Madrid Bombings

[Ssickboy]

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.  

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.

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.

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

[c| Spetsnaz.]

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.

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.

[alaric]

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.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

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

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

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.

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.

Had spain not sent troops into Iraq i would be 95% sure that this attack would not have taken place.

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??

[Cossack]

Whose to say they havent gotten to Poland yet?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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?  

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?

It morally is not the same as terrorism but the effects are just as big if not more.

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.

this thread seems to have turned into the difference between collateral damage vs terrorism and distancing bush from world affairs.  

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).

I deeply believe that war only leads to more conflict especially when we are making false justifications for it.

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.

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.

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.

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

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