*DAMN R6 Forum

Nobody seems to have started a thread on this topic yet, so here goes...

From the AP>>>

A series of bombs hidden in backpacks exploded in quick succession Thursday, blowing apart four commuter trains and killing at least 192 people and wounding 1,200. Spain blamed Basque separatists but a shadowy group claimed responsibility in the name of al-Qaida for the worst terrorist attack in Spain's history.

 Panicked commuters trampled on each other, abandoning their bags and shoes, after two of the bombs went off in one train in the Atocha station in the heart of Madrid. Train cars were turned into twisted wrecks and platforms were strewn with corpses. Cell phones rang unanswered on the bodies of the dead as frantic relatives tried to call them.

 "March 11, 2004, now holds its place in the history of infamy," Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar said.

<<< Source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040311/D818EM8G1.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040311/D818EM8G1.html)


Here's another article that probes who might be responsible for the attacks:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3501364.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3501364.stm)

Here's some background on Spain:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sp.html (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sp.html)

Here's some background on Eta:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3500728.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3500728.stm)

Personally, I think it was Eta (or at least a branch of Eta) working with Al-Qaeda who wrought the carnage we witnessed today.

I think it is punishment for being involved in Iraq from the resistance whoever they may be. ETA has not done attacks like this, but maybe it was them.

Traditionally, Eta hasn't attacked civilians, except for once, and they apologized for that. But who knows? Maybe they found God (or Allah, as the case may be)...

The london based Al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper got a email, where a group introducing themself as Abu Hafs al-Masrin brigade announced that they had done the bombings in the name of al-qaida. They also threatened the united states by saying that a new terrorstrike was 90% done.

The spanish police also found a van with bomb detonators and a arabic koran verses on a audiotape.

http://www.helsinginsanomat.fi/tuoreet/artikkeli/1076152180012

Read that in the newspaper, also found a online version...wrong language though.

Pointing out the obvious:

1) Doesn't sound like the separatists, even if nobody else had taken credit.

2) March 11 is 6 months from Sept 11, may or may not be significant.

3) Other than being very Catholic, Spain is a weird target.  I wonder why Madrid (yes I noticed the "Crusaids" connection, but that seems as loose as being March 11th).

4) I hope a little good can come of this, and everyone can see what a danger these assholes are, and not just to the USA.

Well as long as my country doesnt support the USA I feel save :)

They chose Spain because the Spanish Government in Madrid was one of the most vocal and proactive supporters of the war in Iraq. Not to mention they are one of the few countries that have military personel in Iraq and contribute a large amount of funding and logistics to the war. ETA wants independence for the Basques, they are in my opinion freedom fighters and do not do civilian attacks. Once they did one and now that I am reading the rest of all of your posts I find out someone already said this so I will shut up.

Al-quaeda said it wil retaliate against supporters of Bush Iraki war.
Spain (at least the PM, 80% of population was against the war), along with UK, were the two major allies of Bush.
It doesnt look weird anymore, does it !

I tell you what....

If America and it's allies are doing things that Al-quaeda is against, then I would say we are doing something right.

i do agree with ya Ghost.

Thanks for the less than educated remark.

Australia would be #3 in supporting the war, as they, like the UK, took a more active role.  Poland, Japan, Spain and others have gone in after, in a peacekeeping role.

The Spanish troops are attached to the Polish troops.  Poland has a much much larger presence than Spain does, and was there earlier, so wouldn't they be a more likely target?

In my opinion, this has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with Al Qaeda being against everything western. While not reported in the media, there have been numerous terrorist attempts foiled post 9/11 in almost every western European country - it was only a matter of time before Al Qaeda connected and hit the proverbial home run.

As for that group claiming responsibility, they did not do it. That group claims responsibility for a lot of crap like the blackouts in the US last year...the odds are that the "group" is nothing more than a single man with a computer and a fax machine.

Added on: All Al Qaeda has done here is to piss off the populace of another nation. Much like 9/11 did to the US, the numerous attmpts in Russia did to the Russians, and now the metro bombings of Madrid, terrorist attacks bring unity within a nation, and a will to dole out the ultimate retribution to those responsible. If you don't believe me, flip on the tube and look at the millions of Spaniards marching through the streets.

It now seems that the spanish government, and therefore most likely the US and UK governments too, knew something was about to happen.

My college has about two dozen students and staff traveling in spain right now. One of our staff members was actually at the station the day before the bombings. She noticed that day that security was extra tight, tighter than she'd seen it before. Everybody boarding the trains had to go through metal detectors and have their luggage screened. This seems to indicate that the powers that be had some indication an attack of some kind might occur.

I consider this information to be encouraging. This means that our information gathering network is effective enough to know that this was about to happen. Though, sadly it was not enough to prevent it's occurance.

Along with the Dutch tyvm.

Yeah, but I didn't want to bring up the little submarine (was it yellow?)  =D.

Yes, even the Dutch would seem to fall into the "better target" category than Spain.

I hope they can get some more solid leads and track down the fuckers.  

I doubt that ETA has anything to do with this. They usually attack goverment officials or target and give a warning over the phone. That they would want anything to do with islamic terrorists is pretty hard to believe, since none of their goals overlap and they are two completely unrelated organizations. My guess is its al quaida or some al quaida imitators thats behind this. THere was also a twin bombing similar to this, which i think eta also denied, during the summer.
Regardless of what spain's policies were on iraq, it is a tempting target to islamic terrorist because its near north africa and has a significant arab and muslim minority. When turkey or saudi arabia got bombed by islamic terrorists did it have anything to with their refusal to help the US in iraq? Why have Poland or Estonia not been attacked even though they helped out? Spain was a good target in europe for terrorism to begin with and iraq wasnt the deciding factor, imo. And cossack, i don't think the ETA are freedom fighters at all. Most basques in spain are in favor of an autonomous federal state within spain,which they have, and not a separate country. There is virtually 0 sympathy left for them or batasuna- theyre political party- in the basque country. Calling them freedom fighters is like calling Microsoft a charitable organization. Were the left-wing terrorist of the 70s in Germany and ITaly also freedom fighters? Alaric, basques are pretty nationalistic and usually quite racist so i doubt they would work with arabs or convert to islam. then again, who knows...

