Madrid Bomb Blast

[Pierre]

You have only recently joined these forums, so you may not be aware that, in a recent discussion, someone on here tried Option A and, indeed, beat up the bully that was attacking him.

The bully's friends then grabbed him threw him down the stairs, breaking both his legs.

Now imagine that the bully's friends have bombs and consider that this may be a rather simplistic solution...

I'm sorry to hear that, but your apparent solution of "do nothing and hope that it all goes away in time" (i'm not quoting you just my interpretation of your stance) is probably the most blatant case of Ostrich & head in sand I have ever heard of.

I am very glad that our world leaders do not share that view.

[punky]

Well, I think i'm going to stop posting in this thread anymore. It's taking up too much time, and the fun has certainly been sucked out. There's no mutual respect (or appears to be none), arguments are becoming circular, and are really starting to get a bit petty (not helped by myself, I admit), so it's better to let this one go, after Graham has had his say.

Thanx everyone for all the reps and support. Nice to know that when you hold a certain set of beliefs, which go against the popular held ones, that someone else agrees. I appreciate it

[ntluser]

I think the problem with Osama Bin Laden and his followers is that they have adopted Saddam's view that an attack on Iraq is an attack on Islam and since followers of Islam live beyond the boundaries of Iraq, it follows that countries supporting the war against Iraq are now prime targets from Islamic terrorists of many nationalities.

Originally Posted by punky

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

No, it doesn't, at least not until the point where you think that your *opinion* carries more weight than someone else's.

You do read into things a bit too far.

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

Then I suggest you buy a dictionary.

(Snip of lots of stuff that isn't worth bothering with)

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

Wrong *AGAIN*! To "help" someone remain in power is to do something *active*. The purpose of UN Sanctions, as I just pointed out, is "to maintain or restore international peace and security", which is *NOT* the same.

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

And I, in turn, think *you* need to adjust yours! You are *much* more likely to be killed in a road accident than *ever* to die in a terrorist attack (last year more people died on the UK's roads than died in the September 11th attacks!)

Yet because terrorist attacks get headlines and TV news coverage, whilst road accidents (unless very spectacular or bloody) do not, people have a completely mis-guided idea of what risks they *actually* face every day.

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

Actually I was thinking of "paranoid"...!

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?

No, we should worry about it *before* we lose the rights that enable this sort of thing to even *happen*.

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)

Because Qusay Hussein *was* the government as far as the Iraqi secret police were concerned. If *any* government lets their Security Services or Secret Police or whatever you want to call them violate the basic rights of its people *without* being held to account because it's "to protect the state" and the people do not, or cannot hold the government to account, then the whole balance shifts to a situation that does *not* benefit the people.

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

"You thought". Yes, yet again you assume that *everyone* thinks the same as you! Whereas I think you'll find that a lot of people do *not* consider Arthur Scargill or Enoch Powell to be subversives and most certainly should *not* be lumped in with Abu Hamza!!

If you really haven't called me an idiot, then fine, you haven't.

THANK YOU!! (With heavy emphasis)

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

Yes, actually it is.

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance. - Confucius

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.

Oh dear. Punky, I *never* insulted you until you resorted to the childish and petty tactic of pedanting a spelling mistake to try to score a point. (I could, if I could be bothered, also argue that "childish and petty" are not insulting, but merely descriptive!)

You have made *numerous* spelling and grammatical errors (not to mention having committed serious acts of abuse against the poor innocent comma!) but I have *not* deemed it fit or necessary to bring these up previously.

I have been willing to leave these alone because for all I know you may be dyslexic, have had learning difficulties, or have English as your second or third language, however when *you* start using these tactics, you should not be surprised if your own shortcomings are pointed out to you.

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,

I think you need to look a bit closer into the US's history of its behaviour towards other countries...!! Columbia, Nicaragua, Chile, Cuba, Grenada...

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.

I suggest you take a closer look at the UN's charter and see what the UN's job actually *IS*. (Oh, BTW, I also suggest you look at the League of Nations that was set up after World War I and see why it failed. Here's a hint, it was because a big country decided that it didn't need to join in. The initials of that country are an anagram of S, U and A...!)

Doesn't make it alright, but proves your argument doesn't carry any weight.

It "proves" nothing of the sort!

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.

<Cough> Northern Ireland <cough>

The government isn't forcing it to happen, it is happening naturally.

Ah, another wonderful word: "naturally". Just as it was "natural" for the "superior" White Race to enslave the "inferior" Black Race...!

Opinion, but i'm sure if research was done into it, it would probably confirm that.

And you were doing so well.

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).

And that was *obviously, of course, in *no way* due to prejudices in society!

When you do research you don't ignore inconvenient facts because they don't fit in with what you want to prove.

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").

