Madrid Bomb Blast

Originally Posted by Xaccers

She did, you just didn't understand it, while punky did.

No, he (and you) have made assumptions which are not backed up by any facts, see my reply to him for more details.

And what's the guarentees are there that by not breaking our own legal codes no lives would be saved? 100%?

Rubbish!

You think that there's *no* way of saving lives *other* than by breaking our own legal codes? Ok, prove it.

Here's a common sense/moral clash.
Incurable fatal disease. Simplest way to obliterate it would be to wipe out everyone who is a carrier - common sense, but morally that's awful.

Not simple, just ludiculously simplistic.

Your quotes from Bush make no mention of doing what america wants. It's quite open, even going as far as saying that they don't expect countries to send troops.

Of course, because countries like Micronesia wouldn't *have* troops to send.

But what they *wanted* was those countries to say "Yes, we support this war against Saddam" with, amongst others, the very unsubtle implications that those who *didn't* might not get handouts or trade concessions next time Uncle Sam looks their way.

Now if there is a nation, with no army, no inteligence service, not much political clout, but has a member in the UN, simply by voting on things which the UN decides would help against terror, like voting on an arms sanction for instance, that is doing something in the fight against terrorism.

I think that second "UN" should read "USA"...

I don't recall any reports stating that sewerage or water works were deliberate targets.

I have already posted a link that cites exactly that! Here it is again...!!

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/19.../s91lopez.html

And here's another:

http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/sw/sw41/watertarget.html

I also don't recall any reports stating that populated areas such as markets or civilian office blocks were being activly targetted.

Irrelevant.

'm pretty sure our military did its damndest to attack military targets.

When you redefine civilian targets as "military targets", that's not surprising.

Originally Posted by Pierre

when the terrorist just wants to kill you or convert you to their way of thinking, there's not much hope of negotiation. You can't have an agreement on only killing a portion, or only half converting people, it's an all or nothing situation.

If you want to know what Graham wants or doesn't want to confront, it would be polite to address your comments *TO* Graham.

As to the above, 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.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

No, he (and you) have made assumptions which are not backed up by any facts, see my reply to him for more details.

No, Punky and I understood what was meant, you didn't.

Originally Posted by Graham

Rubbish!

You think that there's *no* way of saving lives *other* than by breaking our own legal codes? Ok, prove it.

That's not the specific issue we are talking about.
Lets say the security forces have inteligence about an iminent attack.
And for this example, the only way they can get more details before the attack takes place, like exactly where and when, is through illegal means.
If they do not use those illegal means then there would be no way to stop the attack, and possibly hundreds of civilians will be killed or injured.

Originally Posted by Graham

Not simple, just ludiculously simplistic.

Really? So quarenteening someone with a deadly infectious disease is ludicrously simplistic is it?
If you have a mass epidemic of a deadly disease on your hands, the logical thing to do is round up those infected, quarenteen them and let them die to prevent further spread of the infection.
But we don't do that with many deadly infectious diseases because it is considered morally wrong.

Originally Posted by Graham

Of course, because countries like Micronesia wouldn't *have* troops to send.

But what they *wanted* was those countries to say "Yes, we support this war against Saddam" with, amongst others, the very unsubtle implications that those who *didn't* might not get handouts or trade concessions next time Uncle Sam looks their way.

Sorry, I could have sworn you were talking about supporting the fight against terrorism. I'm sure that's what Bush was saying in those quotes after 9/11 and way before any thought of going after saddam.

Originally Posted by Graham

I think that second "UN" should read "USA"...

Nope, UN.

Originally Posted by Graham

I have already posted a link that cites exactly that! Here it is again...!!

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/19.../s91lopez.html

And here's another:

http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/sw/sw41/watertarget.html

One mentions that waterworks were hit.
The other is of some Prof who thinks that because the coalition had a document covering the vulnerabilities of the waterworks, it must make it a target!
Even though there are probably documents on the vulnerabilities of schools and mosques with Iraqi aircraft parked next to them, so that the coalition can deside how little force is required to take out the aircraft without hitting the school/mosque.

Originally Posted by Graham

Irrelevant.

Why? Because it goes against your argument that there is no difference between terrorist organisations recruiting people to their cause and the anti-terrorist gov's (namely America) recruiting people to their cause?
Terrorists deliberately attack civilians as they are unprotected and an easy target to cause maximum death.

Originally Posted by Graham

When you redefine civilian targets as "military targets", that's not surprising.

As opposed to terrorists doing their damndest to attack civilians. Not civilian targets, not military targets, but civilians, like you, like your family, like everyone walking past my office window.
People. Men, women, children, old and young, fathers, mothers, daughters and sons.
Deliberately targetted Graham, not accidently hit because they were in a building that was targetted.
With terrorism it's the building that was accidently hit when the people in it were targetted.
You watch the two towers fall and you tell me that recruiting people to do that is no different to the US or the UK recruiting people to fight against terrorism!
How dare you!

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

"Obviously"? Sorry, where is this obviosity?

Please quote me the relevant phrases or paragraphs from her article at
http://www.melaniephillips.com/artic...es/000392.html which makes it *so* obvious that she was talking about the EU Court of Human Rights.

