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.
The latest news announced that they know the identity of 6 bombers, including one of the people they arrested. One people in the train recocnized one of the bomber.
It appears that the thesis of ETA alone, is becoming weaker and weaker.
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
Tell the Kurds and Iranians that Saddam did not have WMDs. [/URL]
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.
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.
Well, Aznars fate goes to show that in a democracy, you as a elected leader, cannot go against the will of the majority forever. Trying to prod 80% of the population to support a war they regarded as immoral was always a high-risk game. Trying to spread false news about who was the perpetrator was too much as we have seen.
Unfortunately, Al Quaida - as well as certain members of this respectable forum - will now attribute the way the election went to the bombing. It is ironic to see how the hawks on both sides reach the same conclusion - and how this has the potential to be self-fulfilling.
This misperception of the election outcome will surely make future election bombings much more likely - let's hope for the best concerning the presidential election in the US.
That's the worst part. There really isn't a fix to this situation.
I think that terrorist would bomb again - in Europe and elsewhere - regardless of the Spanish electorate's reaction. Spain may have been targetted now because it supported the coalition, but also it may have been a convenient target. France did not support the coalition, but it is very possible that it also could be targetted. In France's case, the terrorists may point to that country's ban on religous symbols in schools - which some Muslims perceive as an attack on them - or France's history in North Africa, or France's strong domestic anti-terrorist efforts - mainly directed at Islamic extremism - that were put in place long before 9/11. Other countries likely will be targetted as well, for any number of reasons. The real extremists need little or no real basis for their actions.
There is no absolute 'fix' to the situation, but there is an appropriate reaction, that of vigilance coupled with political and social engagement. Vigilance includes strong intelligence-based anti-terrorism efforts and, where necessary, military action. (It does not, however, include invasions of countries on the pretext of fighting terrorism while, in fact, pursuing other agendas.)
Political engagement and social engagement includes seeking deeper understanding of what inspires terrorists and reaching out to communities that produce them. Some denounce this as appeasement, but this is quite misguided. Rather, it is always our responsibility to reach out in this manner, regardless of whether there is terrorism from some elements of these communities. Even if it were not to stop a single terrorist, such engagement is a worthwhile and necessary goal in its own right. Furthermore, in the long run, it is the only thing that will actually reduce terrorism. So many people seem to disparage the slow, messy and compromise-ridden job of political and social work at the international level and indeed, these international efforts suffer from all of these flaws and more. These efforts are, however, the only real hope and those who pursue them in good faith are, in my opinion, worthy of very high praise.
Well, Aznars fate goes to show that in a democracy, you as a elected leader, cannot go against the will of the majority forever. Trying to prod 80% of the population to support a war they regarded as immoral was always a high-risk game. Trying to spread false news about who was the perpetrator was too much as we have seen.
Unfortunately, Al Quaida - as well as certain members of this respectable forum - will now attribute the way the election went to the bombing. It is ironic to see how the hawks on both sides reach the same conclusion - and how this has the potential to be self-fulfilling.
This misperception of the election outcome will surely make future election bombings much more likely - let's hope for the best concerning the presidential election in the US.
Very good post, Smircle, you said in a few words, what i tried to explain.
However, no countrie is bomb proof when it come to terrorists. I doubt that France will avoid such bombing. She has already suffered islam terrorism in the past, there is no reason, that he vanish by magic. Terrorists are nihilist, their goal is to eradicate everything that contradicts themself. You can talk to this kind of people. For them, a good occidental people is a dead people.
That's silly that the miss interpretation of the spanish election, will be traduced for them like a victory. This is very disapointing.
I have not read this entire thread but I wanted to say this if it had not been said. Bush was right about terrorism and is correct to be so involved in strengthening defense and initiatives to seek out and destroy terrorists.
I have not read this entire thread but I wanted to say this if it had not been said. Bush was right about terrorism and is correct to be so involved in strengthening defense and initiatives to seek out and destroy terrorists.
