Madrid train blast

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

Originally posted by BROWNer

blahblahblah. thanks for pointing that out.

i honestly do not have time to e-spar with you.

i've done my fair share, ask kabar. or any of the MIA pro

war chumps that used to come here. funny how they disappeared.

 

i'm kinda curious why the onus is on myself and others to delineate some of the hugely obvious problems with the 'war on terror' pt2.

i'm glad you're reading zinn though.

 

I'm gonna have to give grasshoppa some credit here. The guy sounds like he may have an idea of what he's talking about, maybe he'll be able to offer up some discussion the others weren't able to. Personally, I feel like on many occasions others weren't even given a decent chance cause it immediately became a 5-on-1 slugfest, and the matters turned to personal attacks too quickly (easy to get frustrated when arguing against 5 people at a time). Sorry to say, I feel your above brush-off comment seems to want to go in that direction as well. I have always argued for the need of an intelligent opposing view to give the discussion real validity, and even at times toyed with the idea of playing devil's advocate, but it's too big of an endeavour, and it's hard to be motivated about defending a side I don't agree with in the first place. I just know, because I've witnessed it, that for every argument presented on this board on the left side of things, there is a strong counter-argument from the right, and these types of discussions bear fruit much more juicy than the roundtable of agreement we usually have here.

 

The onus isn't on yourself and others to delineate the problems... as far as I know the problems have been endlessly delineated and explained in these discussions. The guy is asking for solutions, something that I'm gonna have to agree hasn't been as readily offered as problem definitions. !@#$% is starting to touch upon some ideas and principles (admitting we have some blame in the creation of terrorism), but we still have a long way to go to define viable answers with the same degree of detail we have defined problems. More importantly, we should try to steer away from the inclination to offer solutions as "could-have-been-avoided-by" statements. It's essential we direct these discussions towards actual problem-solving if we really want to make them worthwhile. Let's get the ball rolling.

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

That Kabar rant, I might add, is exactly what I DIDN'T mean when I suggested "strong counter-argument".

[villain]

El Mammero: Perhaps you are right about grasshoppa. However I didn't notice anything of merit personally in what he said. Perhaps I was a little harsh.. hahahahaha oops. I squashed it....

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that the right cannot put up a decent argument. For example, I was watching the 9/11 investigation today on CNN and there were no hotbutton topics explicitly brought up in the first place.... When asked about why we didn't do something about Al Queda sooner, the response was basically because they didn't feel it was worth launching a missle to destroy these training camps. ??? See what I mean? They also said that the terrorists tended to melt away when opposition came. Well isn't that still a problem? Much of the defense was verbose rhetoric and generalizations that would easily loose someone not following closely enough. I was mainly disappointed that all the dirt that brought a need for these investigations in the first place wasn't addressed.... then again this has been ongoing (even though I haven't heard anything about it in some MONTHS!) and I may have missed all that great juicy action.

 

That is great that you want to work on solutions. I too feel weary from these arguments that seem to be a rehash of the same things. It is definately time to work on solutions. I've proposed such things before but it never really caught on. Perhaps it's all these run on tangents and thread hijackings.... Perhaps we do need a thread solely dedicated to solutions.

Alas I'm nearing the end of my rope and must get up early tommorow.... I shall hand the mantle off to your capable hands.

[Guest BROWNer]

hold up.

i'm not slammin' the dude or negating his

right to ask questions and reply, or get

some gang up thing going.

props for reading zinn.

the 'brush off' is gonna have to ride, i

do not have time to get into a detailed

tit for tat. i like details and well written

replies in threads like this. that said,

i've said it before, and i've indicated that

i think a real good starting point is stop

bombing and intervening in other countries.

you fuck with people, you create legitimate

grievance. that's just gonna have to suffice

for now.

i'll try to get back in here when i have a

bit more free time.

and i misspoke there with the onus bit...

it should read that the onus for defending

peaceful resolutions to problems should

not be on all of us 'liberals'. or somethin'

to that effect. not tryin' to sound pissy..

i'm real tired right now.