And, if she was, *why* does she say "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." when this "alien 'human rights' culture" is one that we not only freely and willingly signed up to (in 1951!), but we were also one of the *first* EU countries to do so?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/948143.stm

It is obvious, because the EUCOHR has been so proactive in running our country. Come on, from the Daily Mail, even most novices to current affairs could of probably saw the link. Who else dictates our Human Rights legisture to us? The UN supposedly does, but they don't do anything, ever. The whole point of the sentence (my impression of it anyway) talks about how the EU want to enforce human rights actions on the UK which favouring the terrorists/going easier on them would result them being able to hit us more easily.

Bottom line: It was obvious to me, and others. If it wern't to you, sorry. I'd thought reading the Guardian, you'd know exactly how the EU court of Human Rights takes care of the issue in our country.

Originally Posted by Graham

When a country starts undertaking actions to "defend" its own citizens that go *against* its most fundamental concepts of law and rights and justice, they are *giving* victories to those who wish to *destroy* that country!!

That's liberal wish-wash. 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?

Originally Posted by Graham

No, I think he was saying that because he *understood* the fact that liberties have to be hard fought for but it's very easy to give them up again without realising *what* you're giving up.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

It's very easy to glibly say "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about", but it's much more difficult to, for instance, regain the right to presumption of innocence when it's been lost.

They said the same thing about CCTV. "Oooh Big Brother is watching you!", "The government will know where you like to shop!". Here's one i'd like to say: "There goes another rapist into prison because he was caught on CCTV and CrimeWatch!"

Originally Posted by Graham

Common sense? Moral sense? No, *NONSENSE*!!!

I really don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about, let alone what *I* am talking about!

If there are two suicide bombers in the open, about to run into a crowded building and kill lots of people *AND* there is no other way to stop them, it makes both common sense and moral sense to shoot them before they can do so.

However if someone claims that it is "common sense" to allow the Security Services to monitor all of our communications "just in case", then that is utter nonsense because that goes against one of our "core values" of the presumption of innocence.

If we give away our core values to protect ourselves "no matter the cost" we *lose* everything that makes our society *better* than the one that terrorists want to impose on us.

My, my, my, getting a tad personal now aren't we? I may debate with you, but you still have an opposing view and I respect that, but to call me an idiot because I dare disagree with you? I don't think I need to say anything more about that. *hands Graham more rope*

You are also ignoring that Moral Sense is subjective. It came as as a suprise to Xaccers and I that you would kill the bombers, because most left-wingers say "murder is murder, and not 1 is acceptable". Presumption of innocence was lost a long time ago, and nothing to do with the Internet and technology, or the war on terror. Since when has a rapist ever been thought of innocent before conviction? Or a child murderer? People normally try and lynch them before it even gets to court.

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. Now compare that with the fact if you tried to sell alcohol in Iran. If you tried to practice Judaism in Palestine. In Saudi Arabia, women aren't allowed to drive (Unless they get international licenses abroad). In afghanistan, women wern't allowed to go to school, or even the shops unsupervised. America, as well as England, have to take drastic steps to protect the most important freedom of all: the right to exist without persecution, from anyone least of all from another country. It is the freedom that Al Qaeda are trying to take.

Originally Posted by Graham

No, because that's not a logical conclusion.

The point is that Middle Eastern Countries want to be allowed to get on with running their *own* affairs *without* Western "influence" or "control" because they have seen what has resulted from this in the past.

Yeah, and a fine job they are doing of it as well. America would love for regimes that harbour, sponser or otherwise aid terrorism to sort the problem out themselves, but they either can't, or won't. To its infinite credit Pakistan has made so much ground in arresting terrorists, shutting down camps, and helping the US persue bin Laden. But when the next assination attempt on Musharraf succeeds, we'll be back to square 1 i'm sure.

Originally Posted by Graham

No cites, then?

Name a president/head of any country that would go on record saying that. I certainly wouldnt. The idea is not to show weakness, even if you are feeling it. It is natural while complating any descision like supporting the invaison of Iraq that you would think, is it worth the hassle?

Originally Posted by Graham

If the President of the USA says "you will be held accountable for inactivity" and "you're either with us or against us" I'm not sure what other interpretation can be put on it apart from "if you don't do it our way, you're going to end in in trouble, one way or another".


Balderdash. Just because you don't do X does *not* mean you are "apathetic" about a situation.

Inactivity. That means not doing anything. Never has Bush ever said you have to commit troops to Iraq, to be a helpful partner in the war on terror. Like I said before, which you decided to ignore, there are many ways you can fight terror, without involving an army. If you seize $2bn in terrorist assets, i'm sure the US would be pretty happy. If you shut down a terrorist training camp, likewise. Like Xaccers said, even something like a vote on a UN saction is something. Also, don't get confused between the coalition and the war on terror. The coalition is made up of solely for ousting Saddam, but the war on terror, there is much you can do to help without invading any country.

If you dont do X or Y about a situation, that doesn't make you apathetic, but if you don't do anything, at all, then whats the point if you care, or you don't? You might as well not care. Actions speak louder than thoughts,

Originally Posted by Graham

If you think I'm going to be impressed by this sort of baiting (with sneering undertones), you are sadly mistaken.

