffee cold or hot? come on people! Thank God theres being a bill being made for this. maybe this will be the begining of the end for stupid lawsuits.

[Akira 0]

It's not federal transportation, it's a private enterprise. When on board one of their planes You follow their rules or you get off simple as that.

Freedom of speech is one thing, claiming you have the right to do and say what ever you please on some one else’s private property is another. For example you have the right to wear a shirt that says "mother fucking fuck" on it. You don't have the right to wear it in my store if I tell you that you can't. My store, my property, my rules.

All she has coming to her if anything is an exact refund of her original ticket price.

Case closed.

Hmpf. Really? So they could say.. ban Asian people from boarding? Or beat you up?

I think that even in America law supercedes the local rules of a company. I very much doubt that you have the right to violate a person's constitutional right just because he's on your private property.

Actually, an airline has every right to have kicked her off. They didn't kick her off because she was Asian, they kicked her off because her shirt had the word "Fuck" in it and other passengers complained.

One could even make a case for the shirt be "inciteful" given its nature, and can rightly kick her off because of the endangerment for the safety of the flight.

It may be her constitutional right to wear the shirt, but its also the constitutional right of the other 100 odd passengers to not be forced to look at it. From what I understand, she was given many chances to cover it, wear it inside out, or what have you, and did not cooperate for the most part.

The most SW is liable for is the cost of getting her to her destination, as spelled out on the terms or the Contract Of Carriage written on every ticket.

[EiZei 0]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html

That smile is just.. scary.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]It may be her constitutional right to wear the shirt, but its also the constitutional right of the other 100 odd passengers to not be forced to look at it.

I can´t follow you there. In a plane you don´t see much of the other passengers unless you ride in plane with no seats.

If I was her, I would sue the airline.

"Fuck" as I was told is an expression that´s used in every-day life in the US. What´s the deal ?

It´s everyone´s freedom to wear what he/she wants unless it´s not unconstitutional or affends any law.

I sat in planes wearing Rockbitch T-Shirts and noone ever came up to me. If someone would have come up to me threatening to expell me from the plane I would just do a short call to my lawyer and hand the phone to the person in question.

That´s just not anyone elses business, no matter if they like it or not.

If you don´t like it, don´t look at it.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html

That smile is just.. scary.

He did that smile so the DNC could not use that picture in one of their ads "properly". You know like the maganizes did with the OJ mugshot. Also, to show he is upbeat and everything will turn positive for him.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I can´t follow you there. In a plane you don´t see much of the other passengers unless you ride in plane with no seats.

Well, they must have been able to see her, as a number of passengers complained.

Quote[/b] ]If I was her, I would sue the airline.

I'm sure she is, however, my guess is that she will lose and the most she will be able to recoup is the cost of the rental car to her destination.

Quote[/b] ]"Fuck" as I was told is an expression that´s used in every-day life in the US. What´s the deal ?

It´s everyone´s freedom to wear what he/she wants unless it´s not unconstitutional or affends any law.

Um, well. It's not used in everyday life, and is considered the "dirtiest of the dirty words." And as I said, of course she has a right to wear what she wants, but other passengers have a right to an acceptable environment as well. The airline is dealing with one person who is inciting a number of other people. The math is quite simple.

Quote[/b] ]I sat in planes wearing Rockbitch T-Shirts and noone ever came up to me.

According to this incident, no one bothered her for the first leg either, it was on the second leg in which problems occured. SW may face a legal problem for explaining why the shirt was thought appropriate or unoffensive on the first leg, but was on the second leg. However, it could be said that as soon as other passengers became uncomfortable and complained, the shirt became inappropriate. The FAA doesn't help by leaving the application and definition of "inappropriate" and " offensive" up to the airline. However, I don't think it had anything to do with the political message, as some try to make it. I believe it has more to do with the prominant usage of "Fuck," which is still outlawed in various sectors of society.

Quote[/b] ]If someone would have come up to me threatening to expell me from the plane I would just do a short call to my lawyer and hand the phone to the person in question.

That´s just not anyone elses business, no matter if they like it or not.

If you don´t like it, don´t look at it.

I doubt your lawyer could do much. I'm not familiar with European laws, but in the US the plane will not leave until the crew deem it safe. Passengers are also required to comply with crew instructions. If she refused such, like to cover or hide her shirt, then SW has a slam dunk case.

