PDA

View Full Version : Terrorist Attack in Spain - Over 60 dead


Darat
11th March 2004, 03:57 AM
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3500452.stm


Scores die in Madrid bomb carnage


A string of deadly blasts has hit three Madrid train stations during the rush hour with latest reports speaking of more than 100 people killed.

Dazed and bloodied commuters staggered from the Atocha station in the heart of the Spanish capital where two blasts destroyed a suburban train.

Two other train stations were also hit by the near simultaneous explosions.

...snip...


They threatened they'd start bombing again, I suppose all we can hope for is that this won’t be a prelude back to the 70s scale of terrorist murders.

Jon_in_london
11th March 2004, 03:59 AM
Sh!te!

Thats terrible, I love Madrid.

Nobody seems to like those Castillians very much though, do they?

Jon_in_london
11th March 2004, 04:05 AM
It seems Darat is the winner, but only by a single minute!

iain
11th March 2004, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
It seems Darat is the winner, but only by a single minute! Quicker isn't always better. Bask in the high quality of my thread and mock at the shoddyness of Darat's effort. :D

Oleron
11th March 2004, 04:17 AM
I suppose it's ETA but do we know for sure it's not bin Laden's mob?

Either way my thoughts are with the families of the dead and injured.

These people are dead because someone, somewhere had a belief he couldn't tolerate other people not having.

The perpetrators deserve pity, if you can manage it. Scorn, if you can't.
I can't manage pity.

richardm
11th March 2004, 04:22 AM
I must admit I've been conditioned to think of any bomb as being Al Qaeda in origin, and it was my first thought this morning. However, my second thought was that Eta is the most likely to be setting bombs off in Madrid.

I note that this is the second batch of bombs to go off in trains recently - there was one on the Moscow subway a few weeks back.

Personally, I've always thought that a bomb on an Underground train would be as good a terror weapon as you could hope to have, and frankly I'm surprised that it's not happened. It would be particularly straightforward in these days of suicide bombers. A single person with a rucksack full of Semtex on a few of the major underground lines - Circle, Bakerloo, Northern Line for example - would cripple London for days or even weeks.

It's not a particularly cheerful line of thought.

iain
11th March 2004, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Oleron
I suppose it's ETA but do we know for sure it's not bin Laden's mob?

Either way my thoughts are with the families of the dead and injured. I was at the Atocha station in Madrid just a few weeks ago; a colleague's girlfriend is heading there in the next few days. Scary stuff, and tragic for the dead, the injured and their families.

Eta does seem most likely. A plot to blow up a station in Madrid was apparently foiled in December when police arrested suspected Eta members driving to Madrid with 500Kg of explosives in their truck. With Spain having a general election this week, the aim is presumably to disrupt the democratic process and force Eta's agenda into the election.

Nothing proven yet though, as far as I know.

Jon_in_london
11th March 2004, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by Oleron

These people are dead because someone, somewhere had a belief he couldn't tolerate other people not having.


Actually, someone, somewhere wants a seperate state for whatever reasons... Nonetheless, the deliberate and indiscriminate murder of 60 people just trying to earn a living while harming no-one is thoroughly dispicable when there are peacefull avenues available.


I give this thread 2 hours before it turn into an Isreal/Palestine slanging match.

richardm
11th March 2004, 04:25 AM
The death toll has gone up to over 130 - that's more than doubled in the last couple of hours. A pretty major atrocity :(

Jon_in_london
11th March 2004, 04:26 AM
Originally posted by richardm
Personally, I've always thought that a bomb on an Underground train would be as good a terror weapon as you could hope to have, and frankly I'm surprised that it's not happened. It would be particularly straightforward in these days of suicide bombers. A single person with a rucksack full of Semtex on a few of the major underground lines - Circle, Bakerloo, Northern Line for example - would cripple London for days or even weeks.


Weeks!? since it takes them 6 months just to service an escalator, I doubt they would be able to restore full service before the thermal heat death of the universe.

Scary thing is, you dont even have to be a suicide bomber, just fill a coke can with nails and semtex, leave can on train. boom.

richardm
11th March 2004, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Weeks!? since it takes them 6 months just to service an escalator, I doubt they would be able to restore full service before the thermal heat death of the universe.



True :D


Scary thing is, you dont even have to be a suicide bomber, just fill a coke can with nails and semtex, leave can on train. boom.

That would kill lots of people and make a mess, but I was thinking about a really big bang that would leave a huge mass of wreckage and perhaps compromise the integrity of the tunnel. Doing the job properly, if you like. For that you'd need a substantial amount of explosive, and Londoners get a bit twitchy if people leave large bags lying around on trains. Whether they'd be twitchy enough to act on it in time if you hopped off the train at a station and left it timed to go off as the train pulled out, I don't know.

Anyway - shouldn't derail the thread, really.

Edited to add: Above pun was unintentional. And also, I've just seen the pictures of the Madrid trains; That does look quite comprehensive. I don't think Eta use suicide bombers either, so you can probably ignore all that waffling above.

The Don
11th March 2004, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Scary thing is, you dont even have to be a suicide bomber, just fill a coke can with nails and semtex, leave can on train. boom.

And if you're no into killing people, small devices with timers chucked onto the rails to damage them could work nearly as effectively.

Not that any of us are planning such an attack Mr MI5

Darat
11th March 2004, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by richardm
…snip…

Personally, I've always thought that a bomb on an Underground train would be as good a terror weapon as you could hope to have, and frankly I'm surprised that it's not happened. It would be particularly straightforward in these days of suicide bombers. A single person with a rucksack full of Semtex on a few of the major underground lines - Circle, Bakerloo, Northern Line for example - would cripple London for days or even weeks.

…snip…

I've often wondered about the targets chosen by terrorists in the UK in the past. I've made an assumption that we really did have good intelligence and it forced them to be less "strategic". For instance two vans with explosives under a couple of the major flyovers into London, or on the M25 could cripple the whole of Greater London area, probably for months.

(I was also angered but not surprised when I heard Straw offering sympathy and understanding because (paraphrasing) "we've had bomb attacks in London". How dare the man, what about all the other places in the UK that have suffered terrible bomb attacks!)



But to the important news, if this is ETA then I think it may actually be the end of the organisation. When it is “just” a handful of people at a time being killed every few months we seem to learn to live with it. This is such a terrible tragedy and the scale seems enormous that it may shock people out of their apathy. I suspect that many of those that previously may have said “yes, but they do have a point..” will no longer find those words comfortable.

(Why do we keep killing each other for such stupid and inane reasons? :( )

Jon_in_london
11th March 2004, 04:37 AM
Originally posted by The Don


And if you're no into killing people, small devices with timers chucked onto the rails to damage them could work nearly as effectively.

Not that any of us are planning such an attack Mr MI5

Or just phone in a warning 15 minutes before.... You get lots of carnage but no blood spilled.

geni
11th March 2004, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Nonetheless, the deliberate and indiscriminate murder of 60 people just trying to earn a living while harming no-one is thoroughly dispicable when there are peacefull avenues available.

What peaceful avenues would these be? You can't be talking about political ones since the main party has been banned.

Mr Manifesto
11th March 2004, 04:51 AM
QUICK! INVADE IRAQ!

richardm
11th March 2004, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by geni


What peaceful avenues would these be? You can't be talking about political ones since the main party has been banned.

There are other separatist parties who do not affiliate themselves with ETA, though, llike the Basque National Party. Batasuna only got about 10% of the vote last time around, so they're not exactly the main one, just the most famous on account of them being a bunch of terrorist scum ^H^H^H^H supporters.

Otther
11th March 2004, 05:08 AM
AOL's news gave me the impression this was just a run-of-the-mill train accident.

It's so easy, no wonder it's number one!!

zenith-nadir
11th March 2004, 05:16 AM
The ETA is justified in blowing up three Madrid train stations. Why?

1) The Spanish "settlements" on Bask land.

2) The Spanish "occupation" of Bask lands.

3) The Spanish government's "arrests and assasinations" of Bask leaders.

4) The French "deportations" of all the ETA members in 1986.



Or is blowing up civilians only acceptable when Israelis are the targets?;)

Reginald
11th March 2004, 05:18 AM
Terrible news.

I have to agree that this could be the final major outing for ETA (on the assumption it is them).

They carry out these atrocities imagining that they have some kind of popular support for their agenda. In most cases this simply isn't true. This seems to be the case here. Either the majority are happy to be part of Spain proper, or have drifted away accepting the cause is lost, or they are unable to morally equate these acts with any long term benefit.

On the basis that the bigger the death toll, the higher the reward, I should imagine it won't take long for the people who carried this out to be handed over.

Jon_in_london
11th March 2004, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by zenith-nadir
The ETA is justified in blowing up three Madrid train stations. Why?

1) The Spanish "settlements" on Bask land.

2) The Spanish "occupation" of Bask lands.

3) The Spanish government's "arrests and assasinations" of Bask leaders.

4) The French "deportations" of all the ETA members in 1986.



Or is blowing up civilians only acceptable when Israelis are the targets?;)

Only took 1 hour.

zenith-nadir
11th March 2004, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Only took 1 hour.



What's that jon? Feel free to share.

Fendetestas
11th March 2004, 05:20 AM
I'm here in Madrid and I must say I'm very pleased with the reaction of the population. You wouldn't believe the enormous queues of people willing to donate blood, for example. My University has cancelled all activities today as a gesture of protest and solidarity (a quick one too, as the bombs exploded this morning, it's 13:25 here now) Another reason is the obvious one: the bombs exploded in a commuter train station and a lot of people couldn't made it to the city. The last number of victims I have heard is 173 killed, hundreds of wounded.

The Don
11th March 2004, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Only took 1 hour.
I think you should get the $1m :D

Reginald
11th March 2004, 05:21 AM
Or is blowing up civilians only acceptable when Israelis are the targets?;)


Don't you think there are enough threads on that issue without having to have a stab at derailing this one????

Fendetestas
11th March 2004, 05:23 AM
It seems now that the plan was to detonate all 5 bombs when the train entered the station, it could have been worse (only three exploded and outside the station)

zenith-nadir
11th March 2004, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Reginald
Don't you think there are enough threads on that issue without having to have a stab at derailing this one????


Derailing? One post "derails" an entire thread at JREF? Wow do you have ADD Reginald?

I was makig a point. That point being some find palestinian terrorism "acceptable" while everyone finds this example of terrorism in Madrid "unacceptable"...Why is that?

Ok...back to your easily-derailed thread...:D

richardm
11th March 2004, 05:26 AM
Latest just in from ITN:

ETA say "It wasn't us, guv".

Whether this is because it really wasn't them, or whether they've realised they've overdone it this time, I don't know.

Reginald
11th March 2004, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by zenith-nadir



Derailing? One post "derails" an entire thread at JREF? Wow do you have ADD Reginald?

I was makig a point. That point being some find palestinian terrorism "acceptable" while everyone finds this example of terrorism in Madrid "unacceptable"...Why is that?

Ok...back to your easily-derailed thread...:D

I didn't say you had derailed, I said you were having a stab at derailing it, kindly read before attempting a retort, however weak.

Fendetestas
11th March 2004, 05:34 AM
I think this will be a major blow for ETA (though I don't think it will be their end) In the past four, five years they have lost an awful lot of their support, with ever growing demonstrations, concerts... And don't forget we're having general elections this sunday. I think this will make some people who weren't going to vote change their minds, and I'm sure the Partido Popular (the current governing party and the favourite in the upcoming election) will gain votes because of this. I know this is the case with some friends of mine. Not with me, I don't like them at all (compulsory Religion in all schools and highschools...)

By the way, the Minister of Justice has just said that they have no doubt is the responsibility of ETA, and also that they were trap bombs, with retarded timers.

Fendetestas
11th March 2004, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by richardm
Latest just in from ITN:

ETA say "It wasn't us, guv".



This doesn't mean anything. ETA doesn't claim responsibility for all its attacks and they never do it so soon.

Oleron
11th March 2004, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by Fendetestas
I'm here in Madrid and I must say I'm very pleased with the reaction of the population. You wouldn't believe the enormous queues of people willing to donate blood, for example. My University has cancelled all activities today as a gesture of protest and solidarity (a quick one too, as the bombs exploded this morning, it's 13:25 here now) Another reason is the obvious one: the bombs exploded in a commuter train station and a lot of people couldn't made it to the city. The last number of victims I have heard is 173 killed, hundreds of wounded.

This atrocity just gets worse..
I just can't imagine how you guys in Madrid feel at the moment. Perhaps some of the New York members have some idea.

Oleron
11th March 2004, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Fendetestas
I think this will be a major blow for ETA (though I don't think it will be their end) In the past four, five years they have lost an awful lot of their support, with ever growing demonstrations, concerts... And don't forget we're having general elections this sunday. I think this will make some people who weren't going to vote change their minds, and I'm sure the Partido Popular (the current governing party and the favourite in the upcoming election) will gain votes because of this. I know this is the case with some friends of mine. Not with me, I don't like them at all (compulsory Religion in all schools and highschools...)