I'm not sneering, i'm genuinely interested (as I am with most liberals) in understanding their point of view fully. I may not agree with it, and I may even want to debate it, but I still respect it, and want to understand what you think about things.

Originally Posted by Graham

JOOI, if it is such a "reasonable enough" question, how come you have already got it wrong twice?

Well you manage to avoid giving me an answer again. Congratulations. It is a reasonable question, but as I still haven't got an answer out of you, I can only guess, can't I? The fact I keep guessing wrong means i'm more interested in what you feel the US should do. Everyone has a slightly different answer, and they are all as valid as each other, although obviously, some would be more successful than others. So it's no suprise I can't guess exactly how you feel, or what you'd do. My failure to guess your response would be be due to the fact you don't give a lot (anything?) away. At the moment, it seems like you care, but you haven't said you would do anything specifically. That is semi-appeasement. If you don't do anything you allow terrorists to flourish, which is almost as bad as aiding them.

On a separate note, we (you?) may want to calm this down, or it'll just get closed/posts deleted. Keep debates in the right spirit.

[Pierre]

If you want to know what Graham wants or doesn't want to confront, it would be polite to address your comments *TO* Graham.

Didn't want to cause offence, but wanted to get to the crux of my argument

As to the above, 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.

A nice thought, but do we have the time? will the muslim community sort it out?

I see no indication that they will, if they don't /won't what are our options.

Why should we trust our safety to muslim community? when it is elements of that community that are attacking us.

If you are bullied at school what is the best course of action. Confront the bully yourself, hit him back at a risk of getting a bloody nose, but showing you will not capitulate so his bullying will not affect you.

Or do nothing and ""hope"" the bullys friends will talk him out of bullying.

Option A may get you hurt a couple of times but the bullying will stop.

What are terrrorists? nothing but bullys.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

No, Punky and I understood what was meant, you didn't.

Oh well, if you two agree then I *must* be wrong...

Lets say the security forces have inteligence about an iminent attack. And for this example, the only way they can get more details before the attack takes place, like exactly where and when, is through illegal means.
If they do not use those illegal means then there would be no way to stop the attack, and possibly hundreds of civilians will be killed or injured.

ROFL! That example is so laden down with suppositions and conditionals that William of Occam would give up and grow a beard!

Really? So quarenteening someone with a deadly infectious disease is ludicrously simplistic is it?

No, saying that the "simplest way to obliterate it would be to wipe out everyone who is a carrier" which is ridiculous.

If you have a mass epidemic of a deadly disease on your hands, the logical thing to do is round up those infected, quarenteen them and let them die to prevent further spread of the infection.

No it is not the "logical" thing to do if there is the possibility of a cure.

Sorry, I could have sworn you were talking about supporting the fight against terrorism. I'm sure that's what Bush was saying in those quotes after 9/11 and way before any thought of going after saddam.

I suggest you do a little research into the "Project for the New American Century". For instance:

"A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001."

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

Or http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in592330.shtml

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,ââ‚Âà ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ� says Oâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,ââ‚à ‚¬Ã‚ÂÂ� says Suskind. †œDay one, these things were laid and sealed."

Nope, UN.

That was irony.

One mentions that waterworks were hit.

A rather terse precis when actually it says:

'The attacks that have come under the severest criticism were those launched after mid-February on electrical, water, and sewage facilities in Iraqi cities. These attacks are responsible for much of the continuing death and hardship among Iraqi civilians. The United States did not resort to terror-bombing in the Gulf, as it did in World War II or even in the Christmas 1972 bombings of North Vietnam. Yet the allies managed to inflict what a U.N. observer team would later call "near apocalyptic" damage to Iraqs infrastructure, leaving, by June 1, 70,000 homeless and as many as 20,000 others sick and dying in a state that had been bombed back to the "preindustrial age."'

The other is of some Prof who thinks that because the coalition had a document covering the vulnerabilities of the waterworks, it must make it a target!

Sorry, did you actually *READ* that document?? Let me quote again:

"During allied bombing campaigns on Iraq the country's eight multi-purpose dams had been repeatedly hit, simultaneously wrecking flood control, municipal and industrial water storage, irrigation and hydroelectric power. Four of seven major pumping stations were destroyed, as were 31 municipal water and sewerage facilities - 20 in Baghdad, resulting in sewage pouring into the Tigris. Water purification plants were incapacitated throughout Iraq."

[QUOTE]Irrelevant.

Why? Because it goes against your argument that there is no difference between terrorist organisations recruiting people to their cause and the anti-terrorist gov's (namely America) recruiting people to their cause?
[...]You watch the two towers fall and you tell me that recruiting people to do that is no different to the US or the UK recruiting people to fight against terrorism!
How dare you!

What on *Earth* are you talking about?? *Where* did this argument come from and how the *hell* did it become mine???

And *HOW DARE YOU* imply that I have said *ANYTHING* like what you imply here.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

What on *Earth* are you talking about?? *Where* did this argument come from and how the *hell* did it become mine???

And *HOW DARE YOU* imply that I have said *ANYTHING* like what you imply here.

