Terrorist Attack in Madrid

[eleanor]

[color=firebrick] If it's claimed that Osama Bin Ladin had something against the US because they set foot in the 'Holy Land' during the land, I guess the same could be said for Spain's troops. Or they're still holding a grudge because Spain kicked them out a really, really, long time ago. I think. *flips through Spanish notes*

I personally believe Al Qaeda is just going to start attacking highly-populated areas in the world, no matter how politically incorrect that could be. I've never really gotten into finding out more about the terrorist group. I mean, we all thought the Basques had done it at first, even though some doubted it because the Basque terrorists have never done anything this large and coordinated. Then some people think it's possible that the attack was done by some European national sepratists and followers of Osama Bin Ladin. Terrorist experts [didn't even know these people existed, lol] say that the attack on Madrid had signs of the ETA and Al Qaeda, so...*shrugs* Some people think it's a combination. [/color]

[DeathBug]

[quote name='cloricus']Off topic. Or should we look at the thousands America, or other western countries that have the death penalty, put to death each year?[/quote]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Enlighten me; how is my statement 'off topic', when your statement that prompted the rebuttal wasn't? OIr maybe things are only 'off topic' when they fly into the face of your own claims?

And HC beat me to rebutting your statement regarding the death penalty. (Was that statement 'off topic', by the way?)[/color][/size][/font]

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='cloricus']Off topic. Or should we look at the thousands America, or other western countries that have the death penalty, put to death each year?[/quote]

[color=green]That?s one of the worst analogies that I?ve heard in a long time.

Saddam killed [I]tens of thousands[/I] of his political opponents, attacked ethnic minorities and kept the majority of his country in check using horrific tactics. These included putting people through meat grinding machines, rape, disgusting torture and denying anyone even something remotely resembling a fair trial.

The United States, the only modern country that still uses the death penalty, has executed a mere fraction of the number of people Saddam killed. All of the persons put to death in the US were given fair trials, lengthy appeal processes and, in some cases, two trials. These people [b]deserved[/b] to die for their terrible crimes.

Your comparison sickens me Cloricus. It?s stinks of the same blatant and slanderous bias present in Michael Moore films?[/color]

[James]

[quote name='cloricus']Oh I'm sorry, we'll just ignore the ten thousand plus Iraq civilians that died as result of the American invasion. *Sweeps under the carpet, it's all good!* :)[/quote]
[color=#707875]Ten thousand plus? You're pulling numbers out of the air, for one thing.

I don't remember the specific numbers, but from what I remember, the actual invasion saw the death of something like 2,000 civilians. Many of these were killed as a result of Iraqi military action, as organizations like Amnesty International will attest.

On a broader level, I hope that you are not blaming America for the terrorism that is going on in Iraq right now.

If the police put my brother in jail for stealing something and then I shot a policeman as a result of it, would you blame the police for my actions? No. I think it's quite an extreme stretch to blame America for what's happening in Iraq now. Yes, the terrorism going on there would not have come about under Saddam's regime. But are we now defending that regime? I sure hope not.

It's kind of ironic that we view the situation in these ways. The humanitarian in you says that the invasion was wrong. The humanitarian in me says that the invasion was necessary, for the prevention of thousands upon thousands of future deaths at the hands of Saddam's regime.

Of more importance is the question of intent, I think. The terrorists deliberately attack civilians. The Americans do not. This is a fundamental point. If you were to argue otherwise, I might suggest that your views are even more extreme than I'd first thought.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

[quote name='James][color=#707875']Ten thousand plus? You're pulling numbers out of the air, for one thing.[/color][/quote]No, I researched that number from several sources, (some of those are pro-war and others anti-war) the unofficially max of dead Iraqis (that died as a result of the war and supported by most aid organizations) is around 10430 and minimum is around 8581. (Which is supported by more "official" channels.) If you don't believe those numbers [url=http://www.iraqbodycount.net/names.htm]here is a list[/url] of 692 dead Iraqis names who would be alive today if this war never happened, is that not bigger than Spain none the less?