And the problem with your statement is that while you have the right to do what you want, you don't have the right to disregard others rights either. Social norms and all that. You can wear a shirt that says "Pussy Bitch Dick Cock Fuck" for all I care, but you don't have the right to force it on me, especially in a locale like the inside of an airplane where I may not be able to "not look."

[EiZei 0]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html

That smile is just.. scary.

You know like the maganizes did with the OJ mugshot.

Well, personally I think it's actually more fucked up this way.

He is trying to look positive but comes off more like joker with his fake-y smile.

[ralphwiggum 6]

ahhh..faking a smile. he smiles like Troy McClure...

[crashdome 3]

And the problem with your statement is that while you have the right to do what you want, you don't have the right to disregard others rights either. Social norms and all that. You can wear a shirt that says "Pussy Bitch Dick Cock Fuck" for all I care, but you don't have the right to force it on me, especially in a locale like the inside of an airplane where I may not be able to "not look."

Tell you what...

I'm gonna wear a shirt like that.. and I promise I won't force you to wear it.

I'm gonna buy 10 of those T-shirts. Simply because people are complaining. Uptight little pricks might try and stop me, but I say the hell with them. I see people wearing crap I don't like every day. Even if they aren't 'swear' words I might find them offensive.. like the Confederate flag and what not (example only - don't stray off into a tizzy over it). I may say I won't like it.. I may even try and persuade why, but the hell if I am going to force them not to wear it. How about the Christian Cross? how about the Jewish Star? better yet... how about the US flag?  are those going to be banned from airlines too?

I am me and I'll wear anything that that I feel represents me.

I am not disregarding anyone's right. They are disregarding mine. Saying they have no choice 'not' to look at it is utter BS. They can request a different seat, a different flight, etc... but no.. instead they'd rather play 'higher than thou' and force these people to do what they feel otherwise is inconvenient for them.

Screw social 'norms'.

[Balschoiw 0]

Bush´s PR bunny on a "not so sucessfull" tour

Indonesians challenge U.S. envoy in lively exchange

Quote[/b] ]JAKARTA (Reuters) - U.S. goodwill envoy Karen Hughes got an earful from a group of mostly female Indonesian Muslim students on Friday, who expressed anger at the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and attacked Washington's foreign policies.

Tasked by U.S. President George W. Bush to polish America's image overseas, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy is in Jakarta to meet leading Muslim clerics and students during a tour of the world's most populous Muslim nation.

"Why does America always act as if they were the police of the world?," Barikatul Hikmah, a 20-year-old student at the prestigious Syarif Hidayatullah University asked Hughes.

Another of the 15 students taking part, Lailatul Qadar, a 19-year-old student wearing colourful headscarves, added: "It's Bush in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and maybe it's going to be in Indonesia, I don't know. Who's the terrorist? Bush or us?"

Hughes, who was largely composed during the session, defended the invasion of Iraq as necessary to protect the United States in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks because the administration saw Saddam Hussein as a security threat.

*yawn, you gotta love those phrases....*

"After all, he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, like he murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people using poison gas against them," she said.

"After September 11, the leaders of America had to look at the threat of the world in a very different way ... I think you have to understand the horror and the shocks that Americans went through."

Kurdish leaders say that during more than two years of oppression up to 200,000 Kurds were killed in Iraq. The September 11 attacks were blamed on Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda.

FOCUS ON IRAQ

Most of the handpicked students who spoke at the one hour session in Jakarta focussed on Iraq.

Indonesia has strong ties with the United States and is a key ally in the war against terrorism, especially after bomb attacks in Indonesia by Islamic militants linked to al Qaeda.

But Indonesian Muslims deeply opposed the invasion of Iraq. Many accuse the U.S. government of also showing favouritism towards Israel.

Another student said Iraqis should decide if they wanted a democratic government. "Your country's foreign policy has created hostilities among Muslims," she said.

Hughes told reporters later she was not surprised the tone of most questions was strongly critical, despite Indonesia's reputation as a moderate Muslim country.

They were similar to what she would "really expect at any college campus across the world, including in America," she said.

Hughes is a close confidante and image-shaper of Bush with no previous experience in foreign diplomacy other than accompanying him abroad during trips in the first years of his presidency.

On a five-day visit to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey last month -- her first trip in the new job -- she also heard frank views from women in those countries.

Hughes is scheduled to visit Malaysia after Indonesia, where she has also met with leaders of major Muslim groups and was due to visit a community centre on Friday and tsunami-devastated Aceh province on Saturday.