I suggest you read it more carefully: "In the "Bible belt" of the South, 55% of school districts had "abstinence-only" policies while the northeast insisted on such curriculum in just 20% of districts."

They are talking about *School districts*, not the government. It is the Government who, in Congress in 1996, passed legislation which "made available $250 million for teaching abstinence."

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.

Suggested by *whom*? Cite please.

I recall not so long ago (January 2003) when we were "saved" from a deadly terrorist attack after "traces of ricin" were found in a London Flat.

"The arrests were being hailed by MI5 as "significant" and confirmation of background intelligence pointing to attempts by terrorist groups linked to al-Qa'eda to acquire biological, chemical or even nuclear weapons."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...%2Fnrici09.xml

Curiously enough, after the initial splash of stories, there seems to have been very little written since about this. Odd.

The fact that lives have been saved, even if it is a few, makes it worth it in my opinion.

That "fact" is not a fact. It is another opinion.

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

Oh dear, once again you seem to have little idea of what you're talking about. Do you really think that someone's going to just write to an explosives manufactuer and say "ok, I'd like to order a hundred kilos of Semtex, deliver to this address"...??

Any farmer could make a pretty decent bomb with half a tonne of fertilizer, some diesel fuel and a few bags of bolts bought *entirely* legitimately. There are *many* ways of making explosive devices with common chemicals as any chemistry student will tell you. Intercepting people's e-mails will do *NOTHING* to stop this.

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!"

Gosh, I *wish* I lived in your world where everything is so *clearly* black and white...!!

Regrettably I live in the Real World (tm) where things are a *little* more complicated. Shame.

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

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

But again, you state opinions *as if* they are facts!! Look again at what you wrote:

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

"It *IS* the US that *WILL* feel the repercussions". Not "it is my opinion". Not "I think", you state this as a bald fact.

You then carry on, above, "You are telling me that the US being the #1 desired target for middle-eastern terrorism, is not a fact? " as if that was what you *said* when, in fact, it was not. And, by the way, not *all* Middle-East terrorism is directed against the USA...!

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.

Yes, because the government tried to blame ETA without any reasonable proof and exploit the bombings for political gain, causing a massive backlash.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I'm sorry to hear that, but your apparent solution of "do nothing and hope that it all goes away in time" (i'm not quoting you just my interpretation of your stance) is probably the most blatant case of Ostrich & head in sand I have ever heard of.

No, you're not quoting me, because, were you to *try* to quote anything of mine that actually *said* my stance was "do nothing and hope that it all goes way in time" would leave you with nothing to quote *at all*.

Try reading what I have *actually* said, instead of trying to force your own mis-guided interpretations onto my words.

Originally Posted by punky

Well, I think i'm going to stop posting in this thread anymore. It's taking up too much time, and the fun has certainly been sucked out.

Yes, it stops being fun when someone kicks big holes in your arguments...

There's no mutual respect (or appears to be none),

Mutual means "expressed by *both* sides"...!

arguments are becoming circular, and are really starting to get a bit petty (not helped by myself, I admit)

Thank you for at least admitting that.

Thanx everyone for all the reps and support.

(Sings) "The Lurkers support me in e-mail"...!

Nice to know that when you hold a certain set of beliefs, which go against the popular held ones, that someone else agrees. I appreciate it

Oddly enough, I thought it was *me* who was the one who was holding to a certain set of beliefs that went against the popularly held ones...!!

I was against the war in iraq from day one.

Not because I felt Saddam was being wronged but because of the reasons given for going to war.

Terrorism will never stop.
What happened on 9/11 was always coming, I agree that the body count was unusually high for a terrorist attack, but I also dont believe they knew that the towers would come down.

Terrorism happens on a glabal scale and America isnt the only victim. They cannot win the war on terrorism, the more they fight the more they will agitate others.

What can they do?

First step would be get rid of Dubya. He's a war monger, he is trying to open fights based on anything and his gov attack anyone that disagrees with them.

Bombing civilians will not make any difference, the terrorists will neither win nore loose, same as the governments fighting terrorism.

[Pierre]

No, you're not quoting me, because, were you to *try* to quote anything of mine that actually *said* my stance was "do nothing and hope that it all goes way in time" would leave you with nothing to quote *at all*.

You have said on many occasions in this thread that we should not go after Al-qaeda with force or military might and let the muslim communities in the middle east sort it themselves.

I am a reasonably intelligent person and that is how I came to interperet your stance. If I have mis-interpreted this please put me straight and give me your "definitive" stance on this subject.

[BBKing]

Oddly enough, I thought it was *me* who was the one who was holding to a certain set of beliefs that went against the popularly held ones...!!

Nah. Remember the political compass thread where most people ended up left-of-centre and anti-authoritarian.

