Terrorist attack in spain : 200 people killed, 1500 wounded - Page 3

I think the recent developments in Spain as a response to the bombing are commendable, because they show the new government is not interested in outward appearances or vaguely "looking tough".

They recognize they are appointed to serve the will of the Spanish people, and the previous posse did not do that. If there is an urgent crisis of some sort, and the government has more facts than can be made public at that time, it might be understandable that they take action against the people's will. But even then the facts should be published as the smoke clears.

Is the same (with or without a bomb) going to happen in United Kingdom? Judging by gallup results, the British did not want the war any more than the Spanish, it looks like their government has malfunctioned worse overall with all the coverup business, and there are more British soldiers KIA. I imagine UK looks rather good a target for Al Quaeda planners right now, since UK troops leaving Iraq would be a sizable multi-front problem for US. (cost, logistics, internal debates, external accountability if the "coalition" ceases to be)

Well, let's just go ahead and let Al Qaeda have the world. Judging by the world's lack of interest in standing against terrorism, it is the logical next step... I dunno, maybe just on this board. In effect, terrorists that number no more than a few thousand are effectively slapping the entire Western Civilization into submission.

This is a war for our way and quality of life. Pathetic how many across the world will not stand up to people that want to end their lives as they know them.

If anyone thinks that by backing out troops or support that terrorism is going to end, they are an idiot. These people do not care- they want you and all that you believe in DEAD. Capitalism, representative democracy, the separation of religion and gov't is all out the window. How quickly we forget Iran in the 1970s and 80s.

Have any doubts? Go live a few months in Jerusalem.

OK, let's be clear about this: being strong against terror meant invading Iraq?

Yes!

Odd. There were no al Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded. There are now. Iraq has recruited who knows how many new converts to al Qaeda. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Bin Laden hated Saddam. Saddam had nothing to do with international terrorism. Iraq has never been the place to get WMD; that was the Pakistan black market. Countries that were involved in the 'coalition' are more likely to get attacked.

Do, please, tell me how action against Iraq was supposed to reduce terror?

That's an awfully myopic viewpoint you have. I have no desire to elaborate because 90% of the people on this board are against this war in every way, shape, and form and having a reasonable discussion with them would be like talking to a lamppost, except I could get brighter responses out of a lamppost (no offense).

Regards!

Dude, if you disagree with his post explain why. Say why's he's wrong.

I don't see the point:

1) That would be deviating from the topic.
2) This debate has been rehashed a hundred times over the past year. Why start another?
3) I don't think that I can definatively say that he's "wrong" because my argument would be speculation just like his. Both of us could give facts and figures and stats and stuff to justify our position, but there would be no concrete piece of information that would sway either one of us to the position of the other.

I disagree. I'm one of the two people on this board who support the war for many many reasons. Let's leave it at that.

Regards!

It's ON topic.

Jubelum says the "Spanish Socialists" have gone soft on terror, because they think Iraq is a bad idea (just like 90% of the Spaniards).

So I ask if he think there's some kind of link.

You say there is.

I point out that Saddam was not an international terrorist and had a mutual animosity with al Qaeda. And had nothing to do with 911 (disagree with any of that? The UK government agrees).

At this point you stop wanting to discuss this.

I regret I even posted that now. Let's drop it! You're right!

Regards!

Well, thanks for making my point.

You roll up like a bulldog, demanding justification, and you expect someone to feel it is worthwhile continuing a discussion with you? What did you expect, honestly, with your approach (and others here who would use a similar approach)? We know how you feel, you know how we feel. All there is left is demeaning the other side for what they believe simply because it is not what you believe (don't freakin' tell me that isn't true- you damn well know it is true).

The bottomline is that there is no black and white. There are just as many reasons for war as there are against. There will be benefits AND sacrifices no matter which you choose. Anyone who looks at all the sacrifice we have so far on the path we are on, and then suggests that had we taken the other path, everything would have peachy-keen, world lives happily ever after is absolutely delusional. You can no longer claim wisdom from 20-20 hindsight anymore than you can be assured that the path not taken would have been invariably better. You can hypothesize, it could be a hunch, but in the end, no one (here, particularly) can claim to be an authority on knowing for sure.