All european governements agree that strengthening defense is essential. They will try to coordonate their force in a much cooperative manner in the near future.
Defense against terrorism is much more a story of secret intelligence than anything else : an hidden war against hidden ennemies.
The choice of terrorists and Euro weenies across the world.
LOL is this the John Kerry smear campaign? I can't believe this, this is just too much. Kind of Mini-Me McCartyism at work, like "don't trust this guy, he is _rumored_ to be liked by Europeans?
Dude, get a grip. They way you are exploiting the suffering and death of hundreds of people is distasteful, to put it nicely. This is worse than the usual partisan bullshit, this is outright frivolous.
Well, I think most in Europe would prefer to see Kerry in the oval office.
Am I right?
No. The rest of the planet would prefer to see Kerry in the Oval Office. Everyone hates Bush, from here to Timbuktoo.
To put this in context- before Bush's state visit to Britain nearly 70% of the population (according to an ICM or a Gallup poll for the Guardian) thought that America was a 'force for good' in the world: but not even 50% of the population thought he should be made welcome. We're not anti-American in Europe.
Take out the obvious Cold War reference to "drop the big one", substitute "declare war on terrorism" (almost a contradiction in terms!) and it doesn't sound all that different to what I'm hearing from some Americans now.
Comments
Originally posted by segovius
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.
The latest news announced that they know the identity of 6 bombers, including one of the people they arrested. One people in the train recocnized one of the bomber.
It appears that the thesis of ETA alone, is becoming weaker and weaker.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Hogwash.
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.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Debatable. Al Saman
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.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Tell the Kurds and Iranians that Saddam did not have WMDs. [/URL]
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 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?
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.
Unfortunately, Al Quaida - as well as certain members of this respectable forum - will now attribute the way the election went to the bombing. It is ironic to see how the hawks on both sides reach the same conclusion - and how this has the potential to be self-fulfilling.
This misperception of the election outcome will surely make future election bombings much more likely - let's hope for the best concerning the presidential election in the US.
Originally posted by drewprops
That's the worst part. There really isn't a fix to this situation.
I think that terrorist would bomb again - in Europe and elsewhere - regardless of the Spanish electorate's reaction. Spain may have been targetted now because it supported the coalition, but also it may have been a convenient target. France did not support the coalition, but it is very possible that it also could be targetted. In France's case, the terrorists may point to that country's ban on religous symbols in schools - which some Muslims perceive as an attack on them - or France's history in North Africa, or France's strong domestic anti-terrorist efforts - mainly directed at Islamic extremism - that were put in place long before 9/11. Other countries likely will be targetted as well, for any number of reasons. The real extremists need little or no real basis for their actions.
There is no absolute 'fix' to the situation, but there is an appropriate reaction, that of vigilance coupled with political and social engagement. Vigilance includes strong intelligence-based anti-terrorism efforts and, where necessary, military action. (It does not, however, include invasions of countries on the pretext of fighting terrorism while, in fact, pursuing other agendas.)
Political engagement and social engagement includes seeking deeper understanding of what inspires terrorists and reaching out to communities that produce them. Some denounce this as appeasement, but this is quite misguided. Rather, it is always our responsibility to reach out in this manner, regardless of whether there is terrorism from some elements of these communities. Even if it were not to stop a single terrorist, such engagement is a worthwhile and necessary goal in its own right. Furthermore, in the long run, it is the only thing that will actually reduce terrorism. So many people seem to disparage the slow, messy and compromise-ridden job of political and social work at the international level and indeed, these international efforts suffer from all of these flaws and more. These efforts are, however, the only real hope and those who pursue them in good faith are, in my opinion, worthy of very high praise.
Originally posted by Smircle
Well, Aznars fate goes to show that in a democracy, you as a elected leader, cannot go against the will of the majority forever. Trying to prod 80% of the population to support a war they regarded as immoral was always a high-risk game. Trying to spread false news about who was the perpetrator was too much as we have seen.
