quote: "We declare our responsibility for what occurred in Madrid, just 2.5 years after the attacks in New York and Washington. It is a response to your collaboration with the criminals (U.S. President) Bush and his allies," the man says.
"This is a response to the crimes that you have caused in the world and specifically in Iraq and in Afghanistan. And there will be more, God willing."
quote: There was no immediate comment from the government -- but the Socialists, which has pledged to bring home Spanish troops from Iraq if they win Sunday, would benefit if al Qaeda or another Islamic group were found to be responsible.
What's wrong with these people ?! Notice at the end of my first quote, they say there will be more killing "God willing" !!! Now I know it's all been discussed before, but somehow, I don't see Bush making this kind of statement. For me, it's clear who the bad guys and who the good guys are.
As for the second part: because Spain sent peacekeeping forces in Iraq the terrorists killed Spanish civilians. And now the Spanish Socialists are willing to retreat the troops from Iraq ?! That's like saying: "Yeah, you win !" to the terrorists. If I were to vote, I'd be in favor of a plan to capture the terrorists and keep the forces in Iraq in order to help them transform their society into a democratic one, which would not be a safe haven for terrorism, nor a funding source.
I'm beginning to think that the anti-American propaganda that took place in Western Europe is starting to prove ridiculous: if things like those mentioned in the article can happen because of it, if people aren't able anymore to see the war on terrorism as a necessary thing, what more proof do you want ?! Of course, the masses won't understand it; they're not the ones to blame though. When the politically correct views in your part of the world are against something, everyone falls for them...
posted
The Iraq War was a war of luxury, as the nation posed no immediate threat. It's the sort of thing that some of the Spanish probably thought was a good idea if it only cost money and some soldiers. But it's reasonable to think it may no longer be a good idea if it's going to bring civilian casualties to the homeland.
If this does turn out to be Al Qaeda, it's just going to be proof that the Iraq War provoked terrorism for Spain, rather than prevented it - making it a defeat in the War on Terror for Spain rather than a victory.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm aware of what the Spanish people were probably thinking: we attacked them, now they strike back. They won't think, however, that the terrorists struck first. Not Spain, of course, but the US. Who cares about the US anyway ? They're big & strong, they can take care of their own problems ! Sorry, had to cool off, I realize I'm putting words in peoples mouths but I can't help feeling that I'm quite close to the reality.
As I see it, they're missing a very important point: a war on terrorism should not affect you only if your country is attacked ! As the terrorists are usually the ones to strike first, what do you do ? Wait for that to happen in order to take actions against them ? My first thought when reading the article was: Everybody must realize that it's not going to stop unless all of us do something about it ! But hey, that's just me wanting to leave in a safer world.
Maybe it's just my current mood, but I think people are starting to see the world in too many shades of gray, when, in fact, it's closer to black and white. (no pun intended)
Edit: I just remembered that last month t here was a terrorist threat in France: an organization baptized AZF called to say that bombs were planted on railroad tracks. The trains on a couple of directions were stopped until all the tracks were verified. And I've heard that several bombs have been found. Now tell me: what did the French do ? Have they attacked Iraq or Afghanistan or shown support towards the Americans for these two wars ?
posted
"they say there will be more killing "God willing" !!! Now I know it's all been discussed before, but somehow, I don't see Bush making this kind of statement."
Dubya's always concluded his "let's go kill" speeches with "God bless America."
"Now tell me: what did the French do?"
I dunno. Why are you eating freedom fries?
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre, you lost me here ! I don't really know how you can put an equality sign between: "God bless America" - let God PROTECT people - and: "And there will be more, God willing." - let God help us kill people... Although, the second part is not very clear to me... Were you joking in both your statements ? In neither of them ?!
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the people who did this are not rational beings. They believe that this is the way to go about changing public policies? They are a danger to everybody. Whatever right their cause may have had, whatever truth there is in what they may have espoused, it is negated by acts like these. There is a difference between the reluctant use of force to try and accomplish some overwhelming good, and indiscriminate murder and destructiveness, exulting in death.
It's clear to me that the world can no longer afford for there to be countries like Afghanistan under the Taliban, or Iraq under Saddam Hussein. All these years we have said to ourselves that there is nothing we can do. That freedom and autonomy are right for us, but the other people of the world aren't ready for it, don't deserve it, and need strong armed dictators to keep them in check. Well, it's not a path that's borne good fruits. Freedom is for everyone. Until everyone is free, noone is free.
I am glad we liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. I am far more ashamed of what our country did previously, in supporting Saddam Hussein during the Iran Iraq war, and in encouraging the power of warlords in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. I think now we are finally on the right track. We need to support democratic reforms in every way we possibly can worldwide.