I refer you to posts 65,66 and 70. In particular your response in post 70.
You accuse western goverments of exploiting a terrosist attack to recruit people to their cause putting them on par with the terrorists who committed the atrocity.

Originally Posted by punky

It is obvious, because the EUCOHR has been so proactive in running our country. Come on, from the Daily Mail, even most novices to current affairs could of probably saw the link. Who else dictates our Human Rights legisture to us?

Hello? Did you *READ* the link I posted where I pointed out how we were one of the *first* countries who signed up to the ECHR in 1951???

Bottom line: It was obvious to me, and others.

Bottom line, this the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Popularity", aka the Emperor's New Clothes...

I'd thought reading the Guardian, you'd know exactly how the EU court of Human Rights takes care of the issue in our country.

Sorry? "Reading the Guardian"? (is this meant to be an insult?!). I don't read the Guardian. In fact I don't *read* any of the Broadsheets or Tabloids. However I *do* read articles that have been written in any or all of them which turn up in searching google etc (and, no, I *don't* just read the ones I agree with!!)

When a country starts undertaking actions to "defend" its own citizens that go *against* its most fundamental concepts of law and rights and justice, they are *giving* victories to those who wish to *destroy* that country!!

Oh well *that's* a devastating counter...!!!

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?

You are engaging in a classic case of wishful thinking!

How do you *KNOW* that they were terrorists? What *proof* do you have? What happens if and when they turned out (like many of the Guantanamo Bay captives have) to be poor buggers who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Do you *really* think that their country-folk are going to say "oh well, the US wanted to be secure, so they were justified in killing innocents, just to be on the safe side"...???

No, I think he was saying that because he *understood* the fact that liberties have to be hard fought for but it's very easy to give them up again without realising *what* you're giving up.

I think you've just managed to contradict yourself in a spectacular fashion here!

Liberties *SHOULD* be a human right, yes, absolutely. Everyone deserves to be free, yes, definitely. Countries have to *fight* to maintain it, 100% agreement!!

If, however, those that run your country say that "to keep you safe, you're going to have to give up some liberties" it's beholden to the people to look very carefully at *WHAT* they are giving up and think whether the temporary safety that that may give is *worth* the loss. They also need to think about how easy it will be to get those liberties *back* afterwards. If they don't think about this, they don't deserve those liberties in the first place.

Which was exactly the point that Ben Franklin was trying to make.

They said the same thing about CCTV. "Oooh Big Brother is watching you!", "The government will know where you like to shop!". Here's one i'd like to say: "There goes another rapist into prison because he was caught on CCTV and CrimeWatch!"

And *why* has Big Brother not taken over? Because there are those, like me, who have stood up and said "hang on a minute, we want some *strong* controls over what happens with these cameras. We want to make sure that those who use these systems do *NOT* abuse them by violating our privacy"!

My, my, my, getting a tad personal now aren't we? I may debate with you, but you still have an opposing view and I respect that, but to call me an idiot because I dare disagree with you?

Sorry? Where did I use the word "idiot"? (Re-reads previous message) Oh, it appears I didn't.

I don't think I need to say anything more about that. *hands Graham more rope*

If you are determined to make a fool of yourself, that's your perogative. However asserting that you appear to have no idea what you are talking about is *NOT* the same as "calling you an idiot". Accusing someone of "getting personal" when they are not is foolish.

BTW I believe this is your rope.

You are also ignoring that Moral Sense is subjective. It came as as a suprise to Xaccers and I that you would kill the bombers, because most left-wingers say "murder is murder, and not 1 is acceptable".

And again you reveal you have no idea what you are talking about, because I am *NOT* a "left winger". You assumed this based on no facts and, regrettably, have made yourself look foolish again.

If you look at the "Political Compass" thread that was on here a while back, you'll find that my politics are virtually dead centre, but *strongly* libertarian.

Presumption of innocence was lost a long time ago, and nothing to do with the Internet and technology, or the war on terror. Since when has a rapist ever been thought of innocent before conviction? Or a child murderer? People normally try and lynch them before it even gets to court.

Yes, I'm well aware that there are (all too many) people out for whom the concept of presumption of innocence is a lost idea, however those who administer justice in this country *ARE* still aware of its existance and *WILL* stand up for it and I wholeheartedly support them.

[QUOTE]No, the things that may make countries like the US better than where the terrorists come from are things like freedom.

I suggest you look at some recent US history....

Freedom to practice a religion.

http://www.indexonline.org/indexinde...edstates.shtml

Or, closer to home: http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/intolerance.html

Freedom to go to school.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1445545.stm

Freedom to just do things you want.

Have you even *heard* of the Patriot Act?!

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/re...gG&Content=153

Now compare that with the fact if you tried to sell alcohol in Iran.[...] America, as well as England, have to take drastic steps to protect the most important freedom of all: the right to exist without persecution, from anyone least of all from another country. It is the freedom that Al Qaeda are trying to take.

And by the US enacting the Patriot Act amongst others, Al Qaeda have *SUCCEEDED* in *TAKING* those freedoms away!!!

The point is that Middle Eastern Countries want to be allowed to get on with running their *own* affairs *without* Western "influence" or "control" because they have seen what has resulted from this in the past.

