Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

If that isn't what you meant by what you said, then why didn't you actually write what you meant?
And why go to so much effort afterward to back up what you said?
As for cynical? No. I found it disgusting.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Its important to note that the terrorists [al-Queda], in their claims, said that they're punishing Spain for supporting the war with Iraq. But we all know there is no link between al-Queda and Iraq. Its just a matter of those 200 dead bodies that says otherwise...

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

End of the day prior to this there was no link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al-Qa'ida. The two were diametrically opposed. Fuhrer Bush, Premier Blair and the rest of the Neo-Cons and Nu-Zionists sadly did their bit for Bin Laden's recruitment drive with their actions and have made this the case.

Full credit to the new Spanish government for both showing interest in the views of their people and having the courage to tell Fuhrer Bush where to stick his New American Century expansionist ideas. Full credit to its' people for standing up for their view and democratic rights and punishing the ex Government for not listening to them, then covering things up (which should sound quite familiar to you Jerrek, being partly American, although you may ignore it being a Republican, some might say though that your President and his cronies certainly aren't Republican though, they're some where high and right between Conservatism and Nazism.)

I honestly hope that the example set by the Spanish people in this regard spreads to the US especially, although I am doubtful due to the blind obsessive nationalism, complete inability to distinguish between country, 'President' and God, the 'Bush is always right because I'm repuuuuublican, and I got me a nice new traiiiiler :dunce: ' attitude, quite scarily polarised views, and xenophobia going on there now, one just has to note the amount of people on fora and news groups describing the Spanish as cowards for daring to turn against their Government in times of war, etc, etc, etc.

I would love to see it happen here, the only problem is the mainstream alternative is even more up Gee Dubbya's backside over the quite pathetic soundbite that is the war on terror than Premier Blair is, and probably just as happy to lie blatantly to the electorate and rest of the world where convenient.

I'll be emmigrating next year, there must be somewhere where people are still something approaching free without being told to be afraid of terrorists, spied upon extensively, and subject to arrest and indefinite imprisonment without charge just at the mention of the word 'terrorist'. k thanks :angel:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

If those 200 dead were killed by Baathist Iraqis then this would be relevant. As the current best theory suggests they were killed by Islamic fundamentalist Moroccans it is irrelevant. Iraq has moved on in the last year (or has been moved on) and the rules are different.

Anyone notice the Republican Speaker saying that the Spanish people exercising their democratic rights was appeasing terrorism. I'll say it again:

'Warning: Exercise of your democratic rights can be construed as supporting terrorism'
The Republican Party.

What nonsense.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Yeah but BBKing this is the same Republican Party whose current resident in the White House described dictatorship as being easier so long as he's the dictator...

Wouldn't be so crazy the way so many stick up for him but last time I checked weren't the Repubs the financially prudent tax low spend low party, proper Conservatism rather than this 'Neo-Fascism' crap that passes as Neo-Conservatism, a cunning combination of pumping billions into imperialistic and expansionist military action and taxing low with precarious economic justification to bribe the electorate?

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

No. Spain was "punished" by al-Queda for supporting the Iraq war. There isn't a whole lot more to add. Even noobie here recognizes it:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...199323371.html

Well, they got nothing to worry about now. At least terrorists are true to their word if nothing else

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

*quickly jumps into thread*




I don't think it is a simple as that.

And just because al Qaeda have "punished" Spain for being involved with the Iraq war, it does not then mean that there are/were links between al Qaeda & Iraq / bin laden & Saddam.

The war was more than simply the overthrow of Saddam.

I would think that if the Madrid bombings were punishment or revenge by al Qaeda for the Iraq war, it would be because Spain was involved with the (non-Muslim) "Coalition" which invaded & occupied an Islamic country (well, OK, a country with a secular regime but populated almost solely by Muslims, but anyway...) - *Not* revenge for Spain helping to overthrow a secular dictator who bin Laden hated & wanted overthrown anyway.

