Madrid bombing

[Susie]

Who does everyone think is responsible for yesterday's Madrid bombing? The government say it's ETA, but it's not their style. And then there's the date... I think it might be Al Quieda (how do you spell that anyway..?!) because they struck the train - so it's like another mode of public transport and on another continent, exactly 2 1/2 years after 9/11. But why would the Spanish government claim that it is ETA? Something to do with the election, perhaps?

[DontBeAfraid]

Susie the ETA have their reasons to attack spain.... I guess.
Al Qaida, on the other hand really has no reason to do it...... though they did find a tape of a group claiming to be 'linked' to Al Qaeda(sp) taking responsibility for it? I think something MUCH MORE sinister is going on but it would be wrong for me to suggest what I think. I dont think it was Al Qaeda.
Either way though we will find out who did it soon enough.

[SeekNDestroy]

Susie, it's like if a bomb goes off in Britain everyone assumes its the IRA.

At the moment I suspect it was Al Qeda, they like doing simultaneous attacks with no warning. But why hit Spain and not Britain?

[Chris4334]

Only a few days before their elections, with a disgruntled Basque separatist group active in the area. It seems to me that it was ETA.

Why has Al-Qaeda become such a big group post 9/11? It reminds me of 1984 by George Orwell. We need a common enemy, and it's Osama Bin Laden right now. Heaven forbid it might be some crackpots in a basement somewhere who decide to buy some fertilizer and fuses...

[Chris4334]

http://www.radio-canada.ca/url.asp?/nouvelles/International/nouvelles/200403/12/007-Madrid-Attentats-Vendredi.shtml

A few great pictures there.

[lotrfan55345]

Wish I could understand Francias.

/heads over to babelfish

[Emerald_Dragon]

j'ecris et ris francais en peu, tres en peu.

>Al Qaida, on the other hand really has no reason to do it

IMO, i think it was another false flag operation to incrimate Al Qaeda. Who would leave a bunch of detonators behind? Wouldn't you use them all? For maximum effect? A bomb also went off in Turkey.

I think it may have been meant to target someone or people, who were trying to figure out what happened to the $4billion dollars missing from the Iraqi reconstruction fund. Those guys were based in Madrid and were asking the UN for assistance in their investigation. I'd bet even money that some of the victims (199+) included the investigators.

My guess is MOSSAD. Its what they do. :shot:

[Wesh]

i dont hope it was Al Qaeda, because then it means that they are able to do terror in europe... wich is not good.

i think what has happened was the start of a REAL war against terror and all the eu countrys must stick together and handle this together! :crs:

[dabears1020]

Here is a translation of the website, or at least some of it, and it was done by a free translation website, so dont expect it to be perfect.

Eleven millions of Spaniards brought down in the streets of several cities of the country to denounce the attempts of Madrid that did Thursday morning 199 deaths and 1430 injureds, according to a last report.

A Spaniard on five participated in these demonstrations, that are the most important ones of the history of the country. Some 2,3 millions of persons showed to Madrid, and 1,2 million to Barcelona, the two principal cities of the country.

To Madrid, the procession spread itself on at least two kilometers. Despite a rain beating, the people met under umbrellas on the place of Settler, at the beginning of evening, in order to pay homage to the victims, but also to mark their anger and their sadness.

Among the present dignitaries, the prince heir Felipe and its sisters Elena and Cristina took places to the first row, alongside the government leader José Maria Aznar. The president of the European Commission Gypsy Prodi, the Italian government leader Silvio Berlusconi and his French counterpart John Rock Raffarin participated in the parade.

The subway of Madrid was free all the afternoon to allow the people to go to the demonstration.

With the showing, some had just learned that the separatist organization armed Basque ETA denied «all responsibility» in the attempts


Well that is the first section, hope that helps.

[VegasRonin]

Who would leave a bunch of detonators behind? Wouldn't you use them all? They left detonators behind with their recording to show legitimacy for their claim of responsibility. ETA has denied having anything to do with the bombing, which they don't do. Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility, and left behind proof (The detonators) so no other terrorist group could steal their thunder. Why Spain? Cause next to Britain, Spain is America's second biggest supporter in this war. Al Qaeda is not hitting Britain right now, cause the liberals are winning the people over for Al Qaeda already in the UK. That and Mecca Cola.

[SeekNDestroy]

I wouldn't say the Liberals support Al Qeda here vegas ;) And surely Australia played a far more significant role in Iraq than Spain did. It just seems an odd choice of target.

On the other hand, with Eta denying responsibility it seems it probably was Al Qeda. And if they can do that in Spain, they can do it anywhere in Europe.

[mickydoolittle]

You're all forgetting that terrorists strike the innocents. That's all they know.

Remember that a terrorist = a coward.

A train load of commuters is very similar to a set of towers filled with workers. What more evidence do you need?

Al Qaeda likes to strike in this fashion. This is their standard MO. If not Al Qaeda, then a splinter cell therein.

Are we gonna split hairs here?

[DontBeAfraid]

VR where the phuck did you get the idea that liberals support al qeada? Where did you get the idea that liberals want to destroy their countries? You need to stop letting the "talk radio" treat you like sheeple.

[SeekNDestroy]

Micky - this isn't 'splitting hairs'. If it was Eta then, tragedy though it was, it's a local problem and isn't going to happen outside Spain.

If it was Al Qeda it shows they have the desire and ability to hit civilian targets anywhere in Europe. It also means they've stoppped going after spectacular targets like skyscrapers, battleships or embassies and instead they're happy just to kill as many people as possible. It means the war in Afghanistan hasn't stopped their ability to coordinate sophisticated simultaneous attacks.