Just a little news update regarding this: Spanish Authorities have Arrested five men... 3 of which i believe are morocan and one of indian nationality...

I sevearly doubt this is ETA... Everything points in the opposite from ETA despite the goverment wanting to make people believe it was ETA for use as political gain in these elections... Everything points to a Al-quieda style group... I hope the fuckers get caught. I don't know if you guys have seen the images but it was pretty shocking... bodies everywhere, half burnt corpese of litle babies shreded in a mangle of steel and concrete... Its hard to watch some of the images without feeling so so sick.

well the ETA has worked with the IRA in the past and not that there is a connection, but we know that mohammad atta (one of the 9/11 hijackers) was in madrid for some time before he came to america. and calling them freedom fighters makes me kind of sick. they are terrorists. it clearly looks like al quada, but whenever there is a terrorist attack in spain the ETA is the prime suspect. especially when the explosives they find are the kind the ETA has used in the past.

i can't find the link, but BTs eight showed a link the other morning stating the the spanish government caught a van in madrid a couple of weeks ago loaded with explosives. that van belonged to the ETA. groups like this have worked together in the past and it wouldn't suprise me if al quada and the ETA worked together on this one.

I would be surprised if ETA did this. Why would they? look at the publicity now... IT would be hard to get a worse name for your cause than this... ETA are by far no means freedom fighters - They are more like the IRA - a very small group who will not use political methods but would rather murder hundreds of innocent people in the name of their 'freedom'. And for the record i think there is a very big difference between this and the palistinian bombers... although its still pretty fucking god damn sick.

after recent news (both claims of AL-quaeda, ppl arrested, the video tape, plus the detonators that are not ETA-like), it becomes more and more likely to be islamic related.

Of course Spanish gov wants ETA instead of AQ to be responsible, coz there is an election going on. And if, as stated in the second claim by Al-quaeda, those bombings were a "retaliation" against Spain for its support to the Bush admin and his wars in Irak and Afghanistan, that would be very bad news for the PM Aznar.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3510142.stm

These cowardly attacks in Madrid are just disgusting and should be condoned in every way.
The way Aznar and the Spanish government has tried to use these
Events to gain political favour by swiftly blaming the ETA, is very bad karma.
Just after the attacks the Spanish intelligence services already suspected Islamic
Fundamentalists. But Spanish government failed to include these speculations
In their press releases and continued with the ETA lead.
My feelings are with the hundreds of families who lost a loved one.

As for taking the guilty ones to justice, all for it.
But for every terrorist caught or killed there a ten of these fuckers who will take their place.
Waging WAR against terrorism just creates more terrorists

Someone somwhere (points no fingers) said somthing along the lines of how they were proud their country was going to war in the name of peace... or somthing along those lines.. like KGB said, for each one captured, and made a martyr, another 10 step forward into his/her shoes.
You cannot win a literal war on terrorism. You can however in some situations solve the issues that cause terrorists to do what they do... Wars have to have two sides, if you fight someone will always fight back

One small correction for you and BFG.

Waging war against terrorism the way it's usually done, just creates more terrorists.  I say the gloves come fucking off.  Start to fight dirty.  Cut the heart out of the cause.  Fear is a much more stable emotion than love is, time to make the terrorists afraid.  Time to give them a little "terror" of their own.  There are things worse than death, fuck "cruel and unusual", use them.  For instance, if these were Native American terrorists, instead of a nice burial after execution, mutilate the bodies and have it publicly known.  So that they know if they are caught, it's not paradise they will find from being a martyr.  Same principle applies to most religious zealots.  Just use the tools that they have been brainwashed with against them.  They think dying in jihad gives them a ticket to paradise, I say revoke that ticket, using whatever means necessary.  Brutality as a tool.

It's not like there is a choice to fight terrorism or not.  The only other choice is to surrender to it, and what will that accomplish?  I'll tell you, more terrorists that think it's the way to get things accomplished.  

We all have to fight terrorism, or it will become the norm.  

bucc for pres in '04!  :D

In other news. The Spanish Prime Minister Anzar (however you spell it in the latin alphabet) was just defeated by the socialist canidate. This makes me think, did he let this terror attack go through the cracks for political gain? The expected response from the people was that they would start waving flags like the American's did in 9/11, however it seems the Spaniards resolved this via ballot box. Maybe Spain will pull its support? We will soon see what happens to this "Coalition of the Willing" when the inhabitants of these states start to vote.

Sorry, but if there were some conspiracy to ignore terrorist attacks to get votes, then he'd be one of the dumbest people on the face of the earth.  First, defeating the attacks would have been better for votes, second, he didn't put enough spin on it afterwards.  As a matter of fact, no campaigning was done afterwards.

No, the terrorists themselves may have been motivated by the elections, but I don't see the gain from the government letting them happen, not when they didn't even try to press the political gain from it.

Well lets put it in a hypothetical situation. Say if Dubya let 9/11 happen right before the 04 elections (it wouldnt be 9/11 it would be something less catchy like 10/30 or something but you get my drift). Now would his approval ratings skyrocket like they did in real life? Didnt the right wing canidate Anzar try to pass it as ETA and somewhat unsuccesfully mobilize Spain to go on a crusade against the ETA? They did try to put a political spin on it but they failed.

However that was a minor point in my post and it was mostly me thinking outloud. The point that I give in the post that should be taken into consideration is the fact about elections in other countries. When opponents to the War say that the international community is against the war they are not talking about the governments of other countries, but the people in other countries. England's war poll was something like 30-70 and rose to 50-50 when it started. A poll among Spaniards put them at a 90% disapproval of the war. Similar numbers can be found in Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Lithuania, etc. Many of these governments may be replaced in the next election in those respective countries.

yup aznar was voted out. and most likely the bombings played a big part in the elections. the socialist party won the election and they plan to pull all spanish troops out of iraq. thus giving the terrorists exactly what they wanted. terrorists 1 spain 0.

Yes, the Socialists in Spain didn't win this, the terrorists did, because Spain did exactly what the terrorists wanted.  Which goes back to an earlier point I had...if the terrorists don't like something, then I'm all for it.

On another note, following the lines of Buccs suggestion...