Plus there is also the possible/likely motive of al Qaeda bombing Madrid in the hope that it would cause the Spanish government to reconsider having troops in Iraq, with the idea that if they pulled out, perhaps others would also. I think it is obvious that al Qaeda would love the Coalition to pull out of Iraq prematurely, so that they can then benefit from the even more chaotic state the country would then be in.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Well, what's wrong with the European Convention on Human Rights?

It's attached to this post. Rights include the Right to Life, Prohibition of Torture, Prohibition of Slavery, Right to Liberty & Security, Right to a Fair Trial, Right to Privacy, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Expression, & more....Sound good to me.

Hardly "alien" either, as that article said. As Graham said, the UK signed up to the ECoHR decades ago. Plus, the Government (finally) enshrined the ECoHR into domestic UK Law with the Human Rights Act 1998.

The USA has had specific rights like these, in law, for over two centuries thanks to the Constitution's Bill of Rights. I think it's about time that we had similar written rights.

Oh, & AFAIK the ECoHR & the European Court on Human Rights are nothing to do with the European Union.

Exactly. So what's wrong with the ECoHR?

See above

True.

Although it isn't actually much better now though. The warlords run most of the country, & they're not much different to the Taliban they've replaced.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...146134,00.html

*quickly jumps out of thread - No time to get into all this as much as I used to! LOL, I spent way too many hours in the Current Affairs forum at .com last year*

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

I never said it was a fact. Being as i've never spoken to Ms Phillips, I don't even know if i'm right. I merely expressed an opinion as to what she meant. Because the idea came to me readily, it therefore seemed obvious to me. Whatever you thought about it is your own lookout.

Actually as you read the Guardian in electronic form, it wasn't an assumption at all, it was a fact that you told us.

Killing a suicide bomber before he can detonate a bomb, is wishful thinking in stopping a terrorist attack is it? Don't think so. I'd say that would pretty much put an end to it.

I think most reasonable muslims, regardless of location, would come to the same conclusions as us; it makes more sense to kill 2 muslims that are planning on killing 500 innocents. The other set, that are convinced America deserves nothing but death, nothing will convince them America is doing the right thing.


I never said it was your job. Nor have I ever said you had to do anything. I merely asked your opinion. Like I said before, this is a forum, for an open exchange of opinions.


Actually your response was more muted that I thought you would of came back with.

I'm white, british and I get enough hassle at airports. Arabic people aren't solely targetted. The actual parameters that America looks for are basically: 18-35 single male, and even then I've seen older and younger women get hassled, it's not exclusively Arabic people. Besides, if the US "hassled" Atta a bit, then maybe the twin towers would still be standing.

Oh, I got the impression from the anti-war brigade, that the true evil was the Zionist Imperialist oil-hungry texan, who invaded a poor country with an frustrated president trying to do his best with sanctions, that the evil imperialist government helped to place on him. You make it sound like it was worth going in there to get rid of him. Oh yeah, it was.

Anyway, it's a different kettle of fish. We are talking about civillian on civillian terrorism. Specifically Al Qaeda *points to topic*. There are more than enough dictators around to fill up many threads.

I don't know of many terrorist attacks yielding 3000 deaths that has happened around the world. Most people at this point will come back with "sanctions kill thousands of iraqi children a day". You mean the sanctions that were put in place by the UN to allow a dictator remain in place? Well that evil zionistic imperialist government has removed him, along with the sanctions. A bit OT, but anyway.



Something that Bush hasn't understood yet, is the war on terror will never end. Regardless of what the west do, terrorists will always breed more terrorists. Or more generally, there will always be an enemy for the states. The security services have been for many decades fighting to stop all their enemies from doing what Al Qaeda did. The enemies might change over the years, but the fact the US still have to defend themselves, doesn't.

That is not all they are doing. It's all a bit hush-hush, so keep it to yourself. The cameras at Tescos video you buying Pepsi, and the boys from Coca-Cola, snatch you off the street and take you off to to a room to convince you to make a better choice next time, by conditioning you to associate Pepsi with your worst fears.