By the way, the Minister of Justice has just said that they have no doubt is the responsibility of ETA, and also that they were trap bombs, with retarded timers.

These 'own goals' damage these organisations badly, just ask the IRA. Hopefully more peaceful means of protest can now be explored.

Fendetestas
11th March 2004, 05:56 AM
This is an incredible shock here, and a "quantum leap" in the atrocities of this organization. ETA has killed more people today than in the past 12 years (until this morning, we had 800 people killed since 1968) I can't wait to hear what Otegi (leader of the political arm of the band) has to say.

zenith-nadir
11th March 2004, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by Reginald
I didn't say you had derailed, I said you were having a stab at derailing it, kindly read before attempting a retort, however weak.


Actually Reginald, I don't believe you are psychic and 'know' the 'reasons' and 'motivations' for every post I make at JREF.

I don't believe that you actually 'knew' I was "having a stab at derailing this thread"....I believe you just didn't like what I wrote and instead of addressing it you prefer to take the easy way out and "invent" my motivation and call it a "having a stab at derailing this thread"....;)

Graham
11th March 2004, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by Fendetestas


This doesn't mean anything. ETA doesn't claim responsibility for all its attacks and they never do it so soon.

On the other hand, the US has been heavily publicising Spainish involvement in their little alliance against Iraq.

Of the three big players (the US, UK and Spain) in that alliance, Spain is probably the easiest target (being on the mainland for a start).

It's not beyond possibility that Al Queda or some offshoot are behind this, IMO.

Graham

richardm
11th March 2004, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by Fendetestas


This doesn't mean anything. ETA doesn't claim responsibility for all its attacks and they never do it so soon.

Maybe not, but in this case they've condemned the attacks, so they're not just ducking responsibility but actively distancing themselves from this. This could just be cowardice, but it might be worth noting that synchronised, near-simultaneous attacks are an Al-Qaeda trademark, so perhaps they're being truthful (although why they should consider it acceptable to kill a few people at a time but condemn the killing of dozens, I cannot imagine).

There's nothing to say that other people can't do sync'd attacks as well, of course, but it will be interesting to see what the investigation can turn up.

Bluegill
11th March 2004, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by Fendetestas
I'm here in Madrid and I must say I'm very pleased with the reaction of the population. You wouldn't believe the enormous queues of people willing to donate blood, for example. My University has cancelled all activities today as a gesture of protest and solidarity (a quick one too, as the bombs exploded this morning, it's 13:25 here now) Another reason is the obvious one: the bombs exploded in a commuter train station and a lot of people couldn't made it to the city. The last number of victims I have heard is 173 killed, hundreds of wounded.

I hear things about the people of Madrid, and the Spanish in general, that make me admire them. My condolences to the people of your city. Though I guess it's not likely, I hope the casualty estimates start to go back down.

Fendetestas
11th March 2004, 06:06 AM
Well, I'm not saying I'm certain ETA is behind of this, but I'm quite convinced. First of all, the Minister of Interior has just said in a public appearance that they have "no doubt" ETA is behind this. Furthermore, it's logical for ETA to do this (and I believe there'll be more in the following days) just before the elections.

richardm
11th March 2004, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by Fendetestas
Well, I'm not saying I'm certain ETA is behind of this, but I'm quite convinced. First of all, the Minister of Interior has just said in a public appearance that they have "no doubt" ETA is behind this. Furthermore, it's logical for ETA to do this (and I believe there'll be more in the following days) just before the elections.

I agree that the motivation is there for ETA, timing-wise, but I'd love to know how the Minister is so certain, so quickly. Especially considering that the attack is so disproportionately large compared to past ETA efforts.

Bluegill
11th March 2004, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by richardm


Maybe not, but in this case they've condemned the attacks, so they're not just ducking responsibility but actively distancing themselves from this. This could just be cowardice, but it might be worth noting that synchronised, near-simultaneous attacks are an Al-Qaeda trademark, so perhaps they're being truthful (although why they should consider it acceptable to kill a few people at a time but condemn the killing of dozens, I cannot imagine).

There's nothing to say that other people can't do sync'd attacks as well, of course, but it will be interesting to see what the investigation can turn up.

I guess I can understand ETA's political logic for such a statement, but how can you logically justify it morally? I mean, if they want to kill one person to make a point, and they think that killing ten makes an even stronger point, then why wouldn't killing a thousand be greater still? Is their moral view, "Yeah, we're justified in killing hundreds of people over a couple of decades, but it's not fair for us to do it in one day"?

zenith-nadir
11th March 2004, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by richardm
I agree that the motivation is there for ETA, timing-wise, but I'd love to know how the Minister is so certain, so quickly. Especially considering that the attack is so disproportionately large compared to past ETA efforts.

Recent ETA attacks:

Sept. 14 2003 shooting of two policemen in Lagran...March 2002, Spanish authorities defused an ETA bomb planted at the stock exchange in Bilbao....2002 a bomb exploded outside the home of a local politician, and a town councillor was assassinated...In November 2001, ETA killed a judge and two police officers in the Basque region.... October 2001, ETA set off car bombs in Vitoria, the capital of the Basque region, and in Madrid...


But the ETA has never perpetrated a coordinated multi-target attack like Al Queda does, in fact the ETA has killed between 800 and 1000 people in 35 years so todays attack isn't their typical modus operandi.

Reginald
11th March 2004, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by richardm


I agree that the motivation is there for ETA, timing-wise, but I'd love to know how the Minister is so certain, so quickly. Especially considering that the attack is so disproportionately large compared to past ETA efforts.

Indeed, we will have to wait for some evidence to surface, given that no organisation has claimed responsibility.

Hutch
11th March 2004, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by zenith-nadir




What's that jon? Feel free to share.

To pre-empt jon, at 5:23EST he wrote I give this thread 2 hours before it turns into a Israel/Palestine slanging match

At 6:16EST (53 minutes), you wrote trying to enter Israel/Palestine into the equation.

Therefore IMHO jon was right on target. And in respect to him it will be the last thing I say on the above.

Fendetestas
11th March 2004, 06:49 AM
The Prime Minister, José María Aznar, has just appeared in public and has also said they have no doubt ETA is the responsible for this. The explosives are of the kind the band usually uses.

Also, I want to say that there have been a lot of arrests and police successes in general lately. Last Sunday (29 feb.) a van with 500 kg of explosives was intercepted, now it seems it could have been some kind of decoy.

zenith-nadir
11th March 2004, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by Hutch
To pre-empt jon, at 5:23EST he wrote At 6:16EST (53 minutes), you wrote trying to enter Israel/Palestine into the equation. Therefore IMHO jon was right on target. And in respect to him it will be the last thing I say on the above.


Fair enough. But I wasn't "slagging" palestinians and I didn't enter the Israel/Palestine issue into the equation. In fact my post had one single word in it that refered to the middle east. I just asked why terrorism is 'unjustified' when it does not involve Israelis.

Pretty harmless question and I am amazed that some have blown it way out of proportion while others call it "a stab at derailing the thread".

Cleopatra
11th March 2004, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by Fendetestas
Well, I'm not saying I'm certain ETA is behind of this, but I'm quite convinced. First of all, the Minister of Interior has just said in a public appearance that they have "no doubt" ETA is behind this. Furthermore, it's logical for ETA to do this (and I believe there'll be more in the following days) just before the elections.


I think that ETA is more picky in its hits and hasn't resorted to this sort of blind violence so far. Also, they must be idiots to do a thing like that that it would wipe away any sympthizers they might have had. It's totally stupid to hit before the elections and ETA is not that stupid.

Also,I don't think that z-n's comparison with Hamas is totally irrelevant.

edited to add: What I will say might appear silly but don't take it the wrong way. I hope that it's ETA and not Al Queda.

Fendetestas
11th March 2004, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra



I think that ETA is more picky in its hits and hasn't resorted to this sort of blind violence so far. Also, they must be idiots to do a thing like that that it would wipe away any sympthizers they might have had. It's totally stupid to hit before the elections and ETA is not that stupid.

Also,I don't think that z-n's comparison with Hamas is totally irrelevant.

edited to add: What I will say might appear silly but don't take it the wrong way. I hope that it's ETA and not Al Queda.

They're not so picky, and I'm not saying they have done anything close to this, but they have "resorted to this sort of blind violence" Their biggest bombing so far killed 25 people I think in a supermarket in Barcelona, with a bomb in the underground parking in 1987. Sounds pretty blind to me. And they have done really stupid things, the number of sympathizers has plummeted in the past years because of them.

I agree that, sholud this be their fault, it would be the stupidest thing they have ever done.

richardm
11th March 2004, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra

Also,I don't think that z-n's comparison with Hamas is totally irrelevant.



Maybe not, but it would be nice if he'd bunged it in a new thread instead of bringing it up in this one. Saying that it was a "Harmless Question" is pretty disingenuous, since he must be aware of the effect such statements usually have in threads.

Meanwhile, apparently ETA members were arrested last year and bombs destined for Madrid trains were intercepted, so there is a track record there.

According to the BBC there were total of 10 explosions today, with another 3 bombs being defused by the police. That is quite a considerable amount of effort (although I suppose it only involves thirteen people with backpacks).

zenith-nadir
11th March 2004, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by richardm
Maybe not, but it would be nice if he'd bunged it in a new thread instead of bringing it up in this one. Saying that it was a "Harmless Question" is pretty disingenuous, since he must be aware of the effect such statements usually have in threads.


How can a question on a message board be considered "harmful"? How can asking a question "have an negative effect on a thread"? Are people that afraid that they are threatened by questions? My goodness, GROW A SPINE.

Isn't asking questions the way people discuss things? Or are certain questions VERBOTEN by the JREF elite?


p.s. And for the record I never said the word Hamas.

richardm
11th March 2004, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by zenith-nadir



How can a question on a message board be considered "harmful"? How can asking a question "have an negative effect on a thread"? Are people that afraid that they are threatened by questions? My goodness, GROW A SPINE.

Isn't asking questions the way people discuss things? Or are certain questions VERBOTEN by the JREF elite?


p.s. And for the record I never said the word Hamas.

It is harmful to the continuing discussion of the events in Madrid in this thread. No questions are verboten (well, actually, some are, come to think of it, but yours isn't). If you want to ask the question, why not ask it in a different thread? I notice you still haven't done that.

The Don
11th March 2004, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by zenith-nadir

How can a question on a message board be considered "harmful"? How can asking a question "have an negative effect on a thread"? Are people that afraid that they are threatened by questions? My goodness, GROW A SPINE.

Isn't asking questions the way people discuss things? Or are certain questions VERBOTEN by the JREF elite?
For my part I'm heartly sick of the number of threads which sink into a bickering match regarding the situation in Palestine. IMO your question was a good one but posting it here (rather than as a separate thread) could serve to derail this thread and turn it into one of those bickering matches.

Now, about this JREF elite rubbish. Of course everyone is allowed to post whatever they like. It's like a conversation, you're able to say whatever you like it's just that some people exercise some control over what they say and where they say them as a means of keeping a conversation to the subject in hand or more specifically to stop a conversation being hijacked.


I think that ETA (if indeed it is they who are responsible) may have shot themselves in the foot with this one. Even though there's a hard core of zealots who will not be turned from their path, ETA IMO will lose whatever popular support they had.

zenith-nadir
11th March 2004, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by richardm
It is harmful to the continuing discussion of the events in Madrid in this thread. No questions are verboten (well, actually, some are, come to think of it, but yours isn't). If you want to ask the question, why not ask it in a different thread? I notice you still haven't done that.



Posts are not harmful. Anyone can post what they want yet nothing is ever "harmed". They are just ones and zeros in cyberspace that appear as text on our monitors. You may not agree with a post, but it harms nothing.

My original post had to do with the ETA and why terrorism is unjustifiable when it takes place outside of Israel. Wow, what a war crime, how dare I say that in this thread !

I recommend you live up to your ideals and ask Jon_in_london why he said "I give this thread 2 hours before it turn into an Isreal/Palestine slanging match." That has nothing to do with "Madrid" either richardm.



Originally posted by The Don
Now, about this JREF elite rubbish. Of course everyone is allowed to post whatever they like. It's like a conversation, you're able to say whatever you like it's just that some people exercise some control over what they say and where they say them as a means of keeping a conversation to the subject in hand or more specifically to stop a conversation being hijacked.

No, actually eveyone is not allowed to post what they want as evidenced by this conversation.

The Don
11th March 2004, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by zenith-nadir

No, actually eveyone is not allowed to post what they want as evidenced by this conversation.
Why, where is your evidence of you being unable to post ?

