‘Spanish Sept 11th’ - SciForums.com

foucaulteco

03-12-04, 10:36 PM

Why was this attrocity committed??
What can be gained by the perpertrators?
All I can think of is that the world wide coverage is the main motive in which case why the hell doesn't someone claim responsibility?
Maybe there are darker forces at work here, those who would like to see a return to fascism in Spain/Europe.
As mentioned above it seems that the overall response to these terror attacks is to lean towrd the right, as mentioned it worked in South America in the 70s.
Who has the most to gain from a lean to the right?
Although these attacks are abhorant does the slaughter of 200 people justify such a response as a right wing dictatorship, the slow degradation of cival liberties as in the US and the invasion of privacy that ensues with any security enhancement?
Already, due to our alledged prosperity right wing governments are in power all over the place, the US, Australia, Austria, Spain and even though perported to be "New Labour" my opinion is that the UK has a right leaning government atm etc...
YET, the gap between the have and have nots is widening, so why the hell do we have these right wing fanatics who endulge in cronyism and hold the ideals that "you should look after yourself"
I think it might have something to do with the fact the working clas is busy once more at cutting it's own throat by watching their news on FOX!! idiots, honestly, why do they read tabloids and watch trailer park channels that forward the ideals of the right??? I just don't get it.
It's a synical excercise at best, trying to get a larger portion of media ownership just shows that they are evil at worst in that they control the mass populas through properganda.
Another right wing fanatic did the same, his name was Goebells.
To get back to the topic at hand, although I don't beleive I've deviated as to gain the medias attention seems to be the reason for the Madrid tradgerdy.
It seems that we are adding fuel to the fire of hatred in muslim countries when our right wing governments lie to their people over the reasons why they invade a SOVERIGN country, pre-emptive attack? what the fu*k is that?
The reason Bush went into Iraq was so far from the reasons given that it is no wonder hatred builds to such a point that people are willing to commit such crimes.
The Rumsfeid and Cheeny Neoconservative coup in the pentagon may be one place to look for answers to why Madrid happened.
PNAC in it's mission statement on page 51 said that they needed a Pearl Harbour to get their vision happening at a decent pace, their vision is one of American dominance of the globe, this cannot happen with Islam standing in the way, so of course you're going to get a modern day reverse crusade.
These people are protecting their way of life and religion in the only way available, how else are they to get their voices heard?
Their groups are banned and the media beats their cause at every opportunity.
Mark my words this will turn into a war of Christian Vs Muslim, it already is.
Bush the reborn evangelical fundementalist with his viscious little sidekick condecending condeleeza Rice.
I would fight for the freedoms I have, but not for Bush's phoney wars.
Why should the US think it has the right to impose a "western democracy" on these countries?
Every nation has the right to self determination, and our style of democracy isn't suited to everyone, it evolved in our part of the world naturally, the same way other regions naturally evolved to needing despotic dictators to keep the country together, at least Sadam did that, you wait that place will decend into civil war as surely as Bush f*&ks himself every sunday with a grapefruit.
I know this post is a little incoherent and I really should itemise my points, but this thread is for free thoughts and that's what I'm doing, just typing what comes to mind bearing in mind that the topic is Madrid, and I'm trying to follow that in everything I'm writing.
Why do right wing governments get into power when they clearly only look after the intereste of the top % and well to do, is it simply through properganda and the fact that neoconservatives own said media?
Are we that shallow and stupid?
Reading through some links from Micheal Moores web page and his book "stupid white men" really was an eye opener as far as why the states has the foreign policy it does, and it all evolves around big business and oil.
Sick that for the profits of the few, so many , on both sides have to suffer and die.
There are SOOO many US soilders maimed over in Iraq it's not funny, the figures are never widely discussed and NEVER on FOX news.
Imagine how many Iraqis have died or been injured? and we wonder why these depserate people choose desperate measures to get their message accross?
I am not in any way condonning what happened in Espania, but when you are under the yolk of such oppressive foreign policy what's a young militant to do?
Bush is giving them the amo for his own and freinds business interests and quarterly profits, and oh, I forgot the shareholders, that's always a good excuse.
If that bastard gets into power again by steeling yet another election god help us all.
If he does win, next year will be Syria, then Iran and we will wonder again why a train in say London is blown up, people come on it's bloody obvious, and this time it's because we started it with this pre-emptive bullshit.
Please don't tell me Bush didn't know that 12 years of UN sanctions had so crippled the whole infrastructure of Iraq that it had a hard time manufacturing baby powder let alone chemical, biological or (what a complete laugh) Nuclear weapons.
We should have all known this when with the build up to the first gulf war we were led to beleive the Iraqis could put up a decent fight when all along the pentegon knew it was going to be a "turkey shoot"
I beleive Bush should be impeached, what he has done is an impeachable offense, he and he alone has put the lives of ordinary commuters on their way to work in Madrid, Dusseldorf, Utrect, Lyon, Bruxselles, Copenhaven, Rimini, (not Bolognia, they've had theirs unfortunately), thesselonika, Prague, etc... etc... etc... unlike Clinton who only messed with a cigar.
What also shits me is that , say in Spain the people didn't want war, but the majority didn't matter, the same in the UK and here in the land of OZ, what the hell is a democracy suppossed to be??
I think I'm going to start a thread on the Iraq war with some home truths, and sources for those who are still under the impression that Bush is acting in the best interests of ordinary Americans of other Christians around the world.
God damn it, are we going to have another major war over religion? havn't there been enough? Hasn't enough blood been spilt in the name of love and peace?
The premise with which religion is based is fair enough it's the bastards who administer the whole thing that mess it up.
Maybe humans cannot handle power, maybe absolute power does corrupt absolutly?
I shall now do some research and for those interested shall make a new thread with some facts about the Neoconservative government in the US and the real reasons why terrorists are targetting western interests may become more apparent.
By the way Kudos to anyone who read this whole post, good on ya!!!
I'm just angry, angry that normal Spaniards on their way to work who have nothing to do with this BS end up mutillated, crippled, blooded and mangled.
Madrid is a wonderful place, I love Spain, although I had a shitful time on the Canneries some years back, Catalonya is fantastic, with Figures where Dali has his museum and Caraccas where he was born, Port beu just over the border from Ceberre in France, man did I get drunk there!! whoa!!!
I meant to just pass through and ended up living there for 3 months!!! I just couldn't beleive how cheep the alcohol was especially compared with just the other side of the tunnel in France where une pastisse would cost a days walking up and down the beeches selling boisson fresh, bignets aux pommes, or glace a la glace stick um up ya *** bloody chou chous! jeez! and then the mistral would hit and there'd be no work for 3,6,9 or 12 days depending how le von felt and I'd end up eating dog food or rummaging through the aftermarth of a Sete market.
Still Antonio's bar in Port Bou made up for all that, I wonder if it's still there?
I met some wonderful women and other peoples there from all over the globe, and not one of them would put the lives of young men and women in the firing line for personal gain and profit, even if they were from the US (joke)
I've gone on long enough.
Adios muchachos
Mark

Markx

03-12-04, 10:39 PM

Oth what are you saying? Who surrendered to who? Peaceful protest is surrendering to the militants? What donkey vomit? Spain along with other nations recognize that anti-terrorist actions must be done in the context of enforcing their own borders, and using intelligence assets. I think Spain has been one of the most successful states in Europe in terms of catching Al Q suspects. What alternative is there? Spain cannot go to war against anyone, nor would they. This is globalized terrorism, and the solutions are few and far btwn but they are there.

:P Othe did the donkey vomit? Undecided you are too much :D .

Othdep too funny your statement is, ETA denied and you believe them, offcourse you did what if al-qeda deny any attack, would you believe them just like that? lol. Have you always been hyporcate like that? or is it a sudden attack?

