Madrid Attack

[KrustyKidd]

Can we blame terrorists yet or are we still on the bash the USA for everything kick? How are the winds blowing today?

[August1991]

I go with the bash USA kick. After all, everyone knew that Bush's actions were just going to provoke more terrorist acts. We should all be relieved that the Canadian government didn't do as the Spanish government and go along with Bush.

[maplesyrup]

ETA Basque separatists deny responsibility

It was 911 days after 9/11.

[KrustyKidd]

I go with the bash USA kick.  After all, everyone knew that Bush's actions were just going to provoke more terrorist acts. We should all be relieved that the Canadian government didn't do as the Spanish government and go along with Bush.

AS STATED BY MAPLESYRUP

"Terror strikes 911 days after September 11

By BEN ENGLISH in Madrid

March 13, 2004

A NATION was last night in mourning and an anxious world braced for more terror attacks, as terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the train bombs that killed at least 198 people in the Spanish capital."

OBL warned last October that "all the countries that participate in this unjust war" were legitimate targets, citing Britain, Spain, Australia, Poland, Japan and Italy.

OBL and his guys don't make any distinction between countries that backed the ousting of the Taliban and those that opted out of taking part in the ousting of Saddam. France, Germany and Canada are among the countries that are targets of his ire.

In November, 2002, a month after the Bali bombing, OBL mentioned Canada and five other countries (Australia, Britain, France, Germany and Italy) as targets because of their backing Bush.

[Black Dog]

In November, 2002, a month after the Bali bombing, OBL mentioned Canada and five other countries (Australia, Britain, France, Germany and Italy) as targets because of their backing Bush.

Which shows why we never should have hitched our wagon to the chimp in Afghanistan or bought into the unwinnable war on terror.

(edited to add)

Of course, before I get lumped into "Oh, you hate Bush/America/ freedom category, let me just say that the attacks were an appalling act and those responsible should be found and prosecuted under Spanish law or international law, if appropriate.

[KrustyKidd]

Which shows why we never should have hitched our wagon to the chimp in Afghanistan or bought into the unwinnable war on terror.

So you think that OBL would have left Canada alone? Were there not terrorists running in and out of Canada prior to 911? You feel that was OK but not OK to try and stop terrorism in any part of the world? We are a global nation and sooner or later would have stepped on some groups toes anyhow, if not for this than for that.

BTW, was outsintg the Taliban wrong? I mean, here was a group that supported terrorism and you didn't feel that we should have done something about them? Surely you must think that our country should take a stand somewhere, at sometime?

[maplesyrup]

No one in their right mind condones 9/11.

But there are reasons for these barbaric acts

And we (all countries) need to start properly addressing the reasons via the UN.

US foreign policy under Bush is a dismal failure. :angry:

[Black Dog]

So you think that OBL would have left Canada alone? Were there not terrorists running in and out of Canada prior to 911? You feel that was OK but not OK to try and stop terrorism in any part of the world? We are a global nation and sooner or later would have stepped on some groups toes anyhow, if not for this than for that.

BTW, was outsintg the Taliban wrong? I mean, here was a group that supported terrorism and you didn't feel that we should have done something about them? Surely you must think that our country should take a stand somewhere, at sometime?

The problem here is how the war on terror is being prosecuted. First, terrorism is a tactic, not an end unto itself. Terrorism has existed as long as there have been political causes. You can no more "stop terrorism" as you can stop the sun from rising. What you can do is address the political, social and economic issues that contribute to the propagation of terrorism tactics. In that, the west has failed in its war on terror.

[August1991]

Terrorism has existed as long as there have been political causes. You can no more "stop terrorism" as you can stop the sun from rising. What you can do is address the political, social and economic issues that contribute to the propagation of terrorism tactics. In that, the west has failed in its war on terror.

Change the word "terrorism" to "dictatorship" or to "wars" and imagine it is 1936. Now then, what would Black Dog be advocating? And what would be the consequence?

[Black Dog]

Change the word "terrorism" to "dictatorship" or to "wars" and imagine it is 1936. Now then, what would Black Dog be advocating? And what would be the consequence?

Or change "terrorism" to "halibut" or perhaps "hemoglobin" and see what happens. It makes about as much sense.

What's with the specious Nazi anaolgies today?

[August1991]

Or change "terrorism" to "halibut" or perhaps "hemoglobin" and see what happens. It makes about as much sense.