You have been able to post (as is your right) and a number of people have complained to you, not a moderator, suggesting that what you posted though very interesting should be considered off-topic (as is their right).

Persumably time will tell as to which view is more popular

Fendetestas
11th March 2004, 07:37 AM
I just wanted to say this:

richardm
11th March 2004, 07:38 AM
Sorry, all.

This is my last word on the near-derailment of this thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36898)

Demigorgon
11th March 2004, 07:39 AM
Somehow this has to be GWB's fault. ;)

CFLarsen
11th March 2004, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Oleron
This atrocity just gets worse..
I just can't imagine how you guys in Madrid feel at the moment. Perhaps some of the New York members have some idea.

Yes.

Darat
11th March 2004, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by zenith-nadir

...snip...

No, actually eveyone is not allowed to post what they want as evidenced by this conversation.

No one is stopping you posting anything. Several people have requested or made comments that your post may derail this thread into another discussion. That is not the same as not being "allowed" to post whatever you want.

As the thread starter I will request that if you believe there is a discussion to be had about any points to do with Israel or Palestine then you start your own thread.

I would like this thread as much as possible to be about discussing the terrorist attack in Spain that has claimed I think now over 170 lives.


************************************************** ******************


This is certainly the worse ever terrorist attack in an EU county in living memory and if there is a link to ETA I sincerely hope it will provide the impetus to find a peaceful solution to the issues of separation. Sadly however my view is that the people who are willing to undertake such attacks are not interested in any reasonable compromise.

Peskanov
11th March 2004, 07:49 AM
There is a lot of confusion here; the minister has said that ETA is responsible, but the president has been more vague in his speech, using simply the word "terrorist".

ETA has lost recently his political branch (HB/EH), which now operates outside legality and therefore will not be present in the upcommings elections. They also lost his diary, "egin". Both entities were illegalized recently, and maybe this is a vendetta in response.
In the other hand, ETA rarely attacks the population. They made that mistake years ago and lost a big part of their followers.
Ex-HB leaders have made a public announcement, you can found it in this page:

http://www.gara.net
(try babelfish, spanish-english)

They say ETA would never do an attack like this. The minister, Acebes, replied saying this a propagandist manouvre, and ETA is responsible of the attack.

BTW, "gara" is the page of the diary wich fills the place of "egin".

The counting now says 180 dead, 1000 hurt.

The Don
11th March 2004, 07:51 AM
It would seem that ETA's demands are entirely incompatible with the Spanish government's requirement to keep the country whole.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/547130.stm

I don't see much scope for a negotiated outcome because the region is already somewhat autonomous and there isn't overwhelming support even among Basques

zenith-nadir
11th March 2004, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by richardm
Sorry, all. This is my last word on the near-derailment of this thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36898)
Originally posted by The Don
Why, where is your evidence of you being unable to post ?
You have been able to post (as is your right) and a number of people have complained to you, not a moderator, suggesting that what you posted though very interesting should be considered off-topic (as is their right). Persumably time will tell as to which view is more popular

Some chose to say I should not post certain words, while others posted that my certain words 'harmed' the thread and others claimed my only 'motivation' was an attempt to derail the thread. Which is in fact others derailing the thread.

If people don't agree with a post then either IGNORE it or debate it. But to say "it doesn't belong", and is "harmful" and is "an attempt to derail the thread" is nothing but censorship.

And with that I too agree, back to the topic, the Madrid bombings...enough about this entire ridiculous affair over my single post and the wild adjectives to describe my 'criminal' act.

Peskanov
11th March 2004, 08:03 AM
Here is a rough translation of the "gara" article:


ATTACK IN MADRID the left abertzale expresses "absolute rejection" to the attacks of Madrid and its "total solidarity with the all the victims" In an appearance for the press in Donostia, a representation of the left abertzale headed by Arnaldo Otegi, Joseba Permach and Pernando Barrena, has made public his "absolute rejection" to the attacks that they have caused more of a hundred deaths in Madrid.
GARA DONOSTIA -. Representation of the left abertzale has appeared today in press conference after the attacks registered today in the morning in the Spanish capital. In the appearance, headed by mahaikides Arnaldo Otegi, Joseba Permach and Pernando Barrena, they have indicated that the left abertzale "does not believe at all the possibility of ETA being the author of the attacks". Also, they have shown its "total solidarity with the Madrilenian town and all the victims", as well as the "absolute rejection of an indiscriminate action against the civil populace". "What it has happened it is is a massacre, it does not have another definition", they concluded.


If ETA is really behind the attacks, I bet that tomorrow Otegui and the rest will be arrested.
If Al-Queda is responsible, I think the elections are lost for the current party in government, PP. In this case the attack would be a response for Spain's stance in Irak's invasion.

Hutch
11th March 2004, 08:06 AM
Like many, I will hold judgement on the responsibility until more details are known and investigators have a chance to do some interviews and work.

I think it is likely that ETA bears the ultimate responsibility, but the size and coordination is such that it seems possible that they recieved some "outside consultation" to pull this off. It is also possible that this is a splinter group, like the ones that have split off from the IRA.

And while this may sound cold-blooded, it is in the Spanish Government's interest that this be identified with ETA, IMHO

As for the anguished question as to "why", I would think the terrorists hope that a Government over-reaction will lead to oppression in the Basque region so that people become angry at the Government and not with the terrorists who led to the circumstance. With a tragedy of this size and scope it seems more likely that folks will turn ETA members in and the movement may eat itself from within.

Like everything else in the universe, time will tell.

deBergerac
11th March 2004, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra


What I will say might appear silly but don't take it the wrong way. I hope that it's ETA and not Al Queda.

I think I can understand your wish for this being an act of ETA instead of Al Queda. Though I am not sure if it is not possible to whish for it to be the other way around as well.

Though at the moment I think we all care more about the victims than the issue of who actually committed this act.
Still it is an important question that hopefully will be solved soon since any uncertainty about who to blame will make matters worse.

The fact that it is not the Modus Operandi of ETA does not mean that they might not be behind it. As I have understood it ETA has lost support lately and their political branch has been banned that might lead to more violent attacks not less. Concerning the fact that Al Queda is know for their synchronised attacks does not mean that other terrorists can’t learn to do the same.

Jon_in_london
11th March 2004, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by Darat

This is certainly the worse ever terrorist attack in an EU county in living memory

Lockerbie?

rikzilla
11th March 2004, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
QUICK! INVADE IRAQ!

That's nice.

Death toll is close to 300 now, and MM thinks it's a big friggin joke. I don't think it's funny. We have posters here from Madrid trying to deal with this crap. Being from the DC area I have a pretty good idea what they're feeling right now. My sympathies to the victims and their families. :(

What this shows is that there is little difference whether this was done by Al Qaeda, ETA, Red Brigades, Libyans, or Hamas,.. terrorism...ALL terrorism,..leaves the same result; twisted wreckage and death and suffering of innocent humans. No matter what these animals call themselves, or what their "cause" is, they deserve to have war made upon them until they cease to be a threat to anyone else.

I wish the Spanish people luck in this....and I am hoping that my country will offer as much help to the Spanish government as they would ever wish for.

-z

Skeptic
11th March 2004, 08:43 AM
So far, the newpaper report says that the attack was BLAMED on the Basque seperatists by the Spanish government, not that they accepted (or claimed) responsibility for it.

It's too early to tell who is behind this. Of course, denying and condemning the attack is not necessarily evidence you didn't do it (see Arafat's modus operandi). But at the moment, nobody is proven to have done it.

Melissa Johnson
11th March 2004, 09:20 AM
I'm very sorry for the people of Madrid and all Spain today.

I'm so sick of terrorism--all kinds--I'm just angry about it.

If you can't get your point across without taking out a whole raft of innocent bystanders, maybe your point isn't worth a !@$%???!

I'm going to shut up now, mainly because I'm furious and sad and filled with loathing for my own kind.

We aren't going to evolve, are we?

Mycroft
11th March 2004, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by rikzilla
What this shows is that there is little difference whether this was done by Al Qaeda, ETA, Red Brigades, Libyans, or Hamas,.. terrorism...ALL terrorism,..leaves the same result; twisted wreckage and death and suffering of innocent humans. No matter what these animals call themselves, or what their "cause" is, they deserve to have war made upon them until they cease to be a threat to anyone else.


Amen!

It doesn’t matter if this is Al-Qaeda, ETA or the Madrid Girl Scouts, the point is that a civilized society cannot accept terrorism as a method for advancing political goals. From Belfast to Jerusalem, from Baghdad to New York and now Madrid these animals must be stopped. These are not freedom fighters, they are murderers. Sympathizing with them is complicity to murder.

CapelDodger
11th March 2004, 12:10 PM
from richardm:
Personally, I've always thought that a bomb on an Underground train would be as good a terror weapon as you could hope to have, and frankly I'm surprised that it's not happened.
The London Underground was actually one of the first targets of the Dynamite Faction of the IRB/IRA in 1883/84.

edited to add:
A single person with a rucksack full of Semtex on a few of the major underground lines - Circle, Bakerloo, Northern Line for example - would cripple London for days or even weeks.
The Northern Line can do that on its own. I speak from experience.

Fendetestas
11th March 2004, 12:19 PM
They are not so sure about ETA right now. It is their main line of investigation, but it seems they have found a Koran, so they are more open to another possibilities.

Skeptic
11th March 2004, 12:31 PM
They are not so sure about ETA right now. It is their main line of investigation, but it seems they have found a Koran, so they are more open to another possibilities.

Hmmmmmmmmm.... You really think that, if this was a muslim act of terror, the perpetrators would leave a koran next to the bomb?

Quite apart from the fact that the Koran could easily belong to one of the victims, this sounds more like an attempt to shift the blame to muslim terorrists than a real sign.

But perhaps I'm wrong.

Fendetestas
11th March 2004, 12:44 PM
Quite apart from the fact that the Koran could easily belong to one of the victims(...).

No, they found a tape with verses from the Koran in a van with detonators or explosives, but i also think it's too obvious. After all, there could be muslim etarras.

CapelDodger
11th March 2004, 12:49 PM
I'm pretty sure myself that this down to ETA. They've taken some serious hits recently in France and Spain, and I think this is an act of defiance. The attacks were closely co-ordinated, but they hit easy, unsecured targets - not political or military, with high security. That means the perpetrators didn't have to call on much assistance from a highly-infiltrated centre. ETA is institutionally psychopathic, if that's possible, and has no meaningful political strategy except to continue its existence. The ETA-linked parties may be denying ETA involvement - how long before we hear it was the Spanish Government that did it, with CIA assistance? - and they may lose some support, but the core will stick with them. Sad to say. My heart goes out to the people of Spain.

Mycroft
11th March 2004, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Fendetestas
They are not so sure about ETA right now. It is their main line of investigation, but it seems they have found a Koran, so they are more open to another possibilities.

I'm with Skeptic on this one, that doesn't sound right. These were timed explosives, not suicide attacks, there is no reason to assume that any personal items found would belong to the bombers.

CapelDodger
11th March 2004, 12:59 PM
from Darat:
I've often wondered about the targets chosen by terrorists in the UK in the past. I've made an assumption that we really did have good intelligence and it forced them to be less "strategic". For instance two vans with explosives under a couple of the major flyovers into London, or on the M25 could cripple the whole of Greater London area, probably for months.
I've discussed this with civil engineers (out of idle curiosity) and it's not as easy as you might think. You might crack up some concrete but to bring down a column you'd have to strap a lot of Semtex all around it. Fertiliser and diesel aren't enough. Some sorry attempts were made during the recent Troubles, and on overground railways, but to no effect.

After the Birmingham bombs the "nutter" faction of the Provisionals lost control, and there were few other attempts at mass murder of civilians. We were lucky in the UK that the Nationalists weren't crazies, but were actually quite politically sophisticated. The problem in NI now is that the Loyalists are crazies - their idea of political sophistication is Holocaust denial.

Fendetestas
11th March 2004, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Mycroft


I'm with Skeptic on this one, that doesn't sound right. These were timed explosives, not suicide attacks, there is no reason to assume that any personal items found would belong to the bombers.

What I was trying to say, and I also believe it's ETA, is that they found them NOT in the bombing scene, but in a van with detonators and/or explosives. They didn't belong to a victim.

geni
11th March 2004, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Mycroft


Amen!

It doesn’t matter if this is Al-Qaeda, ETA or the Madrid Girl Scouts, the point is that a civilized society cannot accept terrorism as a method for advancing political goals. From Belfast to Jerusalem, from Baghdad to New York and now Madrid these animals must be stopped.

Unfortunetly Bush doesn't agree with you (he's only against internation terrorism).

ceo_esq
11th March 2004, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Fendetestas


What I was trying to say, and I also believe it's ETA, is that they found them NOT in the bombing scene, but in a van with detonators and/or explosives. They didn't belong to a victim. Interesting. CNN.com has now picked up this story, but without details for the moment.