[substand]

a local problem? I think terrorism everywhere, even if it is by local groups, should be fought. For example:

http://www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/OKC,%20911%20link/bombing_linked_binladen.htm

there's tons of evidence (if you beleive it) that links bin Laden and Tim McVeigh/OKC bombing, as well as to Iraq. Even if the bombings in Spain weren't performed directly by al Qa'ida, there are so many smaller terrorist organizations that get funding from them... and why couldn't it be along the lines of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - our justification for giving Saddam weapons to fight the Iranian revolutionaries (after they had gained control), and our justification for training the Afgan mujahedin (through the Pakistani version of the CIA), who coincidentally bin Laden helped command and many became parts of the Taliban and members of al Qa'ida.

So why would it be unthinkable for al Qa'ida to help fund the Basque movement or the IRA?

The most important reason that I see for not treating ANY form of terrorism as a local problem is that I liken it to racism/lynchings or facism (of the German Socialist kind in particular) for that matter. Not so much that they are the same problem, but they could have similar resolutions. The world came together and helped debunk both of those theories, and you rarely see it used as a rational means to an end. So too could it be for terrorism.

[substand]

I'm also not so sure that, if it was them, al Qa'ida has "stoppped going after spectacular targets"... just because they chose an "unspectacular" target, doesn't mean they've stopped planning for spectacular ones... just as well, when you say "the war in Afghanistan hasn't stopped their ability to coordinate sophisticated simultaneous attacks," I'm not sure what you mean as sophisticated. No one would doubt that these attacks were simultaneous, but I would hardly call putting together 13 bombs, getting 13 recruits, and putting backpacks on unguarded trains sophisticated...

Then there's the other point of view that the world hasn't witnessed anything too major (I think all terrorist attacks are major, but major in this sense means perhaps thousands of deaths- as in that most people would not consider this attack "major" in comparison to WTC)... which could mean (by that point of view) that the war in Afganistan is working...

Of course, you could just as easily reply that they're biding thier time, and thats why we haven't seen anything huge. I think its probably between the two.

[VegasRonin]

VR where the phuck did you get the idea that liberals support al qeada? Where did you get the idea that liberals want to destroy their countries? Well DBA, the Liberals support most enemies of the state through complacency, and attempting to love an enemy that's wants to destroy us. Take the latest accussed spy for instance. She's a FLAMING LIBERAL, and has worked only for Democratic politicians. Liberals don't want to stand for anything cause they might offend someone. They're also afraid to take on tough global issues, and just pass it on to the next regime so that regime will look like the bad guys.

[substand]

just so you know- 3 moroccans and 2 indians supposedly linked to the madrid bombing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/international/europe/14SPAI.html?hp

[DontBeAfraid]

Vegas Sheep Im a liberal! I dont support terrorists. Liberals stand for personal FREEDOM. Liberals care about the welfare of everyone, not just the most popular opinions. Conservatives are just scared sheeple, they think everything is out to get them so they would put "big brother" on every corner.

When Clintons administration left they told the bush administration to make bin laden a top priority....... Too bad bush was too busy planning for iraq huh?

[VegasRonin]

When Clintons administration left they told the bush administration to make bin laden a top priority Because the Clintons (Heh you got that right. The Clintons (Plural)) cause they refused to capture UBL when they had the chance. Damn skippy we've been planning for Iraq. They've fired on coalition aircraft over 500 times after the first Gulr War. I think they forgot that they lost the war. I don't care what the current administration told the people to sell the war. We should've never stopped in the first place. I'm hoping we go into a few more Middle East shyt holes for some house cleaning as well. Drag these son's of bitches into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if need be. You can go over there and sing "We are the World" if ya want. As far as I'm concerned "Its Clobberin Time" to quote a rocky orange fella. Its us or them right now. That's not right wing propaganda. That's me speaking on experience. I've been there and lived with them people for a year. They hate us and want us dead. So be it! ITS ON!!

[substand]

I agree with VR... in fact, here's an article i wrote partially about why we should've never stopped (from 2002):

http://www.constitutionallychallenged.com/home/slar-101802-1.cfm

its like 4 pages long, but that is the first page, and near the bottom you can click to the next, and then the next, etc.

[VegasRonin]

I agree with VR... in fact, here's an article i wrote partially about why we should've never stopped (from 2002):

http://www.constitutionallychallenged.com/home/slar-101802-1.cfm

its like 4 pages long, but that is the first page, and near the bottom you can click to the next, and then the next, etc.
excellent article Substand. I loved it.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>cause they refused to capture UBL when they had the chance.

err, i read that GHWB had a hand in that one. told Clinton not too.
GHWB also had a hand in the October Surprise and Reagan/Brady shooting.
the truth came out, but only years later, much like this one.

and when junior got into office, it was official. an executive order to the FBI not to pursue OBL. the Judicial Watch is in litigation with some FBI agents over it. did ya know he's been captured in Pakistan?

>They hate us and want us dead. So be it! ITS ON!!

i thinks its due to us meddling in their country. taking their oil.
usurping their governments [Iran, Iraq, Kuwait] for more friendly ones.
of course they hate us. wouldn't you?

is that a liberal thought? or logical? if they are such an enemy, why haven't we nuked them? cuz we need their oil. and we'll do whatever it takes, to justify our actions, and sell it to the sheeple of America.

do the means justify the ends? to some, yes, our civilation thrives while theirs is blasted back into the stone age as we drag them into the 21st century and make them pay for it. BTW, what happened to all the missing funds that were in exchange for oil, that was to go to Iraq's reconstruction? nobody knows....

[VegasRonin]

Typed a great rebuttal but the frickin board logged me out when I tried to post it. I'm not typing it again. :mad:

[Emerald_Dragon]

i know what you mean. i've since started to write my responses in notepad and copy/paste it over to the board. its happened alot and i hated rewriting stuff. :crashpc:

[VegasRonin]

Yeah, I'll probably start doing that too. Kind of breaks up the flow of a debate though.