[quote]On a broader level, I hope that you are not blaming America for the terrorism that is going on in Iraq right now.[/quote]Do I have a reason not too? There was little terrorism when Saddam was in power, the jails were less full and there was more control. (Which I will note is far better than current conditions.)

[quote]If the police put my brother in jail for stealing something and then I shot a policeman as a result of it, would you blame the police for my actions? No. I think it's quite an extreme stretch to blame America for what's happening in Iraq now.[/quote]That example is not valid, iraq did nothing wrong in the first place. (Or would you like to show me proof of WMD? And I will show you proof of iraq's compliance to the UN askings plus some links to hans blix's assessments.)

[quote]It's kind of ironic that we view the situation in these ways. The humanitarian in you says that the invasion was wrong. The humanitarian in me says that the invasion was necessary, for the prevention of thousands upon thousands of future deaths at the hands of Saddam's regime.[/quote]Compared to civil war and all those dying from lack of food which was no so under saddam?

[quote]Of more importance is the question of intent, I think. The terrorists deliberately attack civilians. The Americans do not. This is a fundamental point. If you were to argue otherwise, I might suggest that your views are even more extreme than I'd first thought.[/quote]Americans don't attack their own troops either.

The only reasons I am against this invasion and following occupation is that 1) it was wrong, there were no WMD and the precedents that sets and 2) the unnecessary risk this puts other countries plus my own in, extremist for any religion look for any one different who is standing up to attack and cut down, attack a group of people like that just gives them more reason to attack you. Why disturb the bee's nest when there is a better way to deal with it, which there is. Please note that I am not saying Iraq had anything to do with terrorists but as you can now see the country is full of them in the vacuum of control which makes it even more of a danger than it was under saddam.


Really it's nice to think "wow the world is safer" or "in the future it will be" but the real truth is that there are now disturbing precedents, set by the western world, and a country is going to hell leaving it open to becoming a hotbed for terrorists and a source of revolt against "our way of life" as countries based on a Jewish religion.

[Guest Chimaira]

these terrorists are getting to out of hand i don't care where in the world it is they should be stoped by any means nessicery

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='cloricus']Do I have a reason not too? There was little terrorism when Saddam was in power, the jails were less full and there was more control. (Which I will note is far better than current conditions.)[/quote]

[color=green]o_O

You?re telling me that you?d rather see an entire nation living in fear, under constant threat of being killed, raped or tortured, than experiencing freedom? There is a very vocal minority of the Iraqi population who lived it up under Saddam. They?re fighting us because they?ve committed so many terrible acts under Saddam that it?s impossible for them to rejoin a free, democratic society. These groups, along with Al-Qaeda operatives, will lose favor with the Iraqi people and eventually be crushed. There?s simply no way they can compete with a free, capitalist and democratic society.

Your argument scares me, Cloricus. How anyone could think like that?[/color]

[quote name='cloricus']That example is not valid, iraq did nothing wrong in the first place. (Or would you like to show me proof of WMD? And I will show you proof of iraq's compliance to the UN askings plus some links to hans blix's assessments.)[/quote]

[color=green][I]Iraq did nothing wrong?[/I]

Where have you been for the last 10 years? Iraq, despite not having WMD, had violated numerous UN resolutions that were justification for war. They?d not produced weapons of Mass Destruction (Saddam made Weapons Inspectors play hide and seek, when they were supposed to be shown evidence of WMD destruction), were not following the rigid guidelines of the oil for food program and had shot at US planes patrolling the no-flight zone. All of these actions, under the guidelines and treaties signed at the end of the first Gulf War, were justification for a renewed war.[/color]

[quote name='cloricus']Compared to civil war and all those dying from lack of food which was no so under saddam?[/quote]

[color=green]Forgive me if I?m wrong, but I don?t see any kind of civil war breaking out in Iraq. Instead, I see various religious and ethnic groups backing a single constitution that will help form a new government.