Markx

03-12-04, 10:56 PM

For Otheadp:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/164689_spain13.html

*Oh interesting part for Otheadp*

..."So far, none of the intelligence services or security forces we have contacted have provided reliable information to the effect that it could have been an Islamic terrorist organization," Interior Minister Angel Acebes said Friday.

Don't jump up and down with conclusions and by some un authentic FAX. This sort of behavior is not very semite. You guys are more patience and enjoy the fireworks, aren't ya?

If ETA is found responsible, that could boost support for Mariano Rajoy, Aznar's hand-picked candidate to succeed him as prime minister. Both have supported a crackdown on ETA's campaign for an independent state in northern Spain, ruling out talks and backing a ban on ETA's political wing, Batasuna.

However, if Thursday's bombings are seen by voters as the work of al-Qaida, that could draw their attention to Aznar's vastly unpopular decision to endorse the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) and deploy Spanish troops there...

skywalker

03-13-04, 12:18 AM

the solution is clear
spain :
stop your crusader advantures (whatever that means)
get out of Iraq (and abandon reconstruction efforts)
get out of muslim lands (the crusaders stole the land of spain from muslims, apparently)

oh yeah, i almost forgot -
stop any diplomatic, economic, cultural, scientific contacts with the Great Satan (US)\

about time pothead should put his both feet in his mout. ha

Bombs were Spanish-made explosives
Millions pack Madrid's streets
Friday, March 12, 2004 Posted: 6:21 PM EST (2321 GMT)

Thousands fill the central Cibeles square and the main Gran Via street in Madrid during a demonstration to protest the train bombings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story Tools

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED
• Massacre in Madrid

U.S. won't raise terror threat level after Spanish blasts

• TIME.com: Regional ruckus in Spain

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• CNN in Spanish

MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- As investigators learned more about the bombs that ripped through trains killing and maiming, millions of people across Spain gathered in chilly rain to protest the terror attacks and mourn the victims Friday.

"It seems like the sky is crying," said one woman.

Suspicion for the coordinated terror attacks has fallen on Basque separatist group ETA and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network.

The 10 backpack bombs, carried aboard four trains and detonated almost simultaneously at three stations, killed 199 people and wounded more than 1,450.

Authorities said they found and safely detonated three more bombs, apparently set on timers to explode later, when rescuers and security forces were on the scene.

The explosive used came from inside Spain and is similar to explosives used in previous attacks by ETA, according to Glenn Schoen, a security analyst who has seen the latest police analysis.

On the other hand, the copper detonators used in the backpack bombs were more sophisticated than the aluminum detonators previously used in bombs linked to ETA, said Schoen, who has worked with Spanish police on train security.

Red Devil

03-13-04, 01:00 AM

Proud_Muslim

03-13-04, 03:13 AM

UN Security Council blames ETA

The Security Council,

Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and its relevant resolutions, in particular its resolution 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001,

Reaffirming the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,

1. Condemns in the strongest terms the bomb attacks in Madrid, Spain, perpetrated by the terrorist group ETA on 11 March 2004, in which many lives were claimed and people injured, and regards such act, like any act of terrorism, as a threat to peace and security;

2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the people' and Government of Spain and to the victims of the terrorist attacks and their families;

3. Urges all States, in accordance with their obligations under resolution 1373 (2001), to cooperate actively in efforts to find and bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of this terrorist attack;

4. Expresses its reinforced determination to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations.

Source : http://www.usembassy.it/file2004_03/alia/a4031105.htm

Source: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=10046&Cr=terror&Cr1=

Are you still blaming Al Qaeda ??? :rolleyes:

Proud_Muslim

03-13-04, 03:17 AM

otheadp

03-13-04, 04:44 AM

* i provided a link to a spanish article where it says the spanish "science police" concluded the explosive type is not one that typically used by ETA

UN Security Council blames ETA ... "perpetrated by the terrorist group ETA"
* UN doesn't even have a definition for the word "terrorist". this whole resolution is basically empty and pointless jibberish

* so now they have PROOF it's ETA? spain has concluded its investigation and reported all the findings to the UN? wow, that was fast. there are still conflicting reports coming in, and UN is busy making pretty declarations already.

Persol

03-13-04, 09:43 AM

Not only does PM completely disregard cut and paste, but it cuts and pastes the same thing over and over.

Regardless, the investigation is not over yet PM. YOU are the one who jumped to conclusions, and are now crying that other people are jumping to conclusions.

swam

03-13-04, 10:50 AM

You see, Jews like othe are trying hard to blame so called Islamic terrorists ! typical zionist hate:

Doubt over al Qaeda claim

A group saying it speaks for al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the Madrid train bombings in an e-mail to an Arabic-language newspaper in London.

However, intelligence officials have said the group does not speak for al Qaeda and has been unreliable in the past.

Spanish officials said they are investigating the possibility of Arabic terrorist involvement, but that the prime suspect behind Thursday's bombings is the Basque terror group ETA.

"The main line of investigation remains on ETA," Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio told CNN.

Intelligence sources have consistently told CNN that the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade does not speak for al Qaeda, and there is question as to whether it exists at all beyond one person with a computer and a fax machine.

For example, this group claimed responsibility for the U.S. power blackout last summer, a claim that turned out not to be true. :rolleyes:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/12/spain.blasts.alqaeda/index.html

Give me one good reason why it could not be Al Qaeda!

you know their methods can make anyone shiver!!!!

quoted:
"A mass demonstration was staged in the streets of Madrid in protest against these attacks. However, it reflected the resentment against the Spanish government's policy in supporting the war on Iraq... It is hoped that the Madrid bombings will open the eyes of the coalition, led by the US... so that it can look into its mistakes and find a way to rectify them."
London Al-Quds Al-Arabi

"Whether the bombings were carried out by Eta or al-Qaeda, the reality is that terrorism today is a deadly threat to all human beings... What is needed is prompt action by the UN to set up an international conference to combat terrorism, as well as drafting clauses for an international and comprehensive agreement to combat it."
Egypt's Al-Ahram

Some sense. please, Fundamentalism is not the Islam you want to defend and Protect, PM!

Why does Al Quds do such a statement?

Salam alaikum

Vortexx

03-13-04, 11:54 AM

I think the stolen little van with typical ETA detonators along with an arab tape citing quranverses, was left behind to purposely be found by the spanish authorities to create additional diffusion or project the notion of a worst case scenario, where ETA + Al Quaida are working together....

let me put it this way, ETA seems clearly involved due to the specific detonators wich you just do not buy at walmart or your local mosk. Al Quaida, maybe, but everybody can dig up some arab tape and it could be bluff of a small splinter "real-ira" type faction to pretend being bigger and better connected than they really are. Me tends to think the latter, a group of 4-6 young idealistic people of rougly 24-26 years old. The fact that such a small group could deliver a well organized simultanious atrosity, indicates that people within these group likely go way back and must have been visiting the same school/ university.

Goofyfish mentioned terrorists craving the international spotlight between the commercial breaks, hence a link to al-quaida is important in getting some precious usa tv-time on foxnews or cnn.

On a little sidenote: the american government have granted the english, for being such good boys towards the iraqi invasion, a special zero-tax treatment for certain foreign investments, now the dutch is only the second country after the english to receive this bribish reward, because, allthough we didnt speak out very loud pro-invasion, we allowed discretely the use of our tranport infrastructure (our large harbour Rotterdam) for usa army troops and supplies etc and also because a dutch guy is currently chairman of the NATO council. It's typical dutch to have an anti-war stance and be pro-human rights etc, but meanwhile ship cannisters of nervegas or sell nuclear knowledge to pakistan etc...

These facts worry me somewhat that Al-quaida might declare Holland a target, the only protection we really have is that we are such a small country in the international playfield and that we so not really choose sides but sell weapons to everybody :eek:

Red Devil

03-13-04, 04:17 PM

I blame nobody - yet, but it almost certainly look like Al Qaeda. I do not think it was ETTA, egven something this barbaric is not their "scene". It turns the entire decent world against what was laughingly called a "separatist" movement. No this will turn out to be something far more sinister.