Her visit comes as Washington tries to limit damage from TV images appearing to show U.S. soldiers burning corpses of two Taliban fighters in Afghanistan and using the event for propaganda.

Hughes told reporters the incident was "abhorrent", adding:

"It's a matter that's being investigated. If true, it is a complete violation of our policies which require that remains be treated with respect and in compliance with the Geneva Convention."

"... if people committed violations of our laws and policies they will be brought to justice" and punished, she said.

Hughes said her office had worked with the Defence Department to make sure statements about the incident were explicit that U.S. policy opposed such acts, something she said was missing in an early draft she saw.

I wonder when the TBA will form the "ministry of investigations". It´s about time if you look at the number of investigations they claim to have running. Funnily enough only a handfew of grunts have been punished VERY WEAK for the wrongdoings. It´s so ridiculous to believe that people still take the phrase "investigating" from the the TBA as a fact.

It takes more than a "goodwill envoy" to transform US-haters to US-lovers. Especially if people are burned and killed....

[harley 3 1185 0]

Hmm, the government of Indonesia hasn't exactly been the most peace-loving in history - in fact it's track record on human rights and other humanitarian issues is not to be envied. How many island states did it invade again?

And by hand-picked students, I assume that's to mean they were the ones who could most eloquently express their criticisms of the War in Iraq.

I have to say, I've found Miss Highes' tour of the world most interesting/amusing - if this doesn't give the TBA a hint as to world opinion, nothing will.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hmm, the government of Indonesia hasn't exactly been the most peace-loving in history

They are assumed as very moderate today. In fact they are cooperating much with the US on terror issues. Indonesia isn´t muslim only. It´s a multi-religion assembly of islands basically with a very moderate Islam in place.

Of course people from Java are a bit different there but you have extremists everywhere, not only in Indonesia. Visit Bali oneday and you´ll find out that those are probably the most open-minded and welcoming people you can find.

Quote[/b] ]And by hand-picked students, I assume that's to mean they were the ones who could most eloquently express their criticisms of the War in Iraq.

I don´t think they got presorted by their political attitude. By their knowledge of english, yes. By their family origin, yes. By their families position in society, yes. By their grades, yes. But not by their political stance. I really doubt that. Anyway, their points were valid ones. Transport the discussion from Indonesia to the US or the UK or germany or wherever you wish. You would have got exactly the same points of debate and accusations. It´s not an Indonesian matter. It´s the matter of the TBA.

[Sophion-Black 0]

hmm...

Quote[/b] ]Indonesia has strong ties with the United States and is a key ally in the war against terrorism, especially after bomb attacks in Indonesia by Islamic militants linked to al Qaeda.

smells like BS. If they are a key ally in the WOT then they would be part of the Iraqi Coalition Besides, they're not part of the Iraqi Coalition. For them to discredit the Iraqi war puts yellow all over this aritcle. Why would they care, they're not loosing a thing on it.

Quote[/b] ]But Indonesian Muslims deeply opposed the invasion of Iraq. Many accuse the U.S. government of also showing favouritism towards Israel.

Why would the US help Isreal? they can handle themselves, look at the Yom Kippur War. Yeah... they don't need us. The only reason the US was acting to get involved was the Soviets were about to join on Egypts side.

Quote[/b] ]"It's a matter that's being investigated. If true, it is a complete violation of our policies which require that remains be treated with respect and in compliance with the Geneva Convention."

More BS, The press has no proof that it was:

1) Taliban Soldiers being burned

2) The US soldiers did it

3) and if the bodies were booby-trapped

(if there is any proof that rises pertaining to the above tell me, I have lost track of this problem due to my cusin being under Wilma's gun)

Quote[/b] ]Hughes said her office had worked with the Defence Department to make sure statements about the incident were explicit that U.S. policy opposed such acts, something she said was missing in an early draft she saw.

Oh... wow... maybe it said "those things are bad" and she thought it best to add her 2 cents.

[EiZei 0]

hmm...

Quote[/b] ]Indonesia has strong ties with the United States and is a key ally in the war against terrorism, especially after bomb attacks in Indonesia by Islamic militants linked to al Qaeda.

smells like BS. If they are a key ally in the WOT then they would be part of the Iraqi Coalition Besides, they're not part of the Iraqi Coalition. For them to discredit the Iraqi war puts yellow all over this aritcle. Why would they care, they're not loosing a thing on it.