[villain]

One more thing about the 911 investigation... There was alot of the blame game that has been going on for soooo long now. Blaming the CIA, blaming elements within the CIA.... And outside of the program of course we've got people blaming British Intelligence, what else? I think it's convienient for them to blame intelligence cause you can't put a finger on someone in the cloak and dagger corporations. It's like a garbage disposal.

And what's with liberals just coming up with peaceful resolutions yeah? I don't quite understand these labels in the first place. I have never considered myself liberal, or democratic for that matter. I did however donate money to Kerry, that is because he's the only one with a remote chance of winning that aligns with my goals for the most part.

Heh... wondering when that much anticipated BROWNer discourse is coming along....

[J.HollaBack]

i absolutely HATE conspiracy theory bullshit...

 

as far as 9/11 is concerned, i dont think they knew anything about it, or helped to plan it, or whatever else weirdos think up that might have happened.

 

that being said, i do think there is a good chance that we might have been warned before hand, and not taken the threat seriously, but come on now! HONESTLY who in their right mind would have thought terrorists were going to HIJACK one of our own planes, and turn them into bombs against us?

 

i dont know about you, but i wouldn't have EVER expected that or believed someone if they told me that.

 

it was a brilliant ploy i admit, but nobody saw that one coming...

[JeffLebowski]

Madrid mourns bombing victims

 

ID.IE.IP.

 

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 Posted: 8:21 AM EST (1321 GMT)

 

 

MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- World leaders, including 14 prime ministers, gathered for a state funeral in Madrid for the victims of the March 11 terrorist bombings.

 

Many of the leaders also met with incoming Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who says he intends to pull Spain's troops from Iraq if the U.N. does not take a central role.

 

Spain's royal family, headed by King Juan Carlos, led mourners at Wednesday's service, which began with midday Mass at Almudena Cathedral on a cold overcast day.

 

Though Spaniards have endured decades of Basque separatist attacks, the March 11 terror strikes were the worst against a Western country since the September 11 attacks in the United States.

 

The bombings of crowded commuter trains during morning rush hour have been dubbed "Spain's 9/11."

 

On Tuesday, four more suspects -- three Moroccan men and a Spaniard -- were charged in association with the train bombings. The death toll was also revised Tuesday to 190. Originally it was thought 202 had died in the bombings. (Full story)

 

Presiding over Wednesday's Mass was the archbishop of Madrid, Cardinal Antonio Rouco Varela.

 

"We have cried, and we have cried together," Rouco Varela told the congregation. An enormous white sheet bearing a black ribbon of mourning hung behind the altar.

 

"Great pain has filled your lives and those of your families since that black day in which brutal terrorist violence, planned and executed with unspeakable cruelty, ended the lives of your most beloved," Rouco Varela said.

 

"From the very first moment -- that of the anguished search and the evitable identification of your loved ones -- your pain became the pain of our dear city of Madrid, of Spain, and very quickly, of the whole world," he added.

 

It is the first state funeral for people outside the royal family in the history of Spain's new democracy, restored after former dictator Francisco Franco died in 1975.

 

In attendance were about 500 relatives of the victims.

 

Also attending were British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Britain's Prince Charles, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and more than a dozen other heads of state or government.

 

Former Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori also attended.

 

Blair and Zapatero met for 55 minutes ahead of the funeral.

 

Miguel Angel Moratinos, the incoming Spanish foreign minister, said the two leaders talked about mutual concerns including the war on terrorism and Iraq.

 

According to Moratinos, Zapatero repeated his intention to pull 1,300 Spanish troops from Iraq if coalition forces are not placed under U.N. control.

 

Zapatero then met with Leszek Miller, the Polish prime minister.

 

The newly elected Socialist leader criticized the war in Iraq during his election campaign. The proposed troop withdrawal also may come up when Powell meets with Zapatero.

 

Zapatero last week rejected an appeal from U.S. President George W. Bush to stand by the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq.

 

Zapatero also is meeting with Chirac and Schroeder.

 

Before the Mass got under way, one unidentified man in the congregation screamed, "Mr. Aznar, I hold you responsible for the death of my daughter," The Associated Press reported.

 

He was referring to outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, whom many Spaniards accuse of provoking the March 11 bombings by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

 

Extra security was in place for the service, with personnel boosted at Madrid's two airports as well as roads leading to the city and the route the official motorcades took to the cathedral.