Undecided

03-13-04, 08:15 PM

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but I see two possible scenarios:

If ETA did it:

- They could have used the Islamic tapes to throw off the investigation.
- They committed their biggest hit ever, and would set back the Basque movement back to where it started.
- They are getting desperate.

If AL Q did it:

- They believe in the Ummah and Spain was once part of the Ummah (actually Spain was Islamic longer then Spain was Catholic.)
- They knew the US is harder to hit, and since Spain did support that illegal war...what's its name?
- Spain is strategic and they know it.

We are assuming that these two are the only two groups out there capable of this. I personally doubt that, I think there are other organizations that can accomplish this now. About Fascism that imo is an eventuality of this war on terrorism (real or imagined). Our culture is #1, we are the most powerful states on earth and we do want we want; deviants will be punished, etc. This is becoming commonplace through the Western world, and eventually the thing we treasure like liberty will become nothing more then a figurehead of a glorious past.

hypewaders

03-13-04, 10:48 PM

There's far too little known to speculate. I think society should place more emphasis on apprehending murderers than on speculatively examining their injustice- and/or insanity-inspired motives, however morbidly curious they may be.

I find it interesting that for recent major-terrorism perpetrators, claiming credit is secondary to the responses terrrorists apparently expect to reflexively follow their acts, regardless of claimed responsibilities, that nevertheless promotes the terrorist agendae. This lends more to the argument that society needs to seriously and publicly re-evaluate both codified and emotional responses to terrorism, to which I've already said my piece (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=28297) in (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=30590) other (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32072) threads (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=29165).

"Terror is for the most part useless cruelties committed by frightened people to reassure themselves." -Friedrich Engels (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56654-2004Mar13.html)

foucaulteco

03-15-04, 04:29 AM

You know I'm 100% convinced that the authorities, knowing damn well that Al-Quida are not responsible will deliberately "put it out there anyway" via the usually sympathetic right wing owned media outlets.
E.G. Fox will blame Al=Quida automatically even knowing that they are not because by getting someone (any nobody or so called expert that happens to go along with the official line) to say it's possibly or likely the work of said group they put it out there and that's all they need, if you sling enough mud....
I don't think I'm being overly synical, I've seen it happen time after time, are the majority of people really so naive???
Propaganda, pure and simple.
As far as I'm concerned by giving these groups any airtime they are playing into their hands! It's madness to do so especially when it's nothing to do with them even! It just increases their noteriety, surely the media has to have some responsibility in what they air and the likely concequencies.
They probably don't give a s**t though, if there's a headline and it sells copies or advertising space....
Ah well, as long as some of us can still read between the lines or take the trouble to look a bit deeper and get the real stories, I suppose there's still a glimmer of hope.
What worries me is the Bush administration has such an advantage in spending power over the democrates that with enough TV time they'll convince the American public that they are doing a good job and blag another 4 years, a result that I personally beleive would be a catastrophy and a very dangerous outcome.

weebee

03-15-04, 04:40 AM

Which would be why the Spanish government failed. They pushed the people towards blaming their enemies, but the people seemed more interested in finding who had actually murdered these people.

I wonder what would have happened if the Spanish government had stood up and said, yes it was very likely carried out because we took Spain to war, and see this is how nasty these people actually are…would the people have supported them? I guess when the UK elections are held we’ll find out, because something tells me Spain is just the start. And its going to be interesting to see how Blair, and the UK respond to such a situation. :(

Undecided

03-15-04, 11:25 AM

I guess when the UK elections are held we’ll find out, because something tells me Spain is just the start. And its going to be interesting to see how Blair, and the UK respond to such a situation.

Spain should be the start of a democratic removal of despotic rulers. I know that sounds like hyperbole but really that's what happened in Europe. All over the continent the populations did not support the war. Rulers ignored their population’s positions, and they ignored pragmatism for ideology. I think we should see a reversal of fortunes in Poland, the UK, Italy,etc. Where the population either by slim majority or massive majority rejected the invasion. This is an appropriate reaction for a population who now realizes that they are not a mere extension of US foreign policy. I think Europeans are angry not only at the terrorists for attacking them, but for their politicians for giving them an excuse to do it. This is a populist wave that could hurt US-Europe relations until Bush gets out of power.

weebee

03-15-04, 11:38 AM

Can't see the lib dems getting into number 10 any time soon.... :p

Undecided

03-15-04, 11:44 AM

It doesn't have to be them, it be the conservatives. Or even better get rid of Blair and get a new leadership. I think ppl just want change.

weebee

03-15-04, 11:51 AM

now there really is an interesting question, are the conservatives better than Blair...hmmmm. I admit that if the conservatives were in power they would have a harder time getting the 'new labour' policies into power, because they are conservatives, as it is Blair just sweeps them through. However. what's the point of change, if your not changing to something better?

Clockwood

03-15-04, 01:41 PM

I look at what Spain is doing, trying to pull out the 1,300 troops they contributed to holding the peace in Iraq, disturbs me. I just can't make a connection with whatever state of mind drives that action. It seems completely alien to me. I feel sympathy for the victims of the recent bombing but not for a good chunk of the rest of the country or their new leader.

To do it out of fear? After any terrorist action against the US, every fiber of my being tells me to have whatever group did it to us ripped from the face of the Earth and unmade from existence. Complying with a demand just tells your enemy that you are their hostage and that they can demand something even bigger and get away with it. Give a mouse a cookie.

If they wanted to change something about how we fight the War on Terror, it would be easier to do on the inside.

Thanks Spain. You just did every militant islamist fanatical group and potential Iraqi warlord a big favor. Hope it works out for you.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114185,00.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/15/spain.election/index.html

guthrie

03-15-04, 01:47 PM

Ahhh, I sometimes think that the Atlantic is a good sign of the differences between the USA and Europe. And good thing its there, too.
If i was in charge, id withdraw the spanish troops and replace them with as many reconstructors of whatever kind are necessary.
AS for giving in to terrorists, I would think that the ones that have been arrested, assuming they are found guilty after trial, will go down for very, very long sentences. Yet what ive heard on the radio also shows that the Spanish "people" are capable of distingushing between fanatical murderers and normal moslems, which gives me hope for the future. And is also a demonstration of what perhaps Clockwood et al dont quite see.

weebee

03-15-04, 02:11 PM

90% of Spain didn’t want to go to war, so they voted their government out, and put one in which would take them out. They do it because they don’t fear…and they get their cash for the EU, not by invading countries and ripping of their oil fields…

Clockwood

03-15-04, 02:11 PM

Guthrie, in my point of view a "Normal Muslim" is one that goes about their day-to-day existence without blowing anybody or anybody's property up. Thus I think we should put our forces wherever they get the MOST fire that they can stand and keep blowing the excrement out of the attackers until there are no more attackers left. Go wherever things look supicious and then bring immense force to bear on anybody who takes a shot at you.

And judging by weebee, people still think we are doing this all for oil. Ever stop to think how much the war cost us? How would we make a profit in the four more years Bush has a potential to be in office?

He wage this bloody war because we don't want ANYBODY standing who wants to crush our bones into the dirt. Its a little too late to make everyone like us so we do the next logical thing.

guthrie

03-15-04, 02:20 PM

Sure, then you might as well nuke tikrit, Syria, much of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Oh wait, yoru in Afghanistan already, and how many children and non combatants have been killed there this year? Thus earning you much condemnation. The point is that there are million of normal muslims, its just they are hard to separate from dangerous ones, till the dangerous ones open fire. "but they started it" you cry as you apologise for killing 38 bystanders. Yet the locals wont understand, since they never actually asked you to come here and get shot at, theyd ratehr you went back to the USA and got shot at.