Gotta admit, you made me laugh. (Just for the helluvit, I think it was the halibut.)

I was thinking appeasement, if you catch my drift.

[Black Dog]

I was thinking appeasement, if you catch my drift

Oh I know. But it's still specious to compare terrorism in C21 to fascist militarism in mid C20. Am I suggesting negotiating with Osama bin Laden and his ilk? Nope. What I am suggesting is that terrorism be addressed by a combination of "draining the swamp" (ie. mitigating the circumstances where terrorism-promoting ideaologies are allowed to flourish) and rigourous law enforcement to deal with the actual perpatrators of terrorist actions.

[KrustyKidd]

Oh I know. But it's still specious to compare terrorism in C21 to fascist militarism in mid C20. Am I suggesting negotiating with Osama bin Laden and his ilk? Nope. What I am suggesting is that terrorism be addressed by a combination of "draining the swamp" (ie. mitigating the circumstances where terrorism-promoting ideaologies are allowed to flourish) and rigourous law enforcement to deal with the actual perpatrators of terrorist actions.

Then you are in agreement with Bush's method of giving Iraq to the people and providing people an opportunity to live a life free from oppression? Hopefully, this is what will happen and contiue to happen as the rest of the Arab world sees how Iraq flourishes. On the other hand, the US will contiue to wage physical war on the Terrorists and those who aid and abet them. And I thought you were Left Wing.

[August1991]

What I am suggesting is that terrorism be addressed by a combination of "draining the swamp" (ie. mitigating the circumstances where terrorism-promoting ideaologies are allowed to flourish) and rigourous law enforcement to deal with the actual perpatrators of terrorist actions.

That sounds like Afghanistan to me.

Bush's method of giving Iraq to the people and providing people an opportunity to live a life free from oppression?

Honestly, I don't see the connection between democracy in Iraq and fighting terrorism. Why Iraq? Why not Syria? North Korea?

Is it because we have to start somewhere and Iraq is as good a place as any? Well, then say so and move on.

WMD? The Blair argument was that Iraq maybe had WMD and it will maybe pass these WMD to a terrorist group. The risk of these "maybes" was enough to justify a war against Saddam.

In this scenario, who cares what government Iraq has as long as it doesn't pass WMD to terrorists.

Where does democracy in Iraq fit in?

[KrustyKidd]

Honestly, I don't see the connection between democracy in Iraq and fighting terrorism. Why Iraq? Why not Syria? North Korea?

Who is more likely to be a recruit for a terrorist organisation, a man with a job, money, no fear of being killed by his own gorvernment and given freedom of choice or a man who has nothing, never will have nothing and knows it? That is what is going on here.

Syria did not have the large amounts of oil that Iraq does. Oik provides money that will increase the chances of this working. It provides opportunity and money to spread around to all the people so they can buy things to make their life easier. If you tried this in Afganistan then you would be spending your own money for the next century to make this work.

Iraq had a ruler who was in violation of UN resolutions for the past decade, thereby providing a legal justification.

Iraq had a leader who intimidated and threatened his nighbors and was therefore not likely to be missed by them, at the very least, they would remain nuetral.

Saddam was brutal and unlikely to be missed by his own people and the US would probably encounter less resistance here than in most other Arab countries.

Iraq was a central Arab country, unlike Lybia or Yemen and would hopefully trade to those around her from this central location and there by export it's new values and culture to a maximum audience. Being centrally located makes it easier for television, radio, people to spread the good news of their new (and hopefully sucessful) society.

Iraq had an army that was beatable with minimal losses to US forces. It also had an added benifit of being an aggressive army that would provide a credible demonstration of American military might and thereby put other aspiring despots on notice.

This combination could only be found in Iraq, others came close but did not have the whole list. North Korea has nothing to provide for rebuilding, Syria's Assad is not hated by most, Lybia might be in violation of UN resolutions but is not located in the middle east proper.

Is it because we have to start somewhere and Iraq is as good a place as any? Well, then say so and move on.

Iraq is probably the most importent step, and the biggest but it is a beggining. Once the hoped for effect takes place over the next few years it will influence other countries on its own. The US and others will help this process along using military, money and aid.

[August1991]

Who is more likely to be a recruit for a terrorist organisation, a man with a job, money, no fear of being killed by his own gorvernment and given freedom of choice or a man who has nothing, never will have nothing and knows it? That is what is going on here.

IOW, the root cause of these terrorist acts is the fundamental problem of injustice in this world: We rich westerners have ignored the poor. They are understandably rising up against injustice, but we must listen and teach them the peaceful way.

And that explains perfectly why the WTC terrorists were from impoverished Saudi Arabia and not rich Syria.

[KrustyKidd]

IOW, the root cause of these terrorist acts is the fundamental problem of injustice in this world

Pretty much. I take it that you are alluding that it is the fault of the west. You seem to forget the middle men, the ones the US pays the big bucks to. Royal Saudi Family and all. As well, the ones like Saddam that make hundreds of palaces while the people starve. And the primitive religion that many Muslims adhere to that obliterates any progressive thinking and ways of doing things, you know, like taking advantage of the resources at your disposal like half the work force (women). Then again, the warlords who continue strife so that starvaation can be used as a weapon, the inability to think liberally so that differing factions can come together and build rather than destroy each other. Yes, there are a lot of reasons why things are messed up, many of them have nothing to do with the west.

We rich westerners have ignored the poor.  They are understandably rising up against injustice, but we must listen and teach them the peaceful way.

Very good. Go to the head of the class. That is what the US is doing, note the difference between the Gulf war before and after the ceasefire? This time, America didn't spend a month softening Iraq before hand. Bridges were left standing, power plants were left untouched, water treatment facilities the same.

And that explains perfectly why the WTC terrorists were from impoverished Saudi Arabia and not rich Syria.

Wow, good point! It would fit so well into a one dimensional argument that a leftist would use but there are a few problems with it. Know any village idiots from the eastern desert of Uzbekistan that can fly a plane, operate a computor, speak fluent English/German/French, flush a toilet, pass themselves off as a normal westerner or at least a funtional immigrant, not drool at a woman on the street? You know, mingle with American Society in a rudementry way? Next, OBL was Saudi, do you not think that he would have people he knew do this mission rather than a whole slew of people he didn't?

[August1991]

Rich does not mean smart. And poor does not mean stupid.

The WTC guys were mostly Saudis, from the south near Yemen, Najran, I think.

Syrians (and Lebanese) can pass much better in Western society than any rich southern Saudi.

So, why did these rich Saudis, uncomfortable in the West, kill themselves and alot of innocent people?

Because they were frustrated by the injustice in the world? Because they were raging against corporations dominating their life?

[KrustyKidd]

Rich does not mean smart. And poor does not mean stupid.

The WTC guys were mostly Saudis, from the south near Yemen, Najran, I think.

Syrians (and Lebanese) can pass much better in Western society than any rich southern Saudi.

So, why did these rich Saudis, uncomfortable in the West, kill themselves and alot of innocent people?

Because they were frustrated by the injustice in the world? Because they were raging against corporations dominating their life?

No, they believed that they were doing Allah's will. Why did they think that? Because they were told that over and over by people who enjoy killing people, people who enjoy having power over others, people who also think that they are doing the will of the poor masses, people who I am not so sure think that they are doing also the will of Allah.

So, why did these rich Saudis,

Were they rich? I didn't ever read a financial statement of the nineteen.

[August1991]

Listen, KrispyKritter, I think we're saying the same thing in different ways.

Were they rich? I didn't ever read a financial statement of the nineteen.

They were not impoverished. I mean that I don't think they were motivated by a sense of injustice.

No, they believed that they were doing Allah's will. Why did they think that? Because they were told that over and over by people who enjoy killing people, people who enjoy having power over others, people who also think that they are doing the will of the poor masses, people who I am not so sure think that they are doing also the will of Allah.

"They were told? Over and over?" God knows what motivated these guys. What they did was a Beirut car bomb, but on a much bigger scale. How do you stop people like this? That's the dilemma. Why did it stop in Beirut? The Syrians moved in, serious.

I think Bush did the right thing in Afghanistan. Iraq? I don't know.

[KrustyKidd]

"They were told? Over and over?" God knows what motivated these guys. .

WORLD CONFLICT QUARTERLY

Bin Laden, and other Islamic extremists like him, hold the United States responsible for almost every tragedy or calamity that has effected the Moslem world in the twentieth century.  Bin Laden preaches that United States cultural and economic imperialism is directly responsible for the social, economic, and political problems effecting Moslem nations.  Bin Laden believes that the United States economic and social imperialism has caused Moslem governments to stray from the path of true Islam.  Bin Laden argues that Moslem independence and God's blessings can only be brought back to the Islamic world by returning to fundamental Islamic principals and the rule of Islamic law.  .

[August1991]

KrispyKreme,

Beirut Car Bomb. As we say in Quebec, that's it, that's all.

[KrustyKidd]

Krispy Kreme? I know you ran out of real points to argue with four posts ago but why broadcast it with moniker mangling?

How do you stop people like this?

Take away their resources. Money, recruits, operating and training bases. That is part of the reason the US took action in Iraq. If your memory is short, scroll up, here is the exerpt from my post where I explained this before you started nit picking and babbling bullshit for lack of solid arguments.

Iraq is probably the most importent step, and the biggest but it is a beggining. Once the hoped for effect takes place over the next few years it will influence other countries on its own. The US and others will help this process along using military, money and aid.

[August1991]

Sorry, KrustyKid (I have a sense of humour, and with your moniker, I assumed you did too.)

Take away their resources. Money, recruits, operating and training bases.

You sound like a bureaucrat!

Several posts ago, you noted an "eastern Uzbekistan desert". Do you know anything about Uzbeks? (Quick, go check on the Internet.)

I have nothing against bureaucrats. It's just that I genuinely think that the WTC planes were just big car (truck) bombs - the same that destroyed the US Embassy in Beirut.

How do you stop people like that?

The Syrians occupied, seriously, Lebanon. Or, maybe the Lebanese got tired/bored of killing each other. I don't know.

Bush was right in Afghanistan. Iraq, I don't know. (The Israelis invaded Lebanon in 1982, but that didn't stop the car bombs.)

[KrustyKidd]

I do have a sense of humor and that is why I chose that name. Did I offer to service your mother? No, I also didn't ridicule your name and matter of fact, if you ever PM senior members and ask, you will find that I never make fun of names as some are sentimental to the person using it. Mine, no, I use it on my own forum as administrator and on all other forums I am on. It is a hard 'K' twice which is a classic comedian method of getting an extra laugh from linguistics. Names are a persons identity here and to mangle it is to insult the person. Do it with a good argument instead.

To answer your question Timbuktu, no. It was a loose example, I figured you understood that. No, I am not a

bureaucrat. I own three trucks and employ three people and myself, I am ex Army, Airborne! And enjoy a fairly active life with a few intresting diversions.

I have nothing against bureaucrats. It's just that I genuinely think that the WTC planes were just big car (truck) bombs - the same that destroyed the US Embassy in Beirut.

No, they were airplanes with terrorists at the controls. That, I thought was understood by the other 6 billion people on the planet anyhow. Cars and trucks are vehicles that travel on the surface of the earth (unless of course they are dropped from an aircraft or driven off a pier or a ferry) Then you might mistake them for a submarine, or a belt bomb if the visual conditions are not optimal.

That was humor BTW. I know what you meant but disagree. It was spectacuar! Lots of smoke, lots of fire engines, lots of death, lots of panic! Lots of news coverage. For a terror effect, they could have done more by shooting school buses full of kids all over the country when they pulled into school yards that morning. It would have more of a financial effect as parents would stop sending their kids to school. Nobody would feel safe, not just those living in cities. People would stop going to work and stay home with kids, productivity would go down, the economy would take a big hit. They probably thought of that but it wouldn't have the visability and news coverage, that's what it was all about. Publicity.

How do you stop people like that?

The Syrians occupied, seriously, Lebanon. Or, maybe the Lebanese got tired/bored of killing each other. I don't know.

Bush was right in Afghanistan. Iraq, I don't know. (The Israelis invaded Lebanon in 1982, but that didn't stop the car bombs

It's a complicated problem and it has a complicated solution. Denial of resouces as I put forth before and then there is a little hammering involved, some intelligence work and pressure on countries that harbor them. A lot of progress has been made in the last couple years. One sign is the amount of terrorists that are turning up in Iraq. Terrorists like to shock people by bombing civiliians, preferably western ones. Why are they killing Iraqis? Easy, if Iraq becomes a country that has a reason for the population not be miserable they are less likely to embrace fundementalism and accept terrorism. They might even export their good fortune as I spoke of earlier and further erode their operating base. This is a major battle for hearts and minds taking place, hearts and minds that terrorists depend on. These are things that neither side can afford to lose. If it falls, the Middle East will become fundementalist I believe. That's why the US is pouring so much into it and why terrorists are so active against everybody. If they lose, they may begin the long road to obliteration.