 

The Mass brought much of Madrid to a standstill.

 

Giant television screens were erected in several popular locations in the city to carry the ceremony live.

 

A monitor was also been set up in Puerta del Sol -- a bustling plaza where one of several makeshift memorials to the victims sprang up the day after the bombings.

 

The memorial there features a sea of red candles as well as photographs, notes, newspaper clippings and flowers.

 

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

 

Copyright 2004 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

IR.II.IP.

[soulkillers]

i am not a religous person what so ever but i hope that the people involed get to meet there maker and meet the countless innocent people they have killed once they are in the after life i lost a family memeber in 911 and this is the same stuff all over again but for someone else its sad

its sad to say that as a americanthat my beloved country is playing both sides of the terroist fence. plus our countryhs track record of giving a countryt money then spending more money to blow it up lives on.

[Guest BROWNer]

so where is everyone today?

 

here's some meandering and rambling thoughts, hopefully there are

some nuggets worth discussing in some capacity..if not, well then, i'm

really sorry to disappoint:

first of all, i prefer to think of western issues as one

big ball of wax, interconnections and correlations. for me

to talk about the war on terrorism waged by the US, you need to bear

in mind alot of other things. too many to name.

i think we are in urgent and seriously perilous times and

the rate at which things are so carelessly being done

is really quite astonishing. i'm not so sure your average

westerner feels that way, or if they do, it's this really kind of

distant, unchangeable thing that you are powerless to affect.

how come?

 

iraq: this was and is pure bullshit, and we all know it.

i remember listening to the radio the night it started, and

feeling this huge surge of rage and disgust.

for the most part, my issue with the iraq war is the way

it has been framed for consumption(and the sociological

spin off) and the motivations behind it.

you guys have no solution, nor do

i really have one, it is so fucked beyond comprehension

that it seems laughable to even try. should US forces

pull out? hand over power to the UN? or just leave the shit

and fuck off? right. not much of an option there.

grin and bear it? one viable option with real results:

come november, all of you in this thread better vote and kick

bush and his cronies to the curb. in fact, it should happen right now,

spanish style. that in itself is a good start.

but you already knew that..

 

afghanistan: more bullshit. another instance of might makes right.

alot of innocent people got shredded in afghanistan, the US promised them

gold, and look at it now....a big pile of shit. what else should have been done?

golly....

its hard to measure the success of afghanistan really, or the WOT for that matter.

resources that went to iraq would've been far better used hunting down

terrorists.

mamerro, you don't want these 'could have been avoided'

statements as solutions, but i'm afraid those are about the only

ones i can think of. maybe you've got some answers? love to hear 'em,

you too grasshoppa, villain, all you dudes.

maybe if people hear about this shit enough, there won't be

any more 'could have been avoided' scenarios. it gets real

tired thinking up all the shit that is coming down the pike due to

idiot policy. the simple answers don't exist.

at some point as well, i think greed and class needs to come into this and the

corporate grip on western democracies. i'll pass on that for now, but think

that could be a very interesting discussion.

whenever i start thinking about this whole thing since 9/11, i always

remember bush coming out and telling people to go spend their

sorrows away. and i remember how not a single question was asked

as to why it happened...in the mainstream media, none. squat.

it's still probably one of the most important questions that the west

needs to answer.

 

terrorists: yea, they fucking suck. even the word terrorist sucks. even

the way it gets thrown around sucks. it should be terrosucks.

a real solid distinction needs to be made though. guerrillas are now

referred to as terrorists. peaceful protestors fall into this category for

right wing nuts too. there's probably e-terrorists.

the real deal ones need to be stopped and soon. i have meek solutions

for this...try to understand the sociological and historical context of a terrorist

mind set. they aren't born terrorists. and they are apparently extremely intelligent

and clever. could it be that they have the capacity of a give and take compromise?

hard to say unless there is another front opened up besides gunship communications.