Clockwood

03-15-04, 02:29 PM

Tell me how that is worse than any war in history.

guthrie

03-15-04, 02:34 PM

Cos you get more people killed? Whats a few hundred americans and a few thousand iraqis compared to hundreds of thousands? And after youve killed the hundreds of thousands, youd be compelled to come to a sensible solution due to the shock of world opinion. Moreover, you are suggesting killing people like the bishop of somewhere in the south of france did when suppressing the Albigensians, he said "kill them all, God will know his own." No concern over justice, rightness, any form of deserving it.

You know, its funny how your talking about historical wars, when so many people like to say how this war on terrorism is without precedent and is new etc etc.

Undecided

03-15-04, 02:39 PM

Tell me how that is worse than any war in history.

Most wars in history have a reason for happening, not lies. This war will go down in the annals of history as one of the most vile and detestable abuses of power by a major world power. The US had no reason to be in Iraq, other then to stroke her ego and maintain power in the ME.

weebee

03-15-04, 02:39 PM

And judging by weebee, people still think we are doing this all for oil. Ever stop to think how much the war cost us? How would we make a profit in the four more years Bush has a potential to be in office?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3006149.stm
Halliburton's Iraq role expands

Halliburton could have more work
Halliburton's role in post-war Iraq includes operating Iraqi oil fields, new documents have revealed.

Previously, the US Army Corps of Engineers had described the contract given to Halliburton - run by US Vice President Dick Cheney between 1995 and 2000 - as putting out fires at oil wells during the conflict.

The emergency contract for firefighting and capping Iraqi oil wells was awarded to Halliburton without a bidding process in March.

Responding to questions from a US Congressman, the US Army Corps of Engineers has revealed that the contract included "operation of facilities and distribution of products".

In a letter to senior Democrat Henry Waxman on Friday, Army Corps Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers added the contract with Halliburton's subsidiary KBR was a "bridge" to one that is open to other bidders.

"We will limit orders under this contract to those services required prior to the availability of competitively awarded contracts," he wrote

'Helping out'

Halliburton said the wider role for its subsidiary KBR was announced on 24 March, when the deal was made public.

"KBR's initial task involves hazard and operational assessment, extinguishing oil well fires, capping oil well blowouts, as well as responding to any oil spills," the original Halliburton statement said.

"Following this task, KBR will perform emergency repair, as directed, to provide for the continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure," it continued.

The Halliburton spokeswoman said KBR was currently assisting Iraq's oil ministry.

"Only now, over five weeks after the contract was first disclosed, are members of Congress and the public learning that Halliburton may be asked to pump and distribute Iraqi oil under the contract," said senior Democrat Henry Waxman, who received the confirmation from the US Army.

New deal

Mr Waxman sits on the House of Representatives' committee on government reform.

Mr Cheney's office has repeatedly denied the vice president had a role in awarding the contract.

The US government has been criticised for its handling of the reconstruction of Iraq because only a select group of US companies have been invited to bid for the contracts.

The US Army Corps of Engineers said the Halliburton deal was a temporary measure before a contract was put out to tender in the coming months.

It expects a replacement contract to be signed by the end of August.

The US Army said in early April that Halliburton had been paid $50.3m out of the contract that could be worth up to $7bn over two years.

.....

i think Bush is too intelligent to bring a country to war because of some emotion....

guthrie

03-15-04, 02:42 PM

"Tell me how that is worse than any war in history. "

Cos if you nuke people, it doesnt give time for the military industrial complex to make a killing.
*takes off ultra cynical hat*

Proud_Muslim

03-16-04, 06:19 AM

There's far too little known to speculate. I think society should place more emphasis on apprehending murderers than on speculatively examining their injustice- and/or insanity-inspired motives, however morbidly curious they may be.

You cant defeat terrorism, none did and no one will do , terrorism stems from terror, instead of dealing with the symptoms, deal with the deep roots causes of terror, if so called Islamic terrorists were behind the attacks, the explanation is very easy:

AS LONG AS MUSLIMS ARE TREATED LIKE THIS:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/iraq/images/america9.jpg
An unidentified Iraqi man holds an unidentified girl wounded after U.S.-led coalition air strikes over the southern Iraqi city of Basra, Saturday March 22, 2003

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/iraq/images/iraq19.jpg

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/iraq/images/iraq16.jpg

THE WEST WILL BE TREATED LIKE THIS:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39881000/jpg/_39881106_train_203ap.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39893000/jpg/_39893122_blast203i.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39886000/jpg/_39886498_carriage_203bodyap.jpg

Dont get me wrong, I am not trying to justify what happened in Spain, it was horrible crime, but what is the difference between those terrorists who placed the bombs and the other terrorists who drop the bombs from the safety of sky ??? both are killers and murderers.

"Terror is for the most part useless cruelties committed by frightened people to reassure themselves."

Indeed, this proverb suits the American led WAR OF TERROR against the Muslim world, they are frightened and they want to kill as much muslims as possible to reassure themselves they are still in charge !! very sad ! :(

Proud_Muslim

03-16-04, 06:23 AM

I wonder what would have happened if the Spanish government had stood up and said, yes it was very likely carried out because we took Spain to war, and see this is how nasty these people actually are…

Thoese terrorists are no difference than Bush, Blair and Aznar ( the real axis of evil ) who slaughtered more than 10,000 innocent Muslims since the aggression against Iraq started !

Lemming3k

03-16-04, 07:42 AM

PM am i wrong in saying that we went to war in afghanistan and iraq AFTER september the 11th? Bush, Blair and Aznar responded to a terrorist attack and went to war against the countries they believed responsible, innocent people have died on both sides, i'd say that their response was correct, but their reasons were wrong(ie the faking of claims for WMD in iraq) they want to catch the people in charge of terrorist attacks, i doubt we would have gone to afghanistan and subsequently iraq without september the 11th as we had no other reason to declare war. They dont want to kill as many muslims as possible, they want to catch the people responsible, I think your post can be turned around as Al Queda made the first attack on september 11th.

Proud_Muslim

03-16-04, 08:55 AM

PM am i wrong in saying that we went to war in afghanistan and iraq AFTER september the 11th?

History does not start on 9/11, ever wondered why 9/11 took place in the first place ???

Bush, Blair and Aznar responded to a terrorist attack and went to war against the countries they believed responsible,

Afghanistan and Iraq were NOT responsible for 9/11, in fact, not a single Afghani or Iraqi was involved, killing 12,000 afghani MUSLIMS and about 15,000 Iraqi Muslims is TERRORISM that will guarantte Islamic response.

innocent people have died on both sides, i'd say that their response was correct, but their reasons were wrong(ie the faking of claims for WMD in iraq) they want to catch the people in charge of terrorist attacks, i doubt we would have gone to afghanistan and subsequently iraq without september the 11th as we had no other reason to declare war. They dont want to kill as many muslims as possible, they want to catch the people responsible, I think your post can be turned around as Al Queda made the first attack on september 11th.

As I said, history DOES NOT start on 9/11, America committed horrible crimes against Muslims before 9/11, but of course your biased anti muslim media never tell you about such crimes:

Chronology of American State Terrorism

PALESTINE :1948 – Present

American/Israeli State Terrorism of the Palestinian People

Estimated civilian deaths: 100,000 Palestinian people

The United States government gives billions of your tax dollars to the Israelis every year. And the U.S. government never pays people to do things it doesn’t want done. Israeli state terrorism is essentially American state terrorism.

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html#Palestine

Picture of American financed Israeli massacres against innocent palestinean MUSLIMS:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/pali_pic1.jpg

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/palestine/jenin.htm

Libya 1981 – 1989

American Terror-Campaign Against the Libyan People;
Numerous CIA Assassination Attempts on Muammar Qadhafi

Estimated civilian deaths from the April 1986 attack: over 100 people, including Qadhafi’s two-year-old daughter

The official reason for the Reagan administration’s intense antipathy toward Moammar Qaddafi was that he supported terrorism. In actuality, the Libyan leader’s crime was not his support for terrorist groups per se, but that he was supporting the wrong terrorist groups; i.e., Qaddafi was not supporting the same terrorists that Reagan was, such as the Nicaraguan Contras, UNITA in Angola, Cuban exiles in Miami, the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala and the U.S. military in Grenada. The one band of terrorists the two men supported in common was the Moujahedeen in Afghanistan.