Also, your claim that people are dying from starvation is utterly false. Under Saddam, thousands died from starvation. This was because he was cheating the oil for food program, and as a result the necessary food was not reaching his people. Since the US invaded, massive amounts of food and other necessities from humanitarian organization have flooded the country. These are being distributed by the US military and the Red Cross, neither of which is corrupt.[/color]

[quote name='cloricus']The only reasons I am against this invasion and following occupation is that 1) it was wrong, there were no WMD and the precedents that sets and 2) the unnecessary risk this puts other countries plus my own in, extremist for any religion look for any one different who is standing up to attack and cut down, attack a group of people like that just gives them more reason to attack you. Why disturb the bee's nest when there is a better way to deal with it, which there is. Please note that I am not saying Iraq had anything to do with terrorists but as you can now see the country is full of them in the vacuum of control which makes it even more of a danger than it was under saddam. [/quote]

[color=green]The invasion of Iraq was based on intelligence that now seems to be flawed. However, bear in mind that every member of the UN Security Council corroborated our intelligence. Even France and Germany, which opposed military action, [b]didn?t deny that Iraq had WMD[/b]. Everyone was wrong, and Saddam played the entire world for fools. His illusion backfired, and he got what he deserved.

This sets a precedent for more stringent and accurate intelligence in the future.

Australia hasn?t been directly targeted by Islamic Extremists, but that?s no reason for it?s government to act like France?s and try to stay out of the war on terror. If the entire world doesn?t stand united against terrorism, it?s very likely that terrorists could take on individual nations and wreak horrific havoc all over the world. Just because Al-Qaeda decided to attack the US on 9/11, doesn?t mean that he was declaring war on just the US. Bin Laden, by ordering those terrorist attacks, attacked the entire free world.

We have to fight back, and make sure that these organizations are completely obliterated; along with the conditions that gave rise to their growth. Any nation that doesn?t fight back will be judged by history accordingly. I?d be very interested to see how this whole situation will be remembered forty years from now?[/color]

[quote name='cloricus']Really it's nice to think "wow the world is safer" or "in the future it will be" but the real truth is that there are now disturbing precedents, set by the western world, and a country is going to hell leaving it open to becoming a hotbed for terrorists and a source of revolt against "our way of life" as countries based on a Jewish religion.[/quote]

[color=green]I?d take an Iraq that?s forming a stable government with a little chaos over a ?stable? Iraq ruled by an evil and unpredictable dictator any day.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']You?re telling me that you?d rather see an entire nation living in fear, under constant threat of being killed, raped or tortured, than experiencing freedom?[/color][/quote]Show me this 'freedom' you speak of in Afghanistan or Iraq, even anything that shows that the people of these countries aren't living less securely than they did before their respective leaders were removed. (Just a foot note, you wont be able to.)

Hell do you think I'm in human? The only reason I am against these wars is because this chain of events is in fact making the problem worse than it originally was, imo, if it could be done in a way where it works out for every one except for the bad guys I'd be fully behind it, or if it worked out for [i]most[/i] I'd still be behind it but the current situation is neither of the above no matter how much you gloss it up.

It's just a big mess, so I will continue to argue against it.

[quote]Your argument scares me, Cloricus. How anyone could think like that?[/quote]And your argument makes me wonder how much you really think through situations and their long term effects. Lets take a history lesson.

Bush: Saddam has WMD
*Western country's fall in line*
America invades
Country collapses in power vacuum
No WMD found and world realises they were taken for a ride
Bush: The country is better off without saddam
Presenters on tv shows take snipes at how stupid people are for falling for the argument and thinking their government is great for lying to them, twice

Sounds great ha? Evil man is gone, all is right with the world. To bad it side steps the precedence that it sets. Namely that America invaded another country on false pretences, lied, and removed a government that it did not like. Sure you can sugar it up with morals but that's what it boils down too. And how can you, for example, in the future as a supporter of this war say to North Korea that they are wrong to want to take over the South; as it's exactly what you did?