[Susie]

First of all, VR - what gives you/us/George Bush the right to decide how other people run their countries? Just because they live differently from us doesn't mean it's wrong, and i think it's incredibly fascist of you to suggest that we should go into more Middle Eastern countries and inflict our way of life onto them. They have a different culture and it'll never work.

Ok, so back to the Madrid bombing. I think they targeted Spain as a threat to other European countries that might consider aligning themselves with Bush/Blair. It's like a warning - see what'll happen if you join the alliance? also, because of the freedom of movement of people in the EU, i think that it is much easier to get into Spain than the UK - we still have passport checks and stuff, but in Spain, you just drive over the border. Someone also suggested to me that Al-Queda may not want to hit Britain as it is a big recruiting ground for them. What does everyone think?

[dutchie]

Well, Aznar will be eating his heart out, as this attack cost the conservatives their elections. Aznar was trying desparately to convince the spanish people that the attacks were coming from Eta just after they happened, because he was afraid that an Al Quaeda attack would be desastrous for the elections: people would condemn Aznar for taking a stand against Iraq/Hussein and pro Bush/Blair, so it was in his interest to make everybody think it was Eta.

He failed miserably, because - much against their customary approach - AQ decided to leave enough evidence behind for people to realise that it was AQ and not ETA. In effect Aznar has tried to USE the casualties in his election circus, which was his biggest mistake.

As for the rest of Europe: we (the Dutch) can only wait for OUR turn to be attacked: although we did not want to be actively involved in the war in Iraq, we did not take a stand against it, like the French did.

Britain will be punished by AQ in the most severe way. I do not want to think about the number of British that will be killed in that attack, but it most probably will be above the 1,000.

So much for humanity and tolerance claimed by certain religions...

[Emerald_Dragon]

i don't think VR is fascist. only sharing his opinion, opposite from mine, but still valid to many in America. [unfortunately]. "kill them before they kill us", which makes some sense, but leaving out the root cause of the animosity, our blind support for Israel.

"the friend of my enemy is my enemy" converse to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

dutchie, you always seem to chime in with the good stuff. i like your assessment. makes sense. although, i still don't think it was AQ, I think it was MOSSAD in disguise. you're welcome to convince me otherwise. i don't really know. [yet]

[DontBeAfraid]

Hmm...... Seeing as how it was AQ, I gotta say that I kinda agree with VR. If AQ thinks its ok to "punish" those who side with us then AQ and anybody who would harbor(sp) terrorists need to be Bi tch slapped out of existence. Spain rolled over I guess.....

Just so this doesnt confuse anybody Im still a liberal, too many americans have been fed a bunch of lies about what a liberal is.

[SeekNDestroy]

The real problem is the way Spain has given in to the terrorists, by withdrawing from Iraq. Now Al Qeda thinks all it has to do is drop a few bombs to get its way. It's inevitable that Britain will be attacked - apparently they've tried on numerous occasions - but the important thing is that it we don't change policy. A few hundred lives isn't a lot in the scheme of things, compared to the loss of life leaving Iraq would cause.

[Emerald_Dragon]

I must be behind on my reading, is Spain in Iraq? Troop-wise?

Have read that it was AQ. Still stinks.

[SeekNDestroy]

Spain has a small number of troops in Iraq, mainly a gesture.

[dutchie]

Spain has a small number of troops in Iraq, mainly a gesture.
Problem is that gestures can be taken as an insult quite easily, especially when you're a muslim. Try to shake hands with a muslim and stretch out your left hand towards him. You most probably will end up in hospital. The left hand is the hand muslims use to wipe their arses with, you dont extend a left hand to anyone, that's an insult.

When you shake your head to a greek, he regards that as a yes, while nodding is regarded as a no.

Confusing, eh? Gestures... Goes to show we have to think harder before we go out on some mission....

[lotrfan55345]

LoL... For some reason I find it comical; the differences between cultures. :rolling:

[VegasRonin]

Now that Spain has let Al Qaeda dictate their government for them. You guys (ESpecially Libs) watch this terorrist activity pick up globally. I shall eagerly await your defense as Al Qaeda attempts to bomb your civilians into submission.

[DontBeAfraid]

What do you mean "especially libs" VR? Liberals hate terrorism just as much as you low IQ conservatives, we are just able to recognize that the war on iraq isnt the war on terror. Have you ever heard of afghanistan is that too far back for the short attention span of your ilk to remember? How many liberals spoke out against the war with the taliban?

[dabears1020]

Liberals hate terrorism just as much as you low IQ conservatives,

Quit the sterotypes people! Most liberals dont hate their country, and most conservatives aren't any less intellegent than liberals. Stop being babies, and quit name calling.

[VegasRonin]

AO logged me out again. In the middle of my rebuttal nonetheless. I'm not retyping it either. and yes my cookies are enabled. :mad:

[dabears1020]

AO logged me out again. In the middle of my rebuttal nonetheless. I'm not retyping it either. and yes my cookies are enabled. :mad:

again? wow, that sux

[VegasRonin]

Yeah it does but I'll go ahead with the first part of what I wrote. Wlecome to the forums dabears1020. Don't mind DBA and I. We have a love hate relationship. DBA loves ta hate me. :devsmoke:

[dabears1020]

Thank you, and lol, ok i'll let you two go at it, i'm to young to have an opinion anyway... lol

[Emerald_Dragon]

The common perception of Spain's withdrawal from Iraq, is that terrorism works. As echoed by mass media.

The uncommon perception, is that the Spanish people were against the war to begin with, and in reaction to or not, to the Madrid bombing, chose to change their own government, in order to exclude themselves from the war.

The bombing galvanized the population to take a stance, for or against the war. They voted against. They chose a leader who would lead them away from it, instead of a leader who would have escalated it.

