Madrid Bomb Blast
 

There's probably another thread about this already, but I couldn't find it

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3500452.stm

Shocking

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

well if there is i aint seen it , agree though , it is truly shocking :(

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

182 Now feared dead, another terrorist attack it seems and again on the '11th' of the month.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

I think that we can be safe in saying that Eta is responsible - what I don't understand is, if they want a separate Basque region, how they think that killing nearly 200 people will help their cause, as almost every government has a zero tolerance policy on terrorists.

A sad, shocking event

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

beggars belief , mind you i am not so sure we can assume it is eta , from what i remember they normally own up to things like this , and this time they are denying it :erm:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

A majority of terrorist groups will initially deny something that causes outrage and a huge number of fatalities, they normally end up admitting guilt at a later stage, the pIRA, UVF and UDA were much the same.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

From what I've heard, Spanish authorities are fairly confident it's ETA (judging by the type of explosives used). Batasuna (ETA's political arm), claim it's Muslims. It may well be ETA though.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

I'd be surprised if Batasuna admitted it was Eta, because of the affiliation with them. I think that they are claiming it was Muslims because of the general assumption that, in any act of terrorism, Bin Laden is involved.

At the end of the day, I can't remember any terrorist attacks in Spains recent history, that weren't linked to Eta.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Before I had seen some analysis on News 24 this afternoon I was not convinced that this one was ETA.

One point they did mention on the news that I had not considered is that if this attack was by another group, then they are likely to use similar explosives to ETA as it will be easier to source them locally than attempt to transport them across national borders.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Recent history - last time I was in madrid was over 10 years ago - backpacking - couldn't lock rucksacks up in most stations due to the ETA threats.

And everyone in Europe thought our IRA was bad. The Good Friday accord does seem to have stopped things blowing up at the mo.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Very well possible, but Nugget's post makes sense as well. I only stated what I read on ceefax. Personally, I would not be surprised if it was ETA, but it may well be another organisation.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

very true , i just dont feel it is eta somehow , of course i may be proved wrong :erm:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Agree totally with you. Doesn't seem like something they would do. ETA are fairly small time, bombs in tourist resorts to mainly disrupt, not take, life. Remember Spain was one of the few countries that went into Iraq with the UK and US in the recent war. Current news break on the BBC site is that 'arabic' tapes have been found with detonators in a stolen van. Now they could have been put there by ETA to deliberately throw people off their scent, but.....

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Totally shocking events :(

Why oh why...

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

yes , i get the feeling more is to come :(

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Al-Quaeda claims responsibility....possibly

More...

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

had a feeling it would be them :mad:
i just hope it doesnt spread over here , i noticed this this morning , wonder if it will make any difference :(

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

And 911 days after Sept. 11th too. :shocked:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

coincidence , methinks not somehow :mad: :mad: :mad:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

912 actually. And 911 is a number of significance only in the American notation of the western calendar (here it would be 119), which isn't the same as the Arabic calendar anyway (I believe 11th September 2001 was of signifcance in Islam though).

People can get too fixated on interesting coincidences, which turn up everywhere. It's a form of superstition.

Mind you it was 2 1/2 years to the day too (11/9/2001 to 11/3/2004).

Edit: I think the timing was more to do with disrupting the democratic process in Spain and prevent the re-election of an Iraq-war-supporting government. Hence the time from now till the next election here in the UK is going to be dangerous, so keep your eyes open and your wits about your. Seriously (and I'm not often serious).

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

I wonder if the world will refer to the Madrid bombing as '11/3'....I doubt it though.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Of course if they'd have done it *last* month, it would have been 112 which is a European version of 911 (ie the number for the Emergency Services).

One for the Black Helicopter Brigade...

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

I am not convinced it is them.. Dont they usualy use suicide bombers.. This attack was well planned - Does not seem to be alcieda's style...

P.S. 112 is a worldwide emergency number !

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Why should Al Qaeda *need* to use Suicide Bombers in a situation like this?

Normally they're used by terrorists in high security situations where just leaving a bag etc around wouldn't work. Because there wasn't such high security in Spain, they could use that technique without too much concern.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Very true but for them its all about glory ! They feel it a great honor to die for there cause......

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

More to the point, if al-Qaeda (or their associates, really, since they seem to operate on a franchise principle) could pull off something like this (a conventional terrorist bombing in Madrid) presumably Eta could have. If I were Spanish I'd be asking serious questions of my government and its boasts about being tough on terrorists. The current predictions for the election tend to suggest that serious questions aren't being answered.

BBC, 21:23 Sunday
"Spain's opposition Socialist party has claimed an unexpected victory in the country's general election with almost all the votes counted.

The Socialists have won 43% of the vote while the centre-right Popular Party has garnered 38%, reports say"

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

slightly off topic but: :2up: :2up: :2up:
:afire:


also.....

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

I wonder what the security forces deem to be likely targets (I mean ones which they don't already have inteligence on the likelyhood)

If I was a terrorist and really wanted to strike fear into a nation, I'd target out of the way villages with huge explosives.
How the heck can the forces protect against something like that?