As opposed to regimes that sponsor "brave freedom fighters"?

Colombia, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Israel, Chile, El Salvador: All have had or still have terrorists (sorry, freedom fighters!) supported by the USA!!!

http://www.bookmasters.com/clarity/b0023.htm

No cites, then?

No cites, then. No proof. No evidence, just supposition and opinion.

Inactivity. That means not doing anything.

Thank you, I am aware of what the word means. However I don't think you are quite aware of what it *implies*, especially in a context such as this.

If you dont do X or Y about a situation, that doesn't make you apathetic

Thank you, at least you acknowledge that.

but if you don't do anything, at all, then whats the point if you care, or you don't? You might as well not care.

However this is rubbish.

Actions speak louder than thoughts

And when someone says "Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." there is a strong implication that anyone who doesn't do the things that the USA likes is going to suffer.

That, however, does *NOT* mean that they are either "apathetic" about terror, nor that they are *pro* terror.

I'm not sneering, i'm genuinely interested (as I am with most liberals) in understanding their point of view fully. I may not agree with it, and I may even want to debate it, but I still respect it, and want to understand what you think about things.

In which case I first suggest you understand that I am not a "Liberal" any more than I am a "Left-Winger". Secondly I suggest you understand that, as I have said many times before, it is not necessary or obligatory to provide an alternative course of action simply because you disagree with a course that has been proposed.

Well you manage to avoid giving me an answer again. Congratulations.

I could have sworn someone just said "I'm not sneering, i'm genuinely interested", yet then they come up with a comment like this...!

It is a reasonable question,

No, it is not a reasonable question. I have the right to object to a course or policy *without* needing to solve the problem as the price of that objection.

My failure to guess your response would be be due to the fact you don't give a lot (anything?) away. At the moment, it seems like you care, but you haven't said you would do anything specifically. That is semi-appeasement. If you don't do anything you allow terrorists to flourish, which is almost as bad as aiding them.

This is such utter nonsense that I won't even dignify it with a response.

On a separate note, we (you?) may want to calm this down, or it'll just get closed/posts deleted. Keep debates in the right spirit.

And once again my solicitors, Messers Pott and Kettle-Black pay us a visit.

Originally Posted by Pierre

A nice thought, but do we have the time? will the muslim community sort it out?

Have we *really* given them the time and the opportunity to *try* to do so?

We're not talking about something that will be sorted out in a few days or even a few *years* here!

Iran is slowly sorting out its problems after around 30 years. Interference from the West will *not* speed this process and would almost certainly cause it to go even slower.

Why should we trust our safety to muslim community? when it is elements of that community that are attacking us.

When you mistrust the *entire* community because of the actions of *elements* of that community, you defeat your own purpose.

If you are bullied at school what is the best course of action. Confront the bully yourself, hit him back at a risk of getting a bloody nose, but showing you will not capitulate so his bullying will not affect you.

Or do nothing and ""hope"" the bullys friends will talk him out of bullying.

Option A may get you hurt a couple of times but the bullying will stop.

What are terrrorists? nothing but bullys.

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...

Originally Posted by Xaccers

You accuse western goverments of exploiting a terrosist attack to recruit people to their cause putting them on par with the terrorists who committed the atrocity.

You are *seriously* mistaken if you think that, by drawing a comparison between two situations, it means that I consider there to be "no difference" (your words, not mine!) between the two!!!

To compound your error by saying "You watch the two towers fall and you tell me that recruiting people to do that is no different to the US or the UK recruiting people to fight against terrorism!" is highly offensive because I *HAVE NOT* nor would *EVER* say such a thing.

[ntluser]

The Madrid bomb blast was effective because the civilian population placed too heavy a reliance on the police and security services.

These services with limited finance and staffing and under tremendous and unreasonable pressure to succeed are faced with an enormous task.

Fighting terrorism,like fighting crime will only work when we all lend our support to combatting it.

Each one of us will have to become more vigilant, more observant and more security conscious. We must be prepared to report anything suspicious or out of the ordinary.

Just simple things like not leaving baggage unattended on buses, at airports etc will mean that there is one less item for the police and security services to deal with.

Part of the battle against terrorism is the sheer volume of numbers. The other part is to do with identifying and imprisoning convicted terrorists.

And when we catch and convict these people they need to go to prison for life and not be released back into the terrorist ranks once again.

Hopefully, someone in Government will recognise this fact and lead a really effective battle against terrorists.One based on action, not on rhetoric.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

You are *seriously* mistaken if you think that, by drawing a comparison between two situations, it means that I consider there to be "no difference" (your words, not mine!) between the two!!!

To compound your error by saying "You watch the two towers fall and you tell me that recruiting people to do that is no different to the US or the UK recruiting people to fight against terrorism!" is highly offensive because I *HAVE NOT* nor would *EVER* say such a thing.

Let me remind you what you said

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...

Wilkinson is talking specifically about al Qaeda using the attack as propaganda and recruitment to their cause.
You then accuse western governments of doing the same, that is using the attacks as propaganda and recruitment to their cause.
You compound this by continuing to equate deliberate attacks on civilians by terrorists with indirect deaths from war.
Recruiting someone to deliberately attack civilians is totally different to recruiting someone to fight terrorism.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

Hello? Did you *READ* the link I posted where I pointed out how we were one of the *first* countries who signed up to the ECHR in 1951???