Invading Afghanistan didn't make this happen. After all, 9/11 happened before the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. It was murderous people who made this happen. People who must be opposed by those who believe in freedom, tolerance, and justice. It will be a shame if the Spanish people take the wrong lesson from this.
And it's not just Al Qaida that wins. ETA wins too because Anzar's party was hard line with them too. Now they can go back to murdering people without fear of reprisal. Heck, Maybe the socialists will give in to los vascos too and there will be a new country in Iberia.
posted
While I would not have phrased it quite the way Pixiest did, I, too, am confuzzled as to why the socialists were put back in power right after a major terrorist attack.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ugh. I still have a hard time believing that this was the work of al Qaeda, despite the rash of claims and rushing to blame them. This has far more of a basque feel to it, even including the videotaped taking of credit presumed to have been found from the al Qaeda. The basques use such techniques, and have done so for years. Far longer than the al Qaeda has even existed.
Besides, England is a far more tasty target than Spain if al Qaeda is concerned. And considering the fact that al Qaeda and the Baath Party have nothing to do with each other, I find Spain's support of the Iraq war a crappy excuse to blame al Qaeda.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Small anecdote: my aunt missed being on that train by about twenty minutes. If she had gone home the same time she usually did, she most likely would've been killed.
posted
One point that I'd like to throw out is that there is very much cross pollenization between terrorist groups.
I've also seen opinions to the effect that Al Qaeda is less a distinct entity, now, than a movement.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to applaud Spain's decision to reject the supporters of "preemptive" warfare, even if it took a disaster to get them to realize just how dangerous a mistake they had been making. That's the problem with all this terrorism business: Too many people wait till something terrible happens before they are willing to question the initial "let's go get em" mentality.
I can only hope America can achieve this discovery before any more trouble occurs. Then, perhaps, we can begin a path towards a real and practical solution to the terrorism problem, rather than just provoking more and more fighting. I'm not going to be happy if it takes another 9/11 (or two!!) before we realize where Bush is taking us.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't understand why people can blame 9/11 on our invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. Or why they can't see that this was another attack similar to 9/11. Haven't these terrorist people proven they don't need any excuse to do this?
posted
The notion of pre-emptive warfare disturbs me, but really, isn't the alternative "reactive warfare"? To wait until a bunch of people die before we try to do anything about those responsible?
Terrorists do not negotiate. They demand. The alternative to fighting them is to give them everything they want; only that could make them stop. I cannot imagine that anyone would consider that a legitimate alternative, considering what it is that "Islamist" groups want.
The notion that there is any solution to terrorism at all strikes me as foolish. Terrorists will continue to emerge indefinitely and we will have to continue to attack them before they can do much harm. I'd like to think it could be otherwise, but I just don't believe it.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Haven't these terrorist people proven they don't need any excuse to do this?
So we will just have to endure an endless cycle of devastating attacks and invasions, because both sides insist on believing the other side's only motivation is 'evil'?
Maybe we should consider the possibility that terrorists do have reasons for doing things, considering that they repeatedly give reasons. In this case, didn't the terrorist specifically state that they were doing this as a response to Spanish support of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Truthfully, "you invaded my homeland with an army" is a much better excuse for committing a terrible attack on someone than "we think your leader is an evildoer and want to free you from him."
posted
It's clear we disagree, yet I think you have not considered very much what the people of Iraq and Afghanistan think. I belive the overwhelming majority of people in both countries are very relieved they've been liberated. They may have gripes against the U.S. but are extremely glad that they aren't still under the old regimes. I just feel very much for those people and am so glad they have a chance at a better future.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Xaposert wrote: I have to applaud Spain's decision to reject the supporters of "preemptive" warfare, even if it took a disaster to get them to realize just how dangerous a mistake they had been making.
It wasn't just a disaster. It was terrorism. Doing what the terrorists want because of their actions only proves that their actions are effective. It's like conditioning. The terrorists blew something up, the people responded by doing what the terrorists wanted. This only encourages more terrorism. It's why the policy of not negotiating with terrorists makes sense.
quote:Corwin wrote: For me, it's clear who the bad guys and who the good guys are.
I don't understand how you can really say who the good guys and who the bad guys are.
9/11 happened. We lost about 2800 people. Then we go invade Afghanistan. This is understandable. But then we go invade Iraq which had no known connection with 9/11. There we've lost over 500 more American lives, and killed between 4,000-10,000 Iraqi civilians. That's about 1.5-3.0 times the number we lost on 9/11. Because (primarily) we thought they had WMD.
Trying to look at the situation from a non-United States view, I really can't tell who the bad guys are. Is it the ones who cause the most deaths?
quote:aka wrote: I belive the overwhelming majority of people in both countries are very relieved they've been liberated.
