Madrid Bomb Blast

Originally Posted by Pierre

Going into Iraq was nothing to do with al-qaeda,

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

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

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

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

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.

What is wrong with an Islamic democracy?

Nothing, I have never said there is.

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

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

Originally Posted by punky

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

Nothing much to add, she sums it up pretty well.

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:

Despite the obvious differences, we are in a war now. It was declared upon us, and we must defend ourselves.

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.

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".

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".

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

All together now
You started it! You invaded Poland!

Originally Posted by Russ D

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

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.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Just great

"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...

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

"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...

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

[paulyoung666]

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

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

Absolutely

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by paulyoung666

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

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.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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

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".

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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

[El Diablo]

Originally Posted by stuartbe

Thanks for that... Sorry for expresing an opinion

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.

Originally Posted by stuartbe

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

[PEDANT] obviously [/PEDANT]

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

Originally Posted by stuartbe

I stated that I did not think this was there style for a reason.

And your reason for that was:

Originally Posted by stuartbe

Dont they usualy use suicide bombers.. This attack was well planned - Does not seem to be alcieda's style...

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.

Originally Posted by stuartbe

Can you fill me in on when Al-Qaeda last used remote detonation on 10 devices at the same time ????

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.

Originally Posted by stuartbe

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

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? 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.

Originally Posted by stuartbe

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 !

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... oh, and yes, I am grown up - thanks



[1] although I could be wrong

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

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".

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

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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

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.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

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.

Originally Posted by graham

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.

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.