*Pardons Graham*. You do mind, and that's your choice. Incidently, i'm not the ostrich, for realising that MI-5 are powerless to stop anything, without infringing our civil liberties. I'm the one that can see the problem in the future. It is a very big problem, and it's one that means the security services will need to keep on doing these type of things to remain on the heels of terrorists.

And why should they monitor me? Because tomorrow, I could meet a mulism guy, he converts me, and I go to the Finsbury Park mosque, (or any by the sound of it), become radicalised and brainwashed and decide to turn England into a islamic theocracy by bombing the countries leaders. If noone tells them i'm going to, how else would they know I would?


Do you honestly think that MI-5 have so much time on their hands that they can sit in their offices giggling that Mr X has purchased a bondage toy? Don't you think they would be more interested in the next e-mail which is an invoice for bomb making materials, and working out wether he we have a legitimate use for them? MI-5 are currently on an urgent recrutment drive because they are overworked with intelligence as it is. Worryingly it has even be suggested that intelligence whiuch could be vital, isn't even being examing through lack of resources.

And the security services have to suspect everybody, because there is no checklist, or specific profile that every terrorist fits into. They dont all have 1' long black-grey beards with long flowing robes and a turban. The don't even have to be arabic descent. Anyone can convert, and become brainwashed.

I doubt you are subverting anyone. You may be pretty aggressive and intense in your beliefs, but you are hardly in the same bracket as Arthur Scargill, Enoch Powell and Abu Hamza.

I didn't assume anything. You said I don't know what i'm talking about, so that is calling me an idiot. Besides, there are no wrong answers when it comes to opinions.


But for someone to call me an idiot, but not be able to spell at a GCSE-pass level, is a bit hypocritical? Still, as you said it is not a point for debate.


Public opinion won't change by supporting judges and hoping for the best, unfortunately. As you said, politicians react to public opinion, and it the public that want to lynch sex offenders before they have had a fair trial.


Your source said:
Where does it mention the rights of Americans? It merely points out that outside America some countries don't have the religious protection that America has.

Anyone old enough to remember what life was like pre-1934 would have to be 85 at least. How many 85+ year old native Americans are there? I bet it is not a lot. It is going back 3 generations. If certainly not expecting any of the above countries to change their ways at all, let alone within a defined timescale.


Says who? And more to the point, where does it say the government is forcing this to happen? It is the public that are doing this. Races naturally feel more comfortable amongst their own, and feel they can learn better that way.

Incidently the Supreme Court descisions it mention aren't explained very well, but it sounds like they are enforcing the catchment-area-style schooling we have here, which has nothing to do with race, but geographic positioning.

This is hardly supressing education, but rather educating schoolchildren, sensitively with regard to their surroundings. Parents in the bible belt don't want their children to be taught in schools they can have sex with contraception. They are suppressing it, the government is just trying to be tolerant. Also, the government isn't suppressing education outside schools, unlike other governments.


Yeah, and hopefully it will mean terrorist to violate my right to be able to live in a city without being blown apart.

Until we find a better of finding and catching terrorists without infringing on everyone's civil liberties, then yes there is a "have to" about it.


No, because it is off-topic for starters, but more because you can't really debate something if you keep descending into generalities, otherwise it escalates, and the point gets missed.

No, he becomes a terrorist when he tries to kill you. I really don't think the CIA would of cared so much if bin Laden would of refused to fight the Russians, but they did when he starting bombing embassies in Africa.

Thank you for agreeing with me. Now you can stop chastising me for voicing one.

Sorry, I forgot to add: "I believe that" in front of that previous sentence. Incidently, If they did believe that, then they would be right, as I posted earlier.

There is a bit of a difference between a typo and not being able to spell, (whilst calling someone that can an idiot.)


Because it is the US that will feel the repercussions if country-X doesn't do anything, if terrorists are active within its borders. Also, you are STILL obsessed with war. There are many ways to aid the war on terror without any kind of violence. Freezing accounts, voting, etc.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Nothing, if it works. At lot people do resent being ruled by another country (like Iraqis are at the US), but if it helps, great. The article merely warned that in the future, and may it hinder our ability to stop terrorists.