 

saudi arabia: big, huge, fat ass problem. interesting as well. we are all pally pally with them. most of you probly

know this, but the bush/royal saud connection is very fucking ill.

this tidbit is also ill. james baker, a great pal of the bush crew and the saudi's, is a principal of bechtel. bechtel, as we all know, was the major beneficiery of the reconstruction contracts in iraq. baker also heads up baker botts, a law firm. families of sept 11 have brought a $1trillion lawsuit against the saudi royal family. the law firm representing the saudi's? baker botts.

open the vaults on this shit. answers within, guaranteed.

 

pakistan: big problem, but we're pals in one way or the other. you gotta wonder what is up with the bush team and musharref sometimes. the head nuke scientist confesses he's part of a covert tech transfer of nukes to leading 'terrorist' regimes.

he gets a pat on the back. head of the isi resigns shortly after 9/11 when the fbi exposes a money transfer from him to mohammed atta. you think this guy is well placed or not? the week leading up to 9/11, dude is sippin' latte's with george tenet and colin powell(one of them anyhow). why isn't this out in the open?

how does al zawhiri escape through 'tunnels' recently?

 

finally, its my opinion that western populations, especially the US populace, needs to get off its lazy ass and start putting major pressure on its political system and start really getting in peoples faces. enough of the excuses that you shouldn't blame citizens of america for the way it's country behaves. it's supposed to be a democracy. get with it. not that we're any great shit, but in canada, we have a nationally broadcast show called 'this hour has 22 minutes'. on it, one of the actors puts on a suit and tie, pretends he is a reporter, and approaches any and all of our public servants and sticks them with the most uncomfortable political questions you can imagine. it's fucking rad.

pick this apart, add to it, negate it, whatever.

does this get the ball rolling?

 

i sure hope some of you have something to add.

[Guest BROWNer]

ps-there is so much more that can be touched upon, and in

much greater depth.

i'll try and get back here and add more if it pops in my

head.

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

See, that's what I'm talking about. You touched on a whole bunch of different points, which would be cumbersome to try to discuss all at once (megalong posts), although they, are as you described, very much interconnected.

 

So, Iraq... doesn't take half a brain to know that removal of Bush from office is absolutely imperative. I am, however, a bit worried about Kerry's managing of the shitstorm that will be handed to him if he wins. I'm rooting like crazy from the guy, but I'm severely worried that I'm doing so without truly believing in him, only truly believing in NOT Bush, which in a way feels like I'm setting myself up for a big disappointment. One more mistake can make a shit situation even worse, and we'll never hear the end of Republicans doing the same thing to Kerry that we are doing to Bush (and which they did to Clinton before, still do actually, trying to pin the 9/11 blame on him, and so on). That said, I agree with you... this thing has gone so completely out of hand its almost impossible to begin formulating a solution. I'm sorta leaning towards allowing the UN to take over, but I'd be way more enthusiastic about it if the US hadn't gone through such great pains to discredit and render them somewhat irrelevant in the eyes of many. It must have worked, cause now I'M unsure if they'd be able to handle the situation correctly... but I'd rather place my trust in the global community than the US alone.

 

But rather than keep on going on the list, let's stick to the thread topic for now: Spain. Is pulling out the best idea for them? I want to say "They shouldn't have supported them in the first place", but that's a could-have-been-avoided-by statement. I was initially ecstatic by the success of the Socialist party and believed that a strategy would be put in place to deal with the presence of their soldiers in Iraq, but as soon as I heard what it was (near-immediate pullout), I was again very concerned. On the one hand, I'm incredibly glad that less soldiers will have to face unnecessary dangers and death, and I'm happy that one more nation has stood up and said "This is fucking bullshit, I'm out", but I am deeply troubled by the possibilty of terrorists taking this as a victory on their part to influence foreign government decisions, therefore giving them even more confidence that their methods are effective and reliable. I believe the time for pulling out is long past, and that if the Iraq situation is hoping to reach even the slightest photons of the very dim pinprick of light at the end of the tunnel, it needs as much international support for reconstruction and leadership installation as it possibly can. Good job USA for ensuring this may never happen... it's time to admit you fucked up and you wanna be friends again.

 

Shit, I ran out of steam.