Fendetestas
11th March 2004, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by ceo_esq
Interesting. CNN.com has now picked up this story, but without details for the moment.

Yes. Minister Acebes (Interior) said that in a recent press conference, but he has said very clearly and several times that ETA is their principal line of investigation.

geni
11th March 2004, 01:18 PM
But Interior Minister Angel Acebes later revealed that an Islamic tape had been found with detonators in a stolen van recovered near Madrid.


The van was found in the town of Alcala de Henares - where three of the four bombed trains originated. The other train passed through the town.

Where the blasts happened
Mr Acebes said the tape - one of seven discovered in the van - contained verses of the Koran, in Arabic, relating to education.

"Because of this, I have just given instructions to the security forces not to rule out any line of investigation," he said.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3502218.stm

Fendetestas
11th March 2004, 01:23 PM
They are now saying that Al Qaeda has claimed autority of the bombings, with a letter.

Reuters are reporting that al-Qaeda have claimed responsibility for the bombings in a letter sent to al-Quds, a London based Arabic newspaper.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3500774.stm

Fendetestas
11th March 2004, 01:46 PM
Theyh give more details in Reuters.com:
We have succeeded in infiltrating the heart of crusader Europe and struck one of the bases of the crusader alliance," said the letter which called the attacks "Operation Death Trains." There was no way of authenticating the letter, a copy of which was faxed to Reuters' office in Dubai by the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper.

Grammatron
11th March 2004, 01:52 PM
Now let's assume for a moment that Al-Queda or some equivalent of there of carried out this bombing. What is Spain going to do about it? What should Spain do about it?

Tony
11th March 2004, 01:53 PM
More info on the bombing.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040311/ts_nm/security_spain_qaeda_dc

Peskanov
11th March 2004, 03:08 PM
Well, now it's known. Al Qaeda.
I would like to see minister Acebes to present his dimision for this one. He has spent the day creating internal tension against the basques separatist without any significant proof.
Let's see if he is honest enough to admit his faults and accept the consequences.
And now we have the proof of something we the Spanish already knew: we are on Al Qaedas black list. Nice.

Mr Manifesto
11th March 2004, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Peskanov
Well, now it's known. Al Qaeda.
I would like to see minister Acebes to present his dimision for this one. He has spent the day creating internal tension against the basques separatist without any significant proof.
Let's see if he is honest enough to admit his faults and accept the consequences.
And now we have the proof of something we the Spanish already knew: we are on Al Qaedas black list. Nice.

Do you know for sure it's A-Q?

Grammatron
11th March 2004, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Peskanov

And now we have the proof of something we the Spanish already knew: we are on Al Qaedas black list. Nice.

What do you think Spain should do about that?

Peskanov
11th March 2004, 03:20 PM
Manifesto; no, I am not sure, but I have few doubts. It never seemed an ETA action. It looked like an radical islamic action this morning, and after this afternoon findings, which alternative remain?

Grammatron; Our president Aznar chose to support US actions in Iraq with more than 90% oposition of the populace. He remained very vocal about it, he made public announcements worldwide, he travelled to the US and offered his support.
He should accept the decission of the citizens. We never supported or accepted US actions, and now we pay for his error. He must retreat in public.

Fendetestas
11th March 2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Peskanov

Grammatron; Our president Aznar chose to support US actions in Iraq with more than 90% oposition of the populace. He remained very vocal about it, he made public announcements worldwide, he travelled to the US and offered his support.
He should accept the decission of the citizens. We never supported or accepted US actions, and now we pay for his error. He must retreat in public.

I really don't think it's the time to protest the war in Irak.

geni
11th March 2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Peskanov
He must retreat in public.

He can't now. If he lets it be know that blowing up trains will make him back off well I don't need to draw you a picture.

jj
11th March 2004, 03:25 PM
What keeps AlQ from giving lots of money to ETA?

That's where I'd put my marbles, if I had any. :D

Peskanov
11th March 2004, 03:33 PM
Fendetestas, there has been a lot of political statements and manouvres today. And I found many of them very dangerous and agresive. I am sure you can imagine why I am saying this.
If you don't mind, I will say my part also. Not everybody thinks like our govern.

Geni, you are right, but I still think the government made an error and should retreat.

hammegk
11th March 2004, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Peskanov
He should accept the decission of the citizens. We never supported or accepted US actions, and now we pay for his error. He must retreat in public.

So you believe Spain would be better served by appeasing (by inaction following popular acclaim) Islamo-fascists. One invasion & occupation by your arab buddies wasn't enough?

Do you envision Spain as the last happy, at peace, non-Islamic country after Islam has become the world religion, in part because the USA & GB have become nuclear and/or biological wastelands courtesy of the Islamists?

BTW, if your death toll from these Islamic acts of war double, Spain will be approaching a similar % loss of life as occurred in the US on 9/11.

Maybe ya'all should suck it up & defend western civilization.

Grammatron
11th March 2004, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Peskanov
Grammatron; Our president Aznar chose to support US actions in Iraq with more than 90% oposition of the populace. He remained very vocal about it, he made public announcements worldwide, he travelled to the US and offered his support.
He should accept the decission of the citizens. We never supported or accepted US actions, and now we pay for his error. He must retreat in public.

Ok, so majority did not support Iraq. While an interesting point, it's an all-together separate discussion.

Your country has been attacked by terrorist who let nothing stand in their way and view everyone as infidels. You're putting the blame on Aznar, whether or not he deserves it I do not know, but should anything be done against those terrorists?

Peskanov
11th March 2004, 04:07 PM
Hammegk, you are extremist. What can I say? Try to learn about arab countries a bit more. And no, and I don't believe in crusades. They never worked in the past.

Grammatron, terrorist should be captured and prosecuted. I guess you would like me to support the idea of invading libia, yemen, sudan, or any other country with fundamentalism. No, I don't.

geni
11th March 2004, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by hammegk
Do you envision Spain as the last happy, at peace, non-Islamic country after Islam has become the world religion, in part because the USA & GB have become nuclear and/or biological wastelands courtesy of the Islamists?



I like the way you are buying Al Qaeda's properganda.

Grammatron
11th March 2004, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Peskanov
Grammatron, terrorist should be captured and prosecuted. I guess you would like me to support the idea of invading libia, yemen, sudan, or any other country with fundamentalism. No, I don't.

I'm not saying you should go around invading everyone, but at the same time to what extent should Spain be willing to go to capture those who do such things?

Peskanov
11th March 2004, 04:27 PM
Grammaton, I am very moderated with this questions. I think most arab governments will collaborate in persecuting terrorism (probably in exchange for economic pacts, but I prefer this kind of actions against military ones).

Well, I think I will follow Fendetestas recomendation and stop now. Bye!

hammegk
11th March 2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Peskanov
Hammegk, you are extremist. What can I say? Try to learn about arab countries a bit more. And no, and I don't believe in crusades. They never worked in the past.
Dead men don't set bombs. What would you like me "learn about arab countries" that you think I don't know. Re the Crusades, didn't they have some effect on getting some arab conquerors to leave Spain before the negotiations for your complete surrender had even begun?


Grammatron, terrorist should be captured and prosecuted. I guess you would like me to support the idea of invading libia, yemen, sudan, or any other country with fundamentalism. No, I don't.
Stepping on G here, good luck with your intent to pursue this as a criminal matter rather than a declaration of war. Our lovable perjuror Bil-Hil tried that for 8 years. Our score approaches 3000 on US soil, your score is now 200 on yours.

Rat
11th March 2004, 05:12 PM
Well, I realize I'm a little behind here, now that this seems to be agreed as an Islamic fundamentalist attack, but can anyone tell me more about ETA?

I know what it stands for, and I know who the Basques are, but what are ETA 'fighting' for? What are their ultimate objectives. And, perhaps more importantly, someone mentioned that they have some self-rule now; what degree of autonomy does the region have?

Cheers,
Rat.

Skeptic
11th March 2004, 05:28 PM
Well, now it's known. Al Qaeda.

That's not known at all; all they have is the finding that some group (which nobody heard of before) CLAIMING they did it FOR Al Qaeda.

I doubt bin Laden is too sorry, but that's hardly proof. It's by no means unknown for all kinds of terror groups to claim responsibility for attacks they had nothing to do with, as an attempt to make more people afraid of them, or simply cash in on the publicity.

This doesn't mean Al Qaeda didn't do it, it just means the evidence now is unclear. No doubt we'll know more in a week.

Mycroft
11th March 2004, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Peskanov
He must retreat in public.


And after that we can create a new form of government where public policy is determined by who is willing to kill the most civilians.

Zep
11th March 2004, 06:31 PM
How about, before anyone goes rushing about blaming people and creating wastelands in other parts of the world, we find out who REALLY did it and why, and prosecute them? And just to let you know, the actual bastards who killed 202 people in the Bali nightclub bombing were quietly but ruthlessly tracked down, caught, prosecuted, and convicted WITHOUT the necessity of invading anywhere or shooting anything up.

PS. My condolences to the Spanish people and especially to Madrid. Do not let anyone push you around. Rise above their unhumanity. Stay calm. Stay strong.

epepke
11th March 2004, 11:11 PM
SOMOS TODOS ESPAÑOLES

I just felt I had to say that. If Le Monde could say "We are All Americans" (albeit in French) after 9/11, the least I can do is say this in Spanish. The BBC world service is claiming a death toll of 190 with 1400 injured.

Pablo
12th March 2004, 12:34 AM
I don't think either the Government should resign over this. It took a political stance, i.e. pro-war, which was extremely unpopular with the citizenry, but the upcoming elections should show how much support Aznar and co. lost over this (recent, pre-11M polls indicated that they were going to carry the election very easily). Maybe people wil bring two and two together and change their vote, but the general appeal (and one that I support, much as I'd like to see Aznar out of office) has been "please vote as you would have voted".

Hammegk: welcome to my ignore list.

Fendetestas
12th March 2004, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by Pablo
... the general appeal (and one that I support, much as I'd like to see Aznar out of office) has been "please vote as you would have voted".


I'm with you.

Mr Manifesto
12th March 2004, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by epepke
SOMOS TODOS ESPAÑOLES

I just felt I had to say that. If Le Monde could say "We are All Americans" (albeit in French) after 9/11, the least I can do is say this in Spanish. The BBC world service is claiming a death toll of 190 with 1400 injured.

:clap:

Fendetestas
12th March 2004, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by epepke
SOMOS TODOS ESPAÑOLES


Thank you.

Mr Manifesto
12th March 2004, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by Peskanov
Hammegk, you are extremist. What can I say? Try to learn about arab countries a bit more. And no, and I don't believe in crusades. They never worked in the past.

Grammatron, terrorist should be captured and prosecuted. I guess you would like me to support the idea of invading libia, yemen, sudan, or any other country with fundamentalism. No, I don't.

Don't mind Hammey, he's been looking for a moral panic to replace Communism since the nineties.

Reginald
12th March 2004, 02:18 AM
Watching the TV this morning, I have Been overwhelmed with admiration for the way the Spanish people have helped each other, the way the emergency services have worked and the spontaneous unity within the country.

People of Spain I salute you.

richardm
12th March 2004, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, now it's known. Al Qaeda.

That's not known at all; all they have is the finding that some group (which nobody heard of before) CLAIMING they did it FOR Al Qaeda.


We have heard of them before - they claimed responsibility for the power cuts in New York and Canada last year. They didn't do them (either).

(According the BBC, anyway).

Fendetestas
12th March 2004, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by richardm


We have heard of them before - they claimed responsibility for the power cuts in New York and Canada last year. They didn't do them (either).

(According the BBC, anyway).

And keep in mind that a terrorist group normally waits a couple of months before anouncing it's been them. In 1987, when the Hipercor bombing took place (ETA's biggest (second biggest) attack), they also said it wasn't them at first. There are a lot of clues pointing to ETA, failed similar actiosn in Christmas in another Madrid train station, the recently intercepted van with 500+ kg (more than 1000 pounds) of explosives, the inminet general election...

Fendetestas
12th March 2004, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by Grammatron


I'm not saying you should go around invading everyone, but at the same time to what extent should Spain be willing to go to capture those who do such things?

I think it's a difficult question, because we don't know yet who did it, and the answer would depend largely on the identity of the terrorists. Should they be "etarras", I think we sholud do what we're already doing, public protests, no negotiation, and agreement between democratic parties.

Should they be foreign islamic terrorists, I simply don't know. It would depend on son many things... wether they are supported by a foreign government or not for example.