You know, funnily enough i've been thinking the same thing lately. :) I might have to pull out like gracefully like Matt did soon I think... To preserve my health, if not my sanity! *Dreams of all the free time I had before I started posting in this thread* :)

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

*one quick pop back ;) *

LOL, do it mate, before it sucks you in further.

I had so many good discussions & debates in the CA forum...but it ate up so much time!!

Anyway, enough of this. Back to the nice & stress-free gaming & net forums etc etc, where there's never any need or desire/addiction to write essay after essay every night, lol

:)

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Because I thought it was obvious what I meant, of course!!

Because when someone accuses me of saying something I didn't, I want to make sure the record is put straight.

That's your opinion, I can't help that.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

No, you said (I quote): "The EU Court Of Human Rights, obviously. I was going to say so explicitly, but I thought it was obvious so I toned it down a bit."

I've already pointed out that this is not as obvious as you think it is.

No, whatever I thought about it is my *opinion*. But your claim was that *your* opinion was "obvious" which rather seems to imply that your opinion is right and mine is wrong, even though you now admit that you "don't even know if you are right"! Oddly, I could have sworn someone was making points about having the right to hold differing opinions somewhere in this thread...!!!

Now you're reaching again. Yes, I've read *articles* in the Guardian. I've also read articles in the Times, the Telegraph, the News of the World, The Sun and a whole bunch of other papers too.

However the expression "Guardian Reader" (or insert the name of any other newspaper) has the underlying implications that a) it is the *only* newspaper that the person reads and b) that they read it because it agrees with their opinions and prejudices or they agree with its. I do not do either.

But that's not what you said. Again I quote your exact words: "How on earth is America preventing another 9/11-sized attack by murdering some terrorists before they can strike, a victory for the country the terrorists came from? Sounds more like a victory to the US to me. What victories are they giving to the terrorists' home country then?"

I pointed out that the "wishful thinking" was in identifying them as terrorists *in the first place* and then justifying killing them because of it.

Now let's look at it from the other point of view. Imagine the following news story: "Two British tourists were shot by security guards in the Middle East because they were believed to be carrying a bomb". Would *you* and "reasonable British people" and the "reasonable"(!) British Press just say "oh, well, that's all right then??? Somehow I don't think so!

No, and yet again I quote, you asked me " Out of curiousity, if you are the US president, how would you of responded after 9/11 against terrorists?"

That is *NOT* asking for an *OPINION*!

Yes, and I am *STILL* well aware of that fact.

Again, therefore, you made a wrong assumption.

No, but I never said they were.

Yet, even *after* the event, at the *height* of the alerts, four British tourists managed to get on a US plane with knives, brass knuckles and stun guns in their baggage! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/1643009.stm

(Snip of a bunch of *opinions* which are nothing to do with *me*)

No, I pointed out that your claim that "I don't think the majority would understand the position the US are in either, because save for few incidents, they haven't been in the same position. Iraqis are starting to find out what it is like to be on the recieving end of terrorism, and have the chance to feel like Americans feel." is another nonsensical assumption.

I somehow don't think that the people *being* terrorised care much about *who* is doing the terrorising!!

Quoting from: http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sanction.htm

"Under Article 41 of the UN Charter, the Security Council may call upon Member States to apply measures not involving the use of armed force in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such measures are commonly referred to as sanctions."

The purpose of UN sanctions is *NOT* to effect regime change.

OT? I think you mean OTT!!!

On the contrary, I think it's something he's *counting* on to get him re-elected!!

Ah, so for all those years they've been operating *without* the new powers they've been giving that violate our civil liberties, they've actually acheived *NOTHING*!! :rofl:

Yes, and I'm the one who can see the problem in the future that our very precious liberties are being eroded and that affects *EVERYONE*.

ROFLALALAL!!! There's a word for that sort of thing...!!

Well, yes, if I go by your argument from above "that MI-5 are powerless to stop anything, without infringing our civil liberties"!!