[SteveAustin]

Originally posted by El Mamerro

I'm happy that one more nation has stood up and said "This is fucking bullshit, I'm out", but I am deeply troubled by the possibilty of terrorists taking this as a victory on their part to influence foreign government decisions, therefore giving them even more confidence that their methods are effective and reliable.

 

These are my thoughts exactly. Throw in the fact that the socialist party wasn't "supposed" to win and I can see Terrorists throwing in another W in the win category. This of course will only encourage them to do more damage which in turn could make other countries pull out their support and troops and only give them more "W's".

 

I think this is only the tip of the iceberg as far as terrorism is concerned in Europe.

[Guest BROWNer]

maybe the US needs to have it's 'cake' and eat it.

this guy chris hedges put out a book a couple years ago, and he

talks about the trends of american acceptance of wars, the

collective sociological impact and stuff....after vietnam, americans

were really starting to think deeply about war and they were

humbled by it, maybe iraq will be the same. shitty way to find

out, but..

 

in spain, i think that people will just have to deal with

whatever results their democratic decisions have. they want their

guys out, so be it. i see the logic that it legitimizes the terrorist

tactics, and i agree, it's scary as hell..

[KaBar2]

As I am sure you guys are aware, we do not live in a "democracy" and never have. It is a constitutional republic, with a democratic form of government. We elect representatives, they do the governing, and we are suppose to enjoy a great degree of freedom, democracy, etc, etc. But, in many ways this is a sham.

 

For instance, what if they had held truly democratic elections in 1932 Germany, and the DAP won, fair and square? What if all the horrors and excesses of the Nazis had each been put to a vote, and given the green by a clear, legal majority of the German people? It wouldn't matter--they would still be Nazis, democratically-elected or not, and we would still have been forced to take them down.

 

The new government put in place after the war was by no means democratic. Germany was under Allied military occupation. There was some Nazi resistance (the "Wolverines," among others) but eventually, the tremendous crush of Allied military might sitting right square in the middle of everything brought an end to Nazi Germany once and for all. The first governmental agencies were run by volunteers, usually German businessmen, or former low-level Nazi officials. PLENTY of Nazis got shot in a ditch for resisting or being uncooperative, which, of course, is exactly the same shit that THEY had been doing. The Soviets marched thousands to firing squads. In the end, Germany made a remarkable recovery, with our help. They are or at least were, an ally in NATO. Did we keep Germany just because we conquered their sorry Nazi asses? NO, we did not. Within ten years (1955---I was five) they were independent (and more-or-less democratic socialist) again.

 

We won't keep Iraq, either. Someday, ten or twenty years down the road, Iraq will be a secular Muslim state, maybe like Turkey. It will be years and years before Iraq will be able to democratically elect a government that is not dominated by crazy, fundamentalist Muslims. Is that good for the Iraqis? Nope. They are incapable, at this point, of producing a democratic-style government. If there is an election, the haters will win by a landslide. Hello, Taliban.

 

The U.S. achieved a lot of what happened in post-war Germany by controlling (at first) what was taught in German schools. We should work with Iraqi educators and do the same thing, to some extent, in Iraq. All governments control education, to one extent or another. To allow some anti-social, anti-American force to control Iraqi schools is stupid.

 

If Kerry wins, it will be interesting to see how he tries to get disengaged from Iraq. My bet is that he won't be able to disengage. The Vietnam veteran turned war protestor may find himself in exactly the same situation President Johnson found himself in. Now is that ironic, or what?

 

BTW, the militia movement thoroughly discussed the possibility of commercial airliners being used for terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists LONG before 9/11. Everybody thought they were crazy. They have done a lot of investigation of things like the Waco Massacre and the OKC bombing tragedy. But, of course, because their conclusions differ from the Government's conclusions, everybody thinks they're crazy.

 

The Spanish train bombing was a straight-forward piece of work. I'm surprised we haven't seen twenty or thirty more in every country that helped the U.S. And we probably will, eventually, especially if they achieve any more political successes like the outcome of the Spanish elections.

[PalestineOne]

KaBar,

you said "crazy fundamentalist Muslims" will take over Iraq sooner or later. and then called them "haters". I just wanted to point out that I am a Muslim man and I find that offensive, innapropriate, and disrespectful.