So what did war against terrorism have to do with this little crusade again? And it's "coalition of the willing" and not "iraqi coalition."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped....raq.png

EDIT: 125KB, oh joy

Not being in the coalition is hardly anything unusual and considering most of the "members" are just giving lip service in order to keep their relation favourable with the US id say it's downright common.

I really don't get this "you have to be in the coalition if you want to say anything negative"-thing.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]More BS, The press has no proof that it was:

1) Taliban Soldiers being burned

2) The US soldiers did it

3) and if the bodies were booby-trapped

(if there is any proof that rises pertaining to the above tell me, I have lost track of this problem due to my cusin being under Wilma's gun)

Well:

US probe into 'Taleban burnings'

Quote[/b] ]The US military has launched a criminal investigation into alleged misconduct by its troops in Afghanistan, including the burning of Taleban corpses.

The move came after an Australian TV station ran footage of what it says was US soldiers burning the remains.

The footage shows other troops apparently taunting residents of a nearby village, which they believed to be harbouring the Taleban.

The act of burning corpses is regarded as a sacrilege in Islam.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai had ordered his own inquiry and would demand appropriate punishment if the claims were proven, a spokesman said.

The BBC's Andrew North in Kabul says reaction in Afghanistan has been muted so far - but there are concerns the allegations could spark off violent anti-US protests.

'Lady boys'

The SBS television footage begins with a warning of disturbing scenes, particularly for Muslim viewers.

It opens with what the programme describes as shots of an American PsyOps unit using loud pop music to try to flush out the Taleban - who banned music when they ruled the country.

Some footage shows what the programme describes as the corpses of two Taleban fighters laid out facing Mecca and then being burned in what the reporter, John Martinkus, describes as a "deliberate desecration of Muslim beliefs".

Islamic tradition states that bodies should be washed, prayed for, wrapped in white cloth and buried within 24 hours.

The soldiers initially said they were burning the bodies for hygiene reasons, the programme reports.

Later footage shows two US soldiers reading from a notebook messages which they said had already been broadcast to villagers.

"Attention Taleban you are cowardly dogs," the message reads. "You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing West and burnt.

"You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be."

Guantanamo Bay

A Pentagon spokesman said that, if true, the claims would be "very troublesome".

The US military condemned the alleged acts, saying they would be "aggressively investigated".

Spokesman Col Jim Yonts said if true they were "reprehensible".

"The command does not advocate, nor does the command tolerate, the wrongful desecration of anyone's remains.

"The use of broadcast messages in conjunction with an act such as this does not represent the values and beliefs of this command therefore necessitating a procedural and policy review."

In May there were widespread demonstrations, resulting in the deaths of at least 15 people in Afghanistan, after Newsweek magazine reported that US forces had desecrated the Koran at the Guantanamo Bay military camp.

The magazine later printed a retraction, saying it could not prove the allegation.

Subsequently the US military conceded that there had been a number of incidents where the Koran had been mishandled at Guantanamo.

The latest footage was shot in the village of Gonbaz outside the southern city of Kandahar by Australian cameraman Stephen DuPont, who was embedded with a US unit, for SBS's Dateline programme.

Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission said US forces would be in breach of the Geneva Convention, which says that enemy dead should be honourably interred.

"It is outrageous. The Americans are ignoring the basic principles of international humanitarian law," the commission's deputy head, Ahmad Fahim Hakim, told the BBC.

Interview with cameraman:

Quote[/b] ] GEORGE NEGUS: Steve, even though you were embedded with the Americans, I have to say I was surprised that you were even able to film that stuff. Why do you think they had no problem with you doing it?

STEPHEN DUPONT, PHOTOJOURNALIST: Well, I believe that they had a certain amount of trust and I think, when you're embedded with the Americans, they tend to sort of let you have free reign. Once you're in there - t it's very difficult to get in there.

GEORGE NEGUS: No restrictions?

STEPHEN DUPONT: None that I saw on my embed. I just think that they're - you know, they've invited you in, they've invited me in so they're showing me pretty much what's going on.

GEORGE NEGUS: Do you think they understood the ramifications of what they're doing? The burning of the bodies, pointing towards Mecca and going to the trouble of reading to you in English the deliberately provocative stuff that they were shouting across the valley to the Taliban?

STEPHEN DUPONT: Look, I think the airborne unit that were responsible with the burning of the two Taliban soldiers weren't really thinking in that way. I think the psychological operations unit, who were responsible for the broadcast along with some other broadcasts to the Taliban, they're quite well aware of it. They're older guys. That's their job. They're PsyOps. They use it as a weapon. And the Americans are so frustrated. They're frustrated because they can't find the enemy. They're chasing shadows all the time.