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

I might be misreading here, but are you suggesting Al Qaeda do not plan there attacks well? It seems to me that you need to be pretty well organised to pull off something like 9/11.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

I suppose it would be more difficult to hide. But also, it seems they are after claiming huge amounts of casualties. This would be more difficult in a village compared to a train station.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Well they did screw up (thankfully) using swiss anonymised sim cards in their mobile phones in pak.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/36060.html

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Yes, I read about that. But still, to call an organisation that pulls off something like 9/11 and has its leader evade capture for 2.5 years unorganised seems a little odd to me.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Yup.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Gosh, you mean a terrorist might use a pseudonym in a videotaped message? But, like, that'll make it harder for us to find them.

What are Fox on? Thicko drugs?

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

So, you rule out Al-Qaeda on the basis that this time, they didn't use suicide bombers? Pathetic.... The common mis-understanding that all islamic militants use suicidal tactics shows blatant naivety amongst those that fail to understand. Just because such organisations will go as far as to take their own lives alongside those of their victims, doesn't mean that that is the preferable method of completing such actions. Do they not value life too? I don't want to sound as though I'm from 'the other side', but your comment is completely unfounded and just goes to highlight the complexity of the issue. Do you know that the person(s) that planted the bomb[s] wasn't on the train at the time of detonation? So many of them were too hard to identify that who could tell? And to infer that Al-Qaeda are not capable of 'well planned' attacks, well, where were you on September 11? Was that not well planned? How else do you think they hijacked the F****** planes and did what they did... ???

Maybe if you thought about some of your posts a little more, you would not have posted quite so many.

:banghead: :******:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

I just cant help but feel that mainland UK has been outstandingly lucky so far. I cant help but think something will happen here soon :(

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Was that attack on stuart really necessary? :( :td:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Well, we've had several attacks, thankfully all thwarted.
But while the security forces have to be lucky every time, the terrorists only need to be lucky once.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Thanks for that... Sorry for expresing an opinion :(

I am not an expert in terorist bombing - you on the other hand obviosly are !

I stated that I did not think this was there style for a reason. Can you fill me in on when Al-Qaeda last used remote detonation on 10 devices at the same time ????

If you disagree then fine - but there is no reason to call me a :******: is there !!!

GROW UP ! and learn to respect other peoples opinions - if you disagree then fine. Argue your point and I will respect that. Trying to attack me personaly will not give weight to your argument !

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Peeps-this was always going to be an emotive subject, that will need sensible discussion, combined with thoughtful/respectful posts.

Please, let's not attack each other in here, there's enough of that going on round the world right now. :(

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

It has been more or less confirmed today that it is an Al-Qaeda attack. A morrocan with Al-Qaeda links has been arrested, and a mobile telephone that was taken from one of the diffused devices has numbers of known Al-Qaeda cells on it.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

:erm: Steady on.... :(



A good comment here

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

And the spanish people have reacted to this by voting out the government who in their opinion made them a target to al-qaeda.

However, what people must understand is that any western government is a target of al-qaeda. Any non-islamic regime is a target of al-qaeda.

Which is why they must be stopped. We can't bury our heads in the sand and believe that if we didn't side with america we wouldn't be a target, because that is simply not the case.

The world needs to wake up to the fact that this particular brand of islamic fundamentalism and fanaticism can not be negotiated with. They understand only way to achieve their objectives and that is through terror and violence, and as much as it may repulse some people that is the way we may have to respond ourselves to protect our way of life.

They are right when they call this the war on terror because it is a war. If you are unsure about al-qaedas beliefs, aims and methods to achieve these aims just take a look at this:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Hay guys, feel free to use my forum (link in sig) to express your opinions on terrorism etc. Be as opinionated as you want. The only rule is, there are no rules.

:D

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Whilst there may be some valid points in that article, I don't think Lord Rees-Mogg has managed to hit the nail on the head.

Some of his assertions, for me, just don't add up. He says "we do know that this was a crime on the scale of the World Trade Centre attack. Without 9/11, 3/11 would not have happened", but it could equally be argued that without the attacks on Iraq the Madrid bombings would not have happened. Yes, September 11th showed that wholesale attacks were possible, however surely it would not have taken two and a half years to organise another atrocity.

He also says " President Bush has been criticised for describing the new situation after 9/11 as †œthe war against terrorismâ₠¬Â�. Yet that is a fair description. When people kill by the hundreds or thousands they change the nature of the crime."

Well, no, I don't think they do. *One* terrorist death is one too many, he seems to imply that there is an "acceptable level" of terrorism" which is an astonishing (and deeply worrying) assertion.