Let's torture these fuckers on national television for all the world to see....especially show it on that Arab news channel that runs all of Bin Ladin's speaches all the time.  I assume that doing this would make the terrorists fly out of the woodwork in mass desparate acts of terrorism, at which time we catch them and torture a new group of terrorists.  If you inflame the terrorists so badly that they strike out in provoked anger in this way, you will have a much better chance of catching them because they wont have spent years piecing together an act of terrorism like they did on 9/11.  When I was a Ranger in the Army, we actually thought out some of these scenarios but of course at that time (early 90's) they were considered a little excessive (we were working with the SAS and the Israelis at the time who thought the idea had merit).

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

Surprise surprise i picked that line out eh? Firstly, bucc i do agree on one sense, that a conventional war against terrorism does not work, has not worked (look at afgansistan).. i would say iraq but that wasn't about terrorism. hell iraq is the only damn country in the world to want to have absolutly and totally no link with al-quida or binladen.. anway.

The more you make people feel they are being persecuted the more likely they will want to resist..

If you regard torture as an option im not sure what to say, other than you are simply doing to others what you are fighting to stop them from doing. What makes you any better than them? The torture that people have suffered and suffer in this world is horrific, please don't even talk about civilised goverments etc using this as a 'techneque' to fight terrorism... its like saying lets be terrorists to fight terrorists.

However more effective ways to prevent these attacks have to be found.... It cant go on like this.

We could also repeal the Constitutional rights of freedom of speech, press and assembly, to make it easier for our government to find terrorists. Then we could make a series of work camps for all Muslims in the United States, in which they are forced to watch Mel Gibson's Passion Of The Christ, over and over again. After that we could start our own 'final solution' to terrorism, in which all suspects are immediately beheaded, and their corpses could be strung up on the Washington monument.

Terror=more terror, War=more terror, until there is a Palestinian state, a resolution to the situation in Kashmir, the removal of U.S. troops from the middle east, and the removal from George W. Bush from the presidency, there will be terror attacks that increase in destructive nature during the course of time.

Actually, we can't say if that conventional war on terrorism has been successful or not.  There hasn't been an attack on the US or UK, but it's not like there have been that often either, so we can't actually draw an intelligent conclusion either way, just speculate.


Nope.  Wrong.  Thanks for playing.

Torturing a fucking criminal asshole like that is not the same as leaving bombs on trains.  Sorry, I don't buy it.

These people expect to die, yes.  These people are willing to die in most cases, for their cause.  So you simply executing them isn't enough.  You have to make the cost too high.  There just isn't another choice.

If you give in, terrorists win, if you don't fight, terrorist continue, if you fight not to win, terrorists continue.  It's simply a lack of options.  Make it too costly to be a terrorist.


Bin Laden has suffered?  Really?  I'd love to suffer with his money sometime.

As for the foot soldiers, fuck them.  I have sympathy for those that endure the suffering.  I do not have sympathy for those that resort to terrorism.  They are no longer human.  You plant a bomb on a train full of innocent, unsuspecting people, you are no longer a victim in any sense of the word in my book.  Fuck 'em.

BTW, I'm also for public floggings.  I think society has gone way too soft on criminals.  That there needs to actually be negative reinforcement, not just incarceration.  Pain can be a great teacher.

You do realize that I'm one of the foremost haters of the so-called "patriot act" around here, right?

Due process and cruel and unusual punishment are two completely different things.  And we redefined "cruel and unusual" in the last 50 years.  When it was written, stocks and floggings were not considered cruel or unusual.


Pardon me, but bullshit.  Terrorism was here long before Bush.  And it's not all the middle east.  Don't forget that 9/11 was the thrid time that just the World Trade Center was targeted.  Look at the Oklahoma City bombing, that had nothing to do with Palestine, Kashmir, the Middle East, or George W Bush.

Terrorism is an old tool, used by many countries, religions, governments, groups, et al.  As long as a small group of people is willing to commit mass murder to see that it's agenda is met, we'll have terrorism.  Until the price becomes too high that is.  That's the key.

I don't care if Israel picked up shop and moved to North Dakota out of the Middle East, terrorism would still be a fact of life, just over other causes (or does nobody realize all the other terrorism out there, or the fact that some of these fanatics don't care about Palestine, it's just an excuse, they'd hate and kill the jews anyway, or find another group to hate (like the different sects of Islam *cough * Iraq * cough*)

Also, if Israel did pick up and move, it would just encourage the terrorists that their methods work.

Just my opinion, but i don't think Bush's unilateralist argessive foreign policy will help to quell the scourge of international terrorism, especially for future generations. Were the other two attacks on the twin towers not from Islamic fundamentalist groups? As for the Oklahoma city bombers, their motivation is not nearly as ideologically palatable to be a significant terrorist movement.

What about a large group of people willing to commit mass murder to see that it's agenda is met, would that still be terrorism, or could we just call that war? When will the price be too high? When there's no one left to kill? Just asking, you seem to have al the answers I don't.

I don't think Bush's fascism will help, no.  I think Bush is an asshole.


The Towers were attacked by Islamic Fundamentalists, but not when George W was president (the older attacks both lacked the strength to actually bring the towers down).  But my point was, it wasn't because of George W.


Ideologically palatable has nothing to do with it's significance in my opinion.  Did they kill lots of lots of innocent people in a senseless attack to promote their agenda?  They are terrorist in my book.  Thankfully, their movement died off with their capture.  Though the Michigan Militia lives on.


Not all the answers, just some.

As for a large group of people willing to commit mass murder to see it's agenda met, I call them Nazi's =D.  

There is a difference between countries invading countries, armies fighting armies.  When Iraq invaded Kuwait, it was not terrorism, it was war (along with quite a few war crimes).  When one of the Islamic sects of Iraq starts gassing, burning, and other ways killing another islamic sect in Iraq, most of which are civilians, many women and children, that's terrorism within that country.


But really, is there another option that will stop terrorism?  Other than making it too big a price for them to pay?  It's not a great solution, but it is a lack of options.

Just wanted to voice my support for the last few posts bucc has made in this thread. I don't have anything else to add to the discussion at this point but I wanted people to know he's not standing alone here.

.... No is spetnaz, athoughough i agree with elements of what bucc says.