P.S.: Don't get me wrong on the "no negotiation" thing. This is not a simple independence question. What ETA wants is not as simple as independence for some territories in France and Spain. The regime that these kind of people kill for would be a nazi-like one. For example, nacionalist parties (and not only those supporting ETA) want a referendum to decide this question, but only people with basque blood would be allowed to vote, not all the population of these regions. Whoever is interested can investigate some declarations of PNV (Partido Nacionalista Vasco) leader about blood Rh and "basqueness" (and the PNV does not support ETA)

richardm
12th March 2004, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by Fendetestas


And keep in mind that a terrorist group normally waits a couple of months before anouncing it's been them. In 1987, when the Hipercor bombing took place (ETA's biggest (second biggest) attack), they also said it wasn't them at first. There are a lot of clues pointing to ETA, failed similar actiosn in Christmas in another Madrid train station, the recently intercepted van with 500+ kg (more than 1000 pounds) of explosives, the inminet general election...

... But don't ETA generally give a warning before an attack? I don't know if this is an invariable rule, but it is one of the things that has been noted about the un-ETA-like characteristics of this attack.

Fendetestas
12th March 2004, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by richardm


... But don't ETA generally give a warning before an attack? I don't know if this is an invariable rule, but it is one of the things that has been noted about the un-ETA-like characteristics of this attack.

That's true... but "generally" is the important word. Sometimes they don't and actually most of their actions are killing politicians and policemen with shots in the head (generally from the back, of course) or trap bombs in their cars. It's true that when they plant a bomb in a public area, the generally warn the authorities, but sometimes they give false warnings or false timings, in order to kill the policemen trying to defuse the bombs. (This time apparently some of the bombs had retarded timers)

Lothian
12th March 2004, 05:28 AM
A few years ago the Natural Law party (Trancendental Meditation crowd) decided to lower the crime rate in New York. For a month they meditated and hopped up and down. At the end they announced their actions had directly led to a 27% reduction in crime. When it was pointed out that crime during the month was actually up on the previous years figures the answers “Yes, but crime was 27% down on what it would have been if we had not meditated.”

Tony Blair and George Bush tell us that the world is now a safer place. After the worst terrorist attack in Europe (whoever was responsible) what is the difference between the claims of the Natural Law party and the two world leaders ?

Bluegill
12th March 2004, 05:52 AM
As far as the van with the detonators and the Arabic tapes, it seems like very inconclusive evidence. I bet it's not awfully hard to find a company that does demolition or excavation work, using explosives, that has either Arab ownership or at least a few Arab employees. If you had searched all vehicles in a three-block radius after the WTC went down, I bet you'd find Bibles, audio tapes in Arabic, video tapes in Spanish, love letters in Hindi...

Graham
12th March 2004, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by Lothian
A few years ago the Natural Law party (Trancendental Meditation crowd) decided to lower the crime rate in New York. For a month they meditated and hopped up and down. At the end they announced their actions had directly led to a 27% reduction in crime. When it was pointed out that crime during the month was actually up on the previous years figures the answers “Yes, but crime was 27% down on what it would have been if we had not meditated.”

Tony Blair and George Bush tell us that the world is now a safer place. After the worst terrorist attack in Europe (whoever was responsible) what is the difference between the claims of the Natural Law party and the two world leaders ?

If you ask certain posters around here, their answer will be that there hasn't been an attack on the mainland United States since the War on Terror began.

That will be sufficient answer for them.

Graham

Kevin_Lowe
12th March 2004, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by Bluegill
As far as the van with the detonators and the Arabic tapes, it seems like very inconclusive evidence. I bet it's not awfully hard to find a company that does demolition or excavation work, using explosives, that has either Arab ownership or at least a few Arab employees. If you had searched all vehicles in a three-block radius after the WTC went down, I bet you'd find Bibles, audio tapes in Arabic, video tapes in Spanish, love letters in Hindi...

That and just about anything electronic can be (and probably has been) described as a "detonator". A digital watch, a scrap of copper wire and a AAA battery lying loose around the floor of someone's car could well turn into a "detonator" by the time the media had finished with it.

Fendetestas
12th March 2004, 07:37 AM
It seems the major opposition party, the PSOE, has started to criticize the government, they say they think they may be keeping information about the authors of the massacre. I don't like this at all. This will sound very cold, but I hope it's ETA (that's in part the reason for which I've defended that possibility in this thread) and not Al Qaeda. If it's Al Qaeda I'm afraid it can divide the country again, and that's the last thing we want with something like this. If it's ETA, it would only bring everyone together and I think it would be a really stupid thing for the band to do, and one that could be the beginning of their end.

El Greco
12th March 2004, 07:45 AM
Apologies if this has already been mentioned in this thread, but weren't the vast majority of Spanish people opposite to their goverment's resolution to support the war in Iraq ? Had there been any relative polls at the time ?

Fendetestas
12th March 2004, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by El Greco
Apologies if this has already been mentioned in this thread, but weren't the vast majority of Spanish people opposite to their goverment's resolution to support the war in Iraq ? Had there been any relative polls at the time ?

Yes, at least 90% of the population was against it. Millions of people participated in demonstrations and there was quite a lot of activity (my university was filled with protests) It's quite interesting, because the government party had (has) an absolute majority. That means that even those who voted them were against the war. Said that, I want to add what I have already said: I don't like the actual government and I didn't like the idea of going to war in Irak, but this is not the time for us Spaniards to attack the governement because of that. I think that sentences like "Had we not gone to war with Urak, this wouldn't have happened" are simply wrong. If anything, should this be Al Qaeda's fault, this is a reason to attack them, not to sit in a corner hoping it won't get to us, because a nation that sacrifices its freedom for its security deserves neither.

rikzilla
12th March 2004, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Lothian
A few years ago the Natural Law party (Trancendental Meditation crowd) decided to lower the crime rate in New York. For a month they meditated and hopped up and down. At the end they announced their actions had directly led to a 27% reduction in crime. When it was pointed out that crime during the month was actually up on the previous years figures the answers “Yes, but crime was 27% down on what it would have been if we had not meditated.”

Tony Blair and George Bush tell us that the world is now a safer place. After the worst terrorist attack in Europe (whoever was responsible) what is the difference between the claims of the Natural Law party and the two world leaders ?

You really asking what the difference is? Or are you just being flippant?

The Actions of the Bush Admin:

1. Bush has increased domestic air security to unprecedented levels.
a) hardened cockpit doors
b) armed sky marshalls
c) armed pilots
d) background checks on airport employees
e) new airspace restrictions over major cities and events
f) more intensive passenger/baggage screening

2. Creation of the Homeland Security Department
a) close coordination of law enforcement, intelligence, immigration control and military
organisations.
1) interorganisational database sharing/interfacing
2) consolidation of federal offices/elimination of unneeded bureaucracy
b) coordination with CDC for improvement of hospitals and other facilities, and training of first
responders, and other health professionals in responding to biological/chemical attacks
should they occur.

3. Prosecution of a war against international terrorists and the nations that harbor them.
a) Preventing terror attacks in the US via the efforts of the new Homeland Security Department.
b) Invasion of Afghanistan (homebase of Al Qaeda)
c) Coalition building:
List available @ whitehouse.gov:
Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

4) Coordination of anti-terrorism efforts worldwide.
a) Pakistan
b) Libya
c) Iran*
d) Indonesia
e) Saudi Arabia
f) Yemen
g) Israel
h) Egypt

5) Invasion of Iraq (rogue state, sponser/promoter of various terrorist elements)

6) Isolation/monitoring of suspected existing terrorist sponsor nations.
a) Syria
b) N. Korea
c) Iran*

*(Iran seems to be playing both sides of the field these days.)

7) Passage of the Patriot Act into law, allowing broader power to federal law enforcement
agencies in investigation into, and prevention of terrorism within the US.




The Actions of the Natural Law Party (Trancendental Meditation Crowd):

1.) Meditation and hopping up and down for one month.

2.) Plainly spurious claim of success.


...and so, this is the answer to your question:
Originally posted by Lothian
Tony Blair and George Bush tell us that the world is now a safer place. After the worst terrorist attack in Europe (whoever was responsible) what is the difference between the claims of the Natural Law party and the two world leaders ?

...that is IF your question was actually serious. :rolleyes:

-z

rikzilla
12th March 2004, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Graham


If you ask certain posters around here, their answer will be that there hasn't been an attack on the mainland United States since the War on Terror began.

That will be sufficient answer for them.

Graham

By "certain posters" Graham means me. In our original conversation about the effectiveness of the WOT in preventing terror attacks, Graham was of the opinion that ANY attack at any level means that the WOT is not effectively limiting the scope of terrorism, and in some cases increasing the likelyhood of terrorism. If this attack actually ends up being the work of Al Qaeda he'll at least have more percieved ammunition for his argument.

However, no one ever said that the WOT would end ALL terrorism. Our discussion Graham, was also limited to US targets worldwide (since one would expect that since the WOT is being led by America, that therefore America should be target #1) In this respect the attack in Spain cannot count in our previous argument since GWB has no direct control of Spanish internal security.

-z

Graham
12th March 2004, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by rikzilla


By "certain posters" Graham means me. In our original conversation about the effectiveness of the WOT in preventing terror attacks, Graham was of the opinion that ANY attack at any level means that the WOT is not effectively limiting the scope of terrorism, and in some cases increasing the likelyhood of terrorism. If this attack actually ends up being the work of Al Qaeda he'll at least have more percieved ammunition for his argument.

However, no one ever said that the WOT would end ALL terrorism. Our discussion Graham, was also limited to US targets worldwide (since one would expect that since the WOT is being led by America, that therefore America should be target #1) In this respect the attack in Spain cannot count in our previous argument since GWB has no direct control of Spanish internal security.

-z

So in essence, you are agreeing that as long as there are no more attacks on US targets, the war on terror can be counted as a success?

The WOT was not billed as "protection for US targets" it was billed as a war on terror the implication being that terror would be engaged and fought and presumably defeated.

Are you now contending that "broadening the scope of islamic terrorism to include countries previously untroubled by it but at least distracting their attention from the US" counts as a victory?

Can you see how this attitude would be percieved as some what inconsiderate, to say the least, of other nations in the world? Especially when the other nation in question has been one of the more stalwart supporters of your various military adventures?

Graham

Kodiak
12th March 2004, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Graham


So in essence, you are agreeing that as long as there are no more attacks on US targets, the war on terror can be counted as a success?

The WOT was not billed as "protection for US targets" it was billed as a war on terror the implication being that terror would be engaged and fought and presumably defeated.

Are you now contending that "broadening the scope of islamic terrorism to include countries previously untroubled by it but at least distracting their attention from the US" counts as a victory?

Can you see how this attitude would be percieved as some what inconsiderate, to say the least, of other nations in the world? Especially when the other nation in question has been one of the more stalwart supporters of your various military adventures?

Graham

You're taking the term "war" too literally (or you're proposefully obfuscating - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...).

Think of the "war on terror" like the "war on crime" or the "war on drugs".

The target will indeed be engaged and fought, but victory is won when a difference is achieved where, for example, crimes are stopped before victims are hurt, or drugs are stopped before they reach the users.

The "war on terror" is being won if any terrorists are being stopped before they can execute their attacks.

Graham
12th March 2004, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Kodiak


You're taking the term "war" too literally (or you're proposefully obfuscating - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...).

Think of the "war on terror" like the "war on crime" or the "war on drugs".

The target will indeed be engaged and fought, but victory is won when a difference is achieved where, for example, crimes are stopped before victims are hurt, or drugs are stopped before they reach the users.

The "war on terror" is being won if any terrorists are being stopped before they can execute their attacks.

Kodiak, I wouldn't even know how to spell "obfusticate" ;)

Where is the evidence that the war is being won or is likely to be won at any point in the future (again, much like the war on drugs, eh?)

Where is the evidence that more attacks are being prevented than before the WOT or that more terrorists are being stopped? The attacks continue, don't they?

Spain, for instance, never had a terror attack of this magnitude befre the WOT (AFAIK) and certainly not from an outside group like Al-Q (if indeed they are responsible for this attack).

In the case of Spain, then, the WOT is clearly being lost, no?

Graham

Graham
12th March 2004, 09:09 AM
Just to add that one would get the impression from Kodiak and Rikzilla that nothing was being done to combat terrorism before the WOT and that no terrorist plots were ever foiled before GW jumped up on to his white horse and rode out to teach those injuns a lessun.

If you want to show that the WOT is being won, you need to show not that some victories are being achiveved but that more victories are being achieved than before.

Graham

hammegk
12th March 2004, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Graham


So in essence, you are agreeing that as long as there are no more attacks on US targets, the war on terror can be counted as a success?
Yeah, I'd go for that shorter-term from the US perspective. As Bush has mentioned, longer-term each country will be required to declare and demonstrate "with you, or against you".


Can you see how this attitude would be percieved as some what inconsiderate, to say the least, of other nations in the world? Especially when the other nation in question has been one of the more stalwart supporters of your various military adventures?

Graham
Your choice: Islamo-fascists and all other terrorists, or the USA & Friends. I predict your attempts to remain "neutral" are not going to cut it.