GEORGE NEGUS: The guys burning the bodies probably did they think were doing it for reasons of hygiene that were mentioned in the story?

STEPHEN DUPONT: I believe that. That was the feeling I got as I climbed up the hill. As I got to the crest of the hill, they started burning the bodies. My initial reaction was, "My God, I've got to film this. This is really important stuff. It's my responsibility as a journalist to -

GEORGE NEGUS: The PsyOps had a different purpose?

STEPHEN DUPONT: I believe so. Niece guys - they said to me, "We've been told to burn the bodies, the bodies are have been here for 24 hours and they're starting to stink so, for hygiene purposes, this is what we've got to do."

Later on, when I was down with the PsyOps operations people, they used that as a psychological warfare I guess you'd call it. They used the fact that the Taliban were burned facing west -

GEORGE NEGUS: They were deliberately setting out to humiliate the Taliban?

STEPHEN DUPONT: They deliberately wanted to incite that much anger from the Taliban so the Taliban could attack them.

GEORGE NEGUS: Smoke them out.

STEPHEN DUPONT: Smoke them out. They want the Taliban to fight them because they can't find them otherwise. It's a really crazy situation. And, you know, the fact that they're announcing these kind of, you know, sort of incredible statements, I think, says a lot about the war that's going on there. I mean, they really want to be attacked. That's the only way they can find them.

GEORGE NEGUS: They don't know where the enemy is, who the enemy is. It's like fighting a ghost.

STEPHEN DUPONT: Absolutely. We're talking about a place that really does look like the moon, look like some planet in outer space.

GEORGE NEGUS: In the context of things like Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram and Fallujah, do you think there will be ramifications when this stuff gets to the world? The last time somebody desecrated the Koran in Guantanamo Bay they went off their faces in Afghanistan.

STEPHEN DUPONT: I think it's highly possible. I can't say for sure. I think it's strong enough, certainly, to send a clear message to Muslims around the world that this is, this is not good. This is a clear breach of Islam. And, you know, it's just another thing that's going to really anger the Islamic population.

GEORGE NEGUS: That being the case, do you think that the psychological war is working?

STEPHEN DUPONT: Look, I think it's having some success. I do believe - I think it's very, very slow. I think there is a certain amount of success because they are engaging with the enemy, as in the Taliban. The Americans are using this, you know, psychological warfare to announce - to make announcements to get the enemy to fight them. It is working on that level. And they are being attacked and so they are responding and they are taking prisoners of war and so forth.

So, in the eyes of the Americans and the coalition, there is a sense that things are working, but it's very, very slow.

GEORGE NEGUS: Is it the most amazing thing you've photographed? Close?

STEPHEN DUPONT: It's close. And, at the time, George, I really didn't think of it that way. When I was filming it, I think I was just on such a mission to capture these images and it was so extraordinary - it's more when I came home and I started looking at the video footage and the photographs that I took that, you know, it started to come around to thinking, "My God, these are really poignant historical images."

GEORGE NEGUS: The Australians are in the same area. Any contact whatsoever with them?

STEPHEN DUPONT: They're keeping a very low profile. I saw some at Kandahar air base and Bagram air base and I instigated some conversation that really kind of went nowhere.

GEORGE NEGUS: By stark contrast, the Americans are totally open about what they're doing, even something like what we've just seen.

STEPHEN DUPONT: Absolutely, absolutely open. I think I mentioned before – once your embedded with them, you can pretty well see what they're doing. If there was anything the Americans didn't want me to see, I wouldn't have seen it, that's what I believe. I really believe that the fact that they were burning these bodies, it didn't mean much to them. I think maybe that's common. They make these decisions on the spot.

GEORGE NEGUS: Steve, good talking to you.

STEPHEN DUPONT: Thanks, George.

Quote[/b] ]smells like BS. If they are a key ally in the WOT then they would be part of the Iraqi Coalition

Now this smells like BS. Germany is a big partner in the WOT and is not in Iraq. Iraq war is NOT the war on terror. Propaganda may tell you that but it´s simply not true.

The Iraq war in fact opened the doors wide for terrorism in Iraq.

Not the other way round.

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]I can´t follow you there. In a plane you don´t see much of the other passengers unless you ride in plane with no seats.

Well, they must have been able to see her, as a number of passengers complained.

Quote[/b] ]If I was her, I would sue the airline.

