Madrid Bomb Blast

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

I am well aware of what I said, however you seem to be trying to stretch an obviously(!) cynical comment into something that it most certainly isn't.

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.

[Jerrek]

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...

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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...

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 ' 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

[BBKing]

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...

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.

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by BBKing

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.

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?

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by BBKing

What nonsense.

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:

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

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.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

No. Spain was "punished" by al-Queda for supporting the Iraq war.

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

[Tezcatlipoca]

*quickly jumps into thread*

Originally Posted by Something Punky read

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

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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...

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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

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.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by punky

It is obvious, because the EUCOHR has been so proactive in running our country.

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.

No, liberties are a human right. Everyone deserves to be free, not just the countries that fight for them. Countries have to fight to maintain it.

Exactly. So what's wrong with the ECoHR?

No, the things that may make countries like the US better than where the terrorists come from are things like freedom. Freedom to practice a religion. Freedom to go to school. Freedom to just do things you want.

See above

In afghanistan, women wern't allowed to go to school, or even the shops unsupervised.

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

Rule of the rapists

Britain and the US said war on Afghanistan would liberate women. We are still waiting

Mariam Rawi in Kabul
Thursday February 12, 2004
The Guardian

When the US began bombing Afghanistan on October 7 2001, the oppression of Afghan women was used as a justification for overthrowing the Taliban regime. Five weeks later America's first lady, Laura Bush, stated triumphantly: "Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women."
However, Amnesty International paints a rather different picture: "Two years after the ending of the Taliban regime, the international community and the Afghan transitional administration, led by President Hamid Karzai, have proved unable to protect women. The risk of rape and sexual violence by members of armed factions and former combatants is still high. Forced marriage, particularly of girl children, and violence against women in the family are widespread in many areas of the country."

In truth, the situation of women in Afghanistan remains appalling. Though girls and women in Kabul, and some other cities, are free to go to school and have jobs, this is not the case in most parts of the country. In the western province of Herat, the warlord Ismail Khan imposes Taliban-like decrees. Many women have no access to education and are banned from working in foreign NGOs or UN offices, and there are hardly any women in government offices. Women cannot take a taxi or walk unless accompanied by a close male relative. If seen with men who are not close relatives, women can be arrested by the "special police" and forced to undergo a hospital examination to see if they have recently had sexual intercourse. Because of this continued oppression, every month a large number of girls commit suicide - many more than under the Taliban.

Women's rights fare no better in northern and southern Afghanistan, which are under the control of the Northern Alliance. One international NGO worker told Amnesty International: "During the Taliban era, if a woman went to market and showed an inch of flesh she would have been flogged; now she's raped."

Even in Kabul, where thousands of foreign troops are present, Afghan women do not feel safe, and many continue to wear the burka for protection. In some areas where girls' education does exist, parents are afraid to allow their daughters to take advantage of it following the burning down of several girls' schools. Girls have been abducted on the way to school and sexual assaults on children of both sexes are now commonplace, according to Human Rights Watch.

In spite of its rhetoric, the Karzai government actively pursues policies that are anti-women.

(snip)

The "war on terror" toppled the Taliban regime, but it has not removed religious fundamentalism, which is the main cause of misery for Afghan women. In fact, by bringing the warlords back to power, the US has replaced one misogynist fundamentalist regime with another.

But then the US never did fight the Taliban to save Afghan women. As recently as 2000 the Bush administration gave the Taliban $43m as a reward for reducing the opium harvest. Now the US supports the Northern Alliance, which was responsible for killing more than 50,000 civilians during its bloody rule in the 1990s.

(snip)

*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*

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

No, but assuming something and then claiming that because someone else agrees with your *opinion* it becomes a *fact* is most certainly a fallacy.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

See what happens when you make assumptions that aren't based on facts?!