Ok. so.
Of course, everbody awaiting the death penalty in this world must deserve it, there can't be guys say on the US death row who got stitched up, who's defence lawyers were totally incapable, who just didn't get the fair trial... or a mistake was made with evidance... that could never happen could it........
      So just the 'terrorists' are going to get tortured and excecuted? thats nice. And that would be exactly by who's definition of a 'terrorist'? the US? Not being funny but China is allready doing what we talk about... and so does israel.. infact israeil has a 'secret' base for *cough* interregation.... Some of the accounts and physical endurance of those men women, kids who have been withheld and 'interrorgated' beggers belive. of course everyone says it dosn't exist exept for the few people to have spoken about it, the pictures of it, and the indepth research done by parties into its existance.. but hey if the UK won't comment, the US veto's and Israil refuses its existance it can't exist can it becasue that would be daft!
 And i sure most of will you will know about China's record regarding torture... and the number of people that are excecuted. However what perchance will stop countries from following suit in the torture and excecution of what they deem to be 'terrorists'.... As so many peoplle here love to say, america is the worlds only super power, and most recently it likes to make sure that everyone is aware of that... and that their lives are made a little more difficult if they don't...be it economic, political or physical etc... And people (and they are and have done in other situations) will simply say "well america, the defenders of democracy do it so it must be ok"...


Yes... And nobody exactly wants to see the nazi ideology back again... Mass murder in the goal of an ideal.

Don't get me wrong, firstly im not saying lets roll over on our backs while these guys run around with bombs blowing the hell out of the world, but then again i don't see torture and excecution as the answer... With everything in life, its always a better idea to solve a source of a problem once and for all, rather than deal with the produce of the sorce again and again and agan.

Back to the problem... torture the terrorists... well how u going to do that if they have allready blown themselves up? You'd need better intellegence and to know what they were going to do.. And stop them before they blow themselfs, a towerblock, a train, and a lot of people up...  or hey here's an idea, you could try and find the sorce of the terrorism and address that problem.

I don't think torturing and publicly displaying the 'pieces' is ever going to be an option, firstly the rest of the civilized world will hopfully outcast you for it, secondly it will outrage those behind the terrorists and who support their ideas so much that they will double their efforts...

We shouldn't roll over and do nothing... but we can't get the idea that they will too.

So much of this is theoretical and hyperthetical thinking of course..

How do you solve the source problem that some people are just fucking animals?  Riddle me that.  Sorry, but I don't buy into the claim that these are all poor, hungry, downtrodden people that have no hope, that's bullshit.  Deep bullshit.  How much money does bin laden have?  Have the Irish really been treated that bad, or is the cause just romantic?  Look at the home grown terrorism we have here in America, most examples are not from the poor (though that's where the neo nazi's do tend to recruit from).  

Before you can talk about curing the source problem BFG, you sure as hell better know what the source problem is.  Terrorism was going on in the Middle East before Israel came along.  

BTW, for you history buffs out there, when Israel was much more brutal in it's dealings (and oh man, were they worse) they had much less of a problem.  I'm not saying that their methods were right (removing any village that the terrorists came from, and stuff like that), but we did see that it was pretty damn effective back then.  While they are still brutal, they are not to that degree anymore.

One more point.  Just because I say make it too costly to be a terrorist, doesn't mean I'm for suspending the rights of individuals BFG.  If you've ever read my stance on the Patriot Act, you should understand that.  But there are cases where we've caught the terrorist.  We do have some in custody.  And in the case of the Oklahoma City bombing, yes, execution was too soft.  Generally, I'm against the death penalty, both because you can kill the wrong man, and because it doesn't work as deter people like it's meant to, because it takes so damn long and is done behind closed doors.  

But in the case of these guys that kill hundreds and thousands of innocent people, ON PURPOSE (not like collateral damage in a war, these were TARGETS), death is too good for them.  Sorry, but this isn't really a gentile world, and I'm not a gentile guy.

So when you have animals that believe killing hundres or thousands (or millions even in some cases), the cause isn't because they live in a shit hole.  Not because Israel  has taken land and their people are fighting them.  No.  That's not the root cause.  That's cause to start a war.  That's cause to attack the military.  That's cause to move the fuck out.  But not to set off a bomb on a train.  Or in the middle of the market, or in a school, or a church.  Once they've crossed that line, they've given up their rights to be a human in my book.  And you now use them to set an example why nobody else should follow in those shoes.  

Another little something that can help stop terrorists (lessons learned from Israel and even the USA in it's dealings with the KKK).  Don't let the locals harbor them.  Israel did it, not well, but again, it worked while they did it.  The USA did it better.  We haven't come close to ridding ourselves of the root cause (racism), but we have stopped the vast majority of the KKK's doings.  See, if it costs the people too much to protect them, or turn a blind eye to them, they wont.  This is most effective when done on the government scale.  Face it, we know there are governments that allow the terrorists to come and go, to have training camps, etc.  The US was even guilty of that in the case of Cuba.  Cuba wasn't in the position to do anything about it (but they would have been justified in my opinion), but if it had been the other way, Cuba harboring terrorists, helping them train, helping them in get in the USA, then by all means, I think an invasion of Cuba (or bombing of a few military bases) is in order.  In most countries, harboring a criminal is a crime in itself.  That should count on the international level as well.  Right is still right.

WTF Spets!  Are you Bin Ladin's personal spokesman now?  Cause you sure sound a lot like him in that statement.  Since when do we start giving in to terrorist demands?  So we are supposed to just do what the terrorists want, do all those things you say and *POOF* it all goes away and the little terrorists go back to their homes to live in peace?  Are you kidding me?  You give in to their demands and do those things and not only will the terrorists have won, but you will have given them what they need to launch a WORLD WAR against Western Civilization.  If you think giving in to their demands will ever stop them, then you are as crazy as that stupid fuck running France right now.  You can never give in to terrorist demands.

Give a mouse a slice of cheese and you know what happens?