We lost 3000 folks. I wonder what we will do if any terrorist group accomplishes a Big One and we lose on US soil hundreds of thousands or millions. ( ;) back at 'ya.)

rikzilla
12th March 2004, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Graham


So in essence, you are agreeing that as long as there are no more attacks on US targets, the war on terror can be counted as a success?
Nope. Never said such a thing. I said that GWB's policies on Homeland Security, including some elements of the WOT can be counted a success. The overall WOT will not be a "success" until the rest of the civilised world joins in and crushes international terrorism where ever it appears. (The WOT therefore may go on forever...or until the threat is minimized to the point that continued military involvement is no longer necessary.)

The WOT was not billed as "protection for US targets" it was billed as a war on terror the implication being that terror would be engaged and fought and presumably defeated.
Who cares what it was "billed as"?? Why don't you look at what it objectively is? A good offense is generally considered the best defense. For instance,...let's say you live in a good neighborhood. No crime, good neighbors. Why then should you spend tax money on police protection? Of course you do know that your good neighborhood would soon suffer crime once the word got out that it was unprotected. But right now there is no actual proof this would happen! :rolleyes: This seems to be the extend of your argument against GWB's comprehensive national security policies. The rest of America is thankfully not going to buy that.

Are you now contending that "broadening the scope of islamic terrorism to include countries previously untroubled by it but at least distracting their attention from the US" counts as a victory?
No. What the hell ever gave you that idea?

Can you see how this attitude would be percieved as some what inconsiderate, to say the least, of other nations in the world? Especially when the other nation in question has been one of the more stalwart supporters of your various military adventures?

Graham

Well, IF that were my position it would indeed be inconsiderate, etc... But you are beating up an obvious strawman. IF you find anyone who actually holds these repulsive views I'll help you beat him up....but right now all you have is a scarecrow. :confused:

-z

Skeptic
12th March 2004, 09:31 AM
So in essence, you are agreeing that as long as there are no more attacks on US targets, the war on terror can be counted as a success?

No, but even if he was, it would certainly be a good measure to its success in the USA.

Are you now contending that "broadening the scope of islamic terrorism to include countries previously untroubled by it but at least distracting their attention from the US" counts as a victory?

If a burglar keeps robbing my shop, and then I put a lock on the door and he starts robbing another shop, by your definition all I did was "broaden the scope of the burglar to include shops previously untroubled by burglaries", so it did nothing positive; I should have left the store unlocked and continue to suffer the burglaries so as t not "broaden the scope of the burglar.

In reality, of course, putting a lock on the door is a victory for the store owner: it frustrated the burglar, forcing him to look for other, less important tagets in his eyes. It is at least partial victory: there is at least one shop, his preferred shop, that the burglar can't rob. The point now is to make the other shops burglar-proof as well.

Similarly, if the terrorists like the attack the USA and now cannot, then the war on terror won at least a partial victory: it denied them their most important target. Sure, now they'll try for less important targets if they can; but they have been at least partially defeated. The point now is to make sure that they are defeated elsewhere as well, until they have no targets left (at least ideally).

Can you see how this attitude would be percieved as some what inconsiderate, to say the least, of other nations in the world?

Indeed so; in the same way other women might worry that if a rapist's favorite victim has bought a gun, he might start raping other women; or that other shop owners might worry that improved security in the constantly-robbed shop next door might mean the robber might try to rob them as well.

But the only "inconsideration" here is that the USA refuses to continue to be the "designated victim". What right do other nations have to demand the USA remain in this position in the first place? Why right have they to demand the USA should remain the terrorists' favorite target just for other countries' temporary benefit?

If there is no right to demand a raped woman let herself be violated so that the rapes won't "spread" to others (and there isn't of course), there is no right to demand the USA let herself be attacked so that the attacks won't "spread" to others.

In addition, quite apart from all moral considerations, demanding the US remain a "designated victim" for terrorists out of "consideration" is amazingly short-sighted. Experience shows that fighting agression requires a united effort, and that thinking it is the "other guy's problem" means that it would quickly become your own. Quite the opposite of apart from pacifying the agressor, his success against someone else merely means he becomes stronger and more likely to attack you.

If only Chechoslovakia was more inconsiderate and did everything it could to drag England and France into the war in 1938! Hitler would likely have been defeated there and then, and all of history would have been different.

Your attitude--"How dare you try to defeat the agressor! As long as it attacks YOU, it might not have attack ME!"--is the epitome of cowardly, spineless appeasement. Not only is it morally despicable (despite your attempt to take the moral high ground), it is practicaly stupidity.

Graham
12th March 2004, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by rikzilla

Nope. Never said such a thing. I said that GWB's policies on Homeland Security, including some elements of the WOT can be counted a success. The overall WOT will not be a "success" until the rest of the civilised world joins in and crushes international terrorism where ever it appears. (The WOT therefore may go on forever...or until the threat is minimized to the point that continued military involvement is no longer necessary.)

So you concede that the WOT is, in large part at least, a failure then? Oh but it's not America's fault, it's the fault of all those other nations that just let international terrorism go unpunished.

Who cares what it was "billed as"?? Why don't you look at what it objectively is? A good offense is generally considered the best defense. For instance,...let's say you live in a good neighborhood. No crime, good neighbors. Why then should you spend tax money on police protection? Of course you do know that your good neighborhood would soon suffer crime once the word got out that it was unprotected. But right now there is no actual proof this would happen! :rolleyes: This seems to be the extend of your argument against GWB's comprehensive national security policies. The rest of America is thankfully not going to buy that.

I don't think you're in any position to tell me to look at it objectively. The WOT gives you such a Captain-America-freedom-and-justice-for-all hard on you are utterly blind to the downside.

Let's say you do live in a good neighbour hood. Even in good beighbourhoods there is crime, sometimes terrible crimes occur. Let's say there's a murder down the street - a particularly heinous one with lot's blood and screaming.

Next thing, the owner of the house the murder was in starts stomping all round the street, breaking down people's doors and hauling off their kids. A few of the neighbours are on his side, the rest are too weak to stand up to him and besides, he's doing it all in the name of preventing more murders - and who could argue with that?

Of course, his own family are worst off - he starts keeping them locked in their rooms and in a constant state of paranoia about the world outside.

How about that story?

And how about this logical fallacy - false dichotomy. There are more options for the world than (a) All guns blazing gung-ho cowboy War on Terror and (b) doing nothing and allowing us all be murdered in our beds by terrorists.

Sadly, you and the rest of America probably are not going to buy that.


No. What the hell ever gave you that idea?

Well it was this little statement, actually:

However, no one ever said that the WOT would end ALL terrorism. Our discussion Graham, was also limited to US targets worldwide (since one would expect that since the WOT is being led by America, that therefore America should be target #1) In this respect the attack in Spain cannot count in our previous argument since GWB has no direct control of Spanish internal security.

I think my translation was pretty good.


Well, IF that were my position it would indeed be inconsiderate, etc... But you are beating up an obvious strawman. IF you find anyone who actually holds these repulsive views I'll help you beat him up....but right now all you have is a scarecrow. :confused:

-z

Can you demonstrate that the war on terror has caused more good than harm?

Can you explain how your stance of "no attacks on US targets is evidence that the WOT is workng" is not repulsive and inconsiderate?

Can you tell me how to stop the stuffing falling out of this scarecrow when I hit it - it stinks and I think it may be rotten..

;)

Graham

Graham
12th March 2004, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Skeptic
So in essence, you are agreeing that as long as there are no more attacks on US targets, the war on terror can be counted as a success?

No, but even if he was, it would certainly be a good measure to its success in the USA.

Are you now contending that "broadening the scope of islamic terrorism to include countries previously untroubled by it but at least distracting their attention from the US" counts as a victory?

If a burglar keeps robbing my shop, and then I put a lock on the door and he starts robbing another shop, by your definition all I did was "broaden the scope of the burglar to include shops previously untroubled by burglaries", so it did nothing positive; I should have left the store unlocked and continue to suffer the burglaries so as t not "broaden the scope of the burglar.

In reality, of course, putting a lock on the door is a victory for the store owner: it frustrated the burglar, forcing him to look for other, less important tagets in his eyes. It is at least partial victory: there is at least one shop, his preferred shop, that the burglar can't rob. The point now is to make the other shops burglar-proof as well.

Similarly, if the terrorists like the attack the USA and now cannot, then the war on terror won at least a partial victory: it denied them their most important target. Sure, now they'll try for less important targets if they can; but they have been at least partially defeated. The point now is to make sure that they are defeated elsewhere as well, until they have no targets left (at least ideally).

Can you see how this attitude would be percieved as some what inconsiderate, to say the least, of other nations in the world?

Indeed so; in the same way other women might worry that if a rapist's favorite victim has bought a gun, he might start raping other women; or that other shop owners might worry that improved security in the constantly-robbed shop next door might mean the robber might try to rob them as well.

But the only "inconsideration" here is that the USA refuses to continue to be the "designated victim". What right do other nations have to demand the USA remain in this position in the first place? Why right have they to demand the USA should remain the terrorists' favorite target just for other countries' temporary benefit?

If there is no right to demand a raped woman let herself be violated so that the rapes won't "spread" to others (and there isn't of course), there is no right to demand the USA let herself be attacked so that the attacks won't "spread" to others.

In addition, quite apart from all moral considerations, demanding the US remain a "designated victim" for terrorists out of "consideration" is amazingly short-sighted. Experience shows that fighting agression requires a united effort, and that thinking it is the "other guy's problem" means that it would quickly become your own. Quite the opposite of apart from pacifying the agressor, his success against someone else merely means he becomes stronger and more likely to attack you.

If only Chechoslovakia was more inconsiderate and did everything it could to drag England and France into the war in 1938! Hitler would likely have been defeated there and then, and all of history would have been different.

Your attitude--"How dare you try to defeat the agressor! As long as it attacks YOU, it might not have attack ME!"--is the epitome of cowardly, spineless appeasement. Not only is it morally despicable (despite your attempt to take the moral high ground), it is practicaly stupidity.

IMO, it's only necessary to repeat one little phrase from this rant:

less important targets

Nice. Reeeeeal classy, Skeptic. I suspect there might be a few people in Madrid who would disagree with your analysis.

What happened to "SOMOS TODOS ESPAÑOLES" all of a sudden?

Graham

Kodiak
12th March 2004, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Graham


Kodiak, I wouldn't even know how to spell "obfusticate" ;)

Where is the evidence that the war is being won or is likely to be won at any point in the future (again, much like the war on drugs, eh?)

Where is the evidence that more attacks are being prevented than before the WOT or that more terrorists are being stopped? The attacks continue, don't they?

Spain, for instance, never had a terror attack of this magnitude befre the WOT (AFAIK) and certainly not from an outside group like Al-Q (if indeed they are responsible for this attack).

In the case of Spain, then, the WOT is clearly being lost, no?

Graham

Please check these out:

Managing the War on Terror (http://www.techcentralstation.com/103103A.html)

Marines claim terror attacks thwarted in Africa (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2003/n12202003_200312204.html)

Are we winning the War on Terror? (http://brookings.edu/views/op-ed/byman/20030523.htm)

Counterterrorisn Coordinator claims continuing success of Global War on Terror (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/texts/03050101.htm)

Kodiak
12th March 2004, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Skeptic
So in essence, you are agreeing that as long as there are no more attacks on US targets, the war on terror can be counted as a success?

No, but even if he was, it would certainly be a good measure to its success in the USA.

Are you now contending that "broadening the scope of islamic terrorism to include countries previously untroubled by it but at least distracting their attention from the US" counts as a victory?

If a burglar keeps robbing my shop, and then I put a lock on the door and he starts robbing another shop, by your definition all I did was "broaden the scope of the burglar to include shops previously untroubled by burglaries", so it did nothing positive; I should have left the store unlocked and continue to suffer the burglaries so as t not "broaden the scope of the burglar.

In reality, of course, putting a lock on the door is a victory for the store owner: it frustrated the burglar, forcing him to look for other, less important tagets in his eyes. It is at least partial victory: there is at least one shop, his preferred shop, that the burglar can't rob. The point now is to make the other shops burglar-proof as well.

Similarly, if the terrorists like the attack the USA and now cannot, then the war on terror won at least a partial victory: it denied them their most important target. Sure, now they'll try for less important targets if they can; but they have been at least partially defeated. The point now is to make sure that they are defeated elsewhere as well, until they have no targets left (at least ideally).

Can you see how this attitude would be percieved as some what inconsiderate, to say the least, of other nations in the world?

Indeed so; in the same way other women might worry that if a rapist's favorite victim has bought a gun, he might start raping other women; or that other shop owners might worry that improved security in the constantly-robbed shop next door might mean the robber might try to rob them as well.

But the only "inconsideration" here is that the USA refuses to continue to be the "designated victim". What right do other nations have to demand the USA remain in this position in the first place? Why right have they to demand the USA should remain the terrorists' favorite target just for other countries' temporary benefit?