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

Originally Posted by Graham

No, but claiming that the hypothetical scenario you presented is a *justification* for murder because it will *prevent* another September 11th, is.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

And I agree entirely. However shooting someone on the *assumption* that they're a terrorist and about to commit an atrocity without *extremely* good reasons for that assumption, is *not* going to convince their country-folk of the rightness of your cause.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

ROFLALALAL!! Pardon me, but am I still talking to the person who wants *ME* to say what *I* would do if *I* were the US President?? Surely that's not *MY* job...!!!

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

Do tell me if you were right...

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

Originally Posted by Graham

No, they just give them severe hassle when they want to get on aeroplanes...!

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

Iraqi's are *STARTING* to find out...??? Sorry, did the details of Saddam Hussein's reign pass you buy? The Secret Police? The Tortures? The Internments? The Executions? The Bombings and Gassings of Kurds and Marsh Arabs? The fear that people lived in that was one of the *justifications* for invasion??

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

September 11th was when the *Americans* got the chance to feel what a large proportion of the rest of the world (including the UK) has felt!

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

Except that when that sprat has *caught* the makerel, will the security services go "ah well, it's all right now, we'll stop the surveillance"? Or will they say "ah, but there's *always* another threat around the corner, so we'll keep the surveillance going, after all, everyone's used to it now"?

*This* is exactly the sort of thing that Ben Franklin (and I) were talking about.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

Nor do I, if that is *ALL* that they are doing. However...

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

... Well pardon me, but I *DO* mind. And, regrettably, your attitude here is one of the ostrich. You decide you can't see a problem, therefore the problem doesn't exist.

Except it *does* exist. *WHY* should the security services be monitoring your, my or anyone else's e-mails "just in case"? If they have a *reason* to suspect you or me, fine, let them, just as they have to do with phone taps and post interceptions, present their case to the Home Secretary and get *authorisation* (and a verifiable paper trail) for their actions.

But to give them carte blanche to spy on *everyone* and *anyone* just because there *might* be a "threat" is a foolish and short-sighted policy.

*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?

Originally Posted by Graham

It is not just *my* perogative. If you are one of my customers, do you want anyone else knowing that you've just bought a "Macho Big Boy Bondage Harness"? Do you think that the security services or anyone else have a *right* or a *need* to read that information??

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

I won't have to. Given that I have spoken and written at length about such subjects, I have little doubt that I'm already listed in their books as a "dangerous subversive" and if I find a way of acheiving this, they will read it from my messages on forums such as these.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

And yet again you make assumptions which aren't based on facts.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

Pedanting spelling errors is not foolish, it's just childish and petty and not the sort of thing that someone who is interested in reasoned debate would engage it.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

Public opinion affects what politicians do. It does not affect what Judges do, otherwise they would make their decisions on what the Tabloids write, rather than the Rule of Law.

It is my fervant hope, however, that those who administer the law in this country do not allow the politicians to change the law simply to garner votes according to their perceptions of public opinion

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

So was I!!

Your source said:

United States: Tolerance for religious intolerance. The U.S. State Department's new list of countries that deny religious freedom left three conspicuous violators off the list - Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - for no obvious reason other than the fact the trio are all allies in Washington's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The State Department list released 5 March, named six countries, Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Sudan as "Countries of Particular Concern" under the US International Religious Freedom Act. The list was last updated in 2001.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, 70 years *IS* recent! It's in living memory of a lot of people! And I'm glad that American has progressed (at least in *some* areas, whilst seemingly going backwards in others!), however to expect that *other* countries should change their ways according to that time-table is naiive.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

It is not "no education", it is "diminished education".

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

I suggest you look at this article: http://www.libchrist.com/sexed/abstinance.html

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

Oh! It's only violated *one* basic right. Well *that's* ok then...

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

Originally Posted by Graham

There is no "have to" about it.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

Why? Because broadening the scope will undermine your arguments?

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

So it's OK to support a Freedom Fighter when he's convenient to your cause, but when he doesn't do what you want, then he becomes a Terrorist?