Of course you believe this. It makes defending our country's actions a lot easier. I just don't know how you can tell if this is true. Would you like it if another country came bursting in and killed 4,000 American civilians?
I'm not saying you're wrong. The majority (maybe not overwhelming, but possibly a majority) may believe this. Eventually. But it doesn't make us the good guys. We did this for selfish reasons.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Because (primarily) we thought they had WMD.
I don't agree with this. I agree with much of what Anne Kate said except that we can't run around changing everyone. We were largely responsible for Saddam Hussein's rise, and I think that is the primary reason we went.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, well, a good friend was a soldier there in Iraq and wrote me that the people hugged them and thanked them for liberating them. They cried and brought food for them every day. They were overjoyed. He saw firsthand evidence of the horrible brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime. He said he could not believe that anyone could treat other humans like that. He said never had he been so willing to throw himself into the meat grinder as he was for these people.
Another person who was there for a long time, both before and after the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime was John Burns of the New York Times. I heard interviews with him and read his dispatches regularly. He said the Saddam Hussein regime slaughtered the Iraqi people by the hundreds of thousands. That on one particular day, 2,000 people were executed. We know that he gassed the Kurds, and carried out a campaign of systematic extinction of the Marsh Arabs. These things are well documented. There is no speculation required. We know these things.
In Afghanistan, it was a capital crime to teach a girl to read. I believe that's all that needs to be said there.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to make it clear that I don't think we are pure unsullied good guys. Far from it. But we are a whole lot better than the bad guys, and there are actually ways we can go about searching out and eliminating the badness that still remains on our side. I think we should do that, for sure. Human rights are fundamental to the American worldview.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I, too, am confuzzled as to why the socialists were put back in power right after a major terrorist attack."
Quite possibly because the AznarAdministration and Popular party went against the wishes of 6/7ths to 8/9ths of Spaniards by joining the Coalition. Or maybe cuz the AznarAdministration lied to coverup the most likely explanation in hopes of influencing the election. And tossing the Popular party out of power was seen the best hope of getting a government willing to expose the truth.
"Looks like the terrorists win in Spain."
Ah, yes, if Spaniards don't reelect a government that ignores their wishes, that treats its citizens as children incapable of rational thought, then terrorists win.
"Were you joking in both your statements?"
Nothing more than removing cultural blinders, Corwin.
A Dubya supporter sees "God bless America" as asking for protection from "Muslim"terrorism, and "God willing" as asking God to support murder. Similarly, a binLaden supporter sees "God willing" as asking for for protection from "American"terrorism, and "God bless America" as asking for the blessing of murder. A Dubya supporter sees successful conquest as proof of God's blessing on Dubya's enterprise. The binLaden supporter sees a successful bombing as proof that it was God's will.
quote: Quite possibly because the AlznarAdministration and Popular party went against the wishes of 6/7ths to 8/9ths of Spaniards by joining the Coalition.
I don't know that this is true-- according to NPR, the Socialists only won by a small margin. In fact, a day prior to the attacks, the Popular Party was expected to win, hands down.
Whatever the case, the incumbent had the support of the country until these attacks occurred.
The political question then becomes-- why did these attacks change anything?
If the same attack were to occur in the U.S., George Bush would win the presidential election.
Why the difference?
From my POV, and from the data presented, it does appear that the Spainish people caved in to the demands of terrorism. As if to say, "We'll fight against terrorism, as long as it doesn't affect us!"
John has a good point-- I've not seen any proof either that this is really Al-Queda. BUT-- this is the kicker-- the attitude in Spain seems to link this attack to Spain's involvment in the war in Iraq, and the general war against terrorism.
And the Spainish have chosen retreat.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So we will just have to endure an endless cycle of devastating attacks and invasions, because both sides insist on believing the other side's only motivation is 'evil'?
Maybe we should consider the possibility that terrorists do have reasons for doing things, considering that they repeatedly give reasons. In this case, didn't the terrorist specifically state that they were doing this as a response to Spanish support of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Truthfully, "you invaded my homeland with an army" is a much better excuse for committing a terrible attack on someone than "we think your leader is an evildoer and want to free you from him."
I'm not going to say that doesn't make sense, Xap, but the problem is that we wouldn't have invaded those countries without first being attacked ourselves. You trace it back and this particular line all goes back to the unprovoked invasion of Kuwait. We keep troops in Saudi Arabia to prevent it from happening again. al-Qaeda decides that we're evil people because we're keeping their enemy(?) from gaining more power. Okay, so it's a holy place--what's your other option than letting us help out?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It wasn't just a disaster. It was terrorism. Doing what the terrorists want because of their actions only proves that their actions are effective. It's like conditioning. The terrorists blew something up, the people responded by doing what the terrorists wanted. This only encourages more terrorism. It's why the policy of not negotiating with terrorists makes sense.