George Bush has been so successful in his cunning War on Terror strategy that his forces are bogged down in Iraq looking for non-existent weapons and dealing with an Islamic fundamentalist insurgency that didn't exist there a year ago. Al-Qaeda (well, its associated groups, which is essentially what al-Qaeda is) has had lots of excellent publicity and images of the US invading Muslim countries to help recruitment and is free to attack worldwide when it feels like it, now the US is looking elsewhere. Israel is still suffering suicide bombings, the Palestinians are suffering reprisal attacks and are having a wall built through their land, perpetuating the cycle of hate and mistrust that is one of the key drivers of terrorism. I remember a 'Roadmap for Peace' a while back, but there appears to have been a wrong turn.

Russia has 're-elected' what looks suspiciously like a one-party state, and is still engaged with the bothersome Chechens, who've been blowing up commuter trains for a good while now, as well as providing a source of well-motivated hairy b*stards to the grateful Bin Laden and co. Get Really Tough On Terrorists not working there, I feel.

The Libyans have decided to admit everything the US wants them to admit in return for money, except for their Prime Minister who let slip that they had nothing to do with Lockerbie, but was quickly sat upon now Muammar is George'n'Tony's new best mate. Yvonne Who? Talk to terrorists, us? Funny, I remember in the 70s if an Irishman pretended he'd murdered 20 people he was beaten up and given life imprisonment - Gaddafi pretends he murdered 270 and gets to meet the Prime Minister to discuss oil contracts.

Although you can lay a number of charges at Bush's door, short-termism, ignorance, arrogance, paranoia, stupidity, nepotism, religious fundamentalism, the one that really sticks for me is incompetence. And that is deeply worrying in the supposed leader of the free world. Based on the last year, his school report would have the b*gger in detention for the next year writing out 'I must try to concentrate' 5000 times.

Originally Posted by Pierre

You have said on many occasions in this thread that we should not go after Al-qaeda with force or military might and let the muslim communities in the middle east sort it themselves.

Yes, but that is not *ALL* I have said.

Let me quote from my message #107:

"I suggest you look at my comments where I point out that it should be up to the *Muslim Community* to sort this problem out for themselves, rather than trying to force a "solution" (which is acceptable to us) on to them, because that will only *increase* the resentment against the West."

Yes, we should let the Muslims deal with their problems, no, we should not try to *force* a solution upon them, but there is *nothing* in there that a "reasonably intelligent" person could or should interpret as saying "do nothing and hope that it all goes way in time".

That is the sort of spin that a politician would add to someone else's comments.

[Pierre]

Yes, we should let the Muslims deal with their problems, no, we should not try to *force* a solution upon them, but there is *nothing* in there that a "reasonably intelligent" person could or should interpret as saying "do nothing and hope that it all goes way in time".

Ok then what should we do apart from that? as opposed to "doing nothing"

Originally Posted by Pierre

Ok then what should we do apart from that? as opposed to "doing nothing"

Oh dear, here we go again...!

[Pierre]

Whilst you have posted many replies on this thread you have rubbished most peoples attempts at providing a solution to the problem but not been brave enough to supply your own.

a quote from one of your first posts

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.

If you believe there is more than one solution then provide it as you have only provided one up until now. Which is the †œlet Islamic states sort it themselvesââ ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ� stance.

I have the right to object to a course or policy *without* needing to solve the problem as the price of that objection.

Another one of your quotes, which sums up the way you responded to most things on in this thread. You object and belittle a lot of posts and yet come up with nothing yourself.

Anyone can make objections etc, but if they constantly do this without being willing to go out on a limb and give their ideas Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢m afraid their argument then holds much less stock.

Is it because if you were to give your ideas/solutions you are afraid that other people will be able to make baseless objections to your ideas?

It is a good a good job the people we have running the country are able to give differing opinions backed up with differing ideas. Can you imagine a debate in the House of Commons based on your strategy.

1st person †œI think we should go after Al-Qaeda and use our military/intelligence to intercept them before they launch an attack on the UK mainlandââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�

2nd person †œ I donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t think we shouldââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�

1st Person †œOK, what do you think we should doâ₠¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â�

2nd Person †œI donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t have to have a different solution to object to your ideaââ‚ ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ�

1st Person †œGood point, letââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s go for a pint and forget aboutââ‚ƚ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ�

[TigaSefi]

Ha, I can't wait for the Yassin Assassinated thread to start up, now that thread will be a bundle of fun.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Whilst you have posted many replies on this thread you have rubbished most peoples attempts at providing a solution to the problem but not been brave enough to supply your own.

Pierre, I have already explained what I have done in this and other threads.

Accusing me of cowardice is not a way to conduct a reasoned debate and until you learn what is I am not going to waste my time responding to baseless insults.