[quote]Where have you been for the last 10 years? Iraq, despite not having WMD, had violated numerous UN resolutions that were justification for war. They?d not produced weapons of Mass Destruction (Saddam made Weapons Inspectors play hide and seek, when they were supposed to be shown evidence of WMD destruction), were not following the rigid guidelines of the oil for food program and had shot at US planes patrolling the no-flight zone. All of these actions, under the guidelines and treaties signed at the end of the first Gulf War, were justification for a renewed war.[/quote]Funny you should say that as I'm going to ask you to list some or all of these 'violations' as Bush never put them before the UN as context to go to war with their linking to the text saying they are wrong.
Hide and seek? Also something I find funny as Iraq let inspectors in in the first place. America has been denying access to search for a very long time now even when challenged by other high profile UN countries. Or is it okay since it's your government that's doing it, they'd never lie, would they, right? RIGHT???
Pop shots at planes in a no fly zone. Pah, your country is oppressed by two powers, saddams ruling party which you can do nothing against as it's iron fits is to powerful and a second power, America, stopping you having a chance of a country that is even slightly good in it's war against one man who it can't even pick off after several attempts but is an easy target on the ground. Who would you lash out at?

[quote]Forgive me if I?m wrong, but I don?t see any kind of civil war breaking out in Iraq. Instead, I see various religious and ethnic groups backing a single constitution that will help form a new government.[/quote]Ha, well then, you are not seeing the same interviews with clerical leaders in Iraq that I am. Or are ignoring the ones that don't want to 'play nice' which would be a stupid mistake since they make up a large part of the country. Other than that Iraq does have a high chance of falling into war, but that chance has always been there it's only got new wood on the fire. I guess that is a wait and see thing.

[quote]Also, your claim that people are dying from starvation is utterly false. Under Saddam, thousands died from starvation. This was because he was cheating the oil for food program, and as a result the necessary food was not reaching his people. Since the US invaded, massive amounts of food and other necessities from humanitarian organisation have flooded the country. These are being distributed by the US military and the Red Cross, neither of which is corrupt.[/quote]Oh sorry, I'll just ignore the large system of rations that was in place under saddam and all the video footage I've seen (on the news) of the bad methods of distribution by the American food programs. All good now. :)

[quote]The invasion of Iraq was based on intelligence that now seems to be flawed. However, bear in mind that every member of the UN Security Council corroborated our intelligence. Even France and Germany, which opposed military action, [b]didn?t deny that Iraq had WMD[/b]. Everyone was wrong, and Saddam played the entire world for fools. His illusion backfired, and he got what he deserved.[/quote]I was not wrong, read my posts from before this and please take back that statement. Also the 64% of Australians that did not support the war were right, and all the people in Spain (I believe close to 80%) did not believe and/or support it. The evidence always looked flawed, and I'm sure even you can see that by looking back on it. But please don't be so ignorant to believe that every one supported it just because most in your country did and you do. At no point where the large numbers of people not supporting it fools, which only leaves the ones that did believe in it and still do to be the 'fools' as you put it.

[quote]This sets a precedent for more stringent and accurate intelligence in the future.[/quote]Really? How so?

[quote]Australia hasn?t been directly targeted by Islamic Extremists, but that?s no reason for it?s government to act like France?s and try to stay out of the war on terror. If the entire world doesn?t stand united against terrorism, it?s very likely that terrorists could take on individual nations and wreak horrific havoc all over the world. Just because Al-Qaeda decided to attack the US on 9/11, doesn?t mean that he was declaring war on just the US. Bin Laden, by ordering those terrorist attacks, attacked the entire free world.[/quote]A flawed statement.

Yes Australia has been indirectly targeted, our embassy's have been targeted, a night club full of Australians was blown up and we have been named several times as a target for the governments support of the war.
Stand united against who? Iraq was not a terrorist state, Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with it and Saddam would never have accepted anything like it, plus Iraq did nothing wrong against America. (Or did you forget they don't have any weapons to do it with. :))
I think you've been watching to much cnn, and as a great spoof show in Australia points out.
CNNNN: We report, you believe.
Bin Laden never ordered any attacks, they were independent of his control, it probably would have come as a shock to him. A German Muslim extremist cell did the attack, at least according to a CNN documentary. :P

As I said in my last post; is it a smart idea to attack a bees nest when there are better alternatives?