If there is no right to demand a raped woman let herself be violated so that the rapes won't "spread" to others (and there isn't of course), there is no right to demand the USA let herself be attacked so that the attacks won't "spread" to others.

In addition, quite apart from all moral considerations, demanding the US remain a "designated victim" for terrorists out of "consideration" is amazingly short-sighted. Experience shows that fighting agression requires a united effort, and that thinking it is the "other guy's problem" means that it would quickly become your own. Quite the opposite of apart from pacifying the agressor, his success against someone else merely means he becomes stronger and more likely to attack you.

If only Chechoslovakia was more inconsiderate and did everything it could to drag England and France into the war in 1938! Hitler would likely have been defeated there and then, and all of history would have been different.

Your attitude--"How dare you try to defeat the agressor! As long as it attacks YOU, it might not have attack ME!"--is the epitome of cowardly, spineless appeasement. Not only is it morally despicable (despite your attempt to take the moral high ground), it is practicaly stupidity.


WOW...

Excellent post...

rikzilla
12th March 2004, 09:48 AM
Graham,

I consider my time to be of some importance. I post here because I enjoy logical debate. I enjoy having my opinions and perceptions attacked, in this way I get to rethink them to be sure that I'm defending a logical and correct position.

I cannot do that when my positions are attacked by angry ad hom and strawman arguments. When my statements are purposely taken out of their intended context in order to be used against me. Please cease trying to demonize me in such ways and we can return to a polite and logical discussion of actual facts.

If you cannot in good faith do so then I cannot spare any more time in responding to you.

Regards,
-z

Graham
12th March 2004, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Kodiak



WOW...

Excellent post...

Somos todos espanoles, indeed then, eh?

I'll read your links later btw, thanks for that but I'm off home in a minute.

Graham

Giz
12th March 2004, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Graham


IMO, it's only necessary to repeat one little phrase from this rant:

"less important targets "

Nice. Reeeeeal classy, Skeptic. I suspect there might be a few people in Madrid who would disagree with your analysis.

What happened to "SOMOS TODOS ESPAÑOLES" all of a sudden?

Graham

- Are you claiming that Al-Q don't consider New York more important than Madrid? (i.e. the US is the target of choice). Nothing beyond that could reasonably be read into Skeptic's post but it didn't stop you trying...

Graham
12th March 2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by rikzilla
Graham,

I consider my time to be of some importance. I post here because I enjoy logical debate. I enjoy having my opinions and perceptions attacked, in this way I get to rethink them to be sure that I'm defending a logical and correct position.

I cannot do that when my positions are attacked by angry ad hom and strawman arguments. Please cease trying to demonize me in such ways and we can return to a polite and logical discussion of actual facts.

If you cannot in good faith do so then I cannot spare any more time in responding to you.

Regards,
-z

Your refusal to address my points is noted.

Graham
12th March 2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Giz


- Are you claiming that Al-Q don't consider New York more important than Madrid? (i.e. the US is the target of choice). Nothing beyond that could reasonably be read into Skeptic's post but it didn't stop you trying...

No, I'm claiming that Skeptic considers Madrid a less important target than New York, which is an entirely different kettle of fish and is there in Skeptic's post in plain English for all to see.

Graham

Kodiak
12th March 2004, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Graham


Somos todos espanoles, indeed then, eh?

I'll read your links later btw, thanks for that but I'm off home in a minute.

Graham

Skeptic can only show you the real world, he can't make you give up your Utopian dreams...

Graham
12th March 2004, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Kodiak


Skeptic can only show you the real world, he can't make you give up your Utopian dreams...

:D :D :D

Rikzilla - your PM mailbox is full - I was going for heated debate rather than personal attack but apolgise if I overstepped the line.

Later guys.

Graham

epepke
12th March 2004, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Skeptic
So in essence, you are agreeing that as long as there are no more attacks on US targets, the war on terror can be counted as a success?

No, but even if he was, it would certainly be a good measure to its success in the USA.

Um, not really.

Before 11 Sep 2001, the most recent major foreign attack on US soil was the first attempt at bombing the WTC in 1993.

For the mathematically challenged, that's eight (8) years, during which time there was no particular War on Terrorism.

And the fact that there hasn't been a major foreign terrorist attack on US soil in 2 1/2 years demonstrates the efficacy of the War on Terrorism exactly how?

Did we leave our skeptic hats at Pizzeria Uno or something?

Darat
12th March 2004, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Graham


No, I'm claiming that Skeptic considers Madrid a less important target than New York, which is an entirely different kettle of fish and is there in Skeptic's post in plain English for all to see.

Graham

Graham, I think you may have misread what Skeptic posted, he said (bold & underline by me):

...snip...

In reality, of course, putting a lock on the door is a victory for the store owner: it frustrated the burglar, forcing him to look for other, less important tagets in his eyes. It is at least partial victory: there is at least one shop, his preferred shop, that the burglar can't rob. The point now is to make the other shops burglar-proof as well.

Similarly, if the terrorists like the attack the USA and now cannot, then the war on terror won at least a partial victory: it denied them their most important target. Sure, now they'll try for less important targets if they can; but they have been at least partially defeated. The point now is to make sure that they are defeated elsewhere as well, until they have no targets left (at least ideally).

...snip...


In context it is quite clear that Skeptic is talking about the distinction that terrorists make between targets, not his own distinction. (I do not know what Skeptic's view is of important and non-important targets.)

Giz
12th March 2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Darat


Graham, I think you may have misread what Skeptic posted, he said (bold & underline by me):



In context it is quite clear that Skeptic is talking about the distinction that terrorists make between targets, not his own distinction. (I do not know what Skeptic's view is of important and non-important targets.)

That's certainly how I read it.

My thoughts are with everyone in Spain tonight.

rikzilla
12th March 2004, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Graham


:D :D :D

Rikzilla - your PM mailbox is full - I was going for heated debate rather than personal attack but apolgise if I overstepped the line.

Later guys.

Graham

accepted.

I look forward to further discussion with you.

-z

rikzilla
12th March 2004, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by epepke


Um, not really.

Before 11 Sep 2001, the most recent major foreign attack on US soil was the first attempt at bombing the WTC in 1993.

For the mathematically challenged, that's eight (8) years, during which time there was no particular War on Terrorism.

And the fact that there hasn't been a major foreign terrorist attack on US soil in 2 1/2 years demonstrates the efficacy of the War on Terrorism exactly how?

Did we leave our skeptic hats at Pizzeria Uno or something?

Are you in denial about Al Qaeda(tm) brand terrorism? Well, here's a little heads up. They were responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing,...the Tanzania/Kenya embassy bombings,...the USS Cole,....as well as 9/11. Lets look at the frequency; June 25, 1996 (Khobar Towers bombing), November 16, 1997 (blackhawk down firefight, Somalia), 7 August 1998 (Tanzania/Kenya), October 12, 2000 (USS Cole bombing), September 11, 2001 (No explanation needed).

Oh, I almost forgot; They were also responsible for the first WTC bomb in 1993....(Ramzi Yusef was an Al Qaeda guy)

So;
February 1993, first WTC bomb....Al Qaeda warmup.
June 1996, Al Qaeda getting more efficient
November 1997, Al Qaeda learns that killing Americans on tv is effective....Osama seeks to work this angle in earnest.
August 1998, Al Qaeda's first big coordinated hit,...their trademark. The event that should have awoken Bill Clinton from his stupor. (it didn't) Clinton responds by blowing up pill factory.
October 2000, USS Cole bombing...Al Qaeda again....lessons still unlearned apparently. Several million $ in cruise missiles decimate deserted Al Qaeda campsite. Many expensive tents destroyed.
September 11,2001, No comment.

Since Sept 11,2001.........................? Zero against either soft targets on US soil, or hard US targets on foreign soil. That is the criteria. There is no point in pointing to Bali, or Madrid and saying Bush's policies aren't working....he is not omnipotent. He can protect ALL people in ALL countries in the exact same way he can order the Mississippi river to start flowing north.

-z

Kodiak
12th March 2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by epepke


Um, not really.

Before 11 Sep 2001, the most recent major foreign attack on US soil was the first attempt at bombing the WTC in 1993.

For the mathematically challenged, that's eight (8) years, during which time there was no particular War on Terrorism.

And the fact that there hasn't been a major foreign terrorist attack on US soil in 2 1/2 years demonstrates the efficacy of the War on Terrorism exactly how?

Did we leave our skeptic hats at Pizzeria Uno or something?


Again, please check these out:

Managing the War on Terror (http://www.techcentralstation.com/103103A.html)

Marines claim terror attacks thwarted in Africa (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2003/n12202003_200312204.html)

Are we winning the War on Terror? (http://brookings.edu/views/op-ed/byman/20030523.htm)

Counterterrorisn Coordinator claims continuing success of Global War on Terror (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/texts/03050101.htm)

zenith-nadir
12th March 2004, 11:10 AM
I heard a quick blurb on the radio while I was driving...If you discount the leap year in 2004 the Madrid bombings come 911 days after 9-11. (with the leap year, 912 days).

Coincidence?

epepke
12th March 2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by rikzilla
Are you in denial about Al Qaeda(tm) brand terrorism? Well, here's a little heads up. They were responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing,...the Tanzania/Kenya embassy bombings,...the USS Cole,....as well as 9/11. Lets look at the frequency; June 25, 1996 (Khobar Towers bombing), November 16, 1997 (blackhawk down firefight, Somalia), 7 August 1998 (Tanzania/Kenya), October 12, 2000 (USS Cole bombing), September 11, 2001 (No explanation needed).

Oh, I almost forgot; They were also responsible for the first WTC bomb in 1993....(Ramzi Yusef was an Al Qaeda guy)

YES! Because I assert that the Khobar Towers, Tanzania, Kenya, and the high seas are not on US soil, then I must necessarily be in denial of Al Qaeda! You've caught me out. It's a fair cop.

Congratulations! You win the supreme Galactic award for intelligegence! All hail rikzilla, Supreme Brainiac!

Kodiak
12th March 2004, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I heard a quick blurb on the radio while I was driving...If you discount the leap year in 2004 the Madrid bombings come 911 days after 9-11. (with the leap year, 912 days).

Coincidence?

Ask Silvia Browne... :rolleyes:

rikzilla
12th March 2004, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by epepke


YES! Because I assert that the Khobar Towers, Tanzania, Kenya, and the high seas are not on US soil, then I must necessarily be in denial of Al Qaeda! You've caught me out. It's a fair cop.

Congratulations! You win the supreme Galactic award for intelligegence! All hail rikzilla, Supreme Brainiac!

Not on US soil,...but most assuredly high profile US government targets. Or do you disagree?

The rest of your post is a testament to the present level of your intellectual maturity. Thanks for sharing.

-z

epepke
12th March 2004, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by rikzilla
Not on US soil,...but most assuredly high profile US government targets. Or do you disagree?

No, but in that case, let's start with Beirut, 1982.

But that's not what the original claim was about. The original claim was about the absence of attacks on US soil being evidence of the efficacy of the War on Terror.

Surely you're heard about one or two attack on US forces outside the US since then.

You can't have it both ways.

The rest of your post is a testament to the present level of your intellectual maturity. Thanks for sharing.

You're welcome.

Skeptic
12th March 2004, 12:38 PM
That's certainly how I read it.

Indeed so. All I said was that the US is a more important target FOR THE TERRORISTS than Spain is; given the choice, they'd rather strike the US rather than Spain--an obviously true statement, and hardly one that makes Spain "less important" in any other sense.

I, for one, would be very happy if there was some way to make israel, or jews in general, an uniportant target to terrorists. Trust me on this one, Graham: I know all too well what being important in a terrorist's eyes REALLY means. Take my word for it: you don't want to be there.

But what did you expect? Graham's position--that the US should not defeat terrorists on its soil, since that might cause them to try and strike elsewhere--is both morally and practically indefensible, for the reasons I've shown above.

Naturally, the only "reply" he can make is try to take three words out of 1,000 or so in my post totally out of context, and then feign "moral outrage". The idea, of course, is to move the thread's subject from his endorsment of cowardly appeasement to my alleged "insensitivity".

Ah well.

rikzilla
12th March 2004, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by epepke


No, but in that case, let's start with Beirut, 1982.

Since that pre-dates Al Qaeda I fail to see it's relevance.

But that's not what the original claim was about. The original claim was about the absence of attacks on US soil being evidence of the efficacy of the War on Terror.

That is only a tiny part of what I've said. Is the absence of further Al Qaeda attacks on US soil evidence of the efficacy of the WOT? Partially so. What I actually said was that GWB's comprehensive national security policies (including in part the WOT) are showing themselves more effective than the approach taken by President Clinton. Under Clinton I gave you a list that showed American government targets being hit with relative impugnity. After 9/11 the American response under the Bush admin was markedly different that under Mr. Clinton....and coorespondingly we see less terrorism against the type of targets that were earlier preferred by Al Qaeda....ergo it appears the policy of GWB is working, whilst Mr. Clinton's was not.

