Heavy terr act in Madrid

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by OliverFA
Democracy is about making possible that the girl can walk in sexy clothing at 1 am. Maybe she is dressed in ugly clothes. Maybe she does not have any taste about how to dress properly, but she is not hurting or damaging anyone, so she must be free to do it.

Just ask yourself if you would act like that. Woud you dare to go through an extremely dangerous quarter. It probably won't help that you insist on your rights then. You can see it coming, that's it. Did you do anything wrong? No, but you knew of the risk. All the guilt is upon the offender of course, but if you'd do it, I'd accuse you of being stupid and careles or at least stubborn until self-destruction for insisting on rights you ought to have.

[GePap]

Let me just say, as far as the thread is concerned, I disagree with Oncle Boris.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Just ask yourself if you would act like that. Woud you dare to go through an extremely dangerous quarter. It probably won't help that you insist on your rights then. You can see it coming, that's it. Did you do anything wrong? No, but you knew of the risk. All the guilt is upon the offender of course, but if you'd do it, I'd accuse you of being stupid and careles or at least stubborn until self-destruction for insisting on rights you ought to have.

"However we dress, whereever we go, yes means yes and no means no"

waxing nostalgic for the good old days of feminism.

[MRT144]

thats actually a good slogan

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In a democracy, people get the government they deserve. People are repsonsible for the actions of their government either directly, but voting it in, or indirectly, allowing it to do bad things.

I agree with this. At least in the major sense.

If the Spanish peoples really opposed the war, they should have had a general strike to bring down the government.

But I disagree with this. If Spanish people really disagreed with the government they should have retired their support from in the local elections of past year. But they (we) didn´t. Which shows that all those demonstrations were manipulated by someone who wanted to achieve in the streets what they could not do in elections. Like they are trying to manipulate it and blame the government for the 200 dead people. The only responsibles were the ones who put the bombs, the ones who ordered them to do that, the ones who planned the attacks and the ones who support them. To say that Aznar is guilty because he has acted against terrorism trying to prevent something like this is disguising the truth.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap
Let me just say, as far as the thread is concerned, I disagree with Oncle Boris.

Why do you feel the urge to 'disagree'? It's quite unusual for you not to join an argument.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
, sig material.

The fact that you consider it sig material (I suppose that in an attempt to ashame me) and that I´m proud that you do it shows how far our views are

No one said it wasn't a right or anything, we are talking about individual will here. Your post does not even remotely make a point.

Of course you are not understanding what I say or you pretend not to understand. It is not about saying if the girl acts properly or not because she risks herself in a daring street. It´s about making all the streets safe.

It is not about saying "those Spanish risked themselves by helping USA and upseting Al-Qaeda". It´s about Spanish trying to help USA getting rid of Al-Qaeda.

The ostrich can hide its head under the ground and pretend that the danger is not there. But that won´t change the truth. We can be egoistic and let the USA fight alone against Al-Qaeda while we look from the "safety". If the USA win, we will allow ourselves the luxury of giving them moral lessons. If USA lose, then it will be too late when Al-Qaeda turns to us.

So, if it was Al-Qaeda, which I highly doubt, nothing would change. I would still support the government in what they did.

Why wouldn't a dictator allow little girls to dress in sexy clothing anyway?

Because dictatoriships are afraid of any kind of freedom.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Just ask yourself if you would act like that. Woud you dare to go through an extremely dangerous quarter. It probably won't help that you insist on your rights then. You can see it coming, that's it. Did you do anything wrong? No, but you knew of the risk. All the guilt is upon the offender of course, but if you'd do it, I'd accuse you of being stupid and careles or at least stubborn until self-destruction for insisting on rights you ought to have.

Please, read what I said (if you don´t fnd the post just look at someones signature )

I said that democracy is about making posible that she can walk safely. You are telling me that she is careless because she goes inside the unsafe street. They are two different things.But let´s call things by its name.

Democracy it´s not about avoiding confrontations with terrorisms just because they blackmail us. People who break the law must be purchased and detained. Al-Qaeda won´t dissapear because we access to their petitions (and by the way, what are they asking for?). It will only dissapear if we make them dissapear, if we make the streets safe again.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by OliverFA

The fact that you consider it sig material (I suppose that in an attempt to ashame me) and that I´m proud that you do it shows how far our views are

I have nothing against safe streets, but the fact that you relate it with democracy shows how far you are to being able of making a coherent point. The streets of Moscow were much safer in the communist era.