[quote]We have to fight back, and make sure that these organisations are completely obliterated; along with the conditions that gave rise to their growth. Any nation that doesn?t fight back will be judged by history accordingly. I?d be very interested to see how this whole situation will be remembered forty years from now?[/quote]Fight back against what, Iraq was a pre-emptive attack, unless you forgot. America pre-emptively attacked a country over some thing it couldn't possibly do, (attack with WMD) or doesn't that plain as day fact register with you?

Killing terrorism would be like killing the internet, it's not going to happen by a direct attack. It's just not going to.

[quote]I?d take an Iraq that?s forming a stable government with a little chaos over a ?stable? Iraq ruled by an evil and unpredictable dictator any day.[/quote]When that happens I will side with you on the use of this invasion of Iraq, but at the moment I don't see it. All I do see is another reason for terrorists to be more pissed off at the western world, including my country, which is at more risk than it was.

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists so it was a stupid risk, and one I wasn't and sill am just not prepared to take as there are better approaches that have less chance of destroying my way of life or that of my countries'.

I'm sorry to be abrupt in this post but my opinion on this is very straight forward, this was a stupid move that put every thing that I like in more danger and has been handled even worse afterwards.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote][i]posted by [b]Cloricus[/b][/i]

Show me this 'freedom' you speak of in Afghanistan or Iraq, even anything that shows that the people of these countries aren't living less securely than they did before their respective leaders were removed. (Just a foot note, you wont be able to.) [/quote]

[color=indigo]I can give you a clear example new found freedom in Iraq. On friday hundreds of Iraqi citizens took to the streets to protest America's continued occupation. I will consent that hundreds of Iraqi people want America to leave Iraq. I am sure many Iraqi's don't wan the US there. The Iraqi people were allowed to protest though, and protest freely. During Hussien's regiment there were only three public protests, three. Was this because he was a hugable, lovable leader? No. It is becasue Saddam killed hundreds upon hundred of protesters by having his gaurd fire machine guns into crowds of people.

The protest against America was hundreds of Iraqi's not thousands. They were arguing that the economy of Iraq is in the hole and that there is no uniform government yet. I think these hundreds of people are being unreasonable. We bombed the crap out of their country, we were in a full scale war for nearly six months, it takes time to help rebuild a country. Look at Japan. The Japanese staged several protests at immediatly after the war because living conditions were horrible. But the government was rebuilt and the country was vastly improved because the will of its people were strong and resilient. The same will happen in Iraq. [/color]

[quote][i]posted by [b]Cloricus[/b][/i]

Sure you can sugar it up with morals but that's what it boils down too. And how can you, for example, in the future as a supporter of this war say to North Korea that they are wrong to want to take over the South; as it's exactly what you did?[/quote]

[color=indigo]Very easily, because morals are justifiable. Yes, if Bush was intentionally lying about weapon's of mass destruction I would have a real problem with him. But what did he have to gain from lying about that? The United Nations and America had more than enough justifiable cause to invade Iraq. They have since Operation Desert Storm ended. Iraq violated no flight zones multiple times, they refused to grant UN weapons inspectors instant access to certain areas, possibly diverting attention away from an area while moving arms. Saddam's regime was also stockpiling relief supplies that the Red Cross had been sending to Iraq for distribution amongst the needy. With Bush's pull for war so soon after 9/11 congress would have supported the action whether or not he announced that he suspected their were weapons of mass destruction. [/color]

[quote][i]posted by [b]Cloricus[/b][/i]

Hide and seek? Also something I find funny as Iraq let inspectors in in the first place. America has been denying access to search for a very long time now even when challenged by other high profile UN countries. Or is it okay since it's your government that's doing it, they'd never lie, would they, right? RIGHT???[/quote]

[color=indigo]Are you stating that America doesn't allow UN inspectors to view their nuclear weapon silos? Well you are wrong. The US has always worked in conjunction with the UN when it comes to nuclear technology. We have discontinued research on several nuclear programs at the request of United Nations inspectors and we even closed down a biological research center three years ago during one of the Palestinian/Israeli peace talks as a measure of good faith to the Palestinian government. [/color]

[quote][i]posted by [b]Cloricus[/b][/i]