He goes on "In Europe we were slow to recognise what 9/11 meant to the people of the United States. Many Europeans have still failed to make the leap of sympathy, let alone to understand the global challenge. In this, Tony Blair, got it right from the beginning. "

I can't understand how he can say that we need a "leap of sympathy" to understand what September 11th means to the USA. IMO what it meant to the USA was that they suddenly realised that their politicians can't sit there and pull the strings on the rest of the world with impugnity whilst their population ignores global problems because "they're happening somewhere else". I doubt there are many who do not feel at least some sympathy for the victims of September 11th, but that doesn't mean we have to immediately fall into line with their policies because of it.

The article continues "[...] we now have to face a global terror intended to destroy our society. It is based on religious fanaticism and hatred of the modern world in almost all its manifestations, but particularly of the global power of the United States."

And he implies that this is a bad thing, but can he make the leap of imagination to consider what it may be like from *their* point of view? Is the "global power of the United States" *necessarily* a "good thing"? Is the Western Media pouring scorn on someone else's beliefs (or, at least, their mis-?-understanding of those beliefs) absolutely a benefit? Is the "modern world" entirely to blame? Or just those who (ab)use its power to try to run the world in the way that *they* see fit?

If we were faced with an enemy who wanted to destroy us, who said "you're either with us or against us", what would *we* do?? They do not have the planes and tanks and military might, so they fight back in the only way they can. NOTE: *please* do not think that I am condoning these attacks, just as I did not condone the attacks on Iraq. I don't think either of these were the right way to go about matters, but we now appear to be locked in a vicious cycle because of them.

When he says "It is only in Europe that a self-defeating anti-Americanism is to be found. In every European country there are many people who think that they can afford the luxury of a carping hostility to American power." what on *earth* does he think he is talking about? Should we simply kowtow to American "Imperialist" ambitions? The "Project for the New American Century" set out a roadmap and those who wrote it now make policy in the US Government. Should we just go along with it because they are the biggest power around? Or should we, as is our right, object to it if we feel it is wrong?

Why (and how?!) can he somehow turn this into "self-defeating anti-Americanism" instead of the democratic right of Free Speech???

"They are talking about the one nation strong enough to fight for our societies."

Nonsense! They are talking about the one nation who are arrogant enough to think that *they* and only they have the "one true solution" to the problems. That might makes right. That rhetoric will triumph over facts. Did they learn *nothing* from Vietnam?

"None of us has a choice. To bin Laden we are all the same: Christians, however agnostic; Crusaders, however timid; Americaââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s allies, however disloyal; capitalists, however leftish; enemies of Islam, however hostile to Zionism."

And to Bush and his ilk *we* are all the same. "You're either with us or you're against us".

Two wrongs have never yet made a right, and they won't start now.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Good luck with that. :erm:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

More to the point, they voted out the Government who a) ignored the opinions of the vast majority of the people (90 percent according to some polls!! see
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe...prj.irq.spain/ )
by getting into the war in the first place

But *how* should they be stopped? Declaring war on Saddam Hussein did nothing to attack Al Qaeda, instead it just made matters worse because they saw it as an implicit American "Imperialist" strategy to foist *their* style of government on the Middle East.

Or, rather, it cannot be negotiated with by *our* methods. However *if* instead of trying to stamp it out of existance by force, we allowed Islamic countries to run their own affairs, the fanatics would (as is happening in Iran now) slowly lose their power bases.

Trying to force change just results in people digging their heels in and gives the extremists *more* recruits and ammunition.

Ah, so to defeat the enemy, you must *become* that which you despise. A self-defeating strategy if ever there was one...

An interesting publication, but let's just look at a some of what it says...

As opposed to, say, the West wanting to overthrow Islamic regimes and replace them with Western Democracies...??

But apart from "foreign tourists" in point three and the whole of point six, is there anything in that statement that *WE* have *NOT* done??

Looking at this from a purely objective, as opposed to emotive, point of view, their strategy is very similar to ours. Yes, their tactics are different, because they don't have our armies and weapons, but what they want to achieve is not that different from what our leaders want.

However, just as they will not succeed in their goals by these methods, IMO neither will we. To try to force change for political reasons and political gains is short-sighted and foolish, no matter *which* side you are on.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Well I know where I stand, I'm with them.

I think you'll find it is they who pour scorn on our beliefs, whereas I'm sure we are happy to live in a world that has Islam. They will only be happy when there is ONLY Islam. It is there mission to eradicate all non-islamic governments.

I know you are trying to give a balanced argument. I doubt, however, that they would do the same.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Going into Iraq was nothing to do with al-qaeda, although I do concede that it has no doubt served their purposes as a recruiting exercise.

Going into Afghanistan did however show Bin Laden that he cannot hide behind the protection of other countries and governments.

An interesting term you use "western democracy" a democratic system of government is not a western invention . Also you imply that a dictatorship is an Islamic way of government.

What is wrong with an Islamic democracy?

Their strategy may be, but their objectives aren't. We are not trying to eradicate Islam

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

OK, a good article. Perhaps the word "democracy" is not suitable. But the article does not denounce it. In fact the opposite.

"but what is basic in all forms of democracy is the principle of representative government. On this, hardly any reasonable person would disagree." "Democracy should not be the goal, representative government should."