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

Now you're really reaching. Yes, this *is* a forum. Yes this *IS* a place where people can voice their opinions.

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

Originally Posted by Graham

However *WHEN* someone says "Some countries do believe that giving in to terrorists will mean they won't have to face their wrath." that is *NOT* stating an opinion, that is, seemingly, claiming a *FACT*.

Yet again you make assumptions...

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

Did someone pedant my spelling a few lines back up? (Oops, slapped wrist, *bad* Graham...!!! )

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

Originally Posted by Graham

And, once again, I point out, if you "don't do something" you will be "held to account". And who will be doing that holding? Why the Good Ol' US of A, of course!

Like, say, starting a war...? Yep, that's *guaranteed* to make the world a better place...

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.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Tezcatlipoca

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

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.

*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*

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*

[Tezcatlipoca]

*one quick pop back *

Originally Posted by punky

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*

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

Originally Posted by Xaccers

If that isn't what you meant by what you said, then why didn't you actually write what you meant?

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

And why go to so much effort afterward to back up what you said?

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

As for cynical? No. I found it disgusting.

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

Originally Posted by punky

I never said it was a fact.

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.

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.

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...!!!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

I never said it was your job. Nor have I ever said you had to do anything. I merely asked your opinion.

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*!

Like I said before, this is a forum, for an open exchange of opinions.

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

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

Again, therefore, you made a wrong assumption.

I'm white, british and I get enough hassle at airports. Arabic people aren't solely targetted.

No, but I never said they were.

Besides, if the US "hassled" Atta a bit, then maybe the twin towers would still be standing.

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

Oh, I got the impression from the anti-war brigade

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

You make it sound like it was worth going in there to get rid of him. Oh yeah, it was.

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.

Anyway, it's a different kettle of fish. We are talking about civillian on civillian terrorism. Specifically Al Qaeda *points to topic*.

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

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?

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.

Well that evil zionistic imperialist government has removed him, along with the sanctions. A bit OT, but anyway.

OT? I think you mean OTT!!!

Something that Bush hasn't understood yet, is the war on terror will never end.

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

*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.

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*!!

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.

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*.

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?

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

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?

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.

And the security services have to suspect everybody,

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...!

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.

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

I didn't assume anything. You said I don't know what i'm talking about, so that is calling me an idiot.

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

Ignorance != Idiocy!

But for someone to call me an idiot,

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

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.

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!!

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.

I agree, that is *very* unfortunate.

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.

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

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.

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

It is not "no education", it is "diminished education".

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 more to the point, where does it say the government is forcing this to happen? It is the public that are doing this.

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

Races naturally feel more comfortable amongst their own, and feel they can learn better that way.

Opinion or fact?

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.

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".

This is hardly supressing education, but rather educating schoolchildren, [...] the government is just trying to be tolerant.

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."

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

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

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.

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...

So it's OK to support a Freedom Fighter when he's convenient to your cause, but when he doesn't do what you want, then he becomes a Terrorist?

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!"

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

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...

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.

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

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

Yawn. Addressed elsewhere.

Because it is the US that will feel the repercussions if country-X doesn't do anything, if terrorists are active within its borders.

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

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.

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...

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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...!!!

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)

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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)

Originally Posted by Graham

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!

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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*!

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

Originally Posted by Graham

Again, therefore, you made a wrong assumption.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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

Originally Posted by Graham

OT? I think you mean OTT!!!

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

Maybe but it is getting a bit OT

Originally Posted by Graham

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*!!

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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*.

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Graham

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...!

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)

Originally Posted by Graham

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



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

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

Originally Posted by Graham

Ignorance != Idiocy!

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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!!

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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...

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

Opinion or fact?

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).

Originally Posted by Graham

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".

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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."

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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...

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?

Originally Posted by Graham

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!"

Yeah, and?

Originally Posted by Graham

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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...

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.