He wants a glass of milk to go with it.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

Wow offcourse its to much to give the terrorists what they want??
Is it so hard to just get all of your troops back to the us? Is that asked to much?
you say the terrorist won from spain??? Spain never wanted to send troops to iraq before so I see this as a victory for spain. And yes I believe that if the spain goverment never supported the us those bombings wouldnt have took place, like many people in spain that also blame aznar for it.
The only solution you guys see is wipe all the people out in a country.
You guys just dont want to see that you need to fix the source, you guys are to proud for that.
Ghostsniper you really think they will start a worldwar? Your are more crazy then the president of france. YOu think that terrorist just want the worldpower?
In Palestina house gets destroyed by bombs,tanks,bulldozers people live in a prison there there is a night clock, their leader is locked up, they get evicted of their land so jews can come and live there,...
In ireland you got those religious war (most stupid thing ever) childs that go to school needed police protection because they went trhough a neighberhood that had another religion. Whole ireland gets to be independent except that little piece... think its frustrating if you live there and hoped so much to get independent.
In middle east american soldiers are asked to leave after duno what war because islams dont like them being on the "holy ground", americans just say no and stay...

Its not bush fault for all this but hes making it worse and doesnt stop it

bucc doesn't stand alone on this at all. he's exactly right on all points. fuck the terrorists and fuck all the people that have sympathy for them.

A very dangerouse mix of politics and religion.  Problem is with NI is that you've got an equal mix of people equally dedicated to their opposite believes. One side is determined to become indepenadant, the other is determined to remain part of the UK.
Then of course there are the guys in the middle who just want to lead a normal peacfull life and wish the fucking IRA and RIRA would stop blowing up their friends and families.

That's great I agree totally, kill em all and let allah sort em out. Its a great plan to protect my own neck for the short term, but where the fuck does this leave my children or my children's children? It leaves their little lungs full of blood and hemorrhaging from all their bodily orifices, infected with Anthrax or some other biological agent. If we can't find a cure other than the traditional blow shit up and 'fuck them' mentality, humanity is in for a hell of a fun trip in the future.

Our inability to seek change will ultimately lead our down fall.

P.S. I reject the notion that just some people are ?fucking animals? Bucc, rather all people are ?fucking? animals, motivated by their most primal needs.

did i say kill em all and let god sort them out? no. so don't act like i did. but i won't be voting for dennis kucinich either.

just this week at an israeli checkpoint idf soldiers caught a little boy around 11 years old carrying a bag full of explosives. some terrorist paid the boy to take the package to the check point. if the soldier had not noticed the explosives in the bag in time, the fucking scum would have detonated the bomb along with the little boy, just to kill some jews. this wasn't a boy that had volunteered to make himself a martyr. this was a courier boy earning pennies that was about to be used by cowardly terrorists to carry out murder, killing the boy in the process ... an innocent 11 year old palestinian boy, one of their own.

so yes, they are fucking animals and it's about time we treat them as such. like i said, fuck all the terrorists and FUCK all the pussies that have sympathy for them.

that's an extremist's point of view.

I love u spetsnaz.

OK perhaps someone could answer this question.... Since the illigal invasion of Iraq, is the US, the UK, Spain, Poland or any of the other countries that formed part of the colalition, better off regarding state security than they were before the war?


The US shot itself in the foot on that one. If they pull out now they leave a power vacume which Al-quida is just desperate to fill... If they stay the resistance to their presense grows, and the hatred of the US and the western world grows. Had there been really active efforts to plow money energy and resorces into the country post Saddam Hussain then maybe things could have been different... That wasn't the goal though... its a get what you want (saddam) and get out.

I've re-written this post 5 times now, if i hadn't deleted it five times and started over it would probably be as long as the topic itself. i can't put into words what i think, other than i cannot comprehend the violence in this world. I cannot comprehend how desperate people can be, how delusional they can be, how blinded they can be, how greedy, how selfish, how disgusting the human race can be.  

I cannot understand how people can sit at their computers and say things that have been said. I only hope that these forums don't accuratly reflect some people opinions as they and the form in which they are presented is so detached from actuality.


Did i say that i did? without question id be the first to say i don't know as much as i would like to, and that i want to learn more. I can only judge from what i have seen, heard and learnt... maybe not enough but it still has an effect.


The Army of a 1st world country. the Terrorist cell of a 3rd world country:
 both groups believe they are fighting for somthing. both groups want to win, both groups are prepared to kill for it. just labeling somone 'collateral damage' dosn't depersonalise them, they still get killed, that is still a person who has been murdered.


well sort of exactly. But rather than "not allowing the locals to harbor them" why not remove the locals WISH to harbor them...  If the locals want to harbor these people why not address the reason WHY they want to harbor them - they must support them, fear them, believe in the cause etc.... IF you solve/remove the reason for someone to support these people then their lives will be made a lot more difficult.

We are fucking animals, the human race is pretty disgusting what it is prepared to do to itself and others. We must be the most visiouse destructive cruel species imaginable. Yet at the same time we can be the opposite.

Spets, I said nothing about bombing and killing them all, did I?


BFG, don't put George W's words into my arguments.  Ever.

The war in Iraq has little to nothing directly to do with terrorism.  Stop mixing your apples and PC's in the same argument.  Talk about Terrorism, talk about Iraq, or talk about terrorism in Iraq, but don't mix them up.  We aren't all as dumb as George W.


Detached from actuality?  BFG, you seem more separated from reality than I am.

And yes, these are my actual opinions.  Want to know something, when I talk about this to the Palestinians, Iraqis, Iranians and Lebanese that live here (and I know so man "boaters" that grew up there and came here) they all agree.  Any weakness at all and terrorists see it as a success and only get stronger.  

You have to remember that they have a different culture.  To some of them, cutting off the hand of a thief still actually happens.


You really missed the important part, so I'll give it to you again.

One of those groups kills innocents on accident.  Not meaning to.  The other group ACTUALLY TARGETS INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN.  ON PURPOSE!!

Way to ignore the important distinction.  And it is important.  While the USA, UK, etc have killed innocent people (women and children included) in their quest to fight the war on terrorism, they have never TRIED TO.  IT WAS NOT THE GOAL.  Big fucking difference.


Easy answer.  You can't solve a problem like racism overnight.  Or even in a single generation.  Not even in multiple generations.  Racism doesn't go away that easy.