I'd like it if we could trick the world into believing that terrorism and violence in general cannot accomplish things, but everybody already knows it can. 9/11 proved that. Heck, World War II proved that.
It'd be crazy to knowingly continue to make mistakes in the War on Terror just because you want to avoid the appearance of having learned anything from terrorism. You might as well say we should never have given blacks equal rights, because that only condoned the rioting and violence that was sometimes used to get those rights.
quote:If the same attack were to occur in the U.S., George Bush would win the presidential election.
Are you sure about that? I mean, Bush supporters already use the lack of terrorist attacks since 9/11 as a reason to believe Bush's policies are good. How can the reverse also be true?
If this is the case, though, I suspect it is because we understand the situation differently from the Spanish, as a result of being a superpower rather than a regional power. We are naive as a nation. I think many Americans have yet to realize that terrorists aren't just bond villains out to do whatever evil they can. We think terrorists just hate us for no reason whatsoever, and that there's no possible recourse but to destroy them. Thus we are more prone to support the sort of knee-jerk reaction that Bush provides - "let's go get those evildoers" and all that.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or perhaps we're not as naive as old Europe thinks... Perhaps Europe hasn't been big on the American century, but all we have to do is point to two thousand years of nearly incessant war both religious and secular. Perhaps we should look back and see what a mess Europe made of itself three times this century and how Americans had to give their lives each time to sort it out for them (WWI, WWII and the Cold War).
Perhaps it was America who rebuilt so much of the countries devastated in those wars. Perhaps it was the US that pushed so hard for the formation of the United Nations.
Perhaps the Old World should follow the New World for a while. The Old World's methods hadn't worked in centuries, but somehow the New World has developed with a lot less trouble.
Then again, most of the citizens of the New World are those who either left the Old for a better day or were not so politely made to leave.
I wish we could go back to the Monroe Doctrine and just stick to this side of the globe and go on about our business. If we had, the world sure would be in a lot worse shape: France and England would be the least important parts of a German-speaking Empire. Kuwait would be a wealthy, postage stamp-sized province of Iraq, but Saudi Arabia would be more important in the new Persian Empire. Soviet communism would have been mowed under by the Germans. Jews and Gypsies would only be seen in the New World. South Koreans would be starving and working at slave labor like their North Korean cousins. The Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere would be Japan and a string of conquered states.
Time and time again over the last century, it has been the blood of Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Brazillians and Mexicans that has brought the world back around and headed to peace.
Perhaps the Old World should realize that we aren't invading their homes and lives... we're jus the maid service back again for the weekly cleaning.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great to see you, Pix. I think I must usually stop reading threads before you post in them, because apparently you've posted in a few over the past week, and this is the first I've seen. Anyway, hope all is well with you. Ok, y'all can continue the discussion now.
quote:Bush supporters already use the lack of terrorist attacks since 9/11 as a reason to believe Bush's policies are good.
Really? I haven't seen this expressed anywhere. I have to think that if Bush's policies were stopping terrorists, there'd be news bulletins on it. (As in, 'DHS stopped six terrorists from hijacking a strip-mall this morning.)
Especially now that November's approaching.
But maybe I'm cynical. . .
quote:I think many Americans have yet to realize that terrorists aren't just bond villains out to do whatever evil they can. We think terrorists just hate us for no reason whatsoever, and that there's no possible recourse but to destroy them.
Tresopax, there can be no compromise between Western ideology and the philosophy that Al-queda proposes, because the furtherance of one necessitates the destruction of the other. Since both ideologies actively promote themselves, there can only be at best, an untrusting peace.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have to applaud Spain's decision to reject the supporters of "preemptive" warfare, even if it took a disaster to get them to realize just how dangerous a mistake they had been making.
Nothing quite like giving a clear-cut message to international terrorists (or local), "Your tactics work! Next time we do something you don't like, follow this recipe!"
So if someone fights terrorism in any other way than compliance, non-aggression, and talking, and terrorists strike back at them...that strike back means the effort has failed? What nonsense.
And incidentally, 'war of luxury'? Tell me again how much you were sorry for the people suffering under Saddam Hussein. Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not saying this was the primary reason for going into that war. But it's statements like this that contradict claims that people are "glad he's gone", at least somewhat.
Incidentally, which of the military actions do you think was necessary, Tresopax?
------ Aspectre,
quote:Dubya's always concluded his "let's go kill" speeches with "God bless America."