"The friend of my enemy, is my enemy,"
Dubya's logic against him, "Either you're with us or against us,"
Spain has spoken.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>It's inevitable that Britain will be attacked

IMO, it will only be attacked, when enough people speak out against it. Such is the way of politics.

I believe the Spanish were attacked because they were "iffy" and wanted to vote themselves out of the war. The attack was supposed to steer them into the war and against terrorists. Instead, they pulled out. Psychological warfare backfired.

[Emerald_Dragon]

The Spanish may have a better public education system than that of the U.S.

IMO, Had the government wanted to wage a war against terrorism pre-911, the people would have voted a resounding "NO". But because of 911, the media has culled the sheeple to forsake their civil liberties and accept a police state in order to pursue a perpetual war. Our election system was compromised and the sheeple accepted/submitted to the Supreme Court's choice of who would be President. He was not elected, he was chosen.

Only recently did we learn that the Diebold system was flawed. It was used in MANY of the southern states. Doing your own research, you'll find an alarming trend in elections. You decide whether or not the elections are indicative of what people are voting.

What does this have to do with education? The volume of thinking, rational people. Not everyone knows about Diebold, the stolen election, the lies. Its just beginning to surface when the data was available before the war started. But sheeple don't think, they react to the 'now' and never the 'how'. At least, as far as I've witnessed.

Whereas in Spain, they don't think like Americans. If it happened around here, we'd want someone's head, nevermind that its not proven or provable. Look at the alleged 19 hijackers. Everyone still thinks they were on the planes!!

[lotrfan55345]

Most every 1st world country and even some 3rd world countries (like Cuba) have a better education system than the US.

The southerners can't figure this out because they are too busy doing:

A) being hypocrytical Christians
B) drinking beer
C) Watching (American) football
D) being dumb

Now now I am not saying ALL southerners are stupid, look at Laz BUT they seem to be more stupid.

Just Kidding, ALL of the Americans are stupid, not just the south. Exept people in Arkanasas tend to be more uneducated because of their "education" system.

[substand]

Just because they live differently from us doesn't mean it's wrong, and i think it's incredibly fascist of you to suggest that we should go into more Middle Eastern countries and inflict our way of life onto them. They have a different culture and it'll never work.

I don't beleive anyone is saying because they live differently than us it's wrong... but you say we are inflicting our way of life on them? You can't be serious, can you? That Iraqis were better off under Saddam than without him? Even a majority of those lesser people, the Iraqis beleive they are better off now than under Saddam, even if they think the invasion was wrong(according to the latest ABC poll released today 3/16/04 - see it at http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1067223.htm)

Just because they have a different culture doesn't mean they need to be subjugated by dictators, raped, pillages, and Saddamized- democracy can work in the middle east. Granted, it won't be as capitalistic as in the US, but Islam is a very egalitarian religion, socialist even. Surely they could live without dictators, but under some form of democratic socialism like is prevalent in certain parts Europe, and to a much lesser extent, the US and Britain.

[substand]

The real problem is the way Spain has given in to the terrorists, by withdrawing from Iraq. Now Al Qeda thinks all it has to do is drop a few bombs to get its way. It's inevitable that Britain will be attacked - apparently they've tried on numerous occasions - but the important thing is that it we don't change policy. A few hundred lives isn't a lot in the scheme of things, compared to the loss of life leaving Iraq would cause.


The uncommon perception, is that the Spanish people were against the war to begin with, and in reaction to or not, to the Madrid bombing, chose to change their own government, in order to exclude themselves from the war.

Both are true, but although Spaniards were against the war, before the bombings the Socialists were 5 pts behind in the polls. Winning by 5 pts caused a minimum of a 6 pt swing, and a maximum of 14 (assuming the normal +-4% in opinion polls). According to the polls, the terrorists gained a victory and were assured by Spain that their strategy and tactics worked, and thus it legitimized them.

Regardless of if you beleive that or not, I think you might agree that at a minimum it gives al-Qa'ida extra ammo in thier recruitment.

[substand]

Liberals hate terrorism just as much as you low IQ conservatives, we are just able to recognize that the war on iraq isnt the war on terror. Have you ever heard of afghanistan is that too far back for the short attention span of your ilk to remember?

Contrary to mad Lib belief (mad lib is just a joke), Gulf War 2 IS part of the war on terror. There is enough public circumstantial evidence to support the belief that Iraq is a terrorist supporting state. Besides that, the US State Department has identified them as such (if you choose to believe them) (see http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19988.htm) Also see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4506229/ for the American indicted for spying for Iraq.

The CIA has also said (in addition to many other authors on the subject, but this quote is specifically from the CIA) "States with poor governance; ethnic, cultural, or religious tensions; weak economies; and porous borders will be prime breeding grounds for terrorism. In such states, domestic groups will challenge the entrenched government, and transnational networks seeking safe havens. "

That’s essentially why Iraq is part of the war on terror. Besides the fact there has never been peace since the Gulf War 1, rebuilding the middle east can help to combat terrorism in putting in place governments that will help fight it, not support it, or at least not aid in material and nonmaterial support. There's also the theory among many political scientists that democracies don't make war on each other. By removing conditions in the Middle East that breed terror, we can hope to curb it in the future.

Why not Iran then? Iran is close enough to rebellion. We've been playing RFE/RL radio shows there, and Bush has expressed his support for them. They had been electing reformers en masse but because of the strength of the vali-e-faqih (see http://www.constitutionallychallenged.com/home/slar-120403.cfm for more info on Iran's constitution), the reformers could get nothing done. And in the last election cycle, over 2000 candidates were disqualified by the religious elite. They are close to rebellion, and I think they'll win, and if they need our help, I hope we support them.