I will not argue with this point but a representative government that is accountable to the people. I do not believe the Taliban nor Hussein were representative governments.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Well it looks like Spain won't have to worry about any more attacks, if they pull their soldiers out of Iraq.
Like that will appease the terrorists?

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Exactly right. I was coming in here to post it anyway, but I read in the Daily Mail today a really good article, about the Madrid blasts, and how it is wrong to blame the Popular party for it. I know most people here don't like the Mail, in the same way I despise feminists, but she really does do a good article, so I urge everyone regardless of what side you are on, to check it out anyway.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/artic...es/000392.html

Nothing much to add, she sums it up pretty well. I do believe that you could give Al Qaeda everything they want, (pull all US troops out of muslim countries, increase foreign aid, give Palestinians all the land they want, etc) and they will still find something to attack the west about. Possibly turning all western democratic countries into Islamic theocratic states might please them for a while, but i'm sure not even that would do. They have before, and continue to delcare they want the eradication of all non-muslims, especially Jews. The great Winston Churchill had a good quote for times like these: "Appeasers are people who feed the crocodile, hoping it will eat them last". A lot of left wingers i've heard wish to go to the terrorists and say stuff like "I'm on your side; I'm against Americans foreign policies; I understand your pain; I'm pro-Palestine", etc, but they the terrorists know this, they just dont care.

And just in closing, I saw a comment someone posted on a blog, that made me smile:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Just great :rolleyes:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Yup. I said that to a guy I work with, and said: "Dangerous precedent isn't it?", and he said "Isn't it just..."

Now it proves to terrorists that a couple of well placed bombs can alter a countries politics so drastically. I know in the run up to the Spanish election, that the prediction wasn't so great for the socialists. My impression was that: Yes, the war was an unpopular decisison, but everything else they did, with the economy, public services were right, so the popular party were expected to remain in power.

Given the 9/11 3 year aniversary is 2 months before the election, I think we can reasonably expect some kind of terrorist attack in that corridor to try and oust Bush. Oh, and plans for another terrorist attack on the States is 90% complete.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

So would us Brits crumble after an attack, or would we do what we did with the IRA and say "Dammit we're British and we will not stand for this!" and get on with our lives, sticking two fingers up at those who are trying to terrorise us?

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Fine, your choice.

I don't, but that does *NOT* mean I am "against" either them or you. Only a fanatic would make such an assertion.

ROFL! I suggest you look at the output of the some members of the UK's Tabloid Press...

There are *SOME* Muslims whose "mission" is to eradicate all non-islamic governments, just as there are *SOME* Christians who think that Christianity is the "one true way" of religion.

Don't make the mistake of over-generalising.

See above.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

got to add my twopenith what has been said by the new goverment of spain has given the terrorist what they wanted now we will all suffer as they go on the rampage trying to kill inocent pepole. As one of the bombers was quoted as saying "you love to live we love to die".

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

I think you'll find that *most* Christians believe that.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Really?? Try, for instance:

"White House Says it Has Evidence of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties

"W A S H I N G T O N, Sept. 26 †� The United States has long charged Saddam Hussein with supporting terrorism, but the Bush administration is now alleging something new †� what one official called a "current, symbiotic relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...ics020926.html

It is only recently that the US has admitted that actually there was *no* direct links between Saddam Hussein's Regime and Al Qaeda's attacks on September 11th.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm

It also showed him that, despite the mass of military might levelled against him, he is still free to engage in his attacks.

Actually I imply no such thing, nor would I ever say such a thing. I was using the phraseology from the quote that I gave.

And the point about "Western Democracies" is that what the US wants to put into Iraq is an *American* style government. Not just "a democratic" one.

Nothing, I have never said there is.

And, I point out again, not *all* Muslims want to "eradicate" Western "godless regimes" either.l

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Except she says that "This is not easy; we must not allow our core values to be overturned, but at the same time we must not allow those values to bring about their own annihilation. For common-sense to be stymied at such a time by the alien †˜human rightsââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ culture is just plain crazy."

Since when are Human Rights *ALIEN* to our culture???

And if, under the guise of common sense, we manage to *give away* our "core values" (which, of course, *include* human rights) then that is most certainly just "plain crazy".

Also she says:

Well, no it wasn't a war that was declared upon us. But neither was the Second World War. Remember *WE* declared war on Germany.

I have to say that I find comments like this tiresomely offensive.

Just because I may disagree with a policy does *NOT* mean that I wish us to use a policy of Appeasement. I do not believe we should give in to the terrorists, but *neither* do I believe that there is only *one* solution to the problem.

As Melanie Phillips says in her article:

"as Lee Kwan Yew also said, this war can ultimately only be won by moderate Muslims. Accordingly, America, Britain and their allies should do everything in their power to support and protect those enormously brave Muslims who are taking their lives in their hands to push their culture towards reform and defeat the tyranny that acts in their name."

I agree entirely. And, for me, this is a *much* better strategy than anything else that has been proposed in this politically inspired "War on Terror".