Other coutnries probably think we in America are "crazy fundamentalist Christians" adn "haters" as well, and admit it, thats an offensive disrespectfull way to view one another, and does not help.

one of the few things I liked about Marx was that he pointed out that commoners of completely different religions and cultures have more in common with each other than with theyre own seperate political leaders. KaBar, me and you have more in common than Bush and you, or the writers behind JewsWeek and U.S. Jews and World Report do. peace!

[26SidedCube]

Originally posted by El Mamerro

But rather than keep on going on the list, let's stick to the thread topic for now: Spain.

 

Woke up for a minute, I'll post my 4 cents.

 

Well, you pretty much hit the nail on the head

as far as how I feel about Spain's knee-jerk

reaction to the attack. Terrorism is a leaky

roof situation: One day you make notice a

wet spot on the ceiling and pay it no mind,

one day that roof might start dripping on you

but you can still put it on the backburner and

shake your fist at the people who laid your

shingles, but one day, having sat on your ass

long enough that roof is going to collapse into

your living room crushing your family dead

with a mouthful of buffalo wings and a face

full of TGIF. Example? Three letters: WTC.

 

That being said, and me being tired...

Maybe their pulling out of Iraq will purge

them of any wrong-doing in the eyes of

those declaring Jihad, only time will tell.

The fact remains that Spain, like much

of Europe, is much more Westernized than

they care to admit and I've been under the

impression that's what the Jihad was being

declared on in the first place...

 

All I know is that taking an isolationist stand

in todays (exponentially) shrinking world is

as irresponsible and dangerous as arbitrarily

invading countries for the sake of spreading

your form of government. While I recognize

as much as any of you that Bush is an unfit

leader/ the all-consuming spawn of Lucifer

himself, I have to also say that Spain is not

helping, as leaders in the Middle East are not

helping. As I said: The world is shrinking,

there's no way around it. While those in the

Middle East may want to have nothing to do

with our shallow, bottom-feeding way of life

and we here may want nothing to do with

their religiously fundamental way of life we

are ALL going to have to start acknowledging

that the rest of the world is out there and that

we've all stepped on some toes in the past,

have been greedy, and have only been as

good as our flaws as humans have allowed

us to be... or else, soon enough, there won't

be much left for anyone to complain about.

 

Mind my rant, I'll let the brains get back to this stuff. I'm tired.

[PalestineOne]

dammit stop refering to the Middle East as a bunch of "religious fundamentalists." Thats bullshit propoganda from CNN and U.S. News and World Report and Fox and Newsweek. Just because they might be viewed as as having "more faith" or a dtronger respect or belief in God, and maybe because Islam requires devotion such as praying 5 times a day (by the way Christians are required to do almost all the things Muslims are, such as abstinence, no killing or stealing, etc.. attend religious gathering which is Church). But its messed up and compeltely wrong to just say "they" as if even theres no new born babies and the slutty 17 year old girsl and the 40 year old losers. So is it suddenly wrong to faithfully believ in God and His word? when did that happen? God doesnt say in the Koran to "kill non believers, or kill Christians, or Kill Americans or whatever" it DOESNT SAY THAT IN THE KORAN, IT DOESNT SAY THAT. ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE. CNN is a baaaaad source of news. it may be convenient o catch up on whatever happened on a mass scale, but it is baaad for opinions and reports and such.

 

ISLAM IS PEACE. ISLAM IS PEACE.

ISLAM IS PEACE. ISLAM IS PEACE.

[26SidedCube]

Originally posted by PalestineOne

So is it suddenly wrong to faithfully believ in God and His word?

 

Quackshot.

[villain]

I think many of you are missing a point I brought up earlier. The fact that these attacks were politically motivated. Sure it is frightening that it may embolden similar such attacks but at least the reason remains clear. They have shown that they are capable of striking any place at any time. They could have just as easily stuck some HUGE social event if their motivations were of pure hate and vengeance. Casualties would easily have been quadrupled. This was a rude awakening. But we are awake nonetheless.

The same could be said for 9-11 in a sense. They could have struck the superbowl. But they didn't. These attacks are politically motivated.