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror2.html#Libya

Iran 1988:
U.S. Navy Mass-Murder of Civilian Iranian Airline Passengers

Known civilian deaths: 290 people

On July 3, 1988 the U.S. Navy warship the Vincennes was operating within Iranian waters, providing military support for Iraq in the ongoing Iran/Iraq war. During a one-sided battle against a small number of lightly armed Iranian gunboats, the Vincennes fired two missiles at an [Iranian] Airbus, which was on a routine civilian flight. All 290 civilians onboard were killed.

This act of mass murder by the U.S. has never resulted in any court case. The captain and crew of the Vincennes were militarily decorated. Attempts by relatives of the victims to bring legal action against the American government were rejected by the US Supreme Court in 1993. Despite the fact that the vast majority of victims were Iranian, the US paid $2.9 million in compensation only to non-Iranian victims of the shooting.

''I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don’t care what the facts are.”

— President George Bush, Sr.
referring to the mass-murder
of Iranian civilian people
by the U.S.S. Vincennes

IRAQ: 1991 – Present

American/British State Terrorism of the Iraqi People

Estimated total civilian deaths: at least 200,000 people directly from the 1991 terror campaign;
1,000,000 — 2,000,000 people since then from the combined effects of depleted uranium poisoning, polluted water and sanctions

SEE THE EFFECT OF THE AMERICAN DEPLETED URANIUM MISSILES ON THE IRAQI MUSLIMS NEARLY 10 YEARS BEFORE 9/11:

Warning: graphic pictures:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq12.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq13.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq3.jpg

And many more examples, I refer you to amazing book called Rouge State by William Blum:

http://www.commoncouragepress.com/bookimages/194b.gif

''Why terrorists keep picking on the United States; * The numerous foreign leaders whose assassinations were plotted by the U.S.; * How the U.S. supported Pol Pot but helped incarcerate Nelson Mandela; * The U.S. government's extensive connection to torture; * How the U.S. has been a haven for foreign terrorists and human rights violators; * The War Crimes Tribunal that will never be: How the U.S. squelched the charges of war crimes against its own and NATO's leaders in 1999; * How the U.S. has perverted dozens of foreign elections; and much, much more.''

http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=194

And Finally, do you know IRONICALLY what happened on 9/11-1973 ????

Lemming3k

03-16-04, 09:24 AM

Are you refering to the chilean president being killed in a military coup led by General Pinochet? How is this ironic? plz explain.
Nice to see you claim our media is bias then make a long post about american terrorism completely disregarding any other terrorism against them,
Afghanistan and Iraq were NOT responsible for 9/11
Im sorry its taken me half an hour to stop laughing at this, is osama bin laden not from afghanistan? I've not heard this claim before, care to elaborate?
PALESTINE :1948 – Present
Palestinians have been continuously bombing the israeli's, with probably the same deathtoll to israeli's as you provided for palestinians, you fail to grasp war has civilian casualties, and they have been fighting over a stupid piece of land for half a century(even though officially they havnt been at war the whole time the fighting has continued) and have come to the conclusion their best defence against palestine suicide bombers is a wall around their country.
On July 3, 1988 the U.S. Navy warship the Vincennes was operating within Iranian waters, providing military support for Iraq in the ongoing Iran/Iraq war. During a one-sided battle against a small number of lightly armed Iranian gunboats, the Vincennes fired two missiles at an [Iranian] Airbus, which was on a routine civilian flight. All 290 civilians onboard were killed.
Perhaps you could elaborate this and all your other stories from a non-bias source, I have a feeling you arnt providing all the facts.

Undecided

03-16-04, 10:43 AM

Im sorry its taken me half an hour to stop laughing at this, is osama bin laden not from afghanistan? I've not heard this claim before, care to elaborate?

I don't know why you would laugh? OBL was from Saudi Arabia, and his family is originally from Yemen, he was based in Sudan then in Afghanistan. Afghanistan proper was not responsible for the attack on the WTC. Afghanistan which you are referring to was never the legitimate gov't of the country, only Pakistan recognized the Taliban as the leaders of Afghanistan. Officially the real gov't being up in the north supported the war against the Taliban. So in essence Afghanistan actually supported the war against the Taliban. The Taliban were nothing more then an illegal rebel group. Iraq had nothing to do with the attack, even the administration gave that one up.

Proud_Muslim

03-16-04, 11:05 AM

Are you refering to the chilean president being killed in a military coup led by General Pinochet? How is this ironic? plz explain.

Ironic because it happened on 9/11 and why I mentioned that ? it is because this military coup that led to the death of thousands of innocent chileans was AMERICAN initiated and backed !!

Nice to see you claim our media is bias then make a long post about american terrorism completely disregarding any other terrorism against them,

Every action has reaction equal to it in its force and opposite to it in its direction, this is what my physics teacher taught me when I was 11 , dont you agree ???

Im sorry its taken me half an hour to stop laughing at this, is osama bin laden not from afghanistan? I've not heard this claim before, care to elaborate?

You are not only ignorant but pathetic, please go READ little bit about where Osama bin laden from and then come back here for the next lesson !! :rolleyes:

PALESTINE :1948 – Present
Palestinians have been continuously bombing the israeli's, with probably the same deathtoll to israeli's as you provided for palestinians,

Wrong, the palestineans have no army, no state, no apatchi, no F16s, no Abrams tanks, no nuclear submarines ...etc.

here is more information about who is the real terrorist, it is written by an american journalist:

http://www.koshertaxscam.com/atroc/

Please make sure to read the above, it is crucial.

you fail to grasp war has civilian casualties, and they have been fighting over a stupid piece of land for half a century(even though officially they havnt been at war the whole time the fighting has continued) and have come to the conclusion their best defence against palestine suicide bombers is a wall around their country.

You fail to understand that WAR involves 2 ARMIES fighting each other, the palestinean have NO army, they have nothing but their bodies to use as human bombs....and here I refer you to amazing article called:

YOU MADE ME HUMAN BOMB:

http://www.mideastinfo.com/library/ey-bomb.htm

I dont see any difference between Palestinean suicide martyer using the ONLY mean available to him to deliver the bomb and an israeli pilot wrapping himself with an AMERICAN made and FREE-PROVIDED F16 to deliver the bomb ?

And here I refer you to amazing website about America and Israel, called: IF AMERICANS KNEW:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org

Perhaps you could elaborate this and all your other stories from a non-bias source, I have a feeling you arnt providing all the facts.

Isn't a fact that your country shot down an Iranian civil plane killing more than 200 innocent MUSLIMS !!!

Isn't a fact that 1.5 million innocent Iraqi Muslims died because of the American-led sanctions against Iraq since 1991 ??

-The UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is the World's Greatest TERRORIST ORGANIZATION:

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/Amerikan_Terrorism.html

-The Weapons of American Terrorism:Cluster Bombs

http://www.robert-fisk.com/american_terrorism.htm

Warning: graphic pictures of Muslim victims of American terrorism:

http://forums.gawaher.com/index.php?act=ST&f=65&t=495&

Proud_Muslim

03-16-04, 11:07 AM

spidergoat

03-16-04, 02:12 PM

Yes, but the point was that Afghanistan, in the hands of the Taliban, provided refuge and support for Bin Laden, that is why there is a war in Afghanistan now. "From" in this context means not where you were born, but where you operate from.

spidergoat

03-16-04, 02:19 PM

Isn't a fact that your country shot down an Iranian civil plane killing more than 200 innocent MUSLIMS !!!
an innocent mistake, not terrorism

Isn't a fact that 1.5 million innocent Iraqi Muslims died because of the American-led sanctions against Iraq since 1991 ??
America is under no obligation to trade with everyone. What about Saddam's responsibility? He became a very rich man stealing from the Iraqis, and instead of building hospitals, he built lavish palaces for his own selfish pleasure, and mosques for public relations. If I barricade myself in the house for a month with 4 children because the police are after me for a crime, and they all die of starvation, do you blame the police?