Of course there's something to be said about Saudi Arabia. There are only so many people you can take on at once, however- and the Saudis had allowed us to keep a base there for quite some time (since Gulf War I)... I think we need to be harsher on them, but there is still the excuse (as in Pakistan as well) that they are at least helping us in our current goals.

Also, don't forget that by defeating the strongest regimes has two possibilities: (as we did in about 3 wks, and Iraq was by far the strongest)

1) They will hide their WMD programs, as they were already doing, but pursue them with more vigor. If and when they get ICBM's (or even to the point where they can threaten allies), we can still annihilate them if they choose to use them. If they choose only to use them as bargaining chips, we still have not come out any worse than we would have if we stayed away from Iraq and the Middle East in general. However, if we could institute theatre missile defense for our allies in the region, and ICBM defense for ourselves, then their nukes won't mean much.

2) They will admit to terror, show their WMD programs, and seek better relations (and to stop supporting terrorism), seeing that continuing to support terror is futile (if the strongest few die, what can the weaker ones hope for?) such as is the case currently with Libya (they admitted to bombing Pan Am 103 (I think it was flight 103) and have disclosed their WMD programs and allowed inspectors in to monitor them.

[AngelTV]

This issue has brought to the surface the hypocritical commitment of the ppl who live in the "free world" . I am so dissappointed in the Spanish ppl for their decision to oust their government (if for the reason of terrorism). I can't believe the "out of sight, out of mind" attitude that ppl seem to have with terrorism. 9/11, regardless of who conspired it, was a wake up call to the ppl of the free world that you can't have your cake and eat it while the rest of the world lives in another century of famine, torture, terrorism and oppression. WAKE UP. This means both liberals and conservatives. There are sick phucks in this world who have decided to follow causes to allow them the right to their morbid idealogical fantasies of salvation through the death of innocent ppl. These ppl have to be stopped and they don't listen to "please cease" voting from cowards. Do you want to live in a world where you have freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of expression or does life under oppression make you feel better. This is a fight for the lifestyle of our children, our grandchildren. I know there are questioned to be asked about the method and I understand the stubborness of pacifist to go into a fight without trying to find a solution or compromise through diplomacy. Sometimes this does not work. Remember though that this is not a fight against Muslims. This is a fight against cowards of convenience. Ppl who try to cut corners through violence. Instead of winning opinion through peaceful expressions of protest they prefer your fear and submission. Do not give up the fight. True this whole thing would have been better served if the American Agenda (ie oil, money and politics) were put behind the scenes and the real points of issue came to the fore. I am dissappointed at the post war strategy of rebuilding Iraq. It could have been done so much better. I am dissappointed that we debated the monetary cost of this monumental historical shift in a region that would need a lot of financial aid. We have enough money in the world to give everyone in Iraq a new phukin car and food and still they have nothing and rightfully wonder what all the hype is about western lifestyle. We have band aid and huge charity appeals for the starving Africans (morally right but in the scheme of things it has no significants to our political theatre) yet we wouldn't give up our beer money to a country that we are trying to change politcally to help stabilise one of the worlds hotspots. I sometimes just shake my head at the mass consciousness. Maybe some of you are right. We deserve this. Not because we caused it but because we cry out unfair then go back to eating our lovely dinners and watch CSI. Get real.

[substand]

They have a different culture and it'll never work.

One thing I forgot to mention: What about all the immigrants who come here from there? They have a different culture and it'll never work? Appearently it does.

I'm a halfrican. My dad is a Muslim Algerian by nationality, and only gained his US citizenship well after I was born. Even he thinks democracy can work well there.. (a bit about Algeria, one Algerian is a suspect in the Madrid bombings, as are several next door neighbors in Morocco). In addition, they've had several govts and recently the Islamists took major power there, then the military came in and annulled that power). My dad is by no means a bin Laden, but he's still got enough culture to appreciate and even admire his Muslim roots (and still practices)... But even he was disgusted by the "holier than thou" crowd who wears thier robes all day (the stereotypical Muslim we see on American TV)- not just to prayer.

[static_cling]

Did the United States do anything to help the Spanish after the bombings? Did they give any advice or manpower to help them hunt down the people responsible? You would think that would be the first thing we would do to help an ally.

[lotrfan55345]

Spain is an ally?! :confused:


Just Kidding!

[dutchie]

These posts about the Spanish people throwing out their government because they're afraid of terrorism IRRITATE me!! You yanks fcking think you know it all, while you probably don't even know where Spain is on a map... You don't know SHIT about what has happened in Spain. Spain is suffering under terrorism since God knows how long. More than a 1,100 people have died under terrorist ETA attacks so far, and you shoot them off like stray dogs FOR MAKING A STAND AGAINST THEIR LYING BASTARD GOVERNMENT.

What did you Americans do for Spain and THEIR TERRORIST PROBLEMS with ETA BEFORE 9/11?!? Zip, Nada, Nothing. Who cared about Spain?!?

It would be wiser if you people FIRST did your homework and FIRST use your brain BEFORE judging a country and it's people you know shit about!!
You know about that clown Franco? Ever heard of the Spanish civil war? Probably not. Nooooo, any country that says it's fed up with a war that was built on lies in the first place gets burned away in your posts...

"Spain is an allie?!? Just kidding.." Shame on you, Kevin! What the fck do YOU know about it?!?

The spanish people lost more than 200 of its men, women and children, including newborn babies. Its great government LIED about it, just to save the elections. It got punished and lost the elections. Serves them right. Mind you it wasn't the first lie, it was one lie in a long succession of lies, including lies about the oil disaster in northern Spain (any of you remember that?) where Aznar waited for more than a month before visiting the location for the first time. That region, that was poor already, and was mainly inhabited by fishermen, saw its government flushing down their jobs down the toilet with the cold announcement that nothing at all terrible had happened, while in fact it was the largest environmental disaster ever to happen to Spain...