So while you are fighting to make it go away, using all the tools you can, you can also stop the terrorism.  You can't force a person to not be racist, but you can scare them enough to not support the terrorists.  And that scaring wasn't done with torture in the case of the KKK either.  Though, I did like the Mississippi and Texas prison systems a lot better the way they were back then.  

So, pick up on that lesson.  You can't just stop the hate.  Even if you gave every man, woman and child in the middle east a good, safe home, and plenty of food, water, and even money.  You'd still have the hate, because it's been ingrained into those that hate.  Because it's what they've been taught.  (only talking about those that fall into this terrorist category, btw).  Like I've pointed out many times, and has fallen on deaf ears so far, LOOK AT BIN LADEN!  He's not poor, deprived, any of those things.  He's a rich fucking bastard.  You think he'll stop hating?

So, in the decades and decades that it may take to solve the core issues (because there's nothing that can do it overnight) you have to take steps.

It's like cancer.  We know some of the things that cause cancer, but there just aint a cure right now.  What there is is treating the symptoms.  You cut the cancer out, along with the tissue that supports it.  You nuke the cancer, yes, also killing the "innocent" cells around it.  And if you are lucky, if you did a good enough job, the cancer is gone.  In many forms of cancer, this works with great success, with some few, not any at all.  But while treating the symptoms, saving those you can, a search for cures goes on.

What I'm suggesting is that while you are looking for the cure for terrorism, you don't stop treating the symptoms.  You crack down on the people harboring the terrorists, you make it hard for terrorists to get weapons, money, etc, and you make sure as hell that any terrorist caught pays the price, more than he was willing to pay, and do it very very openly, as an example for others.

So, with the KKK, you stopped the people supporting them, and the KKK is a shadow of it's former self now.  You find where they are willing to go for their hate, and you take them past the line.  Plain and simple.  


If we really are all animals, than 90% of fucking harmless sheep, lemmings in a way.  7% are predators, feeding off the sheep, teaching the sheep to feed off the other sheep (sheep can be led after all) and then there are the 3% of sheepdogs.  Every bit as fierce as the predators, but not out to eat the sheep.

But what I'm talking about BFG is that there are just some bottom feeders out there that don't deserve to breath.  Overused, but Hitler is a great example.  That fucker just didn't deserve life.  Bin Laden is another.  But it's a very very long list.  

And now, it's snowed about 6 inches today, so I have to go find my shovel.  

Just a question here, but could you people define terrorism? The reason being is how do you tell a terrorist from a freedom fighter or a revolutionary?

Kinda what i tried to say earlier but no so clearly..... i think its a very hard thing to answer, its totally dependant on who you ask!

"One of those groups kills innocents on accident"

It depends in part on how you define accident and intent. It also depends on our perspective.

The US drops falable guided bombs, sometimes cluster munitions, on cities. Sure, they may actually want to miss civilians - in fact, of course they want to miss them. The thing is they know that they will hit on occasion and they drop them anyway. Not that that persay is wrong - in war all gloves off and so on. But, to argue that one side, ours, is really not trying to kill civies belies the point: we do kill civies. In fact, we kill just about as many civies as the terrorists, and likely far more. We parse this slaughter with words like collatoral damage or profess that our intent was to kill someone else ... but what do you think the impression on the street is? That BIG DIFFERENCE is no difference because intent is hard to judge after you're legs get blown off.

What that means is that the panultimate faith we needed - the belief that the US is trying to do good - is slipping away, both among our allies (see the various states withdrawign troops) and our occupied peoples. It is replaced with conspiracy theories, hate, and fear.

In the end, the targeting of innocents and what is moral and immoral breaks down to a matter of perspective.  And really, when it comes to fighting terrorism one of the key elements it to alter the perception among the bad guys' pool of potential volunteers that *we* are the bad guys. Making arguments that we don't mean to kill innocents, so, we're better than the terrorists just doesn't hold water as, say, when another family in Iraqi sees dad machine guned cause he drove too fast, or when a child comes home from school to see his house and family blown to bits by an errant US bomb or when a ...

Sure, we didn't mean it. We're sorry it happened. But our actions revel our true intentions - or lack there of. See, we just don't care. Fuck'em, is our true feeling.

As for this:

>>>
So, pick up on that lesson.  You can't just stop the hate.  Even if you gave every man, woman and child in the middle east a good, safe home, and plenty of food, water, and even money.  You'd still have the hate, because it's been ingrained into those that hate.  Because it's what they've been taught.  (only talking about those that fall into this terrorist category, btw).  Like I've pointed out many times, and has fallen on deaf ears so far, LOOK AT BIN LADEN!  He's not poor, deprived, any of those things.  He's a rich fucking bastard.  You think he'll stop hating?
<<<

On the hate bandwagon:

All emotions stem from something. They are grounded. Even ones that drive a man to blow himself up. The key is to uncover the root. I'm not sure what the origin of middle eastern terrorism is, but I can tell you that by invading Iraq, our actions therein, and with our unilateral stance on world affairs we've grown a lot of terrorist trees.

Sure, you can't solve it overnight. But to write it off?

To not even try is to give in to the terrorists. To not even try is to say we can't change their views on us. Of course, we CAN change people's views of us. It begins by trying.

An interesting thing occured to me the other day: Binny doesn't blow shit up himself anymore than Bush. They both use fairly ignorant, young, hungry to serve people to do their dying. And in Binny's case, his anger stems directly from the US/Saudi special relationship.

In his own disgusting way he's a patriot.

I say fuck him, but I know what he is. The Saudis sure know what he is, that's why they give him support. I'd like to ask Bush why Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Perhaps it is because his wars, his actions since 9/11 have nothing to do with fighting terrorism and everything to do with rapturous oppurtunism.

It is that sort of evil, the evil which runs our country and profits on death and destruction, an evil that takes the greatest disaster to befall our young nation and twists it for polical power and to en-fear the nation, which in part is responsible for the 21st century's brand of terrorism. Their warped views will leave us with only broken pieces and the hard job of gluing the world back together again.

Back to Binny, the rich bastard: In an odd way the Bush war on terrah is really a pissing contest between two of the world's rich men.

From one point of view, at least.

That's pretty easy, the methods they use, the targets they choose and the uniforms they wear.

A revolutionary, or freedom fighter generally attack the military, and generally wear uniforms.  They don't terrorize the civilian populace, they don't bomb innocent people, terror isn't their main objective or weapon.