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

All together now
You started it! You invaded Poland!

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Yes, but, unless I have completely misunderstood your postings, *most* Christians don't think that the way to *ensure* it is the "one true way" is by killing off everyone who disagrees.

And, of course, the same goes for *most* Muslims.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

"I think that that will be used as a propaganda and recruitment weapon for al Qaeda," Wilkinson said. "I am quite sure that they will exploit that to the full."

But, of course, no *Western* government would exploit a terrorist attack in this way, would they... :rolleyes:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

You mean to recruit people to deliberately attack civilian populations?
Hoping to kill as many men, women and children as possible?

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

i wonder about this link to claw hand or whatever his name is :mad:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Absolutely :)

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

I'm sure one of the reasons why he's not been deported is so that a watchful eye can be kept on him and those he preaches to.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Once again I remind people of the US's policy in Gulf War I of bombing power stations, water treatment plants and other such *CIVILIAN* facilities under the guise of them being redefined as "military targets".

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Um, they do actually...
Revelations and all that.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Apologies, I have no problem with opinions being expressed and I believe that they should be - but blatant trolling, come on. If you're putting across your own 'opinion', then surely it would help if you expanded to detail some basis of how / why you have reached that opinion. Otherwise it just looks as though you're basing your opinions without any reasonable fact behind them.... which is fine if that's what you're like, but a little naive on your part and frustrating for others.

[PEDANT] obviously [/PEDANT]

No, I just have my own, well informed opinion. :D


And your reason for that was:

The facts that they maybe haven't used suicide bombers in this instance, nor that the attack was too well planned, in my opinion, are no justification to doubt so much their involvment. And to suggest that, well, they haven't done this before, is also no real basis from which to formulate an opinion. How many times had Al-Qaeda flown planes into two tall buildings before? It's often the resultant effect rather than the methodology used that will get fingers wagging in the right direction. ETA tend not to perform attacks on such a large scale - this was way out of their league. When have ETA used mobile phones for detination? - the islamic fundamentalists are well known for this. I also don't think [1] that ETA tend to compact nails around the bomb, for maximum suffering - as in this instance. Again, another common practice from the islamic fudamentalists.

Again, that's the whole point... otherwise, how would the element of suprise and mass destruction of life combine together to form such a nasty attack. It wouldn't. The Israelis have strict checks before getting onto trains, as they've had many a bad experience in this area, and still do on their buses. I just hope that Britain doesn't need to escalate to such stringent security checks on public services, as that would be an indication that we're losing the war on terror.

I can understand people pointing the finger at ETA in the first instance, after all, we're in a new age of terrorism. But it's about time people woke up to the potential reach and scope of organisations such as Al-Qaeda. I thought 9/11 had pointed that out quite clearly.

Like I say, if you had presented a well built opinion by looking at all [or at least some of]the facts available, then that'd be fine. The fact that you did not present anything to support that, coupled with the suggestion that it can't be them because they didn't kill themselves in the process - and that this attack was well planned... come on, you must see what I'm getting at here? :Peaceman: There's a difference between airing an opinion and inputting your own opinions into a discussion. IMHO, you aired an opinion based on irrelevant and pointless attributes related to the attack that took place... fine if everyone else chooses to ignore your opinion, but I wanted to highlight the meaning of your comments and the implications of them. If you still believe that what you said is right, fair play, but explain why.

I do respect other peoples opinions when they respect the facts available and when they have something constructive to contribute to a discussion. And yes, I will argue my point, as I have done once again... I don't expect 'personal attacks' to weight my argument, the words do that for me...:D oh, and yes, I am grown up - thanks :rolleyes:

:devsmoke:

[1] although I could be wrong

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Right, and civilian facilities are the same as civilians then?
Personally I *can* see a difference between the two.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

No that's not quite true. During the time described by Revelations, Christians as well as non-believers (or followers of other faiths) will be at risk. It is said that a quarter of the world's population will perish during that 7 year period. And in any case, it won't be Christians who put anyone to death.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Revelations says that once all the non-christians have been killed off (and the christians brought back) this would ensure that christianity or whatever post apocalyptical form it takes (assuming a new set of instructions may be given afterwards to live happy in the new world order) is the one true way.
Ego my statement.
Incidentaly, muslims have a similar view on the end of days, being that they follow the third book from the god of abraham.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

i hope this thread isnt going where i think it is :rolleyes:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Whilst such facilities may have civilian workers, they remain a military target - and quite rightly. How else can the military be expected to impact an offence on a country unless they take out a large proportion of the utilities that are in place to support the running of that country? Should phone systems really remain in place when they can be taken out, thus leaving the lines of 'normal communication' open? Surely this doesn't help to break communication between the regimes, which is what was needed in order for them to fall. Should electricity still be in common supply? Without electricity, a lot can be gained from a military perspective. Such attacks are not simply so that civilians can be killed! It's all about tactics. So, there's no electricity in a region - "where's all that light coming from?" - "well, it must be the opposition. " :rolleyes:

A military traget is not *always* property that belongs to or is operated by the enemy. Military targets are are identified as being important to the military cause and are neccessary in order for the troops to fulfill the requirements that their governments, and overall their compatriots, expect of them

Civillian casualties are never nice but if it's a better means of assisting the longevity of life amongst *our* troops, and thus increasing the means of effectiveness available to them, then surely it's not such a bad thing?