The Aznar administration had fcked up SO BAD, that they HAD to leave. And THAT is the truth.

Spain?? :respect:

[Wesh]

Yes your probaly right dutchie... but pulling out there troops is a cowards trick... and that will just make another allie to take there position. remember... if all countrys did that...

-

uhm stupid socialism!... its just like in denmark. here they also want to pull our troops out of iraq. but unfortunatly we have a good liberal goverment :D :D :D

[dutchie]

uhm stupid socialism!... its just like in denmark. here they also want to pull our troops out of iraq. but unfortunatly we have a good liberal goverment :D
Political colour has NOTHING to do with it, if you think it does, you'll have to explain that to me. What you're in effect saying is that socialists are cowards. I am a socialist. Do you have the courage to call me a coward? :boxer: :crs:

[Wesh]

... :thumbs: well it depends on how much a socialist you are...

in denmark we have 2 socialist parties

1 more socialist than the other

Socialdemokratiet wants to do the job in iraq finish and then take them back.

SF (Socialistisk Folkeparti) wants to pull them out imediatly!


... heh i dont know if you are a coward.


but okay if hasent anything to do with political colour to do. how can it be that the aznar goverment dident talk about taking them out?
:smokin:

and even before the socialist goverment was elected... they said that they wanted to pull them out

[dutchie]

Wouldn't you agree that following any country into a war for which the real reasons are missing up to this very day, is in fact an act of stupidity?!?

You can say whatever you want, but if bringing down the Hussein administration was the real reason behind the war in Iraq, then why are not a whole lot of other countries getting their armies ready, because they're very likely to be next in line after Iraq??

How can it be that one nation can determine the measure of "wrongness" of another nation, and then wage war against that nation based upon proven evidence, against the will of the largest league of nations? And I know you might bring a lot of arguments against the UN, but it stands upon a basis of trust and agreements, that can and should not be lightly bypassed. Also I am quite familiar with the "don't matter what you think, we ARE the good guys" argument - I can imagine the Germans thinking the same thing about themselves, and the Egyptians, and the Chinese and on and on.

Who IS next? In the eyes of the US the list could go on and on. And how do we determine what is right and what is wrong? Spain did elect a socialist government. Is that ENOUGH reason to invade Spain? And if not, WHY NOT? What IS enough reason?

Don't get me wrong, I do NOT say that Saddam was good; he WAS evil. I just think the war in Iraq was fought for all the wrong reasons, under a right reason flag...

[Wesh]

Wouldn't you agree that following any country into a war for which the real reasons are missing up to this very day, is in fact an act of stupidity?!?

It's not that simple. You'll never know if the reasons are fully correct until you attack wich were our case......shit happens... he had no WMD's, but what if he had?... And what if he used them?

but i call it a stupidity if the U.S said attack Spain because they dont want to help us anymore, because thats not a good reason (i think)

but i dont call it a stupidity if the U.S said attack Iraq, they may have WMD's and they wont allow UN to see if they got WMD's (yes saddam did allow UN inspectors to check if he had WMD's ... OH BUT NOT IN HES HOLY PALACES!... I cant remember but there where also other places as well


Who IS next? In the eyes of the US the list could go on and on. And how do we determine what is right and what is wrong?

Uhm... if Holland determine that its wrong, then its there problem the US will still invade the specified country

if Spain determine that its wrong, then the US will still invade the specified country

if Denmark thinks that it is right, then they want to help?

I see no problem in each countries decisions. But you can always think the others decisions was wrong.

[Wesh]

Oh it took me ages to write that :Bdevil:

[dutchie]

Wesh, does Denmark have weapons of mass destruction? The Dutch think they do, and they plan an invasion of Denmark.

You think that is silly? Why? DOESN'T your country have WMD? But they MIGHT have weapons, in fact we're sure of it....

And even if you really don't have them, we'll attack you anyway, because otherwise we'd NEVER know if you had them, wouldn't we?

So: either way the Danish people are screwed. It's tough, but only fair...

Well, is it?

BTW, we don't like your liberal leader. Your country is far better off without him. :Bdevil: :smokin:

[Wesh]

Yes i think its silly....... But you wouldent dare to do it. Because we're in NATO :smokin:


But they MIGHT have weapons, in fact we're sure of it....

first of all...... you think and is sure about that we got WMD's then why dont you look at our weapon depots or something? We would glady allow you. But if we denied then you had a reason for attacking us wich is not silly.

Oh and if you dont like our leader? Attack us then... Wich i see is silly, he dont trouble us, he dont kill us, he dont torture us, he isent a dictator, and we dont think you liberate us by doing it.

I know that it was just an eksampel :thumbs:

[dutchie]

Ah, so you knew it was an example... Why then go into the letter of it and not into the spirit? You saw the point I was trying to make, and you just replied to the contence?

Now THAT is silly. :ohmy:

[Wesh]

Eh what?

Yes Socialism is silly because people who work harder does almost not get anything for it. So all the hard workers are likely to move to a country where it pays to work harder... Like in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! :Bdevil:

learn it

[dutchie]

Apart from the fact that I sort of lost you here, in relation to my last post... Did you ever visit the States, Wesh? You seem to have a bit warped idea about that society....

[Wesh]

Yes i've been to New York, Nevada, Utah, California, Arizona

[dutchie]

Then you should know - if it wasn't just leisure - that hard work seldom pays off in terms of money. Same is true for the States. And for Holland. And for Denmark.

[Wesh]

hold your horses! my english dont know the words leisure and seldom

so i dident understand a thing of it :nono:

[dutchie]

Google up a site to translate English into Danish; there are plenty of that going around on the net.

leisure=not business, but to relax, a vacation.
seldom=rarely, not often

[Wesh]

:D okay but i got to go, hehe we being sitting here on this forum since early morning. bye

[substand]

Where your example fails to hold up is that Saddam lost the Gulf War, agreed to a cease fire, and on condition of that cease fire, he would be limited to certain weapons that could not fire past a certain range, these weapons included, but were not limited to, WMD. He also agreed to have inspectors in, destroy the ones he already had, and prove that he had destroyed them.