Proud_Muslim

03-16-04, 03:11 PM

an innocent mistake, not terrorism

It was not mistake, it was deliberate attack.

America is under no obligation to trade with everyone. What about Saddam's responsibility? He became a very rich man stealing from the Iraqis, and instead of building hospitals, he built lavish palaces for his own selfish pleasure, and mosques for public relations.

Let us watch this 1 min video clip to see who was supporting Saddam Hussain:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2038.htm

If I barricade myself in the house for a month with 4 children because the police are after me for a crime, and they all die of starvation, do you blame the police?

If the Police know you have 4 childern with you, they should be blamed for their death, after all, your childern did not committ any crime, why they should pay for their father crime !!

Lemming3k

03-16-04, 03:39 PM

The Taliban were nothing more then an illegal rebel group. Iraq had nothing to do with the attack, even the administration gave that one up.
I explained myself badly, i meant was osama not based in afghanistan? Also i didnt say iraq had anything to do with september 11th.(spidergoat understood my point)
Wrong, the palestineans have no army, no state, no apatchi, no F16s, no Abrams tanks, no nuclear submarines ...etc.
I never said they had any of those things, read more carefully next time.
I dont see any difference between Palestinean suicide martyer using the ONLY mean available to him to deliver the bomb and an israeli pilot wrapping himself with an AMERICAN made and FREE-PROVIDED F16 to deliver the bomb
True and neither do I, both are killing innocent people, if that classes them as terrorists then both are terrorists.
Isn't a fact that your country shot down an Iranian civil plane killing more than 200 innocent MUSLIMS !!!
I was trying to get more information from you, but i can see thats not going to happen so i'll find it myself, i was trying to get at the point perhaps you arnt providing all information like an error of judgement on the part of the ships captain or a targetting malfunction, i was merely trying to find out if it could have been an accident. (also this helps prove your own ignorance, see bottom of post)
Isn't a fact that 1.5 million innocent Iraqi Muslims died because of the American-led sanctions against Iraq since 1991
That is tragically true, they put the sanctions in place because of saddam hussien and inevitably it affects the whole population, of course if saddam gave up power then the sanctions would have stopped.
You are not only ignorant but pathetic
Now THATS funny, considering most of your ignorant posts.
Also to further prove your ignorance, IM NOT AMERICAN, so kindly stop calling them my government as it isnt.

Lemming3k

03-16-04, 03:42 PM

It was not mistake, it was deliberate attack.
If you can provide proof i might be tempted to believe you.
If the Police know you have 4 childern with you, they should be blamed for their death, after all, your childern did not committ any crime, why they should pay for their father crime !!
You missed the point entirely, saddam hussein is partly to blame for the fate of his people.

Proud_Muslim

03-16-04, 04:14 PM

Sure:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/july88crash.html

http://www.irib.ir/worldservice/englishRADIO/IRAN/airbus.htm

spidergoat

03-16-04, 04:46 PM

...all lies.

Lemming3k

03-16-04, 05:25 PM

PM This is off topic but i thought you might want to know about a thread in the religious section on the truth about islam, i thought you might like to join it and defend your faith as you would know more about islam than anyone on the post, im sure your input would be appreciated. :)
As for the links the top one didnt work for me, and the second one shows the other side to the story, the americans claimed they thought it was a military aircraft(of course they shouldnt have shot this down either as it was over iranian territory) other than that, it proves little, the confession of the captain would be interesting reading though if you can find that.

hypewaders

03-16-04, 06:00 PM

These digressions indicate the extensive implications of the Madrid bombings. Rarely in the resulting ruckus is it contemplated that the purpose of such attacks is always to inflame emotions, cause confusion, and upset the imperfect order of things. The clamor to affix blame seems most intense the more a nagging awareness nears the surface of collective consciousness: We are each and all to blame.

We are the war fans. We spin history, we inject aggression into our interchanges. We savor our righteous anger, and construct complex cases illuminating the faults of those we oppose. We fund our killers, or personally kill, always with the same results: Hardship and tragedy for everyone involved.

The solution to terrorism is to identify and remove conditions causing homocidal desperation. Because we are all killers, there is no killer's cause unworthy of our open-minded attention. Because history, right up through current events is subjective, it is important to consider other perspectives, because they are very much in play, and very much connected.

Thoughts in Milwaukee and Medina influence events in Madrid. There are people who feel that the USA is an unwelcome and criminal intruder into their lives and lands. There are people who feel that the USA is manipulative of weaker governments. There are Americans who feel that foreign outrages and insults must be punished with scourging, and none must be allowed to challenge America's military or moral superiority. All of these people, and people with a myriad of other perspectives all share identical fundamental ethics that allow them to function in their local social environment. Dysfunctionally, these are not applied to the world at large, which is undergoing accelerating integration- this is folly.

It is not idealism, pacifism, oversimplification, to admit that the policies and provocations that lead to wars and terrorism are evident and controllable. Gaining control over our collective ignorances and angers requires discipline and adaptation, but we and our descendants are born into an age when the vital imperative to de-escalate and control group aggression is rapidly becoming more stark.

Spaniards, as a nation, have exhibited a more rational collective response than Americans, comparing our 9-11 with their 3-11, and the reasons are important to explore and understand. Spain is not in the pre-eminent military position of the USA. Spain has more direct and recent experience with terrorism than the USA. Spain collectively emoted grief much more passionately than Americans did. It is reasonable to expect that Spain will now do far less, even proportionate to their world position, to escalate the conflict between the West (and affiliated causes) and Islamic fundamentalists (& affiliated/co-opted causes) than has the United States in response to our disaster on 9-11.

It's not unusual for a thread to take off on contentious tangents, but I would like for this one to stay a little on track if possible, because I think there are important lessons.

spidergoat

03-16-04, 06:40 PM

If I barricade myself in the house for a month with 4 children because the police are after me for a crime, and they all die of starvation, do you blame the police?

If the Police know you have 4 childern with you, they should be blamed for their death, after all, your childern did not committ any crime, why they should pay for their father crime !!

So, to continue the analogy, what should the police have done to ensure the survival of the children?

a. invade the house, arrest me, and secure the children, even if they could be killed in the process? (which is what the U.S. did)
or
b. ignore the situation, and hope I am kind?
or
?

spidergoat

03-16-04, 06:43 PM

I am not trying to justify what happened in Spain, it was horrible crime

That is exactly what you are doing!

Proud_Muslim

03-17-04, 02:44 AM

So, to continue the analogy, what should the police have done to ensure the survival of the children?

a. invade the house, arrest me, and secure the children, even if they could be killed in the process? (which is what the U.S. did)
or
b. ignore the situation, and hope I am kind?
or
?

Or your analogy is flawed since America is NOT the police man of the world.

Proud_Muslim

03-17-04, 02:47 AM

That is exactly what you are doing!

I am explaning why it happened, every actions has reasons behind it, dont you know that decetives search for the MOTIVE of any crime before they start searching for the ones who did it !!

Again, I repeat, as long as Muslims are killed, huimilated, tortured and abused, the west will never live in peace, it is common sense really !

spidergoat

03-17-04, 10:25 AM

Eddie

03-17-04, 10:41 AM

Proud Muslim,

"Again, I repeat, as long as Muslims are killed, huimilated, tortured and abused, the west will never live in peace, it is common sense really !"