X X, you can still count yourself as 1 of 3!

Hogwash.


Debatable. Al Saman


Tell the Kurds and Iranians that Saddam did not have WMDs.


By terrorists, no? Now what stake would terrorists have in Iraq's regime? I think sensible people can see where I am going here...

There would never have been a war if Saddam had just shown the UN that he destroyed them- but he didn't. Adios, compadre.

I love all these people who are right on board with "human rights" re: gay marriage, but cannot see the human rights victory we had in Iraq. Simply stunning.

I think it doesn't matter what the war is being fought for, but it will come to an end when the Middle Eastern people in general are so well off the terrorists no longer have recruits or support from discontent masses.

You're obviously pointing to Khomeini and co. there with Iran. Point is, when that kind of nutjobs are an exception to the rule, they're easy to deal with. When you angry everybody, you have a bad situation.

FYI, I have lived in Jerusalem for two years. You have almost twice as big a chance of dying in a car accident than dying in a bombing in Jerusalem. The Israeli situation is, in fact, "US vs the terrorists" as a miniature version, and the same treatment (keep your nose out of others' business) would also work there. Granted, the Israeli have historically had more reason to fight than the US. What was your point again?

One last thing.
If it weren't so much trouble, I'd put money on that Spain pulling out of Iraq and refraining from open support of the US, *will* really keep them out of Al Quaeda sights. Al Quaeda will just bomb the remaining allies of US. Better for the Spaniards, and a good decision for them.

Ha ha! Thanks!

Exactly. Well said.

And again. Well said. Spain just surrendered. In case anyone was wondering, this is exactly the response Al-Queda wanted from 9-11. It now knows it can influence elections by bombing commuter trains.

Well done, Spain.

Wow. Three reasonable posts in one thread. Add to this the complete MYTH that Saddam had no international terror ties. Palestinian homicide bombers, anyone?

And Harald, why is having Al-Queda attracted to Iraq a bad thing? Let them fight the US Military. I'm sorry when we lose brave men and women over there, but they are there to keep the war THERE, not here.

Bad for the rest of the democratized and sane world, but who cares... "we ASKED for it," right.

I'm not talking about right or wrong here. I look at world politics as interactions not principles. This is a concrete fact: right now I only see Al Quaeda attacking US and their close allies. Short term the Spanish might have made a good decision. Perhaps long term as well, since the terrorists never "win", as long as they are active they will bomb and pull that shit.. they're not going to run out of targets even if they only target the US and US' close allies.

Don't confuse this with being soft. The Spanish just either think this is not their war to fight, or that Iraq is not the right place to do it. AFAIK they have been tough and will be tough to terrorism inside their borders.

Naw, they should just let that go unchecked, as well.

Presumably, an effective homeland security program would protect against terrorist threats, period, whether they are domestic or foreign.

Well said, my friend, well said.

In an effort to distill the argument from The Right regarding Spain and how recent events affect the U.S. election, I've come to this:

A vote for Kerry is a vote for BinLaden.

Scrape away all the cleverly worded theses. Brush aside all the historical allegories designed to confuse the issue. Boil the argument down to its core and their case becomes 20/20. Why would anyone in the right mind do something as un-American and criminally negligent as vote for BinLaden?

Why do Republicans hate democracy?

What has, and continues, to bother me more than anything else about the WOT is I'm convinced that whatever cave bin Laden is currently holed up in, he is rubbing his hands together with glee and grinning like a maniac.

He might be evil but he's also clearly very smart. And he read us well. I don't think the killing of thousands of innocent people on 9/11 was bin Laden's primary objective. It was a means to an end and that end was the same as it's always been for terrorist organizations. To create such fear and loathing, that governments and societies react, respond, are coerced into change.

IMO he's been very successful. As a result of 9/11, governments around the world have changed laws, citizens have seen their rights undermined, free speech has been curtailed, people's way of life has been changed - how they travel, how much they travel, the degree of homeland security have all been affected, airlines have gone out of business, a war has been started, Hussein (who bin Laden almost certainly hated) has been ousted and removed from power, instability in the middle east is at new heights, long-time allies have fallen out with each other, and governments have ignored the will of their people which in turn, as in Spain, then creates the impression that he is able to influence elections.