Saddam kicked out inspectors, saying they were spies (of course they were spies, thats the reason they were there). He allowed inspectors back in near the end, and gave them trouble- both El Baradei and Blix said he was giving them trouble, especially with the minders (and later without minders) and he was not being open and honest. He also was given a chance to prove the old WMD's were destroyed. He did not account for the destruction of all of it (or all the known stuff anyway), and in fact said it never existed when pressed about it.

Further, the war never ended in the first place, as Iraqi Anti-Aircraft routinely shot at British and American jets patrolling the skies. Finally, we have found plenty of evidence that he was in violation of UN Res. 1441 (and all previous resolutions), there just have not been WMDs found yet.

Thats why your example argument (I'm assuming which was supposed to show how ludicrous the war's foundations were) doesn't hold up, IMO.

[DontBeAfraid]

I look at the iraqy WMD's the same way I look at gods..... You're gonna have to show me proof. I really have no reason to beleive in either.

[substand]

I'm not too worried about WMDs myself. Saddam violated all the terms of peace throughout the 1990's, and even after UN Res 1441 passed. I was just mentioning in the above post that he has broken the resolutions time and time again, and it is certainly "legal" to resume hostilities (assuming they had ever stopped) based on it.

But of course, I don't deny that we haven't yet found WMDs, and we may not ever. However, given the timing (basically meaning assume we did not yet know what we know now), how can you conclude that they didn't have them? (not that its not possible to, but the evidence points in the other direction)

Saddam was given so many chances to abide by the terms that ended GWI. He had quantities of WMD material that were known to us from what he declared the first time around and what inspectors saw (previous to late 2002 and early 2003). He submitted documents in late 2002 (December 7 according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_2554000/2554323.stm)
that were supposed to account for all of the destruction of WMDs, in addition to other things. They didn't account for all of "what we knew" existed, and he said it never existed (well, i'm sure it wasn't him directly, but someone speaking for Iraq).

So, if you choose not to agree with the logical conclusion (or what I consider logical anyway) that he still had them, you have to beleive one of 3 things (if i'm covering it all)

1) Saddam didn't have them and he lied about it the first time around, and was telling the truth the 2nd time around (thinking the first time around we would never ask him to finish destroying what he did not have)

2) Saddam had them, told the truth the first time, and he lied about it the 2nd time around (thinking Bush would back down)

or

3) Saddam had them at one point, did in fact destroy them, forgot to account for it, and said they never existed rather than claim without proof that they were destroyed.

Either way, you have to beleive Saddam lied at one point, which is not too hard to imagine. I just happen to think the evidence supports that he had them, but it is all circumstantial in that we haven't found them.

Am I missing another conclusion? (not trying to sound haught, but seriously wondering based on the evidence)

[Emerald_Dragon]

>This issue has brought to the surface the hypocritical
>commitment of the ppl who live in the "free world" .

hiya ATV, had a hard time re-finding this post, it was "buried" under dutchies reaction(s).

had ponderous moments thinking about what you had written and couldn't find where you originally posted it until now.

>I am so dissappointed in the Spanish ppl for their decision
>to oust their government (if for the reason of terrorism).

which is part of the reason it sat in my head. i thought it was a good reason. i felt that they voted to fire their liars.

on the one hand, the "conservative" rightwing [whatever], chorused that it was a sign that terrorism works in altering public opinion. on the other, the "liberal" leftwing [whatever], opined that it was people waking up to the reality that their gov't lied to them about the war on terrorism and how they were misled to war. Even Poland is chiming in.

i'm a political independant, _now_. started as a Republican until this administration. I'm a Dean supporter for his Democracy For America movement. I have read alot of propaganda and think I can see what I'm supposed to think vs. what my own reasoning tells me. My gut tells me that we were lied to and should wake up.


>this whole thing would have been better served if the American Agenda ...
>Sometimes this does not work....
> I sometimes just shake my head at the mass consciousness.
>Maybe some of you are right. We deserve this.
>Not because we caused it but because we cry out unfair then go back
>to eating our lovely dinners and watch CSI. Get real.

:thumbs: Agreed on multiple points. am as cynical as you, or more.


i even feel hypocritical about protesting "blood for oil" while i drive an SUV.
but since i'm going to pay for a war for the next 10 years [like it or not], at least let me reap the benefit in lower gas prices [which i'm not]. but we all make mistakes and buy-in to the "american dream". have tried to trade it for a hybrid, but no one wants to give me book value [or even $3k below it]. wasn't aware, until i was aware.

there is a better way, we're just not given the choice or freedom to pursue it. technologies exist to get us off the oil addiction, but the people who have that technology are withholding it until they've made enough money first, before introducing it as an innovation. Hydrogen, ethanol, and other un-mentionables.


in response to dutchie:
>You don't know SHIT about what has happened in Spain.

I agree. We don't know diddly. What we know is limited to what our mass media and CIA-funded shills tell us.


>You can say whatever you want,
>but if bringing down the Hussein administration was the real reason behind the war in Iraq,
>then why are not a whole lot of other countries getting their armies ready,
>because they're very likely to be next in line after Iraq??

BRAVO! I agree.
And the answer is/was, "Oil"!
with a secondary reason being, to support Israel. :jap:

[dutchie]

BRAVO! I agree.
And the answer is/was, "Oil"!
with a secondary reason being, to support Israel.
...As if I didnt know... :lol:

[substand]

but if bringing down the Hussein administration was the real reason behind the war in Iraq, then why are not a whole lot of other countries getting their armies ready, because they're very likely to be next in line after Iraq??