Hello. I did read it, yes. It also has no relevence to what we are talking about. I don't suppose back in 1951 they thought much about 21st century muslim-vs-west terrorism. Regardless we are tied in, and bound by whatever descisions it makes, Ms. Phillips was just warning against possible descisions it makes in the future, that could reduce the impact we have on the war on terror.

Originally Posted by Graham

Bottom line, this the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Popularity", aka the Emperor's New Clothes...

Understanding what an author is trying to say, whatever that may be is a fallacy is it?

Originally Posted by Graham

Sorry? "Reading the Guardian"? (is this meant to be an insult?!). I don't read the Guardian. In fact I don't *read* any of the Broadsheets or Tabloids. However I *do* read articles that have been written in any or all of them which turn up in searching google etc (and, no, I *don't* just read the ones I agree with!!)

No it isn't. I do have friends that read it, and they are hardly ELF-members, so I don't mean it as an insult. (See last comment). I did however thought it was a pretty safe bet, bearing in mind it aligns itself with many beliefs you do voice about. People generally, (not entirely, I know) tend to read media that believes in the same things they do. If you don't, great. If you do, great. Doesn't matter to me in the slightest to me what you read.

Originally Posted by Graham

Oh well *that's* a devastating counter...!!!

Well it wouldn't be to you, being the non-liberal person you are then.

Originally Posted by Graham

You are engaging in a classic case of wishful thinking!

America stopping a terrorist attack is wishful thinking? Of course, I do wish they would stop the next attack planned on their soil, or any of their overseas interests, including soldiers. It's natural to assume sooner or later one will get through, but doesn't mean we can't hope for anyway.

Originally Posted by Graham

How do you *KNOW* that they were terrorists? What *proof* do you have? What happens if and when they turned out (like many of the Guantanamo Bay captives have) to be poor buggers who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I don't know, but it's not my job to either. It is for the security services to decide that. I can probably guess what you'll say in response, but they don't go round shooting everyone that looks semi-arabic in case they commit an act of terrorism. They would, from time to time, through informants (Those vital muslims that we can't win this battle without) get clear cut information about a terrorist and pass it on. It would be naive to think that mistakes in intelligence don't happen, but does that mean they shouldn't try at all?

Originally Posted by Graham

Do you *really* think that their country-folk are going to say "oh well, the US wanted to be secure, so they were justified in killing innocents, just to be on the safe side"...???

I don't suppose they would be too happy about it, and 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.

Originally Posted by Graham

I think you've just managed to contradict yourself in a spectacular fashion here!

Liberties *SHOULD* be a human right, yes, absolutely. Everyone deserves to be free, yes, definitely. Countries have to *fight* to maintain it, 100% agreement!!

If, however, those that run your country say that "to keep you safe, you're going to have to give up some liberties" it's beholden to the people to look very carefully at *WHAT* they are giving up and think whether the temporary safety that that may give is *worth* the loss. They also need to think about how easy it will be to get those liberties *back* afterwards. If they don't think about this, they don't deserve those liberties in the first place.

Which was exactly the point that Ben Franklin was trying to make.

In a perfect world, everyone would have all the rights they are due. Unfortunately it isn't. Rights also have priorities, as they are attached to human needs. First of all is right to security. The right to privacy would be nice, and we should have it, but (I know i'm being a bit presumptuous), but people would accept a reduced right to privacy to help protect what most people consider the most important, security. Yes, human right #5 is being eroded to help protect #1. This has been happening for a while, of course, as security services have been monitoring us for decades, and closer to home, in the last few years CCTV has been helping to reduce crime, and increase prosecutions, but i'd sure most people would see this as "using a sprat to catch a mackerel"

Originally Posted by Graham

And *why* has Big Brother not taken over? Because there are those, like me, who have stood up and said "hang on a minute, we want some *strong* controls over what happens with these cameras. We want to make sure that those who use these systems do *NOT* abuse them by violating our privacy"!

I can only speak for myself, but I don't mind being videoed at Tescos if it helps them capture shoplifters and reduce costs. If the MI-5 want to read my e-mail I just sent to my friend asking him if he wants to out this saturday, in order to protect England from terrorist attacks, then I personally dont mind. This is subjective, I know I have nothing to hide, so I don't mind. I'm more worried about my personal security, than my e-mails. As you have said, you see this as unacceptable. Fine, that's your prerogative. Until we find a better way, which maintsins all human rights to their fullest, we have to make do. (If you do know a way of achieving this, that the powers that be have missed, be sure to drop them a line. *giggles* Sorry, couldn't resist.

Originally Posted by Graham

Sorry? Where did I use the word "idiot"? (Re-reads previous message) Oh, it appears I didn't.

You didn't say it, but you inferred it. By saying I don't know what i'm talking about, you are calling me an idiot, effectively. Incidently, I do know what you are saying, I just happen to disagree.