Ha, well then, you are not seeing the same interviews with clerical leaders in Iraq that I am. Or are ignoring the ones that don't want to 'play nice' which would be a stupid mistake since they make up a large part of the country. Other than that Iraq does have a high chance of falling into war, but that chance has always been there it's only got new wood on the fire. I guess that is a wait and see thing.[/quote]

[color=indigo]This is what reeally pisses me off about some people. Because you see an interview with some religious zealots saying that Iraq has gone to hell in a hand bag you immediatly believe that they speak for the common people of Iraq. My cousin recently came home from Iraq, after his four year stint with the Marines ended. He was there, he lived in Iraq for over two years. He was in Sulaimany when Saddam's regime was usurped. The people of Iraq showed overwhelming support for him and his troops. Citizens were trying to invite them to dinner and they were running up to his unit shaking their hands and huggung them. Those are the actions of a country that wanted to be free. [/color]

[quote][i]posted by [b]Cloricus[/b][/i]

Oh sorry, I'll just ignore the large system of rations that was in place under saddam and all the video footage I've seen (on the news) of the bad methods of distribution by the American food programs. All good now. [/quote]

[color=indigo]The Red Cross is always taking voulenteers. If you have a better, more efficient way to distribute resources to a country then by all means, sign up. The Red Cross is a humanitarian relief group whose only affiliation with the United States army is that the American armed forces donates their free time to aide them. [/color]

[quote][i]posted by [b]Cloricus[/b][/i]

I was not wrong, read my posts from before this and please take back that statement. Also the 64% of Australians that did not support the war were right[/quote]

[color=indigo]If 64% of Australians did not support the war then why they allow your country to remain continually involved in it? If that many people feel that strongly that something there country is involved in is wrong you would think that they would do something about it besides whining about it on internet sites. [/color]

[quote][i]posted by [b]Cloricus[/b][/i]

I think you've been watching to much cnn, and as a great spoof show in Australia points out.
CNNNN: We report, you believe.[/quote]

[color=indigo]You are always bashing the news orginizations that you don't like, and don't agree with. It is a habit for you. Guess what? The news you may be viewing could be more flawed then the news Boba is getting. You have no way of knowing because there is no way of knowing. For the most part American news networks are very anti-war. They have been since Vietnam, it is like Brokaw pointed out in his book, the powerful people in all forms of media have an agenda.

Personally, I don't need the news to tell me whether we are doing right or wrong in Iraq. I have a family member who was there. I know my cousin, if he didn't feel that our conflict in Iraq was appropriate he would have said so. Afterall he was the one who drove a tank through the streets of Sulaimany during the early part of the occupation. He was the one knee deep in sand doing border reconisasance. He was the one that lost friends fighting in a war hundreds of miles from home. Yeah, if he didn't think that what he was doing was just he would have said so... [/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Whether Saddam should've have been taken down or not shouldn't be a question. Besides what everyone has already mentioned in defense of the U.S. decision to invade, Saddam was also a huge threat to Israel, and constantly threatened war in the region.

As far as the "intelligence being wrong," that is hard to say. I'd say it was a FACT that Iraq had, at the very least, BC weapons. They had been trying to create weapons-grade uranium for a few decades, and whether they succeeded or not is a good question, but believe me, if I (SCIROS) want to hide a nuclear bomb and pretend that my nuclear power plant was "for research" I CAN. It's not out of the question that Iraq did. Certainly it had a reactor or two built "for research," but in a country with the second largest oil supply in the world (I may be wrong on the numbers, but I'm probably close), nuclear power really isn't a necessity, especially considering how much it costs to build a plant.

As for hiding biological weapons, that is a freaking joke. I can have a vial of smallpox in my basement and you'd never know it. And if you sent an army into my city you still wouldn't find it. Possession of chemical and biological weapons is a lot easier than you might think. Heck, Saddam did gas a village back in the day. Did he just borrow some from a buddy? Anyway, all the logic in the world points at possession, but all the intelligence in the world won't necessarily uncover the goods. Does that mean that the U.N. was wrong? No, it doesn't. Why they had to concede that they were is beyond me. In any case, they did, but deciding that the U.S. was therefore too agressive and stupid and that Saddam was in reality a good guy is, well, dumb. Really freaking dumb.