They didn't want Spain in Iraq. In light of all the bullshit the Bush administration pulled to go to Iraq and take over, that seems like a reasonable request. But given the stakes are so high the reasonable request has been twisted into an unreasonable demand. And that is the problem. We are beyond reason. We are beyond diplomacy. And that is President George W. Bush's job.

[26SidedCube]

Originally posted by villain

I think many of you are missing a point I brought up earlier. The fact that these attacks were politically motivated. Sure it is frightening that it may embolden similar such attacks but at least the reason remains clear. They have shown that they are capable of striking any place at any time. They could have just as easily stuck some HUGE social event if their motivations were of pure hate and vengeance. Casualties would easily have been quadrupled. This was a rude awakening. But we are awake nonetheless.

The same could be said for 9-11 in a sense. They could have struck the superbowl. But they didn't. These attacks are politically motivated.

They didn't want Spain in Iraq. In light of all the bullshit the Bush administration pulled to go to Iraq and take over, that seems like a reasonable request. But given the stakes are so high the reasonable request has been twisted into an unreasonable demand. And that is the problem. We are beyond reason. We are beyond diplomacy. And that is President George W. Bush's job.

 

I'm sorry, but they attacked commuter trains.

How is this any different than attacking the

Super Bowl or Disneyland? Had they gone

and leveled a US embassy in Spain or perhaps

something more clearly connected to Spain's

support of our monetary ventures into Iraq

I could see how that would hold up, but how

is a public transit at peak times with bombs

set to go off when police/medical aid arrived

'clearly politically motivated' outside of their

saying it was politically motivated?

 

I think you're on point with what you're saying,

but I have to ask... sorry.

[villain]

How would they smuggle bombs into the embassy?

Sure it's not perfect but we don't have perfect solutions and all the answers either....

We are talking about a motley crew of terrorists here, not a SPECOPS unit....

[26SidedCube]

Originally posted by villain

How would they smuggle bombs into the embassy?

Sure it's not perfect but we don't have perfect solutions and all the answers either....

We are talking about a motley crew of terrorists here, not a SPECOPS unit....

 

Yeah, I'm not expert and I don't expect you

to have any more concrete answers, either...

but couldn't they have just loaded all those

explosives into a van and drove it directly into

the embassy/any more directly related building

or area? I suppose they got their point across,

just the same though... but public trains and

the WTC are a few degrees off as far as symbolism goes.

 

Part of me wants to believe the attack was

entirely war-support realted... but part of

me still clings to the fact that Spain is a

pretty Western Culture and their pulling out

of Iraq may not expunge them from being

a potential target in the future.

 

All I've got is speculation. Kill me.

[villain]

Yes it is not fun shooting in the dark.

 

Well maybe this would better be described as political hatred... nothing in this world is absolute. It WAS however primarily political...

[26SidedCube]

Originally posted by villain

Yes it is not fun shooting in the dark.

 

Well maybe this would better be described as political hatred... nothing in this world is absolute. It WAS however primarily political...

 

http://www.bigfootgaming.com/images/win_khunnu-compass.gif'>

 

Point taken.

[Guest BROWNer]

spain is not safe anymore than any other westernized nation.

just becuz they booted a guy that had clear contempt for

democracy, doesn't mean spain is now 'soft' on terrorism..

i think the contrary will be true. you'll see spain putting alot

of effort and resources into security and they will

open up their own front to deal with terrorism, without the

lame guidance of the WOT's leader.

also, i think we need to understand that violence on a war

scale, and violence on a terrorism scale are not very different.

both are fundamentally a form of extreme communication, and

both say basically the same thing...so......when the US invaded

iraq, and the toll of innocent death is now figured at around 10 grand,

well, there ain't much difference to the receiving population is there?

when israel gunships a neighborhood in palestine, there is virtually

zero difference between that and a palestinian walking onto a bus

and blowing it to shitballs.

we need to start realizing that every action has a reaction. violence creates more

violence. i don't know if humans are truly capable of anything

different...but........i hope so, and we'll never know unless we give it a real

sincere try.

[villain]

That's one thing that worried me is that this incident would inflame the ethnic divisions in Spain. But the Socialists have proposed making spain a federation and to acknowledge all it's provinces and peoples. We'll see how this goes...