I don't agree.  You are only looking at one side of the contrast, look at them together.  

Sure, a country like the USA at war may be even rather casual about it's "collateral damage" statistics.  But that's still not the same as the terrorist who targets those innocents.  One's the goal, the other is not.  There is no perception problem there.

You may think we don't care enough about not killing innocents, but the difference still stands.


No, now that is your perception, not mine.  I never said fuck'em about collateral damage.  Nice spin.


Did I say write it off?  Or did I say treat it like the cancer it is.  Treat the symptoms radically while still looking for the cure.

Please take the time to read what I wrote if you are going to comment on it.


Zealot, not patriot.  He's an expatriot if anything.  But he's a religious zealot nonetheless.


And maybe you can see that none of what I wrote was really talking about Bush, and that I haven't defended him.

BTW, he was exiled from Saudi Arabia, he can't go back on pain of death I do believe.

I'd be interested in seeing where you got this information, or did you just make it up?


Speaking of contrasts, it would be interesting to compare the number of civilians killed by U.S. military action in the 20th century versus the amount killed by terrorists. I'm willing to guess its not very proportional.


If terrorism is a cancer for the U.S., then it is lung cancer caused from a lifetime's pack a day habit.


Much like George W. Bush, although he was never a patriot.

If the U.S. actually wants to win the war on terrorism, it has to acknowledge its mistakes, and quit fucking around with Wars that don't have shit to do with terrorism.

Actually, that was pure opinion, taken from much reading and simplified.  But, if you are looking for a good article on it, try this one:
http://cfrterrorism.org/policy/guerrilla_print.html


Really?  I wouldn't be interested in all unless you also compared the numbers of civilians killed by other countries military actions in the 20th century.  Because I know there would be quite a few countries with much higher numbers.


Bullshit.  Not only is that pretty ignorant, but it's also justification of terrorism in a sense, which is just stupid.  


I never said Bush was one.  Why do you guys keep insist on bringing him into a conversation?  Have I defended him?  No.  Have I said he was good in any way?  No.  Have I blasted him?  Yes.  So it's time for some of you guys to figure out that people that may back a war don't have to be following blindly.

I've said (if you bother to read) that it doesn't have anything to do with terrorism (the war in Iraq) but that it didn't need to.

I'm sick and fucking tired of tree hugging hippie freaks that have to turn every conversation into anti-Bush and anti-war.

This was a conversation about the Madrid Bombings, you can leave Bush out of it for fucks sake.  Nobody is defending him, so let it go.

Like any analogy to the war on terrorism and cancer. Nice spin though.


Discussions on terrorism in the modern context without the mention of Bush lack in substance with regard to the situation.


I'm sick and fucking tired of complex geopolitical situations being reduced to black and white by neo-conservative idealogues with little evidence to support such assertions.

The bombings are speculated to be directly related to Spain's support for the American President(I wont mention Bush, for the sake of fuck), to have a discussion without the mention of the previous individual would be disproportionate.

proud to be a "tree hugging hippie freak."

Oh shit, here comes the big words, looks like somebody's trying to look smarter than they are again.

Look spetz, it's quite simple. What you're trying to do is accuse the US of terrorist actions in it's war on terror. You are wrong. Here is why.

Accidental Deaths DO NOT equal Intentional Deaths. You can see this in our own legal system. Manslaughter is NOT murder. Intent is the most important part. That's all bucc is trying to say.

Please don't try to confuse the issue any further. Everything you and sixhits say is an attempt to draw attention away from that fact. That is the DEFINITION of spin.

Now if you want to make the case against the US for terrorist actions, try taking a look at WWII. During the US bombing campaign of Japan we firebomed 37 Japanese cites. Not military targets, cities. We targeted Japan's civilian population to instill fear in the population and reduce their will to fight. These are the same reasons we dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Now I don't personally think that was terrorism and I totally agree with the US actions in both cases, but at least it's a decent arguement for US sponsored terrorism.

You tell me how it didn't fit!  No spin, look at what I said and tell me how it doesn't fit!


Bullshit.  Terrorism was around a long time before George W, and will be around a long time after he's gone.  Just because he's an asshole doesn't mean the world of shit actually revolves around him.

You are just using it as an opportunity to talk about Bush, which is pretty dumb.  Especially when we are talking about another country, and possibly, an internal situation (since we still don't know who did the bombings).


First, I'm no fucking conservative, let alone one that lacks evidence.

Two, you are an idiot for talking about lack of evidence and then bringing up the next part.

Three, I wasn't reducing anything to black and white, try to fucking read.


Note the word SPECULATED.  Gee, does that smack of "evidence"?  Didn't think so.  It was also speculated that it was ETO.  Which would make it nothing to do whatsoever with the USA, Middle East, or Bush.

Neither one is the case.  

Stop letting your hate of someone like Bush blind you.  Stop blaming things like terrorism on the war with Iraq.  Talk about boiling things down to black and white, without taking into account that Bush and the USA are not the only forces worth fighting in this world for many people.  Think about that!

Actually it is pretty sure al quaida did it, they all ready arrested islam fundamentlists. Now saying that it still could be ETA is pretty dumb because already form the beginning everythingpointed into the direction of al quaida. The only reason why ETA was the possible bomber was because the ex spanish president was trying to save his ass wich failed.

And about whos terrorist and whoses not well everybody can see that different
lets see hmm I say that the bombers in palestina and iraq arent terrorists but "freedom fighters" Because they fight for their freedom, is it written somewhere that freedom fighters need to wear uniforms or so?? There the a bit the same like the resistance in WW2 attacking enemy convoys etc and killing people that help the enemy. so if accidently some people that are not the enemy or dont help the enemy it is, like you guys call it, collateral damage.
But hmm the madrid bombings where a terrorist attack because most of the victims actually didnt want that their country sended soldier overthere.  But I dont think the terrorist actually knew that.

yep well over one hundred thousand men women and children burned alive... many would argue that the use of Nuclear weapons has been the biggest act of terrorism the world has ever seen.