Of course you are not understanding what I say or you pretend not to understand. It is not about saying if the girl acts properly or not because she risks herself in a daring street. It´s about making all the streets safe.

It is not about saying "those Spanish risked themselves by helping USA and upseting Al-Qaeda". It´s about Spanish trying to help USA getting rid of Al-Qaeda.
Because dictatoriships are afraid of any kind of freedom.

I would like you to define what is this 'it' which is not about causality, and the possibility that this causality can become a moral choice, depending on the conditions.

The ostrich can hide its head under the ground and pretend that the danger is not there. But that won´t change the truth. We can be egoistic and let the USA fight alone against Al-Qaeda while we look from the "safety". If the USA win, we will allow ourselves the luxury of giving them moral lessons. If USA lose, then it will be too late when Al-Qaeda turns to us.

America has been nurturing terror from the beginning of its existence. Your statement shows how grossly incompetent you are in evaluating a situation and its concomitants.

Because dictatoriships are afraid of any kind of freedom.

Not really- the saying would only apply to political freedom. Democracies like America tend to undermine freedom with religion.

I don't see how shaking your 11-years old ass would terrorize any dictator (at least, those who don't use religion as a basis for order).

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I was wondering, which party is Spain's Interior Minister part of?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by OliverFA


Democracy is about making possible that the girl can walk in sexy clothing at 1 am. Maybe she is dressed in ugly clothes. Maybe she does not have any taste about how to dress properly, but she is not hurting or damaging anyone, so she must be free to do it.

I agree that a democracy, or any rights respecting government, should endeavour to make it safe for a girl to dress how she likes and when she likes provided she is not hurting or damaging anyone.

The reality of the situation is different to the ideal. You are being careless or ignorant or somesuch if you assume that your effective rights are as extensive as your legal rights. You have got to be prepared for the real situation, not the ideal situation.

It will only dissapear if we make them dissapear, if we make the streets safe again.

I agree with that. I would add the caveat that until the democracy has made the streets safe, girls do not go around those dodgy streets in the middle of the night wearing provocative clothing. Its common sense to avoid risk until it can be eliminated.

[Wernazuma III]

"However we dress, whereever we go, yes means yes and no means no"
waxing nostalgic for the good old days of feminism.

And in how far does that relate to my post? Did I anywhere say I'd blame that fictional girl for anything else than deliberately taking a risk? The feminist saying applies to judges or policemen who would give the offender a low penalty or cease investigations "because she could see it coming". The problem is the first part of the argument, not the second one.

I said that democracy is about making posible that she can walk safely. You are telling me that she is careless because she goes inside the unsafe street. They are two different things.But let´s call things by its name.

This actually has nothing to do with democracy. Actually many dictatorships are far more inclined to enforce "security" than democracies. Why? Because security oftenmeans restrictions of freedom which ought to be a core value in democracy. And this, in contrast, means giving that fictional girl the right to go anywhere, at any time etc.
To give absolute security is an utopia and there'll always be special risks in a society.

Democracy it´s not about avoiding confrontations with terrorisms just because they blackmail us. People who break the law must be purchased and detained. Al-Qaeda won´t dissapear because we access to their petitions (and by the way, what are they asking for?). It will only dissapear if we make them dissapear, if we make the streets safe again.

I agree with that. But that still means that we can see it coming that more terrorist attacks will come because of that. I don't argue for complete avoidance.

[Gangerolf]

Another thing that points towards Al Qaida/islamists:

Researchers at the norwegian military's research institute have found a document, in arabic, describing how an attack on Spain before the elections could make Spain change their Iraq policy. It says it's smart to attack Spain because it is "the weakest link in the coalition in Iraq ".

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
I was wondering, which party is Spain's Interior Minister part of?

What? It is a bureaucratic organization.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
Another thing that points towards Al Qaida/islamists:

Researchers at the norwegian military's research institute have found a document, in arabic, describing how an attack on Spain before the elections could make Spain change their Iraq policy. It says it's smart to attack Spain because it is "the weakest link in the coalition in Iraq ".

But then again it could be ETA terrorists trying to change the outcome of the election so the PSOE wins (which is highly unlikely even now). The Partido Popular (PP) has been noted for taken incredibly hard line approaches to terrorism.

I will wait for the investigation first, not pure speculation on some forum.