The true evil genius of bin Laden's plan is that he has discovered such an efficient and highly effective form of terrorism. No more need terrorists worry about going to the effort of frequent small-scale attacks in an effort to intimidate and coerce. Pull off one big one every few years and it's possible to achieve far greater and more widespread a response than any number of Palestinian suicide bombers. See even if the Spanish bombings are proven entirely to be ETA with no involvement from Al Qaeda, it will STILL be bin Laden who is their true architect.

I realise reading this thread that my views on how to deal with what happened on 9/11 really haven't changed much over the last couple of years. Even though I know I'll almost certainly get flamed badly for this (la de dah), I think this is what the world should have done (should do) to deal with bin Laden and his ilk.

1. Go after him relentlessly. Do not lose focus (eg. by going to war with Iraq). Make it clear that the hunt for him will never end, never abate until he is found. When he's found don't kill him and make a martyr of him. Make him suffer to the end of his days.

2. React as little as possible to the attack and to any repeat attacks. Because that is what he wants more than anything else and I really don't think he's that fussy about the type of reaction he gets as long as it involves intimidation and instability. And before anyone says but then more innocent people will die from terrorism, they are anyway in case you hadn't noticed.

3. Acknowledge and work towards (without missiles and guns) what the vast majority of people on this stinking,rotten, f**ked up planet want regardless of colour, creed or nationality, namely - to be able to live a peaceful life, to earn a decent day's pay for a decent day's work, to speak their mind freely, to be able to practise their religion and beliefs without fear of persecution or imprisonment, to have a roof over their heads, clothes to wear and food in the cupboard, to have access to decent, affordable health care, to be able to give their kids an education, and to be able to feel confident that their children and their children's children will have a half decent world to live in.

This is IMO the only way to disarm him and those who will follow him. It's the only way to get the cat back in the bag. And no, it probably won't be pretty along the way.


The only way to win is to refuse to play the game.

You post this after I've contradicted half you've said in this thread, and silently disagree with the rest?

It has to be an attempt at evil reverse psychology!

Uh, no. That is step 1. Step 2 is to cast off Democracy, abolish capitalism, pledge to Islam, and if you are a Jew- die. I guess that would be Step 2-5, but you get the point.

If that's the bus you wish to embark on, be my guess, but you should do it on your own.

Randycat I don't mean to be rude but I really think you need to learn to develop your arguments a little more cogently because nothing you've said there relates in any way to my previous post.

Indeed, it does, when considering the perpetrators of this terrorism. Do you deny that steps 2 and on would come if you simply paid them no mind?

The bombings in Madrid and their fallout couldn't be worse. Not only did they scare a country, by all accounts they THREW AN ELECTION!! The attack and it's desired effect were immaculate.


What are the odds we see an attack here in America before November? Those odds just went WAY, WAY up.

Okay, we've been discussing how it was an added incentive to ensure that the new Spanish PM was elected because he had pledged to "remove Spain from war in Iraq" if he was elected.

It would be wrong to say that it was a premeditated and explicit invitation for mayhem, but the end result is that's exactly how it worked out...regardless if the murders were committed by the ETA, Al Queda, a small muslim cell or by the Spanish mafia (AO conspiracy theorists (you know who you are) go ahead, have a party).

To say that this kind of thinking is what conservatives "would want you to think" would get you kicked out of any self-respecting think-tank. It's irresponsible not to consider the Spanish bombing as a potential warm-up.

The Aznar government was getting quite good at getting away with certain amounts of public opprobrium, like when that cargo polluted the Galician shores.
This was mostly due to the PP's relatively good record in the day-to-day running of the country whose economy is doing quite well these days (well, in comparison to some of its neighbours, that is), and while it was tough on ETA it did not indulge in the kind of shady dealings the PSOE had with the GAL, back in the days.
A few days before the elections, as the horrible bombings claimed a death toll unprecedented for a country well-acquainted with terrorism, Aznar thought he could get away with it again, and chose to sell the ETA thesis as hard as he could. That was the last straw.
Ironically, he might have had a better chance getting away with it once more, had he actually acknowledged the Islamist thesis.