I'm not sure what you mean by this... They may not be getting their armies ready because they know its useless. We rolled over the strongest one of them in 3 weeks. Perhaps they would like to work with us as Libya has shown. And yes, perhaps they were next. Thats part of this whole idea of the War on Terror. Kill the first strongest regimes and perhaps the smaller ones will stop providing aid and comfort to terrorists.


And the answer is/was, "Oil"!
with a secondary reason being, to support Israel.

I thought we covered this. The real reason was sand:

----- excerpted from from http://www.constitutionallychallenged.com/home/slar-040403.cfm ---------------------------------

According to a source close to the White House, the leading causes for the US decision to go to war are as follows:


It seems as though the US computer industry is taking a hit in that there is not enough silicon to continue producing the amount of computers required by the US economy. Our e-ville capitalist companies have lobbied the government and succeeded in forcing the US to go to war to secure sand.
The amount of glass lost in the destruction of the World Trade Centers (on 9/11/2001) is difficult to replace. Evil corporations who owned the land and who have been contracted to rebuild the site have successfully lobbied the US government to provide cheap glass for the reconstruction efforts.
The high tide is washing away US beaches when it turns to low tide. This is causing a drop in US tourism, and evil capitalist US companies cannot afford the loss in revenue caused by decreases in tourism.
The common cause here is sand. The United States cannot afford increased prices with decreased supplies in sand, so we need to go to war to secure a continuous supply of it. According to our sources, this is why the US has declared war on Iraq.

-------------------------------------------------

[DontBeAfraid]

lol, sand :sardonic:

[dutchie]

Substand, you're the school example of the smug megalomaniac that we've come to know. The Americans fuqing DON'T OWN THE WORLD!!! When is that fact going to sink into those thick skulls of yours?!?

You can't just DECIDE which government you like and which you don't and then go marching into any country you want under the flag of "War against Terror"... That idea is totally against international law. But then you would say that you guys are above that...

Look at your governments' reaction on the death of Yassin: more or less Condoleeza said that Yassin had it coming.... Bullshit!! If you want justice, bring someone before a court of law!! This is plain vigilante Wild West Lynchin justice! Look, I didn't like Yassin any better than you did, but that's no reason to just shoot three rockets into his wheelchair, killing 7 other people in the process.. Geez, I'm not to keen about my nextdoor neighbour, and some of my collegues are real assholes, does that give me a licence to kill them?


But read your own words, Substand:

We rolled over the strongest one of them in 3 weeks. Perhaps they would like to work with us as Libya has shown.
So what would you want all those nations to do?!? Work with you, not because they like you, but because they fear being trampled over. YOU ARE FIGHTING A WAR OF TERROR, NOT AGAINST IT!

You mix up regimes with terrorists, and terrorists with regimes. WHERE DO ALL THE TERRORISTS COME FROM!?? Yes, SAUDI ARABIA!!! Did I see one soldier marching agains Saudi Arabia?? NO!!!! SO????

It IS about OIL and MONEY, you blind bat!! I can't help it that your government has been putting all that sand in your eyes (whas that what you meant?!?) over the years, but the truth in this is simple: protect the USA's economic interests everywhere on the globe, against all cost, even American lives can be sacrificed to do just that. It's so sad that all of you believe that it is about some higher goal, while the brutal truth is that all of this is just about MONEY!!

This morning I read an article about Richard Clarke and how he was ignored by the President time after time upon his warnings against Al Quaeda, months (!!) before 9/11. Bush was already planning to go against Iraq BEFORE 9/11, Al Quaeda had NOTHING to do with that. After the attacks of 9/11 Bush's very first reaction was to go straight into action against Iraq, while there was absolutely no evidence linking Al Quaeda to Iraq. It wasn't until much later that the attention got focused on Afghanistan.

the article by CBS news (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml)

Concluding, there must have been 2 reasons for this war: OIL (Bush did NOT go against the Saudi's, with whom he has a good understanding concerning economics), and the warped notion that he had to finish the job daddy started.

I can promise you this: Saddam Hussein will NEVER face a judge or jury. The fear that he will give away all secrets about the US aiding him with weapons is too big. You know that joke, about why Bush is so sure that there are WMD in Iray - it's because daddy showed him the receipts... It is just the sad truth. At one moment any government can be OK and find grace in the eyes of the US government and 10 years later they march into that very country. Not exactly the best way to gain international credibility, folks... Oooops, I forgot: you couldn't care less.... :nono: :lol: :dork:

[mickydoolittle]

3-11.

No need to post more.

[Chris4334]

the brutal truth is that all of this is just about MONEY!!

500 billion dollar deficits, forcasted to balloon to $1 trillion over the next decade by some estimates. An additional trade deficit of over $1 trillion. I don't see any benefit to the U.S.'s financial statements coming from this war...how much money are those oilfields worth? By the time they COULD squeeze a profit from something, oil may possibly be usurped by cleaner energies.

[dutchie]

By the time they COULD squeeze a profit from something, oil may possibly be usurped by cleaner energies.

That WOULD be good news.... I'm afraid I won't live to see that day...

[lotrfan55345]

That WOULD be good news.... I'm afraid I won't live to see that day...

GLad your seeing it my way, Dutchie. :smokin:

[MetalMilitia]

Spain's former Interior Minister Angel Acebes has defended his government's actions in initially blaming Basque militants Eta for the Madrid bombings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3932387.stm

The Madrid case is unraveling fast. The police are accused of concealing evidence, two of the bombers were police informants, there was a surplus of letters left behind pointing the finger of blame at Arabs, and the early political decision to blame ETA (which backfired on Aznar) is still being promoted by those who hitched their reputations to it.

I don't know what to beleive anymore.

-MM- :crs: