[skio]

Simey, if your method of military action is the sole way to handle this (of course, deliberately ignoring all teh causes for attrocities), the nwh ydidn't work with the British when their colony of America wanted to break free? Maybe the Brisitsh shold have stuck at it for years, might have prevented the US coming into being and stopped those American terrorists.

Your argumetns are full of obfuscation, avoidance, and fail to even see the reality, all due to your bias for supporting your national agenda. Quite hyporctical, which is why in the end you will lose, liek the ROmans, like any other nation that does what you do. You destroy Al-Qaeeda, you'll just turn those citznes of those nations to keep up the struggle, how will you defend supressing all those peopels, in all thise lands, the world will only stand by so long while you bomb the cr@p out of them, and then you're allies will step away form you too. You have the might just now, but you have lost the vast majority of international opinion, not just amongst the peoples, the citizens, but within governments.

Tide will turn dude.

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Mr. Chamberlain went and visited Adolf. He negotiated with him and gave in to his demands in exchange for the promise of peace in the future.

He's got nothing to do with this discussion.

His failure to recognize that appeasement only makes an aggressor more aggressive has everything to do with this disucssion. Why do you think France is convening an emergency meeting of the EU leadership about this issue? They're concerned that this is going to turn into an epidemic, and their concerns are well-founded. If Al Qaeda sees they can enact their own regime changes via well-timed bombings, they're going to keep on doing it.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it and Europe is a notoriously slow learner.

[Spliffdaddy]

The 'cause' is that we're western.

You propose that we stop being western and adopt an Islamic society/government to appease al quaeda?

uh huh.

you first.

I'd rather die than have my country appease terrorists.

[skio]

One thing that many people see mto not want to think, is that many of these groups ahve legitimate reasons for using violence, it might be not to our liking, but if such desperate actions are taken, maybe they are born out of desperate situations. Look at the Palestinains, I would kil Israeli soldiers if I was Palestinain, and if my life was such sh!t for decades like theirs are, I;' msure I owuld strap a bomb to my waist and blow uyp a bus. Why? why not? take away someone's right to live, thier homes, their future, torture them, treat them as less than human and theirs your answer. Of course, living in a so-called civilised nation some might balk at this thoguht, that's because we live in comfort.

Be a Palestinain for two years, then come back and say you wouldn't bomb the sh!T out of those bastards.

Sp while terorism is hard to stomach, maybe, just amaybe that we are actually responsible for it.

Malcolm X said of kennedy's assasination, 'The chickens have come home to roost' This is the US getting pay back for being utter fuc[k]wits in the world

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by skio:
Simey, if your method of military action is the sole way to handle this (of course, deliberately ignoring all teh causes for attrocities), the nwh ydidn't work with the British when their colony of America wanted to break free? Maybe the Brisitsh shold have stuck at it for years, might have prevented the US coming into being and stopped those American terrorists.

Your argumetns are full of obfuscation, avoidance, and fail to even see the reality, all due to your bias for supporting your national agenda. Quite hyporctical, which is why in the end you will lose, liek the ROmans, like any other nation that does what you do. You destroy Al-Qaeeda, you'll just turn those citznes of those nations to keep up the struggle, how will you defend supressing all those peopels, in all thise lands, the world will only stand by so long while you bomb the cr@p out of them, and then you're allies will step away form you too. You have the might just now, but you have lost the vast majority of international opinion, not just amongst the peoples, the citizens, but within governments.

Tide will turn dude.

Originally posted by skio:
One thing that many people see mto not want to think, is that many of these groups ahve legitimate reasons for using violence, it might be not to our liking, but if such desperate actions are taken, maybe they are born out of desperate situations. Look at the Palestinains, I would kil Israeli soldiers if I was Palestinain, and if my life was such sh!t for decades like theirs are, I;' msure I owuld strap a bomb to my waist and blow uyp a bus. Why? why not? take away someone's right to live, thier homes, their future, torture them, treat them as less than human and theirs your answer. Of course, living in a so-called civilised nation some might balk at this thoguht, that's because we live in comfort.

Be a Palestinain for two years, then come back and say you wouldn't bomb the sh!T out of those bastards.

Sp while terorism is hard to stomach, maybe, just amaybe that we are actually responsible for it.

Malcolm X said of kennedy's assasination, 'The chickens have come home to roost' This is the US getting pay back for being utter fuc[k]wits in the world

These posts go beyond appeasement. You seem to be rooting for the other side.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by skio:
One thing that many people see mto not want to think, is that many of these groups ahve legitimate reasons for using violence, it might be not to our liking, but if such desperate actions are taken, maybe they are born out of desperate situations. Look at the Palestinains, I would kil Israeli soldiers if I was Palestinain, and if my life was such sh!t for decades like theirs are, I;' msure I owuld strap a bomb to my waist and blow uyp a bus. Why? why not? take away someone's right to live, thier homes, their future, torture them, treat them as less than human and theirs your answer. Of course, living in a so-called civilised nation some might balk at this thoguht, that's because we live in comfort.

Be a Palestinain for two years, then come back and say you wouldn't bomb the sh!T out of those bastards.

Sp while terorism is hard to stomach, maybe, just amaybe that we are actually responsible for it.

Malcolm X said of kennedy's assasination, 'The chickens have come home to roost' This is the US getting pay back for being utter fuc[k]wits in the world

I found osama bin laden

pay me.

[fizzlemynizzle]

jesus, skio. i suppose rape victims are asking for it, too.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The 'cause' is that we're western.

PSST!

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
PSST!

The founder of al quaeda claims their mission is to violently attack non-Islamic governments.

Did they tell *you* something different?

yes, folks, being western is a good enough reason for you to be killed. If it makes you feel better, you can even hate the US while the terrorists are killing you for being western.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
If Al Qaeda sees they can enact their own regime changes via well-timed bombings, they're going to keep on doing it.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it and Europe is a notoriously slow learner.

Now that you mention it...

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's not one or the other. Even in a conventional war, the police have a role. So using the war model allows the use of armed forces where appropriate, and the use of police, where appropriate.

If you define terrorism as a criminal matter, you define away your ability to use the military and related means, such as intelligence agencies. That's foolish.

In fact, you seem to agree with this. You say that you support the use of military force in "on the rare occasion, like Afghanistan." That begs the question, would you have supported the use of military force in Afghanistan before 9/11? Say, if you had received intelligence information that 9/11 was going to happen?

That's not true. You can retain the ability to use the military in law enforcement. It's allowed under international law and a lot of countries use the military and paramilitary forces in law enforcement.

As to your hypothetical, I don't see how invading Afghanistan would have stopped 9/11. Afghanistan was invaded because it failed to comply with an ultimatum from the UN to cease supporting terrorist activity. If such an ultimatum had been give before 9/11 and Afghanistan had failed to comply, yes, I would have supported the invasion although more reluctantly.

As I said, the problem with overt displays of force and the problem with inflicting collateral deaths of thousands of innocent people in the place where terrorists have support is that you tend to create more terrorists. One of the principal reasons why Afghanistan didn't cause a more major flare up of tension is the fact that 9/11 HAD happened. People everywhere had masses of sympathy for the US and everyone who associated themselves with the acts was rejected and they were prepared to accept the civilian deaths and destruction. Had Afghanistan been invaded in the absence of the 9/11 attacks without world sympathy, it would have been more difficult to market it as not being anti-Islamic. In that context, whilst I wouldn't have a problem with force being used, I might question the efficacy of war as a solution.

[Spliffdaddy]

"we're peacenik liberals that voted for Gore"

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The founder of al quaeda claims their mission is to violently attack non-Islamic governments.

Read linky! I addressed their goals in there too.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Did they tell *you* something different?

Nice try, but no I'm not an affiliate of AQ - not would I ever want to be.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Read linky! I addressed their goals in there too.


Nice try, but no I'm not an affiliate of AQ - not would I ever want to be.

I read the linky a while back. It's merely your opinion. It in no way refutes what the leader of al quaeda claims its mission to be.

edit:

no matter how badly you wish it to

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I read the linky a while back. It's merely your opinion. It in no way refutes what the leader of al quaeda claims its mission to be.

You still continue to ignore what created them.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terror-qaeda.html

The principal aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Furthermore, it is bin Laden's goal to unite all Muslims and establish, by force, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

Like I said in the other linky, I don't think it's worth disputing their goals. But you continue to ignore what led them to form such fanatical goals.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
You still continue to ignore what created them.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terror-qaeda.html


Like I said in the other linky, I don't think it's worth disputing their goals. But you continue to ignore what led them to form such fanatical goals.

So why did they attack Spain and not the USA?

Did Spain not understand what led al quaeda to form such fanatical goals?

[fizzlemynizzle]

from the infoplease link


Bin Laden also studied with radical Islamic thinkers and may have already been organizing al-Qaeda when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Bin Laden was outraged when the government allowed U.S. troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. In 1991 he was expelled from Saudi Arabia for anti-government activities.


This is the key and it is a misnomer. It was the United Nations, not exclusively the United States. Stop and think about what that means. The first Gulf War was UN endorsed, backed, sanctioned and approved. So why is Osama's beef with just the US? Because his motivator is not western culture, it's money and consolidation of power.


After his expulsion from Saudi Arabia, bin Laden established headquarters for al-Qaeda in Khartoum, Sudan. The first actions of al-Qaeda against American interests were attacks on U.S. servicemen in Somalia. A string of terrorist actions suspected to have been orchestrated by al-Qaeda followed (see sidebar), and in August 1996 bin Laden issued a "Declaration of War" against the U.S.


Again, another UN backed peacekeeping mission. US Marines were in Somalia aiding in the relief effort, and we didn't start fighting until Aidid began attacking UN forces after the Marines withdrew. We were asked to. Why again is the US singled out? What's the double standard?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
That's not true. You can retain the ability to use the military in law enforcement. It's allowed under international law and a lot of countries use the military and paramilitary forces in law enforcement..

Actually, in the US it is true. We have a statute called the Posse Comitatus Act.

More fundamentally, it affects which agencies have the lead, whether or not certain intelligence agencies are in the loop. How information is shared. Criminal investigations are more firewalled than intelligence investigations because of the 4th and 5th Amendments. A major factor is what level of proof you would need for a surveillance operation. In criminal law enforcement, probable cause is required. That's a higher level than is needed for counterintelligence surveillance.

It may be that other countries mix their criminal law enforcement and military more than the US does. But in the US, once you call something a criminal matter, you really have tied your hands.


On the hypothetical and your marketing theory, there is a basic problem. You support preemptive war, but only if supported by the UN. However, you think that war is too provocative of the enemy and would upset them. That kind of thinking infects the countries that have veto power in the UN. So you support preemptive attacks but only under conditions that you know full well would never mature. No matter how many ultimatums Afghanistan failed to comply with, you know that the UN would never authorize a preemptive attack on Afghanistan. So in practice, war for you is something you would only contemplate after thousands are dead in a 9/11 attack. And even then, you are reluctant and equivocating. That's the fundemental difference and why I don't think that you have ever accepted that this really is a war. Or at least, not one that really involves you.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
So why did they attack Spain and not the USA?

Did Spain not understand what led al quaeda to form such fanatical goals?

Have you bothered reading the thread?

Spain got involved in a war in the Middle-East and now has troops there. That is the reason(the only one that makes sense at least).

And the former Spanish leaders did not understand it while 90% of the spanish population did.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Logic:
Have you bothered reading the thread?

Spain got involved in a war in the Middle-East and now has troops there. That is the reason(the only one that makes sense at least).

And the former Spanish leaders did not understand it while 90% of the spanish population did.

Cool. I'm glad it's as simple as understanding the basis for al quaeda. For a minute there, I thought we had to actually comply with their wishes, as well as understanding their belief.

Yeah, OK, so I understand their goal now.

I still wanna kill 'em all. Is that acceptable?

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by Logic:
Have you bothered reading the thread?

Spain got involved in a war in the Middle-East and now has troops there. That is the reason(the only one that makes sense at least).

And the former Spanish leaders did not understand it while 90% of the spanish population did.

If the Spanish population so strongly disagreed with their leadership then why was the current (now former) leadership ahead in the polls prior to last week's bombings?

[benb]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
If the Spanish population so strongly disagreed with their leadership then why was the current (now former) leadership ahead in the polls prior to last week's bombings?

Hm.

[Logic]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
If the Spanish population so strongly disagreed with their leadership then why was the current (now former) leadership ahead in the polls prior to last week's bombings?

Because in Europe we don't elect our leaders from based on one issue like in the US. I know it's hard for you to understand that though.

3 Word Politics�

[Troll]

By way of a more general comment, I just want to say to all the Spanish people that read these boards, that I'm really impressed by your actions.

It seems to me only natural when you are in a state of fear to lash out with violence at the person that threatens you. It takes far more courage to reject violence, stand up for your ideals and move toward a peaceful solution; one that lacks the (false) sense of security that seeing tanks moving and soldiers deployed gives.

To me, the outcome of these elections shows that the terrorists have not won, that the Spanish people have not allowed themselves to be bullied into responding in the barbaric ways that the terrorists use; that they have not corrupted their system and their beliefs for the terrorists. Despite these attacks, the elections were not delayed. The Spanish people went out there and voted a party out of power because on an issue as important as the war in Iraq, it did not listen to them.

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by Logic:
Because in Europe we don't elect our leaders from based on one issue like in the US. I know it's hard for you to understand that though.

3 Word Politics�

You're right, apparently you now elect your leadership based on fear of further reprisal by terrorists.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Troll:
By way of a more general comment, I just want to say to all the Spanish people that read these boards, that I'm really impressed by your actions.

It seems to me only natural when you are in a state of fear to lash out with violence at the person that threatens you. It takes far more courage to reject violence, stand up for your ideals and move toward a peaceful solution; one that lacks the (false) sense of security that seeing tanks moving and soldiers deployed gives.

To me, the outcome of these elections shows that the terrorists have not won, that the Spanish people have not allowed themselves to be bullied into responding in the barbaric ways that the terrorists use; that they have not corrupted their system and their beliefs for the terrorists. Despite these attacks, the elections were not delayed. The Spanish people went out there and voted a party out of power because on an issue as important as the war in Iraq, it did not listen to them.

[Logic]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
You're right, apparently you now elect your leadership based on fear of further reprisal by terrorists.

No.

They elected someone who would not incite the terrorists.


I'm sorry that I couldn't get that down to three words....

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
BIt seems to me only natural when you are in a state of fear to lash out with violence at the person that threatens you.

Running away is equally natural. And understandable, of course.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
You're right, apparently you now elect your leadership based on fear of further reprisal by terrorists.

Might as well. Ain't like they elected folks based on their own beliefs.

So, um, tell me...

will the *future* government of Spain reflect the will of its people?(since the current one conveniently does not)

If yes: based on what historical evidence?

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Running away is equally natural. And understandable, of course.

Who's running away?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Logic:
No.

They elected someone who would not incite the terrorists.


I'm sorry that I couldn't get that down to three words....

?

Thanks for the laugh. Pansies all over really are the same color.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Might as well. Ain't like they elected folks based on their own beliefs.

How so?

[Logic]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
?

Thanks for the laugh. Pansies all over really are the same color.

Got anything worth the time it takes to read to contribute to this thread?

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by Logic:
No.

They elected someone who would not incite the terrorists.


I'm sorry that I couldn't get that down to three words....

Ah yes, the "ignore it in the hope it will go away" platform, often found hand-in-hand with the appeasement platform. That's worked really well for the world.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Logic:
How so?

90% of the population disagreed with the actions of their government, didn't they?

(psst. so why would the next government be any different?)

Should we assume that Spain's government does not speak for its citizens?

why the hell shouldn't we?

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:


will the *future* government of Spain reflect the will of its people

Spain's new government will only be in favor as long as they do what Al Qaeda wants. If they don't they'll just bomb some more trains to sway the voters. I hope Spain realizes just exactly what it signed up for. Ask the Saudis how the past 13 years have been.

[Logic]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
Ah yes, the "ignore it in the hope it will go away" platform, often found hand-in-hand with the appeasement platform. That's worked really well for the world.

Who's talking about ignoring the problem? How may colors does the US flag have? Just checking if the world really is Black&White in the US.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I still wanna kill 'em all. Is that acceptable?

They hate you. They want to kill you. Any cost.
You hate them. You want to kill them. Any cost.

What's the difference in goals?

Oh yeah, I remember - you're righteous.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
90% of the population disagreed with the actions of their government, didn't they?

(psst. so why would the next government be any different?)

Should we assume that Spain's government does not speak for its citizens?

why the hell shouldn't we?

The majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush. **** happens in democracies and republics.

Unless we would have direct democracies. But that brings up other problems.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
However, you think that war is too provocative of the enemy and would upset them.

No, you're not listening. I said it is provocative of people other than your enemy. When you invade, your enemy is always going to be provoked! If the aim of invading is reducing terrorism, then the last thing you want to do is create more terrorists by invading. The use of military force will not always create more terrorists but it is far more likely to produce terrorist recruits than more subtle measures. If the force is legitimate, people will not feel that an injustice has been committed. It will only be legitimate if procedures have been followed to give the people who are about to be invaded a chance to change and if the invading force has the backing of a broad community.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So in practice, war for you is something you would only contemplate after thousands are dead in a 9/11 attack. And even then, you are reluctant and equivocating. That's the fundemental difference and why I don't think that you have ever accepted that this really is a war. Or at least, not one that really involves you.

The circumstances in which I would support war are very clearly defined in the laws which are the result of thousands of years of civilisation. I support war as a last resort. I support war in self-defense (pre-emptively if there is an immediate and real threat of force) and I support war when it is authorised by the United Nations.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Logic:
How so?

In Spain it has usually been that the higher the participation rate in the elections has been, the better results socialists got. So if people stayed at home, it was mostly the left.
Yesterday more Spaniards voted, but you can not just simply say they voted against their beliefs.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
They hate you. They want to kill you. Any cost.
You hate them. You want to kill them. Any cost.

What's the difference in goals?

Oh yeah, I remember - you're righteous.

And ask Al Qaida's suppers and you will hear the same.

Interesting huh?

[kvm_mkdb]

It's really amusing how some here are justifying the electoral defeat of the right in Spain with 'cowardice towards the terrorist'... The PP lost because it has being lying to the people, by saying:

• That Iraq represented a threat (WMDs, etc.)
• That the world would be more secure by invading Iraq
• That ETA was behind the latest terrorist attack

That last lie was the most crucial.

Please stop with this 'reasonable people vote right wing' and 'the spaniards voted socialist to appease Al Qaeda' - it's childish and makes you look like bigoted sore losers.

[Spliffdaddy]

other countries have been telling us what to do for over 200 years.

good thing we haven't paid them any mind.

lots of chairwarming and lipmoving.

when something finally needs done, they'll turn tail and crawl to us.

again.

and afterward they'll offer us sage advice on what we can do to make our country better.

I'm only 37 and I've witnessed this a thousand times.

With any luck, reckon I'll witness it a thousand more.


terrorists will learn the word 'resolve' from Americans - the originators of doing what can't be done. I know 285 million fanatical mofos.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
No, you're not listening. I said it is provocative of people other than your enemy. When you invade, your enemy is always going to be provoked! If the aim of invading is reducing terrorism, then the last thing you want to do is create more terrorists by invading. The use of military force will not always create more terrorists but it is far more likely to produce terrorist recruits than more subtle measures. If the force is legitimate, people will not feel that an injustice has been committed. It will only be legitimate if procedures have been followed to give the people who are about to be invaded a chance to change and if the invading force has the backing of a broad community.
The circumstances in which I would support war are very clearly defined in the laws which are the result of thousands of years of civilisation. I support war as a last resort. I support war in self-defense (pre-emptively if there is an immediate and real threat of force) and I support war when it is authorised by the United Nations.

There is another mechanism that you are ignoring. Bin Laden talked about it when he said that people naturally back the stronger horse. You are hoping that if you show yourself to be the weaker horse, that people either will pity you, or being unthreatened by you. I don't think it works that way. The kinds of burning resentments we are talking about here are not fueled by anything specific that any of us do. Issues like the fact that the Iberian peninsula are no longer Islamic lands are every bit as pressing as present day issues.

Secondly, the numbers we are talking about are not large. This is one area where these is a significant difference between this and a conventional war. In a conventional war, you migh t worry about masses of recruits. In an unconventional war, there will always be enough nutcases around to fuel terorism.

What is important, though, it to drain the swamp that gives the extremists traction. The swamp begins and ends with the governments of the Middle East, many of whom have flirted with terrorism as a way of distracting attention to their own inadequacies. In the long term the answer is better governments in the Middle East. But you aren't interested in that and would no doubt call it imperialism. Instead, you'd rather continue to treat those thugocracies as if they are legitimate governments and blame the west.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
other countries have been telling us what to do for over 200 years.

good thing we haven't paid them any mind.

lots of chairwarming and lipmoving.

when something finally needs done, they'll turn tail and crawl to us.

again.

and afterward they'll offer us sage advice on what we can do to make our country better.

I'm only 37 and I've witnessed this a thousand times.

With any luck, reckon I'll witness it a thousand more.

"We shall show them the strength of the State, the resilience of the State! The State has no fear!"

[funkboy]

Would President Bush have been voted out, and the Senate/House been turned over to Democrats, if we had an election on September 13th, 2001?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by funkboy:
Would President Bush have been voted out, and the Senate/House been turned over to Democrats, if we had an election on September 13th, 2001?

No idea..

[Logic]

Originally posted by funkboy:
Would President Bush have been voted out, and the Senate/House been turned over to Democrats, if we had an election on September 13th, 2001?

Americans don't like to change presidents in the midst of a war. So probably not.

[benb]

Originally posted by Logic:
No.

They elected someone who would not incite the terrorists.


I'm sorry that I couldn't get that down to three words....

Which is incredibly one-issue, seeing as of last week before the attack the Socialists were losing in the polls by a hefty margin, and then one event and one promise turned it all around. . .