Like the UK, the vast majority of the spanish population did not want their goverment to be part of an illigal war against iraq. From straight after the horrific attack there were fingers pointing in two directions, one at ETA and two at an ouside force... The goverment pushed at ETA, and as more and more of the evidance became clear everyone else pushed at an ousdide force namely Al-Quida.
The fact that this attack on spain has co-insided with the elections in spain, and the fact one of the hottest political fights have been over the legality of the war and the reasons for sending troops, i strongly doubt as being in any way coincidence. Had spain not sent troops into Iraq i would be 95% sure that this attack would not have taken place.

you guys are so, "read what i said!" defending your posts into neutral positions that i dont know what it is you're trying to say in regards to this thread.  you defend what he's doing, but not defending him as a president?  which is it?  

For the reasons of collateral damage, loss of US soldiers, and the huge costs, if the act of war is not used as an absolute last option, then it is being used irresponsably.  It morally is not the same as terrorism but the effects are just as big if not more.

this thread seems to have turned into the difference between collateral damage vs terrorism and distancing bush from world affairs.   You guys can clarify the difference between collateral damage and terrorism all day, but that isn't going to change the effects it has in the overall picture.  

I deeply believe that war only leads to more conflict especially when we are making false justifications for it.  The agression doesn't stop until the one side is beatin into submission or comes to their senses.  Just like in Israel/Palestine, this ain't gonna happen.   In our case we blew through the logic of getting support from the UN.  Good for them.  And now we're stuck in a expensive nation building project that is not helping defeat terrorism at all.  We're right back to confusing Bush actions with the war on terrorism.  (picture Bush flexing his muscles)

I'm not going to spar with you bucc, you show repeatedly you can defend your context to the very last punch but your points get lost in the muck.  plus I got respect for ya's.  

I'm happy for Spain and their change of ruling party.  They seem to be in the right direction.  I look forward to seeing their next steps.  


Not sure he was directing this at you personally.  I didn't read it that way.  Because I agree with his statement.  

Knowing that I could never match your perceived intellectual grandeur and egotistical obesity, I can do no more than question your assertions.

And who the fuck cares about the U.S. legal system in third world countries, where their biggest concern is clean water? I'm sure the 10 year old boy whose entire extended family was accidentally killed by a 500 lb bomb, believes it was manslaughter not murder, as he looks through his handy U.S. legal definitions handbook. Good Point.

Who the are you to say I'm wrong(although you are clearly my intellectual superior)? I may be, no one is right about everything, some people just think they are.

Jesus Christ Spetz, look at that spin! Are you sure you don't work for Fox News?

First off, the big words don't make you look smart. They only show you can use a thesaurus. And if you spent less time looking up big words in that thesaurus and more time developing your arguements, maybe they would be worth the time it takes me to read them.

Second. I only brought up the point about the US legal system to show that most people understand the concept of Intent. As I can tell you still have yet to grasp this concept, let me explain it to you. Intent means that there is a difference between meaning to do something and doing it accidentally. Yes, in either case the something has still happened, but there is a world of difference between the two. Just trust me on this. And don't worry, if you stay in school and try real hard, someday you too might understand the difference between manslaughter and cold blooded murder. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

Actually the only reason I even posted anything on the matter was to irritate you. Which I was obviously successful at.  ;)

BFG, then the people that argue that need a proper education.  

First, how many Brits civilians died by bombing attacks in WW2?

Second, how many Russian civilians died in WW2?

Third, how many Jewish civilians were killed in WW2?

Fourth, how many civilians were killed in WW1?


Don't know?  How about I throw some of the numbers I've learned out there.

It's estimated that 10 million civilians died as a result of World War 1.  These numbers are hazy, since we didn't really keep many records about civilian deaths (wasn't considered important enough back then, and that's a major point I have).

The number of civilians killed in World War II is approximately 40 million, including 17 million Russians, 10 million Chinese, 6 million Jews, 4 million Germans and 300,000 Japanese.

People talk about 100,000 killed in Japan, by an atomic bomb.  But what about the over 100,000 killed in Dresden by allied fire bombings?  Or are they somewhat better off for being burned to death by napalm?  I don't think so.  What about you?  It's estimated that between 120,000 and 140,000 died in the two A-bombs combined, which is right about the same for what I've seen in Dresden of 135,000.  Do we not bring that up because it was largely a British effort?  Does it not mean just as much?

See, there are lots of simple facts overlooked when people want to talk about the horror of the A-Bomb.  

First is how civilian casualties back in those times were considered just the price of war.  It was a different time with different ideals.  

Second is that Japan was told well in advance about the atomic bombs in an effort to get her to surrender without having to use them.  

Third is look at how many innocent civilians would have died if the USA had been forced to invade Japan.  Look how many died (and I'm not talking about soldiers here) on the islands leading up to Japan.  

Last is, anyone that feels sorry for Japan over their treatment in WW2 really needs to take a long, hard look at what the Japanese did back then.  They tried infecting the Chinese with biological and chemical weapons.  Yes, I've seen the old news reels showing the Japanese soldiers throwing up babies and catching them on bayonets.  That stuff did happen.  The Nipponese of that time thought that they were biologically superior to the other races (very much like Hitler did, but more fanatical about it).  

Please, learn more than the popular histories before bringing up the A-Bomb.


Yet, Poland, who commands Spain's troops, and have sent many more troops themselves, have not been a target.  Nor the countries that were more involved (which is where I started talking in this thread).  How do you explain that in your theory BFG??

Whose to say they havent gotten to Poland yet?

I'm not defending Bush, ever.  I didn't bring him up.  Some people just can't see past Bush enough to talk about any problems without bringing him up though.

That answer you?


I don't agree with that last part.  I would say that it's effects can be just as big.

But I thank you for getting the first part.  They are morally different.


Actually, this thread was on the madrid bombings, and who was behind them, and why Spain.  Along with what should be done about the terrorists.  The other crap was brought in (Bush, Iraq, etc).


Again, this isn't about the war.  Nor the USA.  While there is much speculation that Al Quida is behind it, we don't have the facts to talk about the connections yet.


Yeah, the problem I'm having is with the muck rakers.  They don't want to talk about the issue at hand, but talk about the A bomb, or Iraq, or anything but the issue at hand.


Since he was quoting me at the time, I feel it was directed at me.  He didn't make it seem otherwise.