Surely you're heard about one or two attack on US forces outside the US since then.

Not outside what would be expected against US troops doing battle with the insurgents in Iraq. There was an attack against civilian housing area in Saudi recently which killed 8 Americans....but that is generally not the scale of attack we've seen in the past....and was not a government target either.

-z

epepke
12th March 2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by rikzilla
That is only a tiny part of what I've said. Is the absence of further Al Qaeda attacks on US soil evidence of the efficacy of the WOT? Partially so. What I actually said was that GWB's comprehensive national security policies (including in part the WOT) are showing themselves more effective than the approach taken by President Clinton.

So the absence of Al Qaeda attacks on US soil for 2.5 years under Bush shows that Bush is effective. The absence of Al Qaeda attacks on US soil for 6.5 years shows Clinton ineffective.

The attack on the Cole and the various embassies show Clinton ineffective.

The attacks in Iraq don't count, because we've decided that "War On Terror" means "War On Terror Only If It's Al Qaeda." And the attacks in Bali and (probably now) Spain don't count, because the're not in the US and are not embassies or ships at sea, and Spain is a mere ally, and who cares about US tourists anyway?

And therefore we know for sure that the "War on Terror" is working really well.

Gotcha.

rikzilla
12th March 2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by epepke


So the absence of Al Qaeda attacks on US soil for 2.5 years under Bush shows that Bush is effective. The absence of Al Qaeda attacks on US soil for 6.5 years shows Clinton ineffective.

The attack on the Cole and the various embassies show Clinton ineffective.

The attacks in Iraq don't count, because we've decided that "War On Terror" means "War On Terror Only If It's Al Qaeda." And the attacks in Bali and (probably now) Spain don't count, because the're not in the US and are not embassies or ships at sea, and Spain is a mere ally, and who cares about US tourists anyway?

And therefore we know for sure that the "War on Terror" is working really well.

Gotcha.
:teacher:
Glad to be of help. Teaching "Special" students can be so fullfilling!

-z

epepke
12th March 2004, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


That and just about anything electronic can be (and probably has been) described as a "detonator". A digital watch, a scrap of copper wire and a AAA battery lying loose around the floor of someone's car could well turn into a "detonator" by the time the media had finished with it.

Valid skepticism, but I wonder if we'd see it but for the early accusation of the ETA.

That is, people have been thinking ETA for 24 hours now, and perhaps it's become a bit of an idee fixe.

Lothian
13th March 2004, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Rik
You really asking what the difference is? Or are you just being flippant?

The Actions of the Bush Admin:
code:



Perhaps we look at things differently. There currently are people wanting to harm others. You think you are safer because you have built a big wall to keep those people out. I think you are merely delaying those people getting in. I think to make the world safer you need to stop those people wanting to harm you. I believe the term used by your president was hearts and minds.

Mr Manifesto
13th March 2004, 05:33 AM
al-Qaeda? (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/13/1078594602334.html)

Mr Manifesto
13th March 2004, 06:32 AM
Some Basque say it wasn't the ETA (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3506824.stm)

Mind you, I'm a little puzzled by this:

Julen Etxevarria, the editor of the Basque radio and TV service EiTB, voiced the questions of many.

"I think this is too big, too organised, too much to be Eta," he told BBC News Online.

He added that an attack without warning on civilians, rather than on political or military targets, is not an Eta hallmark.


Was the Barcelona supermarket a military target?

Peskanov
13th March 2004, 11:09 AM
Mr. manifesto, ETA attacks lots of targets:
- Military and policial targets.
- Politics, judges, journalists, intellectuals (those who opose ETA too much for their taste) and also the royal family.
- Bussinesmen (those who don't pay the terrorism taxes)
- Public transports: railway, several times, and roads. They usually set bombs on the way to cut the way, although a few months they put a bomb in a train.

The history of hypercor massacre (the supermarket) is quite complex. ETA warned about hypercor bomb, but the treat was not taken seriously.However, the important lesson to learn there is that ETA lost a lot of popular support after that, and from that point they avoided civil massacres in order to keep their politic weight.

ETA announced yesterday that they are not the authors of Madrid attack, but the government has been trying to keep the ETA hypothesis against all evidence. People here has reacted with a lot of hatred against the local nationalisms, in a way I have never seen before. I am hearing people asking for the death of PNV leaders (the moderate nationalist party of the basques, which represent their majority). A police have killed a basque neighbor in Bilbao this afternoon because he refused to put a spanish flag in his shop.
Our government is totally crazy! IMO they are being near criminal. :(

TillEulenspiegel
13th March 2004, 04:13 PM
I believe that the ETA has been a thorn in the side of Spain for quite some time, they do engage in bombings, and other acts of terrorism. The difference between their normal mode of action which is disruptive and what happened to Spain on 3/11 are of totally different character. It was not amateurish but focused and military style attacks. There may be a connection between the stepped up level of attack as an indication of cooperation between Al Quida and the separatists, but it is generally out of character. I think Al Quida selected soft targets with the eye on maximum of causalities. This remains all supposition for the time being.

I offer my condolences to the people of Spain on their tragic loss.

Fendetestas
13th March 2004, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Peskanov
Mr. manifesto, ETA attacks lots of targets:
However, the important lesson to learn there is that ETA lost a lot of popular support after that, and from that point they avoided civil massacres in order to keep their politic weight.


That's not true... they have tried to cause civil massacres, for example this Christmas in Chamartín station in Madrid, and what do you think the 500kg of explosives intercepted two weeks ago were for?

People here has reacted with a lot of hatred against the local nationalisms, in a way I have never seen before. I am hearing people asking for the death of PNV leaders (the moderate nationalist party of the basques, which represent their majority)

This is an exageration, there may be some tiny minority doing this, but I haven't heard anyone in the big demonstration in Madrid attack the PNV leaders. And by the way calling the PNV, a party full of hatred and even racism from their beginning in the XIX century, moderated is, well I don't know... wrong.

Peskanov
14th March 2004, 10:03 AM
That's not true... they have tried to cause civil massacres, for example this Christmas in Chamartín station in Madrid, and what do you think the 500kg of explosives intercepted two weeks ago were for?

I think the same as the antiterrorist police thinks. That they wanted to put it there, warn about it, and cause fear in all us.

This is an exageration,


the PNV, a party full of hatred and even racism from their beginning in the XIX century,


Thanks for proving my point.

BTW, you should try to meet a few nationalist basques and catalonians. You know, there is a real world out there, with real people. Demonizing the adversary is easy, but it wil not solve any of our problems.

Cleopatra
14th March 2004, 10:14 AM
What is the attitude of people in the Basque area, of the simple Basques I mean towards ETA?

Do they support them? Do they approve of the <strike through>military</strike through> terrorist action or they object to it? Do the rest of the Spaniards hate the ordinary Basques today?

edited to change a word. I read too much BBC.com

Fendetestas
14th March 2004, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Peskanov

BTW, you should try to meet a few nationalist basques and catalonians. You know, there is a real world out there, with real people. Demonizing the adversary is easy, but it wil not solve any of our problems.

OK, I recognize I have not been very objective in that post. I know a lot of nationalist basques and catalonians and a lot of galician ones. I think natioanlist claims are perefectly legitimate and democratical, though I don't agree with them. I don't blame neither the PNV nor any catalonian nationalist party for this and I don't hate them, if I gave that impression in my last post I'm sorry and I take back what I said.


If I gave the impression of putting the PNV at the same level as HB/EH/ETA... I'm sorry. They are light years from the terrorist views of Otegi and his friends. However, they are not moderate, they have said pretty radical things (remember their comments about the real basques Rh, for example) and its founder, Sabino Arana, was a racist.

Fendetestas
14th March 2004, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Cleopatra
What is the attitude of people in the Basque area, of the simple Basques I mean towards ETA?

Do they support them? Do they approve of the military action or they object to it? Do the rest of the Spaniards hate the ordinary Basques today?

Simple basques hate ETA just as much as the other Spaniards, I think. The problem is that there's no real freedom of speech there, there is for example the revolutionary taxes the businessmen have to pay if they don't want, well, trouble. ETA has attacked (killed) intelectuals for opposing them, etc. A lot of basques are nationalists (as Peskanov said, the PNV is the most voted party there), but that doesn't mean they agree with ETA, and again I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Most people in the rest of Spain sympathize with the basques (although we don't agree with their nationalist ideas, but that's what democracy is all about) Of course in moments like this some people break and just look for someone to blame and things like the ones Peskanov wrote about happen.

When answering Peskanov post I was just trying to say this, that most spaniards don't hate the basques, but my unfortunate remarks about the PNV gave just the opposite impression, I'm afraid.

Peskanov
14th March 2004, 10:53 AM
Fendetestas,

if I gave that impression in my last post I'm sorry and I take back what I said.


Thanks for moderating you message, really.


However, they are not moderate, they have said pretty radical things (remember their comments about the real basques Rh, for example) and its founder, Sabino Arana, was a racist.


There are no doubts (even inside the PNV) about the racist origins of the basque nationalism, but I still think it's a missrepresentation to paint them as a racist party. There is xenophobia in the basque country, but in my experience (I reckon quite limited) is no more extended than others parts of Spain. For example, my city, Valencia, shows bigger problems in this concern.
About the famous Rh speech, I don't remenber very well it. I found thins link:

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2004/01/17/espana/1074325052.html

which contains part of it. However ,I still don't see what's so racist about it. It seems like the usual ultra-nationalist mumbo-jumbo to me.

Fendetestas
14th March 2004, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Peskanov
Fendetestas,
There are no doubts (even inside the PNV) about the racist origins of the basque nationalism, but I still think it's a missrepresentation to paint them as a racist party. There is xenophobia in the basque country, but in my experience (I reckon quite limited) is no more extended than others parts of Spain. For example, my city, Valencia, shows bigger problems in this concern.
About the famous Rh speech (...) I still don't see what's so racist about it. It seems like the usual ultra-nationalist mumbo-jumbo to me.

I agree completely with all of that. The Rh speech was not necessarily racist, just silly ultranationalism. I don't think PNV views are that of a racist party now, but they were in their beginnings, and I think if nationalists really wanted to reject them, they should have, I don't know, changed the party's name for example. But it's true "racist" is not the word I would use to paint them, "silly" would match them more closely.

I get the impression that you may think I'm a PP supporter, which I'm most certainly not and I didn't criticize the PNV from that point of view, it's just that I didn't like to see the word "moderate" associated with them, as I wouldn't like to associate the PP with the label "center party" (as opposed to right wing party, which is what they are)

I wrote my post most carelessly, and quite emotionally touched. After all, a cousin of mine died in one of the trains and my girlfriend got so sick in the demonstration that we spent several hours in the hospital, after having to carry her to an ambulance through the incredible mass of people (she's fine now, it was just the cold and the rain) and I was (am) very disappointed with how ALL political forces and even some citizens have started attacking each other and using this as a political weapon. I was tired, take into considerration only my last posts and forget the previous, less fortunate one.

Mr Manifesto
14th March 2004, 11:17 AM
Any word on how the election is going, BTW? Nothing on BBC or (Australian) ABC.

Kopji
14th March 2004, 11:22 AM
Peskanov
I enjoyed reading your thoughtful posts.
Condolences to the people of Spain & Madrid.

Seems like such a small world sometimes. There is a group of children at my daughter’s school traveling through Europe (we are not in constant contact with them). There was a short time we thought they might have been in the area of the blasts. Turns out they had not yet arrived in Madrid, but did needed to change hotels because it was located near one of the sites.

News media in the US are beginning to conclude that the initial blame on ETA was a desire to delay the truth until after elections today. There are obvious political implications with Spain, England, and the US political supporters of the war in Iraq.

Fendetestas
14th March 2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Any word on how the election is going, BTW? Nothing on BBC or (Australian) ABC.

Voting time will not end for another half hour, so we're not seeing any results yet. The only interesting thing I can think of right now is that participation at 18:00 (Spanish time) was more than 7 points higher than las time's at the same hour (roughly 63%)

Edited to add: Voting time ends at 20:00. But, as the Canary Islands are in a different time zone (the same as the UK), we will have to wait another hour (until it's 20:00 there) to have any results. That means we'll begin to know some data at 21:00 CET (+6 hours New York Time, I think)

Peskanov
14th March 2004, 12:06 PM
Fendetestas, I am sorry for your loss. My condolences.

I also have emotional reasons for my initial arguments in this thread, as a big part of my family is basque and they received some crap unfairly. I still think Acebes was irresponsible with his actions.

Let's all hope common sense return to this country soon...

Fendetestas
14th March 2004, 01:15 PM
I've started a new thread about the elections: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37062