Heavy terr act in Madrid

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I never said justified, I said 'had it coming'.

Perhaps you could illuminate the meaningful difference rather than relying on others to do it for you.

[Fake Boris]

'They had it coming' is a mere statement of causality. It does not imply per se any moral value- the fallacy comes from the common man's language, who will tend to use the expression with a moral taint.

For example, we might say of a little 11-years old girl with very sexy clothes (perhaps too sexy for her age) walking alone at 1 AM in the street of a poor ghetto that she has a rape coming. That doesn't make raping her morally acceptable.

[Ming]

Man... it seems like a chill command is need here as well.

paiktis22... you were warned about calling people Nazi's...
Winston... don't egg him on...
Both of you... the next time either of you go at each other, whoever started it will be toast... and it will be based on my opinion... and if I think both of you are at fault, you both will get it.

Everybody else... stay on topic and CHILL.

Ignore this warning at your own risk, because there will be no more warnings.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
'They had it coming' is a mere statement of causality. It does not imply per se any moral value- the fallacy comes from the common man's language, who will tend to use the expression with a moral taint.

For example, we might say of a little 11-years old girl with very sexy clothes (perhaps too sexy for her age) walking alone at 1 AM in the street of a poor ghetto that she has a rape coming. That doesn't make raping her morally acceptable.

If that's all pure causality why do we debate about certain actions at all? See, Japan had it coming (the bomb) when it declared war on the US. Or those who resisted Hitler had it coming (to be thrown into concentration camps) as well....or....or....etc. So why should we care about it?

Yes, there may be guys who say that about the girl you mentioned, but it is still a stupid statement. It implies that she is responsible for the rape, at least partially.

[Timexwatch]

Comments from an American in Barcelona:

The politics of ETA depends on what you read. They may have been leftist at one time, but nowadays, at least from the academic analysis that I´ve been reading, they´ve skewed more towards a rightist slant with ethnic undertones to their claims.

Spanish nationalism, since the La Pepa constitution, has been liberal, but Catalan nationalism and, IIRC, Basque nationalism has been conservative.

Nowadays Catalan nationalism is more leftist (ERC) than anything. I´m not aware of any rightist Catalan Nationalists. The PNV in Pais Vasco is conservative, IIRC.

As for ETA´s support, it´s far weaker than it´s heydey in the 70s and 80s. The number of Herri Batasuana seats in the Cortes reached a high of 8 (in the mid-80s and over 60% of the Pais Vasco and Navarre seats) but has dropped to nothing. Right now, at least from unbiased interpretations of Euskal Barometer, 20% of Pais Vasco residents are hardcore ETA/Independence supporters. There is a vocal minority that terrorizes the majority, including the Castillian speaking people who live there. There is daily low intensity violence from polarized youth that stalls any political resolution.

I´d love to post more, but my Internet cafe time is up...

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by BeBro

Yes, there may be guys who say that about the girl you mentioned, but it is still a stupid statement. It implies that she is responsible for the rape, at least partially.

Whilst I agree that the comment is wrong, and the defence of it lame I would point out that a girl walking in sexy clothing through a dodgy part of town at 1am in the morning is, by her actions, increasing her risk of being raped. That does not translate to blame or responsibilty, but it does at least translate to stupidity or ignorance.

[Ned]

What is the Muslim population of Spain?

[Ned]

I assume that one of the reasons that we have had no attacks here in the US is the Patriot Act. We are probably monitoring all extremist elements making it very difficult for al Qaeda to operate.

Are there any legal restrictions in Europe that would prevent authorities from monitoring extremists on a constant basis?

[dannubis]

if only one would know who the extremists were ....

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by 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.

[Ned]

Originally posted by dannubis
if only one would know who the extremists were ....

I was thinking of the Muslim clerics who preach hate as being the people of most concern.

[OliverFA]

Re: re:...

Originally posted by M'sieur Baise
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.

That will give you an idea about the moral quality of those terrorists.

Remember that Al-Quaeda is able to recruit people willing to die for their cause.

Is good that you remind this. Because the bombs have been left in bags and not carried by kamikaze terrorists. So, we are able to believe that Al-Qaeda changes its way of acting and not ETA? How convenient!

Even with a tight security, anything can happen.

Which explains why the solution it´s to destroy the centers of terror themselves.

OK, Oliver. I didn't answer the question.

Right. You didn´t ask my question. I´m still waiting for an answer.
I accept that Bush´s strategy has its flaws, like every strategy in the world. But your post explains exactly why it´s better to chase down terrorists. For me it´s the best possible way of acting. I don´t know if he will solve the problem, but at least is trying to.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Sava
I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but I suspect it is Alfred Qaeda. 3/11, 9/11, 911 days separating (except for dumbasses forgot about leap year).

Of course. What is more important? A number, which results to be wrong, or all the clues that point to ETA?

If the police finds a Bible will we say that they were Cristian terrorists?

Was not that the group who has claimed the terrorist attack the same who said that was guilty of New York power fall?

What about the threee previous trains that ETA tried to boicot before?

What about the papers pointing to RENFE (the Spanish train company) that appeared in Bilbao the day before the attack?

And about this thing of the 911 days... Can you believe that a group pays so much attention to the calendar, counting the days and then they mistake one day at the end? Did you know that 3+11=13? I wonder if Jason has something to do with this... Or maybe the guilty channel 5, because 3+1+1=5.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Sava
yeah... I feel sorry for the Basque people. They want to be autanomous,

Sure, like Catalan people also want to be autonomous.

Please, don´t mistake the voice of the independentist parties as the voice of the Basque people. Next you will be saying that Chechenian people want to be autonomous from Russia...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by BeBro


If that's all pure causality why do we debate about certain actions at all? See, Japan had it coming (the bomb) when it declared war on the US. Or those who resisted Hitler had it coming (to be thrown into concentration camps) as well....or....or....etc. So why should we care about it?

Yes, there may be guys who say that about the girl you mentioned, but it is still a stupid statement. It implies that she is responsible for the rape, at least partially.

Free will, or at least acting with the illusion of free will, requires that you are responsible for everything you do, if you can know the consequences in advance (i.e., putting yourself at a risk).

Again, responsibility in a causality relation is not necessarily moral- though more often than not it's impossible to say that of two people involved in a row, one is blameless and the other is fine.

Say you create a morality scale, that goes from -100 (utterly despicable) to 100 (angelic). 0 is neutral.

Now, say that X and Y start a brawl in a bar. X is at -50, and so is Y. Does that mean that both can substract the other's morality rating to theirs, so that they are in fact at 0? Nope. They are both a -50.

Now, say the terrorists are at -100, and the innocent people at -2. Am I implying that in fact the terrorists should be considered at -98? Not at all.