Unfortunately, Al Quaida - as well as certain members of this respectable forum - will now attribute the way the election went to the bombing. It is ironic to see how the hawks on both sides reach the same conclusion - and how this has the potential to be self-fulfilling.
This misperception of the election outcome will surely make future election bombings much more likely - let's hope for the best concerning the presidential election in the US.
Very good post, Smircle, you said in a few words, what i tried to explain.
However, no countrie is bomb proof when it come to terrorists. I doubt that France will avoid such bombing. She has already suffered islam terrorism in the past, there is no reason, that he vanish by magic. Terrorists are nihilist, their goal is to eradicate everything that contradicts themself. You can talk to this kind of people. For them, a good occidental people is a dead people.
That's silly that the miss interpretation of the spanish election, will be traduced for them like a victory. This is very disapointing.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
I have not read this entire thread but I wanted to say this if it had not been said. Bush was right about terrorism and is correct to be so involved in strengthening defense and initiatives to seek out and destroy terrorists.
All european governements agree that strengthening defense is essential. They will try to coordonate their force in a much cooperative manner in the near future.
Defense against terrorism is much more a story of secret intelligence than anything else : an hidden war against hidden ennemies.
John Kerry
The choice of terrorists and Euro weenies across the world.
Would be a good TV spot for him.
Originally posted by msantti
John Kerry
The choice of terrorists and Euro weenies across the world.
LOL is this the John Kerry smear campaign? I can't believe this, this is just too much. Kind of Mini-Me McCartyism at work, like "don't trust this guy, he is _rumored_ to be liked by Europeans?
Dude, get a grip. They way you are exploiting the suffering and death of hundreds of people is distasteful, to put it nicely. This is worse than the usual partisan bullshit, this is outright frivolous.
You, sir, should be ashamed of yourself.
Am I right?
Originally posted by msantti
Well, I think most in Europe would prefer to see Kerry in the oval office.
Am I right?
No. The rest of the planet would prefer to see Kerry in the Oval Office. Everyone hates Bush, from here to Timbuktoo.
To put this in context- before Bush's state visit to Britain nearly 70% of the population (according to an ICM or a Gallup poll for the Guardian) thought that America was a 'force for good' in the world: but not even 50% of the population thought he should be made welcome. We're not anti-American in Europe.
Like everyone else, we just hate your President.
Originally posted by msantti
Al Jazeera loves John Kerry
John Kerry
The choice of terrorists and Euro weenies across the world.
Would be a good TV spot for him.
Spew your hate elsewhere. Euro weenies : why not ? , but the choice of terrorists is an insult. Unlike you Kerry is a war hero.
Political Science (Randy Newman, 1972)
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
Take out the obvious Cold War reference to "drop the big one", substitute "declare war on terrorism" (almost a contradiction in terms!) and it doesn't sound all that different to what I'm hearing from some Americans now.
Originally posted by msantti
Al Jazeera loves John Kerry
John Kerry
The choice of terrorists and Euro weenies across the world.
Would be a good TV spot for him.
The new wingnut mantra:
A vote for John Kerry is a vote for bin Laden.
It doesn't get any more un-American than that.
Originally posted by Northgate
A vote for John Kerry is a vote for bin Laden.
Priceless.
Like everyone else,
Well, I would not go to that extreme.
Bush just refuses to be a terrorist sympathizer.
Sadly, many in the world are.
Unlike you Kerry is a war hero.
Well, I might not be a war "hero", but I did serve in the 1st Gulf War in the Army.
A vote for John Kerry is a vote for bin Laden.
Originally posted by msantti
Well, I would not go to that extreme.
Bush just refuses to be a terrorist sympathizer.
Sadly, many in the world are.
Well, I might not be a war "hero", but I did serve in the 1st Gulf War in the Army.
Do you imply that Kerry is a terrorist sympathizer ?
If you serve in the army you should have more respect for veterans.