Naturally, the Al Qaeda pleiade (we must not think of it as some kind of centralised, hierarchical organigramme, it's more of a loosely connected highly flexible network) see this as a resounding victory, as in Spain distancing itself from the US, hoping to get downgraded in the Global Jihad's to-do-list.
Encouraged by this outcome, terrorist factions will be eager to manifest themselves in similar ways elsewhere, including in countries which did not support or even opposed the US initiative in Iraq (for the terrorists have numerous grievances, and are finding new ones every day).
As a result, more and more people, in more varied places, will be experiencing their transport system, cafes, resturants, city streets, pizza parlours, etc., in ways they thought only others did.

Yet, Al Qaeda and its associates welcome it whether their victims react by caving in or by crusadin'-on. For both reactions are based on gut feelings.
A proper reaction must be anything but spontaneous or emotional. You are dealing with a few angry, but very educated people, often schooled in your faculties, who are quite familiar with your high-brow culture and the minutiae of your society. Learn theirs.

Oh, I see. Bad Spain. How dare Spain vote in a way that might make things uncomfortable for us? How dare Spanish people exercise their right to rid themselves of a government that took them into a war that no-one wanted and everyone thought would only serve to make them a target for fascists?

No fair.

Thank you - the voice of sanity. I can't really remember ever agreeing with Mr Goldstein's position generally but he knows what he's talking about and never twists things to tailor them to a personal agenda. Learn from him.

To the warheads above and their Iraq/al Q meme: at least wait till it is confirmed ETA or al-Q or (God help us) an 'alliance' before going in heavy with the rhetoric. It will at least sound more convincing.

At this point it's normally the done thing to either post a link or make an explanation offering evidence.

Even the British government thinks that there was no al-Qa'ida in Iraq before the war. 'Hogwash' ain't gonna do it. You're wrong. Wrongitty wrongitty wrong.


Like this. This is a link. It does not, however, back up your claim that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Because he did not. Bin Laden hates Saddam, the hijackers were Saudi and Egyptian, you're wrong, etc.


Saddam was our friend then, standing up for a secular Middle East. Against the Bad Iranians. Anyway, we had the receipts. We knew he had them.

I work next door to the American Embassy in Norway. Recently its looks have turned more and more into that of a fortress. The police have built mini-watchtowers and are patrolling outside with machine guns.

I try not to walk past it anymore. If there is one place a bomb is gonna go off in Oslo, it is probably right there. Maybe even when a tram or bus is passing by.

I've never really felt unsafe in my home town before. Now I'm kind of uneasy. Norway has its share of soldiers in Iraq. Our right-wing government didn't hesitate to send our boys. Even though a vaste majority of the population was against the war.

Maybe we're next?

Then 'they' won. You feel the way they want you to. Just a question of who 'they' are.

Al-Q are ***ed up for sure but they ain't posting the sentries and militarising your home town. The only argument you could make is that the 'fortress' mentality is a small price to pay because it will stop them.

Only it won't.

It's not there for that - it's not to protect the populace, they don't care if you feel 'unsafe' anymore than the terrorists do. In fact they'll use it to keep a hold on power just like Bush is using it now in the election run-up. That's what Aznar got kicked out for.

All this 'protection' BS is there to protect the power-possessors. From the populace even, if it comes to that. If a dirty bomb goes off or a virus kicks in, they'll be hiding safe in their bunkers issuing the same BS orders and half-baked crap that made it happen in the first place. Then we'll see what those guns and tanks on the street are really for.

Unless we follow Spain's lead and kick out these mainiacs before it's too late.

Failing that, just move to Spain - you'll probably avoid the ice-age and be out of the firing line when Bush goes after Syria and Iran next year.

It seems to be that Segovius is of the opinion that if you withdraw your standing troops from the Middle East that the mean old Al Queda (in all their permutations) will leave you alone.

That they won't fly airplanes into buildings.
Bomb discotheques.
Blow holes in ships.
Kidnap missionaries in the jungle.
Oppress their women.
Destroy other cultures holy places.

He should be reminded that their grievance is Western Culture, not military occupation. It gives them wide-ranging lateral options with no one "solution" to the problem. They came to play.

Hiding isn't a real option.