[Dick Quickwood]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040326/capt.ny11603260115.rice_commission_ny116.jpg'>

[Guest imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by BROWNer

spain is not safe anymore than any other westernized nation.

just becuz they booted a guy that had clear contempt for

democracy, doesn't mean spain is now 'soft' on terrorism..

i think the contrary will be true. you'll see spain putting alot

of effort and resources into security and they will

open up their own front to deal with terrorism, without the

lame guidance of the WOT's leader.

also, i think we need to understand that violence on a war

scale, and violence on a terrorism scale are not very different.

both are fundamentally a form of extreme communication, and

both say basically the same thing...so......when the US invaded

iraq, and the toll of innocent death is now figured at around 10 grand,

well, there ain't much difference to the receiving population is there?

when israel gunships a neighborhood in palestine, there is virtually

zero difference between that and a palestinian walking onto a bus

and blowing it to shitballs.

we need to start realizing that every action has a reaction. violence creates more

violence. i don't know if humans are truly capable of anything

different...but........i hope so, and we'll never know unless we give it a real

sincere try.

 

well, it looks like i missed all the action in here but its always nice to agree with the brown....

[villain]

Originally posted by BROWNer

we need to start realizing that every action has a reaction. violence creates more

violence. i don't know if humans are truly capable of anything

different...but........i hope so, and we'll never know unless we give it a real

sincere try.

 

 

 

 

This pretty much sums it up for me. But I also say it's the big guy who has to step down and make concessions because it's the big guy running things and setting the example.

[KaBar2]

PalestineOne

 

I have no problem with the Muslim religion, in fact I work with several Muslims, and had a Muslim neighbor who went with me a few times to militia activities. He decided it was too much risk attending gatherings and opted out, but he did some of the stuff they talked about: stockpiling food and ammunition, etc. We had a good time doing target practice and shooting silhouettes in "Hogan's Alley."

 

My neighbor didn't drink alcohol. No problem. My neighbor didn't eat pork. No problem. My neighbor attended a mosque and observed Muslim religious holidays. No problem.

 

But if my neighbor decided to start beating women on the street with a fan belt because they didn't cover up their hair, that would have been a BIG ASS problem. Because he is free to do whatever he pleases, worship as he pleases, eat what he pleases, marry who he pleases, but he is NOT permitted to force other people to obey the rules of his religion if they don't wish to do so. Neither am I. Nobody is.

 

Thinking that one has the one and only understanding about what God is, and what rules He wants us to follow, and believing that all the rules were written down in a holy Book thousands of years ago is known as "fundamentalism." Thinking that one somehow has the right to beat everyone else into submission to those rules can reasonably be called "crazy fundamentalism." That is no slur against Islam.

 

My neighbor is an OBEDIENT, DEVOUT MUSLIM. When we would hang out, he drank Diet Pepsi, and I drank Miller Lite. His next door neighbor was Jewish. No problem, we all got along fine, in fact the Jewish guy was a Harley rider and used to help me work on my motorcycle.

 

In my opinion, trying to force one's religion on others is offensive. And so is prohibiting others from worshipping as they see fit. Killing people because they are of another religion is a vicious, bigoted crime against humanity. Mulims may walk the streets of America as free and equal citizens. But people in Middle Eastern, Muslim countries are in constant danger of being attacked by crazy fundamentalists if they choose to worship differently than Islam. This is what happens when people are denied the right to keep and bear arms, and when Government supports one religion over another.

 

Every western country has thousands, if not millions, of Muslim immigrants. Twenty years ago, I had never seen a single mosque or any sort of Buddhist temple, Sikh temple, etc. Churches, sure. Synagogues, a few. No mosques.

 

Today, within walking distance of my home there are four or five large mosques and Islamic schools, some of them in shopping centers. I think that's great. No problem. But the day that the Baptists start telling me I can't drink alcohol, or the Jews start telling me I can't eat pork, or the Muslims start telling me I can't smoke cigarettes in the daylight during Ramadan---THAT is the day I will have a problem. Worship however you please, and everyone else will do the same. Try to prevent people from living as they please within the Law--you will see tremendous opposition.