Madrid Bomb Blast

Originally Posted by Ramrod

A good comment here

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.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by zendawn

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.

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

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

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.

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.

The world needs to wake up to the fact that this particular brand of islamic fundamentalism and fanaticism can not be negotiated with.

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.

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.

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

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

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

The main mission for which the Military Organization is
responsible is: The overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime.

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

Other missions consist of the following:

1. Gathering information about the enemy, the land, the installations, and the neighbors.
2. Kidnaping enemy personnel, documents, secrets, and arms.
3. Assassinating enemy personnel as well as foreign tourists.
4. Freeing the brothers who are captured by the enemy.
5. Spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy.
6. Blasting and destroying the places of amusement, immorality, and sin; not a vital target.
7. Blasting and destroying the embassies and attacking vital economic centers.
8. Blasting and destroying bridges leading into and out of the cities.

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.

[Pierre]

"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".

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

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?

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.

[Pierre]

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.

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.

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

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 is very similar to ours

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

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Pierre

What is wrong with an Islamic democracy?

link

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

link

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.

[zendawn]

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?

[punky]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

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:

Saddam and Osama hate each other and no link exsisted but now Spain gets punished by Al Queda for helping to overthrow a guy they hated and wanted overthrown to start with?

MAKES SENSE

[Ramrod]

Just great

LONDON (Reuters) - Islamic militants will see the defeat of Spain's Popular Party and the country's planned withdrawal from Iraq as a victory for their cause, encouraging more attacks aimed at political ends, security experts say.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Just great

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.

[Xaccers]

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?

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

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.

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.

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

They will only be happy when there is ONLY Islam. It is there mission to eradicate all non-islamic governments.

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.

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

See above.

[hairy_mick]

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".

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

just as there are *SOME* Christians who think that Christianity is the "one true way" of religion.

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