:devsmoke:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

:LOL: I'm sure it is!! :angel:

:devsmoke:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

As I said, Christians will not be the ones putting anyone to death.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Graham never suggested they were.
But by being a christian, and believing that the predictions of god's deeds in revelations are rightious, then christians must think that the way to *ensure* it is the "one true way" is by killing off everyone who disagrees.

Anyway, as has been mentioned, people don't want us to have a discussion on that part of the topic :(

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

well said :) , i wonder if these so called train marshalls would make any difference , at the end of the day there is no way all the railway lines can be patrolled all the time , what is to stop a bomb being planted at the entrance to a remote tunnel :disturbd: :disturbd: :disturbd:

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Yes I know. Graham appeared to be saying that although some Muslims believe they should be the ones to kill off non-believers or those contrary to their faith, this is not a view shared by the majority of peace-loving followers of that faith. I was merely pointing out that in Christianity, we do not believe that we should kill off non-believers either. What you said in post 71 seems to contradict this, apologies if I misread it :)

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Well put, the terrorists are gonna see the Spanish pulling their soldiers out of Iraq a consiquence of their bombings.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

One word 'Crusades'.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Hans Blix on the subject - brought to you by Fox News (fair and balanced) Briefly at the beginning.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

She probably means when they are dictated by an Authority outside our own country.


Unfortunately, the security world doesn't work that way, which is one reason it is shrouded in secrecy. I'm sure if you could find the location of a bomb saving 500 lives, or even 2, by interrogating someone outside of international law, then you wouldn't let your principals become clouded on the issue, but myself and i'm sure others, would. You have to weigh up the options. Dispense with the human rights of a terrorist in order to save lives, or protect his human rights and let 500 die.

I doesn't get any better i'm afriad. I know it is from a movie, but the saying is an old one, and one i'm sure that a lot of governments swear by: "To protect a nation, and it's freedoms, whatever the cost". It is part of self-preservation, to protect yourself, your family, your city, your country, however you can.

Of course, this leads to the morality issue, which falls outside of common sense.

They started this. Way past 9/11 western countries have felt the wrath of islamic fundamentalism. I don't see the US asking to run a miltary base in Saudi Arabia, and getting the permission from the Saudis as declaring war on Islam. I don't see the United Nations partioning Israel in 1948, as a declaration of war on the US' behalf against Islam. They twisted events in history to enhance their view that everyone in the west are persecuting them. They then incorrectly use the Koran to back this up, and then use this against us in the form of terrorist attack.


Some countries do believe that giving in to terrorists will mean they won't have to face their wrath. While it will lower the priority of attacks against them, I don't think it will absolve them from all blame entirely. So, I think the phrase is an apt description. Why is it offensive? You even said you dont believe in following appeasement.


I don't remember hearing anyone say there was only one way. "You're either with us, or with them", means fighting terrorists metaphorically, not necessarily literally. 'Fighting terrorism' means with rockets and guns (Afghanistan), or using political dialogue (Libya). Many don't agree with fighting fire with fire, but they agree something physically as to be done. Not necessarily appeasement, but more like apathy (Which i'm guessing is what you'd do? Out of curiousity, if you are the US president, how would you of responded after 9/11 against terrorists?

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

We've just gotten over years of IRA terrorism, now we have to put up with Al Quida.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Three words - "They were Catholics".

Plus several hundreds of years ago and it's not something Christians believe in.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Eh? I seem to have read that somewhere else. :)

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

I think you'll find Richard the Lionheart was a christian.

http://www.heartoglory.com/Categories/crusaders1.htm

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

So he was - but the Crusades were not something Christians believe in, it's not something we believe we 'must' do.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Excellent post!

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

If a thousand civilians die indirectly, through lack of drinkable water, does it mean that those who destroyed the ability to make that drinkable water are somehow *less* culpable than someone who directly shoots or bombs them?

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Excuse me? How does destroying water treatment and sewage disposal facilities impact on a country's ability to make war?? How did crippling power supplies to civilian (not military, nor industrial) areas have any effect on Saddam's forces in the first Gulf War?

Take a look at http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/19.../s91lopez.html and note where it says

"There have been no precise estimates of civilian casualties during the war. The most intelligent guesses have been broad ranging: "5,000--15,000 Iraqi civilians died during the war, and 4,000-6,000 civilians died since the end of the war due to wounds, lack of medical care, or malnutrition," according to Greenpeace. The bitter reality is that the numbers of civilians who die in the war's broadening wake will soon dwarf the number of Iraqis, Kurds, and other refugees who died in the civil strife after March 1. And the United Nations estimated in July that 50-80 thousand infants are at risk of severe malnutrition because of the war."