Originally Posted by Graham

If you are determined to make a fool of yourself, that's your perogative. However asserting that you appear to have no idea what you are talking about is *NOT* the same as "calling you an idiot". Accusing someone of "getting personal" when they are not is foolish.

If I don't have the intelligence to understand what i'm saying, then surely that makes me an idiot? I'm foolish? Maybe. Incidently, mis-spelling prerogative is rather foolish too.

Originally Posted by Graham

BTW I believe this is your rope.

It is? Well, if you say so then.

Originally Posted by Graham

And again you reveal you have no idea what you are talking about, because I am *NOT* a "left winger". You assumed this based on no facts and, regrettably, have made yourself look foolish again.

Not that you can be easily misrepresented of course? Everyting you have said in this thread that i've read nicely fits into the left-wing mindset. You sound more left-wing, than most people I know that call themselves left-wing.

Originally Posted by Graham

If you look at the "Political Compass" thread that was on here a while back, you'll find that my politics are virtually dead centre, but *strongly* libertarian.

Good for you, then.

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, I'm well aware that there are (all too many) people out for whom the concept of presumption of innocence is a lost idea, however those who administer justice in this country *ARE* still aware of its existance and *WILL* stand up for it and I wholeheartedly support them.

I doubt supporting judges will make much difference. It is public opinion you really need to change. That has the effect we were talking about long before judges get involved.

Originally Posted by Graham

No, the things that may make countries like the US better than where the terrorists come from are things like freedom.

I suggest you look at some recent US history....

http://www.indexonline.org/indexinde...edstates.shtml

I was talking about the rights of Americans.

Originally Posted by Graham

Or, closer to home: http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/intolerance.html

70 years ago is recent is it? America has progressed a lot in the 20th century, as events in 1934, 1973 and 1990 show.

Originally Posted by Graham

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1445545.stm

Since when is segregated education = no education? And where does it say the government is suppressing education for anyone?

Originally Posted by Graham

Have you even *heard* of the Patriot Act?!

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/re...gG&Content=153



And by the US enacting the Patriot Act amongst others, Al Qaeda have *SUCCEEDED* in *TAKING* those freedoms away!!!

While the PATRIOT act has reduced the right to privacy, it hasn't affected any of the other human rights that the US want to protect. Like I said before, right to privacy was always going to have to be compromised to protect the others (in no particular order: right to security, practice religion, free speech, etc). This has been happening long before Al Qaeda were formed, and was necessary to protect its citizens from domestic crime. Al Qaeda aren't helping, but I wouldn't call it a victory either

Originally Posted by Graham

As opposed to regimes that sponsor "brave freedom fighters"?

Colombia, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Israel, Chile, El Salvador: All have had or still have terrorists (sorry, freedom fighters!) supported by the USA!!!

http://www.bookmasters.com/clarity/b0023.htm

I thought we were talking about middle-eastern communities dealing with the problem of middle-eastern terrorism. Who the US support, for whatever reason (and normally there is a good reason, like Afghan Freedom Fighters, like bin Laden, were supported to help defeat the communist threat. But that is a discussion for another thread).

Originally Posted by Graham

No cites, then. No proof. No evidence, just supposition and opinion.

Forgive me, I thought it was a forum. I was also under the impression, it is a place where people can voice their opinions.

Originally Posted by Graham

Thank you, I am aware of what the word means. However I don't think you are quite aware of what it *implies*, especially in a context such as this.

No implies about it. As i've said before, there is a difference between not doing anything, and invading a country. Bush has even said exlicitly, you don't have to invade a country with them to prove you aren't supporting terror, but do something non-violent instead. It doesn't matter what, so long as it is something.

Originally Posted by Graham

However this is rubbish.

Says you. But caring doesn't make the world a better place. Doing some sort of action, might.

Originally Posted by Graham

And when someone says "Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." there is a strong implication that anyone who doesn't do the things that the USA likes is going to suffer.

That, however, does *NOT* mean that they are either "apathetic" about terror, nor that they are *pro* terror.

If you don't do something the USA likes, the US won't be too pleased with you, but invading countries isn't the only support Bush wants. He has said that in the quote you posted. There are more ways of fighting terrorism than just invading countries.

Originally Posted by Graham

In which case I first suggest you understand that I am not a "Liberal" any more than I am a "Left-Winger". Secondly I suggest you understand that, as I have said many times before, it is not necessary or obligatory to provide an alternative course of action simply because you disagree with a course that has been proposed.

Alright fine, if you say you aren't a left-wing/liberal person, than fine you aren't. No-one said you had to provide and answer, I merely asked for one. It isn't an unreasonable request, but i'm not going to waste anymore time asking.

Originally Posted by Graham

I could have sworn someone just said "I'm not sneering, i'm genuinely interested", yet then they come up with a comment like this...!

I am genuinely interested in what actions you'd take. I really wouldn't ask, or even ask as much, if I wasn't interested. I wouldn't throw them back in your face either.

Originally Posted by Graham

No, it is not a reasonable question. I have the right to object to a course or policy *without* needing to solve the problem as the price of that objection.

You don't need to solve anything, least of all a something that is not your job to solve. I merely asked if you had a better course of action, kindly would you share it with the rest of us. If you don't have a better idea, you should at least say so (although you are under no obligation to. Would be nice though).