However the point is not that they're going to "giggle" about it, but that that information could be used to put pressure on someone because they may not *want* that information about their private life revealed.

I have no problems with them "suspecting everybody" *provided* they do it according to the *laws* and *rights* that we have in place. If they don't, well there are plenty of countries who have had "Security Services" aka "Secret Police" who *don't* worry about those legal niceities. Iraq comes to mind...!

ROFL! Oh what a *wonderful* definition you have of "subversive"! :rofl:

You *keep* assuming that I have called you an idiot when I have not!!

Ignorance != Idiocy!

*Why* are you obsessing about a word that I never even used?

By the way, who was it who said "Out of curiousity, if you are the US president, how would you of responded after 9/11 against terrorists?"

Now whilst I could excuse "curiousity" (which, BTW, does not have a 'u' in it!) as a typo, the use of "how would you *of* responded" instead of "how would you *have* responded", is not a typo and *is* totally inexcusable!!

I agree, that is *very* unfortunate.

The point was that the US is quite content to ignore human rights violations when it is politically useful for their cause.

Oh, well *that* makes it all right then...!! :rolleyes:

I suggest you do your own research into the history of America's segregated schooling system and the fact that the Black schools had much poorer facilities than white ones.

And in this country certain members of the public want to do it too. Ususally the ones who vote BNP...

Opinion or fact?

It is very easy to "arrange" matters so that catchment areas are organised on the basis of race. Especially if people live on the "wrong side of the tracks".

The US Government is *NOT* trying to be tolerant. The US Government is doing this as a matter of *policy*!!

"The abstinence-only message has been pushed hard by conservatives who believe that teaching children about contraception suggests that sex before marriage is acceptable. They have been backed by Congress and in 1996 legislation made available $250 million for teaching abstinence."

You *hope*?! You'd better bloody hope so, because otherwise you've lost an important right for *NOTHING*.

We *do* have those ways already, but the Security Services *always* complain that those ways are "not enough" or make their job "too difficult" and now they have the perfect excuse to push their powers into areas that they wouldn't have been able to before. Areas that the Security Services or Secret Police in other countries like to be able to investigate without anyone looking over their shoulders...

Ah, another wonderful definition "A Terrorist is someone who tries to kill you. A Freedom Fighter is someone who tries to kill someone you don't like!" :rofl:

Sigh, I am not "chastising you for voicing an opinion" I am pointing out that you keep mistaking *opinions* for *FACTS*, look, like this one right below...

I think you forgot to add "I believe that" in front of the words "they would be right"...!!!

Yawn. Addressed elsewhere.

Yet another *opinion* stated as *fact*... :rolleyes:

And, yet, if you don't do it in a way that the USA likes, you get accused of "appeasing terrorists" as the (Republican) Speaker of the House of Representatives did when referring to the Spanish people voting to change their government because it didn't listen to *them* when 90% of them said they were *against* the invasion of Iraq...

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Obvious to me. I think it is very obvious, because how quickly I thought of the EUCOHR. Like I said wether it is obvious to you or not, doesn't really matter


Not at all. Obvious to me. As I said before, I don't even know if i'm right, so I can't imply that you are not. Of course, you have the right to differnt opinions. In fact it would be rather dull if you didn't. (Although the fun seemed to have got sucked out of this thread a while ago)


You do read into things a bit too far. I never said you read the Guardian exclusively, I merely said you have read it before.

It might be wishful thinking, that they will spot every terrorist before they attack, but they do swear an oath to protect this country, so they must do their best. I don't see how justifying killing a terrorist preparing to attack (Don't forget this only applies to suicide bombers who can explode at any time. Any other terrorists would be arrested and interrogated)


Just because the tabloids would have a field day over it, doesn't mean to say I would. For all we know they could have been trying to blow up a Saudi mall (or Israeli civilians). However, it was known to the world that there are terrorists bred from the middle east that want to kill civilians in the west, so it isn't hard to believe when it happens. West on east, civilian on civilian violence is less common, and as such would raise more eyebrows.


Well I thought it was. "I would do X, Y and X, but not A because..." looks like an opinion to me.