And we're the "Good Guys"?

I'm sure that's a *wonderful* consolation to the families of the dead!

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

*What* "authority" is that? The UN? The EU? The Americans? Al Qaeda???

And if that's what she *meant*, why didn't she say it?

And what guarantees are there that, by breaking our own legal codes, those "500 or even 2" lives would be saved? Answer, none, of course. But every time we take a step down that path *EVERYONE'S* rights are that weakened that little bit more.

And this quote (which I'm sure I've mentioned before!) is not from a movie:

"Those would give up essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin.

*WHY* does it "fall outside common sense", though??

I can only presume you didn't watch programmes like Rory Bremner's "Between Iraq and a Hard Place" where it was rather comprehensively pointed out that Islamic hatred of the West has a *long* history, because the West has had a *long history* of strolling into Middle East countries and acting in a high and heavy handed manner.

Cites?

Because the implication is that since *I* won't follow "Western Fundamentalism", I am, somehow, an "Appeaser".

Read George W Bush's own words on the subject:

"President Bush said Tuesday that there was no room for neutrality in the war against terrorism."

""A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform," Bush said. "That means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing. ... But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something."

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/

The clear implication there is not just that they "must do something" but that, to be *part* of the coalition, they must do what the Americans want.

Oh whoopee! Now I'm not an Appeaser, I'm *Apathetic*! Obviously because I don't agree with "doing something physically" I couldn't give a toss about the people who died... :rolleyes:

You've asked a hypothetical question. You answer it.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

You are mistaken and obviously not reading my posts correctly. I am not generalising, I (we) am talking about Al-Qaeda and it is their objective to remove all non-islamic cultures from this planet. That is not a generalisation that is a fact.

I have not read anywhere any article that advocates the eradication of the muslim faith. If you have please share it with us. Also I know of no western government manifesto to eradicate Islam, again if you have share it with us.

I note that this thread has skirted along the old Islam v Christianity. Although obviously a factor that is not the issue. Islam is a peaceful religion and Al-qaedas perverted version of it should not influence peoples perception of it.

My argument is that Al-Qaedas aim is to topple western civilisation and any non-islamic culture and they will not stop being a threat until they are eradicated

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

Dammit, I've missed all the fun. That's fatherhood for you.

Who's said this? Names, times, places please. Mind you, what's wrong with understanding the motivation of the people attacking you?

Anyway, Graham's said (as usual) practically everything I wanted to say. Let me just find the other chap who said 'You are either against us or with us'. Oh, it was Stalin.

(From an interesting article on totalitarianism at http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m...le.jhtml?term= )

Pulling troops out of Spain - I think Mr. Zapatero's been in favour of this for a while, it's refreshing to see a politician acting on the manifesto he was elected on. Note 'elected on' - this isn't a victory for terrorism, this is a victory for democracy - the terrorists succeeded in getting more people out to vote for a party that believes in peace, politicising a country against the discredited idea that brute force is the only way to fight terrorism. Terrorism usually has the seeds of its own destruction in it. Remember Bin Laden's lads *want* us to fight, want us to use our overwhelming technical superiority, as they *know* that it won't be sufficient to do the job. I believe that in any war you shouldn't really do what your opponent wants:

Bin Laden wanted Saddam out - we kicked Saddam out
Bin Laden wants a Sunni/Shia conflict in Iraq - we've ensured that one by freeing the Iraqi people and then failing to provide security
Bin Laden wants the US out of Saudi - they're out now, they're in Iraq.

Who's appeasing terror now? Bush is actively helping it seems.

I've noticed a disturbing revisionism recently from official sources along the lines of 'countries outside the US-led coalition are being targetted, so lets not suggest that attacking Iraq *increases* the risk of terrorist attacks (remember the view being pushed before the war was that attacking Saddam would *decrease* the threat, hence the urgent revisionism). Looking at the recent al-Qaeda attacks there is a common thread:

African bombings - US embassies
9/11 - target US commerce/military centres
Bali - US/Australian/British holidaymakers
Casablanca - Spanish cultural centre
Saudi Arabia - Western workers and US military
Kenyan bombing/rocket attacks - Israeli holidaymakers and Israeli aircraft
Istanbul - HSBC bank (British), British consulate, synagogues
Madrid - transport system of pro-coalition capital city
Iraq - US military, Iraqi security services and Shia religious sites

So while the attacks took place mainly outside the West, and killed large numbers of locals (because of the scale of the attacks), the targets are almost exclusively American, British, Spanish, Australian, Jewish or Shia. These targets were being attacked before the Iraq war, they're being attacked now. The world is *not* safer, the US is *not* safer, Spain is *not* safer, the UK is *not* safer as a result of the Iraq jaunt, the Afghan jaunt and the imprisonment of people in Cuba. Whatever the solution is, it's not military attack, that is clear.