What you neglect to mention, you jackass, is that Bush does not advocate the wholesale murder of civilians in pursuit of God's will. ------ I can't think of a worse reason for Spain to have changed governments than because of this terrorist attack. People are stupid. What do you think international terrorists will do, now that their tactics have a clear demonstration of effictiveness? "Well, OK, we got what we wanted. Now let's go back to peaceful, rational dialogue to achieve our goals."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"We were largely responsible for Saddam Hussein's rise, and I think that is the primary reason we went."
Say what? What on earth are you talking about? Hussein was already well within power before the US set on a policy of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," a reasonable if sometimes misguided policy considering our problems w/Iran at the time. And besides, Iraq received the majority of it's chemical weapons and it's military arsenal from France and the Soviet Union, not from the USA.
As for Xaposert, I don't even know where to begin. How exactly would you propose to deal with 9/11?
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really? I haven't seen this expressed anywhere.
It certainly has been expressed on these forums - Do I need to find quotes?
But really, do you think it's a failure for Bush's policies if the U.S. never has terror attacks again?
quote:Tresopax, there can be no compromise between Western ideology and the philosophy that Al-queda proposes, because the furtherance of one necessitates the destruction of the other.
The essence of compromise is striking a balance between two philosophies that each necessitate the destruction of the other. Any advance of the pro-life movement necessitates a defeat in the pro-choice movement. This does not mean compromise between the two is impossible.
quote:And incidentally, 'war of luxury'? Tell me again how much you were sorry for the people suffering under Saddam Hussein.
About as sorry as I am for the people of North Korea, Cuba, or other repressed nations whose leaders it would be great to be rid of, but for whom we obviously don't think war is necessary, since we have yet to invade them.
quote:Incidentally, which of the military actions do you think was necessary, Tresopax?
World War II. The Korean War. The Gulf War. In general, wars which were provoked by actions that demanded an immediate response.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amazing once you consider that WWII began with an act of appeasement to a madman. Please see the other thread about a Sad Day in Czech history...
Ahh, to live in a world of Chamberlains where everything is a shade of gray and where you can't lose to evil if you refuse to acknowledge that evil even exists. Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for Xaposert, I don't even know where to begin. How exactly would you propose to deal with 9/11?
Start a global coalition to fight terror while working to resolve the problems that create and anger terrorists.
The last thing I would do is alienate our allies and being an unprovoked, unilateral invasion of the region in which our presence is generating so much anger, and which as the source of 9/11. That's the exact opposite of what would prevent terrorism.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Amazing once you consider that WWII began with an act of appeasement to a madman. Please see the other thread about a Sad Day in Czech history...
So, do you believe the terrorists were right in attacking Spain, rather than appeasing Spain and letting them get away with an unprovoked invasion of an Arab state? I'm not sure your argument favors the side you want to it to favor....
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I apologize in advance for the long post, but due to my schedule (and France-US time difference) I could not answer the posts addressed to me. I also have some things I'd like to add, so let's go:
1. aspectre
quote: A Dubya supporter sees "God bless America" as asking for protection from "Muslim" terrorism, and "God willing" as asking God to support murder. Similarly, a bin Laden supporter sees "God willing" as asking for protection from "American" terrorism, and "God bless America" as asking for the blessing of murder. A Dubya supporter sees successful conquest as proof of God's blessing on Dubya's enterprise. The bin Laden supporter sees a successful bombing as proof that it was God's will.
I wondered if you were joking in your statements because I didn't fully understand them, not because I wanted to belittle your post. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. And thanks for your second post; I can see better what you meant. I agree with you that those can be the ways of thinking of the two parts involved and that I'm biased towards the first interpretation. I hope you will reread aka's first post in this thread, as in the first paragraph she makes a good point by saying that even if the terrorists think theirs is a right cause, the way they act upon their believes is very different from the US's. I also agree with what Rakeesh said in response to your post. Rakeesh, I know you might have been mad about what aspectre said, but calling somebody a "jackass" will not make him more willing to consider your opinion. So please, next time you post, could you keep your language a little cleaner. I mean, you do want to make a point in your statement, don't you ? Consider my advice as a way to help you in making it.
Also I’d like to say that I mistakenly put the AZF terrorists in France in the same case as al Qaeda. I don't know much about AZF, so this was a hasty assumption. I don’t want to put a label on everybody that one or another calls terrorists, so I apologize for what I've wrote, it was not a good example.
2. Spanish people say that their former government withheld information from them and that al Qaeda was responsible for the bombings.
What have they found in the beginning ? That the bombs used in the massacre were of Spanish origin, resembling the type of explosives used by ETA. Later, there were calls from allegedly ETA members who said that the organization was not in fact responsible for the bombings, and the tape showing the al Qaeda take responsibility for this. From this only, how can one be sure that one or the other terrorist group was the real attacker ? Do we start believing the terrorists ?!
