Heavy terr act in Madrid

[Lawrence of Arabia]

yea, i figured it wasnt ETA. didnt fit the way they operate.

[JCG]

It was too early to blame only ETA before, and it's still too early to blame only the arab extremists now. Little has changed.

[JCG]

Originally posted by OliverFA

Please, don´t manipulate public opinion. It´s ok to say what everyone things, but not to put words in other people´s mouth.

Blame TV, newspapers, the internet and the polls, not me.

And lest you forget, you don't have a crystall ball either, do you?

Still, I won't pursue the subject farther.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Jamski
Why were the Spanish so quick to jump to the wrong conclusion (ETA) ? The German news reported it as a possible Al-Q action right from the start.

These poor ETA guys nearly got the blame right before the elections.

Very nice way of talking about assassins. "Those poor guys".

Maybe tomorrow we are saying "Why was Jamski too quick to jump over the Spanish governemnt?".

Everyone in Spain (even the people who know say it was Al-Qaeda) thought it was ETA. It was (and still is) the logical conclussion. They have been trying to do it for many months and the city of Madrid represents everything ETA hates.

The government itself has recognized that there are some clues that could point to Al-Qaeda. So they are not as immobilistic and some people want to picture them. Also, the government says (and it´s the logical thing) that the primary suspect is still ETA.

[M'sieur Baise]

...

Well, I just lost 30 minutes looking at people going " I'm so sad of what happened. God bless Spain, etc."

Ok. I agree the whole thing is still unclear. Actually, there are still some clues that Al-Quaeda MAY have been at the origin of the carnage. But if it is the case, we're in trouble. A bombing in a crowded subway station in Tokyo or London will do a lot worse than in Madrid.

Let's suppose it's Al-Quaeda. I guess most of you guys will still agree with Bush's post-9/11 policy, and probably with even more conviction.

Please. "Explain" this to me.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by JCG


Blame TV, newspapers, the internet and the polls, not me.

And lest you forget, you don't have a crystall ball either, do you?

I´m tired to hear what "catalan people" think. I am starting to wonder if I am Catalan, because I never agree with what "catalan people" think.

I´m tired to hear at polls that everybody dislikes PP and then they always win.

Consequently, polls don´t have much value for me. In both senses. I didn´t say that people were in favour. I just say that it cannot be said that they were against. You can say that people who was in the street was against the war. But what about people at home? It´s very dangerous to substitute real democracy (what people votes at elections) by polls and interpretations of public opinion made by "experts".

[OliverFA]

Re: ...

Originally posted by M'sieur Baise
Let's suppose it's Al-Quaeda. I guess most of you guys will still agree with Bush's post-9/11 policy, and probably with even more conviction.

Please. "Explain" this to me.

I will explain it with a question: In which way a policy oposed to that of Mr. Bush will help preventing this kind of attacks?

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: ...

Originally posted by OliverFA
I will explain it with a question: In which way a policy oposed to that of Mr. Bush will help preventing this kind of attacks?

Bush failed to pursue his own policy wrt Afghanistan to its proper limits. Instead, he engaged in a reckless war in Iraq that had nothing to do with Al Queda or terrorism that diverted our forces and attention away from the real problem.

If Al-Queda is behind this, then I have to ask how they would have gotten away with such a well-coordinated attack if our intelligence and special forces resources weren't improperly engaged elsewhere.

[PLATO]

Re: Re: Re: ...

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Bush failed to pursue his own policy wrt Afghanistan to its proper limits. Instead, he engaged in a reckless war in Iraq that had nothing to do with Al Queda or terrorism that diverted our forces and attention away from the real problem.

If Al-Queda is behind this, then I have to ask how they would have gotten away with such a well-coordinated attack if our intelligence and special forces resources weren't improperly engaged elsewhere.

Boris, AQ is the symptom. Oppressive governments and traditions of violence is what causes radical fundamentalism. The face of the ME had to change or AQ could never be defeated. You really are smart enough to see that...eventually.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: Re: ...

Originally posted by PLATO
Boris, AQ is the symptom. Opressive governments and traditions of violence is what causes radical fundamentalism. The face of the ME had to change or AQ could never be defeated. You really are smart enough to see that...eventually.

Too bad Iraq II had nothing to do with eliminating an oppressive government. If it did, I'd hardly think we'd be using Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as our staunch allies, now would we?

[PLATO]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Too bad Iraq II had nothing to do with eliminating an oppressive government. If it did, I'd hardly think we'd be using Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as our staunch allies, now would we?

Good point. But its a start and it was the easiest one to do. Let's both hope Bush isn't quite the idiot you believe him to be and that freedom gains a foothold in the ME.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...

Originally posted by PLATO
But its a start and it was the easiest one to do.

Because it was defenseless.

[PLATO]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Because it was defenseless.

I walked right into that one, didn't I?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

there are 912 days between 9/11/01 and 3/11/04. i guess they didnt realize that the infidel calender had a leap year.

[M'sieur Baise]

re:...

I will explain it with a question: In which way a policy oposed to that of Mr. Bush will help preventing this kind of attacks?

How original.

I thought I asked a question, but hey. I'm not going to get in the little game and throw back another question.

You guys mentionned earlier how you were surprised of the attack taking place in a train. Originally, the bombs were set to explode when the train was in the station . But because the train had a few minutes delay, it exploded at a reasonable distance from the station. Now imagine the number of deaths if the bombs had exploded 2 minutes later.

Remember that Al-Quaeda is able to recruit people willing to die for their cause. Even with a tight security, anything can happen. Will it be in a subway station or in new year's eve, when hundreds of thousands new yorkers are gathered to celebrate, there will always be chances that a terrorist act may happen, despite all the airport security, surveillance cameras and snipers.

Let's be realistic. Even by increasing military spending each year, to the point of assraping its own economy, the U.S. cannot toss every terrorist in Guantanamo. The 9/11 attacks cost a grand total of 500,000$ for Al-Quaeda. That, and few men. With a little money, a good plan, and a few damaged braincells, it's that easy to bring a country to its knees.

OK, Oliver. I didn't answer the question. But that was the point, no?