Originally Posted by Graham

This is such utter nonsense that I won't even dignify it with a response.

Alright.

Originally Posted by Graham

And once again my solicitors, Messers Pott and Kettle-Black pay us a visit.

Regardless of what you may think, I don't intend to go round insulting everyone that posts on forums. I may sail a bit close to the wind sometimes, but I try not to actually insult anyone personally, directly. And I have to you, then i'm sorry. It is not my interest into flinging insults. This is supposed to be a debate of ideas, not each other.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Let me remind you what you said

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.

Originally Posted by punky

Understanding what an author is trying to say, whatever that may be is a fallacy is it?

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

"Reading the Guardian"? (is this meant to be an insult?!). I don't read the Guardian.

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

You are engaging in a classic case of wishful thinking!

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

Of course, I do wish they would stop the next attack planned on their soil, or any of their overseas interests, including soldiers. It's natural to assume sooner or later one will get through, but doesn't mean we can't hope for anyway.

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.

How do you *KNOW* that they were terrorists? What *proof* do you have? What happens if and when they turned out (like many of the Guantanamo Bay captives have) to be poor buggers who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time?

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...!!!

It is for the security services to decide that. I can probably guess what you'll say in response,

Do tell me if you were right...

but they don't go round shooting everyone that looks semi-arabic in case they commit an act of terrorism.

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

It would be naive to think that mistakes in intelligence don't happen, but does that mean they shouldn't try at all?

No, but I have never said they shouldn't.

I don't suppose they would be too happy about it, and 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.

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??

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!

In a perfect world, everyone would have all the rights they are due. Unfortunately it isn't. Rights also have priorities, as they are attached to human needs.

Egg, granny. Granny, egg...

First of all is right to security. The right to privacy would be nice, and we should have it, but (I know i'm being a bit presumptuous), but people would accept a reduced right to privacy to help protect what most people consider the most important, security. Yes, human right #5 is being eroded to help protect #1. This has been happening for a while, of course, as security services have been monitoring us for decades, and closer to home, in the last few years CCTV has been helping to reduce crime, and increase prosecutions, but i'd sure most people would see this as "using a sprat to catch a mackerel"

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.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't mind being videoed at Tescos if it helps them capture shoplifters and reduce costs.

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

If the MI-5 want to read my e-mail I just sent to my friend asking him if he wants to out this saturday, in order to protect England from terrorist attacks, then I personally dont mind.

... 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.

I know I have nothing to hide, so I don't mind. I'm more worried about my personal security, than my e-mails. As you have said, you see this as unacceptable. Fine, that's your prerogative.

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??

Until we find a better way, which maintsins all human rights to their fullest, we have to make do. (If you do know a way of achieving this, that the powers that be have missed, be sure to drop them a line. *giggles* Sorry, couldn't resist.

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.

You didn't say it, but you inferred it. By saying I don't know what i'm talking about, you are calling me an idiot, effectively.

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

Incidently, mis-spelling prerogative is rather foolish too.

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.

Not that you can be easily misrepresented of course? Everyting you have said in this thread that i've read nicely fits into the left-wing mindset. You sound more left-wing, than most people I know that call themselves left-wing.

I can't help what assumptions you make. I can only attempt to supply you with facts to correct them.

I doubt supporting judges will make much difference. It is public opinion you really need to change. That has the effect we were talking about long before judges get involved.

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.

I was talking about the rights of Americans.

So was I!!

70 years ago is recent is it? America has progressed a lot in the 20th century, as events in 1934, 1973 and 1990 show.

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.

Since when is segregated education = no education?

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

And where does it say the government is suppressing education for anyone?

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

While the PATRIOT act has reduced the right to privacy, it hasn't affected any of the other human rights that the US want to protect.

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

Like I said before, right to privacy was always going to have to be compromised to protect the others

There is no "have to" about it.

I thought we were talking about middle-eastern communities dealing with the problem of middle-eastern terrorism.

Why? Because broadening the scope will undermine your arguments?

Who the US support, for whatever reason (and normally there is a good reason, like Afghan Freedom Fighters, like bin Laden, were supported to help defeat the communist threat. But that is a discussion for another thread).

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?

Paging Humpty Dumpty...!!!

No cites, then. No proof. No evidence, just supposition and opinion.

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

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...

Bush has even said exlicitly,

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

you don't have to invade a country with them to prove you aren't supporting terror, but do something non-violent instead. It doesn't matter what, so long as it is something.

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!

Says you. But caring doesn't make the world a better place. Doing some sort of action, might.

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

No-one said you had to provide and answer, I merely asked for one. It isn't an unreasonable request, but i'm not going to waste anymore time asking.

What was that lovely phrase I heard recently? Oh yes...

Originally Posted by punky

I don't know, but it's not my job to either.

And once again my solicitors, Messers Pott and Kettle-Black pay us a visit.

And I'm please to accept your apology, unfortunately as I've indicated several times in this message and thread, regrettably your debating of ideas has a few flaws in it.

Now, of course, I'm not saying that *my* debating is perfect by any means, far from it, but you do need to be careful about what you say, how you say it and what assumptions you make when you debate.