Now, Spain is ready to withdraw its troops from Iraq. I think the Polish Prime Minister is right when he's saying:
quote: Revising our positions on Iraq after terrorists attacks would be to admit that terrorists are stronger and that they are right (to pursue attacks).
And I can only applaud Poland's decision to maintain their troops there. How can the new Spanish Prime Minister say that he wants to take action against terrorists and at the same time start with a retreat due to a terrorist attack ? Does this make sense to anyone ? Well, to me it does not…
3. Wow, the election this year in US really gives the world some nice debates After seeing that he cannot gain advantage by saying that Bush's actions in Iraq were wrong, Kerry turns to show that in fact the Bush administration did not provide enough help to those fighting terror. I'm starting to think there's something wrong with the US if arguments like those stated by Kerry can pass by as reasonable ones ! I mean, Bush at least tries to fight terror ! Now that you cannot argue with that, say that he doesn't do ENOUGH ?!?
Almost OOC: Does anyone know an election in a country that was fought over with reasonable arguments ?!? By both (or all) sides…
4. As Sopwith already pointed it out, there's a thread started by Tzadic about what happened to the Czechs and Slovaks at the beginning of WWII. Here is a link towards it for an easier access: Sad day in Czech and Slovak history. That is not the only time when indifference towards other countries finally turned against the indifferent. Remember that the whole Europe knew that Hitler was preparing an army without caring just a bit about the interdiction to do so. What did England, France and other powerful European countries do ? Nothing. What did the Russians do ? They made a pact with the Germans in order to get there share of Europe and not interfere with Hitler's plans. What was the result ? A world war. The Germans did not even respect their pact with Moscow and instead attacked Russia. What did the Americans do ? Nut much. It was not their war, after all, was it ? But they finally understood it WAS their war too when Japan attacked. And it was a miracle that the Allies could react at all, given the damages created by the Germans in Europe and by the Japanese to the US fleet. The Allies finally one, thank <insert deity name here>. But I think it proved that "reactive warfare" is not really the best choice. Anybody sees the analogy with: "Better prevent than heal" ?
Example of the effectiveness of "proactive warfare": the Six-Day War. UN withdrew their troops from the region despite (or because of) all the signs that Israel was going to be attacked. Israel was left to stand alone against the Arab armies. What did they do ? Facing concentrated military actions from their neighbors they did not wait until invaded, they stroke FIRST. And they achieved their goal, they protected their country. I'm sure there are people on this forum with a whole lot more knowledge on this war than mine, as I only found out about it a couple of month ago, but I feel like I read enough about it in order to rightfully consider it a good example.
5. Tzadic provided us with some Czechoslovakian history, so please allow me to give you some information about my country too.
Romania was under communist ruling for about half a century. We fell under the Russian influence after WWII and some say we still haven't recovered from it. I don't know how many of you know this, but Romania actually took Hitler's part at the beginning of the war. The Romanian King was of German origin, so this contributed. The real reason was freeing a part of Romania taken by the Russians some time after WWI. Those times' rulers did not consider the fact that Germany's actions were in fact evil, and that it was not the time, nor the way to regain control of what rightfully belonged to us. The King himself admired the way the Germans reconstructed their economy, and also saw great values in the organization of the German army. Even with historic evidence towards what I wrote above, history is still mostly taught as if the Western powers through us in Germany's arms and we were the helpless victims. I wonder: how can you achieve a true united Europe when history is not seen the same way in all the countries ?
I'll try to get back to the subject, though: we were "bad guys" then, even if WE FOUGHT FOR GOOD REASONS ! Because we helped someone whose intentions were not at all right.
Anyway, at one point we joined the Russians and turned arms against the Germans. What did we get at the end of the war ? The status of attacking country. I wish the winning powers had been as kind as the US is when it tries to help the Iraqi people develop a free and democratic ruling after the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein.
Almost half a century later, in 1989, we rebelled against the communist regime. We made it out of a dark era. What do I wish ? I wish somebody had helped us sooner. I know it couldn't have been the case with the Russians being so powerful nearby, but I wish it nonetheless. And I think that Iraqis and Afghans are really lucky that Bush decided to go and fight those wars. One last wish: I wish the UN did their job for once and helped Bush in his war against terror, instead of putting barriers in front of him.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Corwin wrote: Rakeesh, I know you might have been mad about what aspectre said, but calling somebody a "jackass" will not make him more willing to consider your opinion. So please, next time you post, could you keep your language a little cleaner. I mean, you do want to make a point in your statement, don't you ?