And that's one of the reasons why the west got rid of Saddam and his regime... Muslims were being humiliated, abused, raped, tortured and unmercifully killed by their own leader in Iraq.

Proud_Muslim

03-17-04, 12:12 PM

If you think the Madrid bombings are not justified, then you should also think that the reasons for it are irrational. Since you think the reasons are rational, you are justifiying the terrorist's actions.

Well, you are trying to put words in my mouth, but you are failing miserably.

I am noy justifying them, I am EXPLAINING them, I am explaining the MOTIVATION behind them.

Proud_Muslim

03-17-04, 12:17 PM

And that's one of the reasons why the west got rid of Saddam and his regime... Muslims were being humiliated, abused, raped, tortured and unmercifully killed by their own leader in Iraq.

Let us see who was supporting the criminal saddam when he was murdering his own people:

Watch this 1 min video clip and tell me who was shaking hand with Saddam Hussain in 1983 (the year in which Saddam massacred thousands of Shia and used chemical weapons agains Iranians)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2038.htm

:mad:

Eddie

03-17-04, 12:37 PM

Proud Muslim,

What type of a relationship would you like to see exist between the east and the west?

When a representative of one country goes to speak with the a representative of another, even if they despise each other, they usually behave in public in a civil manner and engage in behaviors such as hand-shaking.

spidergoat

03-17-04, 01:06 PM

Well, you are trying to put words in my mouth, but you are failing miserably.

I am not justifying them, I am EXPLAINING them, I am explaining the MOTIVATION behind them.
..................................

justification

n 1: something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary: "he considered misrule a justification for revolution" 2: a statement in explanation of some action or belief 3: the act of justifying: "the justification of barbarous means by holy ends"- H.J.Muller

..................................

Everyone knows that they say they are motivated by perceived injustice by the U.S. and allies. You're saying that their motivations are rational and understandable, and, thus, justified. But their actions are totally irrational, they killed around 3000 innocent people because the "infidels" had an army base in Saudi Arabia, an army base intended to defend an arab country from the ambitions of an unjust dictator. Know this, the terrorists are NOT motivated by injustice against arabs, but by their own ambitions, they seek to unite the arab world against the west, and thus solidify their own place as rulers of a new Islamic empire.

contrarian

03-17-04, 01:57 PM

It seems to me that the question of the justifiability of violence is at least partly dependent on the consequences of that violence. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, many innocents were killed. However, these were not by any measure peaceful regimes, innocent people were dying there in large numbers prior to the intervention of the US.

I believe that by any measure over the next few years many, many fewer people will have died violently in those countries than would otherwise been the case. Also, both countries have a good chance at building a peaceful, productive civil society, which certainly counts in favour of the interventions.

The ultimate problem with Madrid and terrorism in general is its lack of positive consequences. Whether its practiced by the Palestinians or Al Qaeda terrorism tends to work counter to the expressed desires of these groups. A Palestinian homeland would probably already be a reality if terrorism hadn't got in the way. Likewise, Al Qaeda's actions had to inevitably lead to some kind of intervention against them. People will not ignore deadly attacks forever.

Cheers,

Eddie

03-19-04, 01:07 AM

I believe that by any measure over the next few years many, many fewer people will have died violently in those countries than would otherwise been the case. Also, both countries have a good chance at building a peaceful, productive civil society, which certainly counts in favour of the interventions.

I have the same faith as you that things will only get better in the long run...

hypewaders

03-19-04, 03:27 PM

Contrarian and Spidergoat are perfectly entitled to your conclusions that terrorism is unjustifiable. I think ProudMuslim is attempting to clue you in on the overwhelming popular sentiments ignited not simply by terrorism, but by the entire conflict we are watching escalate. Very negative sentiments toward the US are being especially incited by the new doctrines of American response to terrorism, which is perceived as excessive, unbalanced, self-serving, and manipulative, and which carries a subtle but overshadowing threat of maximum violence.

Acknowledging that major western invasions, regime changes, and occupations increase antagonism toward the US and affiliates does not require for you to personally share in the negative reaction. However, to deny this rising sentiment, that is extremely likely to foster greater resistance, including terrorism, is unrealistic. It is unrealistic to dismiss such sentiments as unworthy of consideration.

Spoken or not, the reverberating subtext when Arab and Muslim protestations are dismissed outright, and when references made to American superiority, is a death-threat toward entire societies: This is a threat of unilateral escalation to unbridled total war to vanquish entire populations if necessary, if antagonistic (not necessarily mortal threats) to US interest and security. This indirect but palpable threat is often hinted at by supporters of neoconservative foreign policy, should terrorists, their supporters, and unfriendly nations not back down before the American military threat.

The is indeed a mortal threat to the US, that may with time far surpass that of terrorism (as it is ominously described to rally support for recent US occupations). If an unknown proportion of the world community becomes actively anti-American, our empire and economy can rapidly be placed in danger of collapse. The Bush administration is currently stocking up the "Strategic Petroleum Reserve", knowing that there is a high probability of and oil market upheaval ahead- but petroleum is not the USA's only economic vulnerability. America needs more friends, and needs them more than Al-Qaeda, not only to thrive, but also to even survive as a superpower. A sole superpower in the modern context can only persist when the rest of the world voluntarily tolerates it, which is a very different dynamic than was operative during the Cold War.

This is not at all to say that the US superpower status is impotent, or that the US is powerless to effectively suppress terrorism. There are many more effective means of uprooting terrorist organizations that threaten American lives. Most of them require a price, that for the present administration and their contributors is much more dear than the lives and limbs of US soldiers by the hundreds, and of foreign civilians by the tens of thousands. And it isn't just oil.

The price is putting business associates and potentially even some US officials and corporations under the microscope. There is not a hot-spot on earth where the US has not had deep, overt and/or covert military and economic connections. Standard procedure has long been that the dirty laundry of partners is never brought to light, and for a very long time this has included "overlooking" all kinds of things. This has long been a point of debate between various camps in the US, over human rights in places like South America, Africa, and the Middle East. So far, Americans as a majority have been able to (callously, but comfortably) overlook horrors outside our borders, committed by the foreign affiliates of the US government and commercial interests. Now, Americans are being distracted from horrors that we might not so readily dismiss, if not for the massive smoke-and-mirrors we are subjected to by Administration mouthpieces.

The US government has had high-level leads deep into major terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda for a long time (although at the same and increasingly, poor links at operational levels). During Al-Qaeda's fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the CIA and other government organizations became quite familiar and friendly with them, including Osama Bin Laden, who was very grateful to be supplied with Stinger missiles and other goodies. This relationship included very sensitive contacts within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is politically far from monolithic (but that's another thread). The thickest fundamentalist and financial roots of Al-Qaeda remain to this day in Saudi Arabia- but the US government is doing almost nothing there (the reasons are worth another thread). Suffice it to say that our soldiers are dying in Iraq to prevent any pressure from being applied to a precarious and very nervous Saudi ruling elite that threatens economic and not physical terrorism on the US.

Saudis were plying American skies, on their hush-hush journeys home after 9-11, days before the American public was allowed back in the air. Saudi connections to 9-11 were big news as the dust was still settling. Then the Shell game started. It was ruthlessly decided in Washington to completely obscure the base of "the Base" (al-Qaeda) from public attention, and "go massive" as Rumsfeld privately put it, with the grandiose plans of the Project for the New American Century, both as campaign and cover for bad company. Nothing substantive pertaining to Saudi is permitted for discussion between the US government and the press, and released documents are censored to remove all references to al-Qaeda links to the Kingdom.

Without digressing too much further, consider that there has long been a pattern of convenient US partnerships with unsavory and even brutal personalities and governments in the Mideast and elsewhere, of which Saddam Hussein was only one example, notable because his greatest atrocities were committed first under US cooperation, and then again when the US encouraged a civil uprising and then balked.