I'm sure she is, however, my guess is that she will lose and the most she will be able to recoup is the cost of the rental car to her destination.

Quote[/b] ]"Fuck" as I was told is an expression that´s used in every-day life in the US. What´s the deal ?

It´s everyone´s freedom to wear what he/she wants unless it´s not unconstitutional or affends any law.

Um, well. It's not used in everyday life, and is considered the "dirtiest of the dirty words." And as I said, of course she has a right to wear what she wants, but other passengers have a right to an acceptable environment as well. The airline is dealing with one person who is inciting a number of other people. The math is quite simple.

Quote[/b] ]I sat in planes wearing Rockbitch T-Shirts and noone ever came up to me.

According to this incident, no one bothered her for the first leg either, it was on the second leg in which problems occured. SW may face a legal problem for explaining why the shirt was thought appropriate or unoffensive on the first leg, but was on the second leg. However, it could be said that as soon as other passengers became uncomfortable and complained, the shirt became inappropriate. The FAA doesn't help by leaving the application and definition of "inappropriate" and " offensive" up to the airline. However, I don't think it had anything to do with the political message, as some try to make it. I believe it has more to do with the prominant usage of "Fuck," which is still outlawed in various sectors of society.

Quote[/b] ]If someone would have come up to me threatening to expell me from the plane I would just do a short call to my lawyer and hand the phone to the person in question.

That´s just not anyone elses business, no matter if they like it or not.

If you don´t like it, don´t look at it.

I doubt your lawyer could do much. I'm not familiar with European laws, but in the US the plane will not leave until the crew deem it safe. Passengers are also required to comply with crew instructions. If she refused such, like to cover or hide her shirt, then SW has a slam dunk case.

And the problem with your statement is that while you have the right to do what you want, you don't have the right to disregard others rights either. Social norms and all that. You can wear a shirt that says "Pussy Bitch Dick Cock Fuck" for all I care, but you don't have the right to force it on me, especially in a locale like the inside of an airplane where I may not be able to "not look."

Lets say CrashDome, me and Balschoiw and some others where on a plane...and you had a t-shirt with a cookie on it...would it be right that the crew kicked you off cause we really wanted to eat cookies cause we saw it on the t-shirt, but we couldn't get any, so we didn't want you to wear it...or maybe ppl with piercing should be kicked off, cause it looks like it hurts with all kinds of stuff through their lips...just cause some ppl don't like it, doesn't mean she can't wear the t-shirt. Me and my sister once had to sit next to a fat, smelly guy, but we couldn't get him kicked off the plane, even though it was quite...annoying sitting there smelling his sweat...and I think that's a lot worse than seeing someone with a t-shirt with the word "Fuck" on it...besides, there's something wrong with ppl if they "have to" watch the t-shirt...the words were most likely on the front of the shirt...and she was sitting in her chair, I suppose...not walking around...so...unless the chairs in front of her was faced towards her, it's physically impossible for someone to be "forced" to look at the shirt

[NavyEEL 0]

And the problem with your statement is that while you have the right to do what you want, you don't have the right to disregard others rights either. Social norms and all that. You can wear a shirt that says "Pussy Bitch Dick Cock Fuck" for all I care, but you don't have the right to force it on me, especially in a locale like the inside of an airplane where I may not be able to "not look."

Tell you what...

I'm gonna wear a shirt like that.. and I promise I won't force you to wear it.

I'm gonna buy 10 of those T-shirts. Simply because people are complaining. Uptight little pricks might try and stop me, but I say the hell with them. I see people wearing crap I don't like every day. Even if they aren't 'swear' words I might find them offensive.. like the Confederate flag and what not (example only - don't stray off into a tizzy over it). I may say I won't like it.. I may even try and persuade why, but the hell if I am going to force them not to wear it. How about the Christian Cross? how about the Jewish Star? better yet... how about the US flag?  are those going to be banned from airlines too?

I am me and I'll wear anything that that I feel represents me.

I am not disregarding anyone's right. They are disregarding mine. Saying they have no choice 'not' to look at it is utter BS. They can request a different seat, a different flight, etc... but no.. instead they'd rather play 'higher than thou' and force these people to do what they feel otherwise is inconvenient for them.

Screw social 'norms'.

It's not a matter of people being "uptight little pricks..." I think it's just a matter of being tactful. While it personally does not offend me, I know if I had younger kids around that I would not want them to see such things. I wouldn't take kids to see an R-rated movie, so why should they be exposed to the same foul language elsewhere?