Word. Not necessarily about cleaner language, but about the silliness of name calling in debates.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Spanish people's actions in electing a Socialist government because they were attacked by terrorists would equate to the Bush administration pulling out American troops from around the globe and saying sorry to Al-Queda after September 11. It disgusts me.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Spanish did not apologize to the terrorists.
Aside from that, we SHOULD have pulled some troops after 9/11 showed the dangers of our hegemony. That's one of the big things I was calling for - and if we'd done it, rather than do the exact opposite, I bet you'd be seeing a lot less sympathy for Al Qaeda these days, rather than a lot more.
quote:If this does turn out to be Al Qaeda, it's just going to be proof that the Iraq War provoked terrorism for Spain, rather than prevented it - making it a defeat in the War on Terror for Spain rather than a victory.
It will also be proof of an al-Qaeda link to Iraq, as the only reason to attack Spain would be for its support of and participation in America's (ahem) unilateral (ahem) invasion of Iraq.
posted
Prediction: other US allies will experience similar attacks, as terrorists will likely get the message that they can cow countries into changing hard-line anti-terrorist stances into Chamberlainesque mollifying progressivism.
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, I stand by my use of the Sudetanland Czechs as an example and I feel that it only works one way.
You preach peace, and that is laudible, but it has no real bearing on the world. And here's why in as simple of terms as I can put it.
1. Terrorists are willing to sew terror (hence the name -- capiche?), shed blood and kill in the name of a usually obscure political stance. They resort to criminal acts to cower a populace. That populace then lives in a disrupted society which then, in turn, forments more unrest. The hope is that in the light of this, the government in question will cave in to at least some of a terrorist group's requests.
2. Okay, so let's say a country does cave in to the demands, for example Spain tucking tail and running from Iraq before we even know if that was the reason for the bombings. What happens the next time the terrorist group wants another concession? They go back and do something just like the last time, because it gets results. More innocents die, the terrorists gain a bit more power, and the governments start losing their self respect and the mandate of the people.
3. Rinse, lather, repeat.
4. How do you stop it? By not giving in but by actively pursuing the terrorists, rooting them out and punishing them for their deeds. They have to be made to know that their actions, if violent, will have terrible repercussions on them and, in addition, will not result in them having ANY of their demands met.
5. What should terrorist groups do instead? Simple... take a page from the books of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Lec Walensa and others who used the peaceful power of a popular movement. These men, and many others, affected real and lasting change, accomplished their goals and kept violence to a bare minimum -- both caused by and inflicted upon their supporters.
Roll it around for a bit, it makes sense.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you stop it? By not giving in but by actively pursuing the terrorists, rooting them out and punishing them for their deeds.
This has demonstratably not worked, though. Just look at Israel, which repeatedly refuses to give in at all when there are terrorists attacks, and works had to punish terrorists. Do the attacks stop? No.
Terrorists believe their methods work whether or not we give them any reason to believe this. I suppose the historical success of violence in the past is enough proof them. The only thing not listening to them does is make them think they need bigger, more vast attacks. This has been the progression for Al Qaeda, and terrorism in general - as small suicide bombers and small attacks are more ignored, more and more elaborate attacks are devised.
If you disagree, just give me some examples where terrorists were convinced their methods don't work. Has there EVER been such an example?
quote:What should terrorist groups do instead? Simple... take a page from the books of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Lec Walensa and others who used the peaceful power of a popular movement.
Don't you think the terrorists can point to WWII as proof that this isn't enough when reacting to things like unprovoked invasions?
I mean, why would a country they consider to be The Great Satan care about such peaceful protesting? Or, more importantly, when has the U.S. shown it cares about such protests in the past? There was plenty of that sort of protesting well-publicized before the Iraq war all over the Middle Eastern nations. Did we listen to it? No, in fact, we made it clear we were going in regardless of what the rest of the world thought. Why are they supposed to believe peaceful protests will work against a country like that?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
As I have said quite a few times before, I think we need to cool it with the Hitler comparisons. To say that the terrorism threat is equal or even comparable to Hitler's threat is to inflate it beyond recognition. In Germany, Italy, and other fascist countries, the armed gangs became the rulers of a nation. Spain has not become an Islamic republic. Also, Nazi Germany was the most powerful country in the world, or at least in Europe. Al Queda is not the most powerful organization in the world.
We also need to backtrack. Waaay back. If there is a disparity between Spanish exit polls and elections, it can safely be said that the bombing influenced the elections and helped one side win. But it is an enourmous leap to say that one side running on a platform of pulling out of Iraq was decisive. If such is the case, I have not read about it in the newspapers, and I could not reach the link Corwin provided if that link provides decisive evidence. If not, I would think twice before jumping from "the bombings influenced Spain" to "the bombings influenced Spain to submit to the will of terrorists."