For the Arab world, indeed for almost the entire world outside of the US including Spain, American affiliation with despotic regimes has formed a pattern and a reputation. During the vicious days of Rios Maat, Pinochet, Marcos, the Shah, Saddam, and others, butchery that occured with American cooperation and cover was very much on peoples' minds in places like Spain, but rarely on the minds of Americans. Even to this day, Americans as a whole resist being confronted with the "postcolonialist" repression and killing that was done with tacit US government approval, for the benefit of the US interests. Ask any schoolgoing teenager outside the USA, and you can generally get a fairly complete description of American history, warts and all, that most American kids would be incapable of relating.

This disparity of perception about the USA is very significant when it comes to the present worldwide "war" the US is so forcefully promoting and prosecuting. If Americans do not consider the implications of two divergent views, very generally the American View and that of most everyone else, then we will not be able to reliably anticipate the world's response to profound new American interventions. Pushing things too far, the US can very conceivably get dangerously boxed in by our own rhetoric and strategic mistakes, and reach a place where we cannot negotiate sudden but predictable turns of events, with devastating results.

So Contrarian, Spidergoat, Eddie, and others who are confident that American supremacy can whip the unruly parts of the world into shape, don't be confused by thinking it is necessary for you to cast off your sentiments, and identify with or appease terrorism. There not even a requirement to become a socialist, a Muslim, an al-Qaeda sympathizer, an anti-Semite, or to change your basic political philosophy at all. There is only the need to gain a very basic overhead view of how the world is actually responding to the "War on Terror". Watch carefully and critically.

If you sincerely believe that things are going well in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that the threat of terrorism against Americans is being reduced, you owe it to yourself to diversify your sources of information, and then re-evaluate. Things are not responding favorably. The Taliban is regaining influence in Afghanistan, and the US-installed government has a very limited and tenuous sphere of influence, probably unviable absent perpetual American troops and casualties. Iraq is lurching toward a civil war. The Arab-Israeli situation is deteriorating even more, and there is a real threat of instability in several surrounding countries. In all of the present and coming misery, there will be one looming scapegoat for all resisters, sane and insane, to collectively turn their rage upon.

US forces are not a stabilizing influence in the Mideast. We are sowing the seeds of more terrorist attacks against us in the future, by compounding the antagonisms that have brought us to this present conflict. Spanish education and democracy have served well enough for them to choose another course, that is not in the least a capitulation to terrorists. Very likely, it is a posture and outlook that Americans could learn a great deal from studying. In the future this understanding may likely influence the ultimate fundamentals: To be, or not to be.

contrarian

03-19-04, 04:06 PM

Hi hypewader!

First of all, let me say that I don't think terrorism is unjustifiable, I think it is ineffective. People can( and frequently do) justify anything.

I don't think American power can whip the rest of the world into shape, I believe that it can foster, support and, sometimes in extreme cases like Iraq install, democracy. In these cases, ultimately it is the actions of the free members of those societies to fix their own problems. Luckily the vast majority of people want peace, prosperity and freedom to control their own lives.

As to the future of Iraq and Afghanistan, time will tell, obviously. There are no guarantees, but there are lots of encouraging signs, besides the discouraging ones.

In re: past American malfeasance, I certainly agree that this is a serious problem. However, there is nothing we can do about the past, only about the present. Also, the tendency is to suggest that the US is the sole bad actor on the world stage. The Soviets, Chinese, French and German all had close and in many cases more substantial contacts with Iraq, for example, over longer periods of time. Pakistan had much more influence in Afghanistan for the nineties than the Americans did, by far.

The problems in the Middle East are much bigger, more widespread and longer lasting than any American actions could possibly account for. Those problems began before America even existed as a nation.

Cheers,

guthrie

03-19-04, 05:55 PM

" Also, the tendency is to suggest that the US is the sole bad actor on the world stage. The Soviets, Chinese, French and German all had close and in many cases more substantial contacts with Iraq, for example, over longer periods of time."

Fair points. My tuppenorth is to say that the USA is the one that we think we might be better able to influence. You fly out to china and start protesting about whatever they've done wrong, youll be on the next plane out if your lucky. The USA has a reputation and rhetoric to live up to, but often it does not.

hypewaders

03-19-04, 07:54 PM

contrarian

03-21-04, 06:40 PM

Contrarian: "the tendency is to suggest that the US is the sole bad actor on the world stage"

I have not intended to give such an impression. Grandiose policies being sold to the American public as being in their security interests are not- Reason: The US has no popular mandate abroad for establishing order, especially on the scale now being attempted. The problem is not at all that the US fails in moral comparison (this is what I already tried and failed to clarify), but instead, the problem is that the US is perceived to be imposing its authority beyond acceptable boundaries of nations, cultures, and religions.

"Those problems began before America even existed as a nation."

I'm not sure which problems you are referring to. The Arab-Israeli conflict, and the last colonial rebellion that evicted Great Britain, for example, were both concurrant with US history. Since WW2, there has been no other outside power so deeply involved in the evolution of governments of the Mideast as the USA has been. The Arab world holds the US largely accountable for funding and abetting displacement and repression of Palestinians, and also for tolerating the misdeeds of client Arab states, for so long as their transgressions did not threaten Israel.

In the Arab world, all major mideastern issues are closely, and mostly negatively, associated with US policies. It is entirely irrelevant to the response to US mideast intervention what the historical ranking among nations is in international transgressions. For the Arab majority the transgressions of China or the Soviet Union are irrelevant to the present conflict, because the Arab world is not confronted with interventions by China, the Soviet Union, or any other power that has wronged a weaker party. The argument by Americans that "we mean well", and "we're not so comparatively bad" does not help at all to stop the very real resentment (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206) that is only growing in the wake of new US interventions.

It's often very difficult to clearly make this point: American value judgements do not have relevance to how American intentions are perceived in Iraq and Afghanistan. The rejection of American authority in the Mideast is the problem, and no amount of comparitive moralizing by supporters of the occupations can possily influence the outcome. Understanding this dynamic does not require taking sides in the least. All that is required is some objectivity: It's the facts on the ground, not our best wishes, that are shaping events.

As Spain backs away from co-opting the US plan for reshaping the Mideast, they are absolutely not taking sides in the sense that President Bush insists in rhetoric like "With Us or Against Us". Spain is not embracing, appeasing, or siding with terrorism, or with Islamic militants. Spain is acknowledging that, in the words of incoming President Zapatero, the occupation of Iraq is "a disaster". Spain has come to the rational conclusion that America's "War on Terror" as applied in Iraq has been dishonest, counterproductive, and has already failed.

Couple of points in re your post here. I agree that America is widely perceived as exceeding its authority by the rest of the world. However, this widespread perception does not, in and of itself, mean that the policies are inherently mistaken or wrong. While even among Iraqis there is a lot of ambivalence about the American presence, most of them would not be too fond of the argument that there are no WMDs, so Saddam Hussein should've remained in power until world public opinion shifted in their favour(this might never have happened).The changing of regimes is certainly a high risk policy, but I think it has a good chance of working out fairly well.

My point about the long-term nature of the problems of the Middle East is that the Middle East which was once the cradle of civilisation is undergoing a multiple century decline. This is what made them susceptible to colonisation and later machinations by other powers.

Your statement that no other power has been as deeply involved in the Middle East as the US since WW2, is not really accurate. US involvement is the most documented and paid attention to, particularily lately with the collapse of the Soviets, but I think by any standard the old Soviets had the most. Compare the amount of Soviet weaponry to the amount of American weaponry in the Middle East, for one benchmark. However, Americans definitely had influence which was, in many cases, misused. I don't believe the influence they had was, in most cases, more than a contributory factor in the later problems these countries developped(their innate politics being the main factor).

Nonetheless, it behooves us to recognize the difference between a policy of indifference towards and/or tolerance of dictatorship to the active support of democracy.

Cheers, :)