Madrid Bombings

[Cutter]

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.

[BFG]

Whole ireland gets to be independent except that little piece... think its frustrating if you live there and hoped so much to get independent.

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.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

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.

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.

[Cutter]

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.

[seth]

so yes, they are fucking animals and it's about time we treat them as such.

that's an extremist's point of view.

[BFG]

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?

Is it so hard to just get all of your troops back to the us? Is that asked to much?

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.

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.?

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.

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

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.

 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.

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.  

[Cossack]

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?

[BFG]

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!

["Sixhits"]

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.

*****

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?

"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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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?

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

In his own disgusting way he's a patriot.

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

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.

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.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

[Ssickboy]

proud to be a "tree hugging hippie freak."

[alaric]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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!

[PLOPje]

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.

[BFG]

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.

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.