Incidentally, on human rights and Irish terrorism, the point there is that in the mid-60s the Catholic population, which had been denied representative human rights (by gerrymandering and religious discrimination) started demanding their rights - if there had been a European convention on human rights at the time they would certainly have taken a case to Strasbourg and the UK government would have been obliged to comply, since it was a cast-iron case. Such laws may be impenetrable and aloof, but they're there essentially to stop disputes being sorted by violence. As it was, the situation degenerated with startling speed into violence between the two paramilitary sides and the British Army, after which it was nearly 30 years before the talking began again, which is what led to the better (though not finished) situation we have now.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

It is well documented that Bin Laden was against the USA and coalition forces after the first gulf conflict because he wanted to be the one that fought against Saddam and he was well and truly ****ed off when we all landed in Saudi.

Agreed - brute force is not the only way to fight terrorism. In Northern Ireland we now have peace, an uneasy peace, but peace never the less. However we could,and can, negotiate with Sin fein and the IRA.

How do you negotiate with a person who dedication in life is to destroy your way life. Who thinks the only good westerner is a dead one. Who will not be happy until he has detroyed all other faiths bar Islam.

Horses for courses, some people only understand violence and force, and we should not be afraid to give it to them.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

I thought we *had* negotiated with Sinn Fein (and Ben Gurion, and Mandela, and Kenyatta...)?

Admittedly I can't see Bin Laden dropping in for tea at the Palace. The best we can hope for there is to stop the flow of recruits to him, by going after the really dangerous people who teach them this rubbish about Jihad, demonstrating that the West isn't a threat to Islam (this can be achieved by treating Israel and Palestine properly for a start). I have to say that Muslim leaders in the UK and elsewhere need to stand up and be counted, and the media has to give moderate (i.e most) Islam a voice and respect, and understanding.

Heard on the radio on the way in - 'al-Qaeda have succeeded in splitting the West by force' - of course Bush has split the West in a far deeper way by using nuts like Rumsfeld to do the job of diplomats. Saying your allies will be 'called to account' for disagreeing with you, and all that.

Incidentally, I came up with the solution to Northern Ireland the other day - the Americans should have invaded. If we'd offered them good terms to build a big military base up there then there would have been good money flowing in, less unemployment, and the nationalists couldn't have attacked them (as the US was/is a big supporter) and the US would have had to take an interest long before Clinton did. Joint British/US patrols anyone? OK, I may have been on crack when I came up with that one, but it can hardly have been worse tha nwhat really happened in the 70s.

Re: Madrid Bomb Blast
 

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.


None of course, but a country must do everything in its power to defend it's own citizens. People complain about illegal proactive defencing policies (Destroying a plane full of bombers before reaching NY, say), but that's sometimes one of the only ways to protect the right life of your own citizens.

You don't think he might of been saying that to take the moral high ground? He's hardly gonna say (If he was alive and in power in this day and age): "Any known terrorist caught inside our borders might be tortured for information", would he? Because of the morality issue, this is dealt with in secret.


Because if you can kill 2 suicide bombers in a safe area, rather than let them blow up 500 people, then that makes common sense (sacrificing 2 lives for 500), but doesn't make moral sense.


I haven't seen it, but I said they take history for justification. But you can't hold people who are alive today responsible for what happened many decades, or hundreds of years ago. By that logic, i'm personally responsibile for the British imperialism during the Empire, am I?


Well, if I was president of a country, I would for one. I'd be risking bringing a lot of violence on my own country and people by doing X or Y, and is it worth the hassle it would cause? I really doubt that didn't cross all government's minds at some point.


That's exactly what he didn't say. I said, you have to do something, not necessarily bombing them, but something, including dialogue, freezing assets, contributing intelligence, arresting suspects, or whatever plan would help suppress/defeat terrorism. Even Dubya said that, as you quoted above. All nations must do SOMETHING. You may care, but if you don't do anything about it, what's the point? You might as well be apathetic. When I said phsyically, I meant some kind of visible action, not necessarily violent (I even cited Libya as an example of dialogue instead of warfare. Time will tell if it worked or not).


No, I asked you. You seem to be very good sitting on your armchair telling everyone else what they are doing is wrong (It's also very easy), so I merely asked what would you do if you were in that position. (Which isn't so easy). It is a reasonable enough question. In fact I've already answered it twice on your behalf, and got it wrong.

I meant from my own experience of talking with heavy left-wingers, although during the Peace protests, support for Palestine was huge, even among non-muslims. (See www.brain-terminal.com and check the videos). There's nothing wrong understanding the motivation, but what i'm saying is it wont make a blind bit of difference what any American (Especially non-muslim) thinks, or says, the terrorirst want to kill them anyway.

You are all taking this "With us or against us" a bit too seriously. Bush has already said he doesn't mind if you don't contribute troops, but so long as you do something, anything, be it violent or non violent. If you don't do something, then you are aiding them, by allowing them to flourish when they are under your control. The Taliban wern't ever going to attack the US, but by sheltering Al Qaeda. Terrorist organisations won't grow anywhere near as fast, if there are no countries to let them. Incidently, theres a difference between not doing something, and expressly opposing a country.