In a debate you have to assume what answers people will come back with when you ask a question. But in the end, in this case, it hardly matters, if I assumed you would come back with a hardline argument or a Moore-styled 'humourous' one.


It highlights, that there will never be enough security to protect against terrorists, when civil liberties are involved. You can't strip search everyone, but that doesn't mean they can't try and stop a terrorist anyway.

What assumption? You say it doesn't make sense, but don't explain why either.

Not to a point, but there is a big difference. People can avoid tyrant's wrath, by doing what he says (That's why the remain in power so many years), with civilian terrorism, people will be killed for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hopefully, soon, Iraq will have neither.


Like I said, to help him remain in power, and carry on what he has been doing for 30 years.


America removing Saddam and the sanctions is over-the-top is it? Well, maybe but both have still happened, and Iraw is better for it.


Maybe but it is getting a bit OT


Not nothing, but they were restricted. In fact nothing has really changed, because the terrorists have got more sophisticated, along with the security services.


Yes, but you do seem to be more preoccupied with sending emails to people unread, than you are about being blown apart. I think you need to adjust your priorities


I should imagine there is, and don't say "babbling", either.

Well, maybe when the threat of terrorism is so low that they have time to read emails about people buying bondage toys, then we'll worry about it then shall we?

MI-5 are hardly like the German SS or the Feyedeen (or whatever Iraqi's secret police was called). For one, the government still holds MI-5 accountable, unlike Qusay Hussein (He ran the secret police, not Saddam)

Err, thank you. Same as everyone elses I thought. If you really haven't called me an idiot, then fine, you haven't.

Oh great, so I am ignorant am I? Because that is so much better. :rolleyes:


Yeah, I walked into that one. However, I ignored all your other spelling/grammatical errors, and typos, right up until the point you start to insult me.


America has its hands full with what it is doing, let alone going round to find ALL other countries and effecting regime change on them because they won't allow girls into school. It is not the job of the US, it is the job of one of the single most useless organisations ever, the UN. They are supposed to be finding out human rights abuse, they are supposed to fixing them. Are they heck.


Doesn't make it alright, but proves your argument doesn't carry any weight. On paper 1934 doesn't seem like a long time ago, but think back to how life was so different back then. It is much further in people's minds than it is on a calender.


The government isn't forcing it to happen, it is happening naturally. Incidently, white people do live in Tower Hamlets as well as black people, so they still have to go to the same school.


Opinion, but i'm sure if research was done into it, it would probably confirm that. From what I rememeber back at my school (Not that long ago, I am only 22), you could basically divide the classroom with one cut and separate it into whites and non-whites. Noone forced the kids to do this, but they choose it naturally (open seating).


Like I said, white people have to live in Tower Hamlets too. And Toxteth. And Byker, so it isn't as simple as you think to divide races by geographic position.

Yeah, but the government isn't doing it to ALL schools. They are only doing it in the southern ones, as the article describes ("bible belt"). Since the civil war, governments may change, but people's opinions still don't. I go to Florida a lot, and still see the rebel "dixie" flag everywhere.

It has already saved lives. You don't reailse how many terrorist attacks get foiled that you don't hear about. It has been suggested that they stop attacks on the scale of Madrid every week, not every 5 years. The fact that lives have been saved, even if it is a few, makes it worth it in my opinion.


Not so. Like I said before, if someone orders bomb making ingredients, and the government doesn't find out by intercepting his invoice, then, the first they will hear about it, is when he detonates it. Unless, someone reports him, and if he is a loner, quite, keeps himself to himself, then who would/could?


Yeah, and?

I'm not mistaking anything. I am giving my own opinion, and indispersed with facts whenever I can.


You are telling me that the US being the #1 desired target for middle-eastern terrorism, is not a fact? I would say it is pretty obvious, but I don't want to start that up again.

Yeah, but the fact was, before the bombing, the Popular party stood a very good chance of re-election. In fact, I seem to rememeber reading they were the favourites. Public opinion has changed somewhat then.