Lenin, in 1925, introduced NEP, which made Communist Russia more capitalistic. Would anyone here say that Lenin was submitting to capitalism? Certainly not! This was, in Lenin's own words, a "strategic retreat". Yes, even a man as radical as Lenin, one who was too radical even for most Bolsheviks, recognized shades of grey. The point is that Spain, not currently being an Islamic republic, has not submitted to terrorism by electing the Socialists any more than Lenin submitted to capitalism with NEP. Lenin was more unyielding than anyone on this forum; nobody on this forum has initiated a Red Terror recently. But he recognized shades of grey. He knew that sometimes he had to bite the bullet. But he did NOT yield. He made temporary compromise. You're allowed to break an egg to make an omelette. You're allowed to go farther away from the cheese to get closer to it. Spain is allowed to back out of Iraq if it thinks that is best for the country. It is, after all, a sovereign state. And the people are sovereigns. And I'm sure very few of the people would much appreciate an Islamic republic.
And besides,
Viewing the world in black and white Can only lead to an endless night.
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So many people here are stealing Chicken Little's wind. The Spanish vote, though maybe partly influenced by the bombings was not due to them, it was due to the fact that 90% of the Spanish people opposed going into Iraq in the first place and this is their first window of opportunity to replace the government that did not do what they wanted.
Lets all take a deep breath and repeat this phrase: "The change of government had little to do with the bombings, and more to the long-standing disenfranchisement of the Spanish people."
I heard an interesting new bit from CNN today talking about the fact that the so called email and video that claim it was an Al Qaeda attack have not been released to the public, OR verified. And while ETA has never denied reponsibility for an attack they've done before, or used methods like this, ETA's leadership was largely deposed by the previous Spanish regime and new, younger leaders without the same kinds of MOs, personal standards, and many other attributes have replaced them. I still think it was ETA, they were trying to influence the elections, but it didn't matter since the Spanish were already going to turn out their government anyway.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"The change of government had little to do with the bombings, and more to the long-standing disenfranchisement of the Spanish people."
Well that would be nice to say and believe, but it's simply untrue.
Aznar and his government were expected to win hands down before the bombings occurred. Afterwards, the Socialist party won. As most of the analysts will tell you, the bombings definitely did change the outcome of the election. Probably not so much the fact that the bombings happened as the fact that the outgoing gov't handed it so poorly. In that, the disenchantment of the Spanish people with the Aznar gov't did have an effect.
Zapatero is not a liberal leftist, though. He is a centrist-leftist. Spain will still have to deal with terrorism from the Basques and so will probably still have a non-negotiation policy with terrorists. Spain will still remain friends with the U.S. but will emphasis it's relationship with Europe more, making Europe a stronger world entity. The 1300 Spanish troops will probably still remain in Iraq as long as the Iraqis (or is it the UN?) take over security by June 30th and the UN thinks everything is cool.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is simply incorrect, pre-election polls showed 90% against the government on the issue of Iraq, and that the Aznar government would probably lose its majority.
quote:The party's offensive comes as polls also suggest it might lose the absolute majority won in 2000 by Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.
It was almost a given that on the issue of the bombings itself, that might have had the socialists and others forming a majority coalition, but the actual loss of Popular party seats were projected eariler to lead to the loss of their absolute majority.
quote:Spain's support of the American-led war in Iraq and its dispatch of 1,300 troops to Iraq were opposed by 90 percent of Spaniards, according to some polls. But the ruling conservative party remained in the lead until the bombings.
link. My source is the NY Times. Yours is the Washington Times, not the Washington Post, a slightly better newspaper. I think I win. And I have a better quote and show where your misleading 90% comes from.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, the NYTimes, they have something in common with the number 90% JNSB: it's the credibility they have lost. You see, all the mudslinging/libel, inaccuracies, and flat out lies that the paper has had to appologize for, make retractions for, and even settle in and out of court for in the past few years have truly dimished it as even a third rate news source, let alone the top ranking it once enjoyed. I noticed the article you cited did not take into account the specific intracies of the parliamentary system in Spain and the expected coalition building the Socialists would have done had they not had a clear majority themselves (it was plain the Popular party would not get its absolute majority no matter what). The 90% is not misleading since it is clear that amount of people were against Iraq, which turned out to be the galvanizing issue long before the bombings occured.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
After seeing that he cannot gain advantage by saying that Bush's actions in Iraq were wrong, Kerry turns to show that in fact the Bush administration did not provide enough help to those fighting terror. I'm starting to think there's something wrong with the US if arguments like those stated by Kerry can pass by as reasonable ones ! I mean, Bush at least tries to fight terror ! Now that you cannot argue with that, say that he doesn't do ENOUGH ?!?![[Wink]](wink.gif)
