Way to go Spain - aka The results of giving in to terrorist demands

[OliverFA]

Re: Re: Way to go Spain - aka The results of giving in to terrorist demands

Originally posted by NeOmega
Terrorism is a form of self-defense.

Sure. Attacking the civil population is a form of self defence. Specially in the French case. Which French "attack" are the terrorists defending against?

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
1441 threatened with consequences, but did not legitimate the United States (with cronies or without) to march in unilaterally. It does not make the nation in question free for aggressive acts at will. If China had marched in and had left the United States out, would that have been ok too?

Let´s assume for a moment that you are right. I completely disagree with your statement, but let´s say that I agree. In that case, why do one side need a legitimation to attack and the other can do anything it wants without any need of legitimation?

[NeOmega]

Re: Re: Re: Way to go Spain - aka The results of giving in to terrorist demands

Originally posted by OliverFA




Sure. Attacking the civil population is a form of self defence. Specially in the French case. Which French "attack" are the terrorists defending against?

There are no rules of war.

The Iraqis who thought otherwise by now are just bloodcakes and burnt bits stranded in the desert.

The current rules make Western Domination a given. Western rules are just as sick and depraved as any terrorist rules. This whole war, and the first one, were nothing more than one group of people slaughtering another group.

Does it really matter to any civilian, whether their killer followed the rules or not? I think not.

Those who make the rules, do so, to ensure victory.

I have a good rule, you aren't allowed to drop 500 lb bombs on houses unless you are sure Saddam Hussein is inside..... or else you will just be needlessly killing civilians.

So the jihadists have picked a different set of rules to play by. Is it really a surprise to anyone that there is a resistance in Iraq? If so, is it because you actually expected them to play by Western rules?

If I were a resistor in Iraq, and I happened to stumble upon a white man.... he'd be dead. Better him than me.

1) I release him, and the CIA will talk to him. And I become a member of Abu Gharib.

2) The CIA doesn't play by any rules...especially if caught. So a CIA agent could be like, "Je suis une reporter a France". Oh, better let him go. Any foreigner in Iraq, not helping the jihad, would be there for other reasons.... and I would not particularly care why.

3) Especially white guys. Chances are, you catch a white guy, he is more symapthetic to the American cause than the Iraqi cause.

The jihadists cannot achieve any kind of resistance, much less victory, by attempting pitched batttles against American gunships and Abrams. It would be suicide.

As I said before, I know very little about the Chechen situation, so I am not going to pass judgement. But I have seen enough of the Middle East situation, and Iraq in particular, to say, this is war, and the rules were gone the minute Americans began to mercilessly drop bombs.

I posted this at the otehr site, it applies here as well.

[Spiffor]

UPDATE.

Today was an important day for the headscarf ban. It was the first day of it being enforced, as 12 millions of students took class.

On those students, 240 came at school with a headscarf, and only 70 refused to remove it. The long-planned demonstration against the headscarf ban apparently didn't take place.

Thanks to the terrorists, all the valid opposition to this idiotic ban has been silenced at this juncture, as the Muslims make a point of standing together with the rest of the French society

[DinoDoc]

Terrorists have that way of suppressing freedom.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by optimus2861

You missed the part in the middle where the Spanish government lied about who was responsible for the attack. Why is it that everyone who parrots out this "Spanish gave in to the terrorists!" line never takes this into account? Do you really think a government that so brazenly lies to its people over something as serious as a terrorist attack deserves to be reelected?

The disclassified information from the Spanish "intelligence" services (let´s be good with them and call them intelligence services) has demonstrated that the government said what the police was telling them at that moment.

But what is much more amazing is what the journalists investigations have shown. People inside the police lied on purpose. The same people that had been promoted under the new government...

[NeOmega]

More than likely ETA sympathizers were to blame, in league with "al Queada" (whatever that is)

Fighting Al Queada is like fighting a phantom.... it exists, but it doesn't. And many times when it seems like it opened a door, it was just the wind.

However, it CANNOT BE FORGOTTEN, regardless of what state media said, or tired to make the discussion of the election, that THE SPANISH PEOPLE OPPOSED THE SENDING OF THEIR TROOPS TO IRAQ.

I am sure, just like in America, the media tried to put the attention on the economy etc... the train bombings put the attention back to THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN SPANISH FOREIGN POLICY.

So the train attacks were a wake up call. A shame that it was required, but the attention span of the populace of any country these days is a shame.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks to the terrorists, all the valid opposition to this idiotic ban has been silenced at this juncture, as the Muslims make a point of standing together with the rest of the French society

And once again, the radicals alienate the moderates on their own side, forcing them to distance themselves.

I think it sad that the so-called french culture has no room for religion or headscarves, that the once celebrated cathedrals are merely tombs for kings.

[OliverFA]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Way to go Spain - aka The results of giving in to terrorist demands

Originally posted by NeOmega
There are no rules of war.

However, people in favour terrorists continue insisting that western civilization must follow them.

Don´t get me wrong. I don´t think that western civilization has to act in the same way. We need to respect the principles that at the core of our civilzation and that makes us different from them. But there is a very big different between being a fair player and accepting to play with your both hands tied to the your back...

Originally posted by NeOmega
The current rules make Western Domination a given. Western rules are just as sick and depraved as any terrorist rules.

I refuse to continue talking with someone that says that the rules that guarantee the freedom of the individuals, their security, and their rights, can be compared to any terrorist rule. There is no point talking with someone that believes that. If you vision of the world is so distortionated there is nothing I can say that will convince you. That´s the last message that I answer from you.

This whole war, and the first one, were nothing more than one group of people slaughtering another group.

When Western civilization does it (which is not truth but lets suppose it is) it is called slaughtering. When terrorists do it it is called self defence. I call it doble moral.

Those who make the rules, do so, to ensure victory.

I will tell you some news. There are some people (not so many as we would like but many more than it seems) which really worry about their citizens, and do to rules not to take profit from them, but to guaranteee they have a better life.

So the jihadists have picked a different set of rules to play by.

However they insist that they people they are attacking must follow a different, much more restrictive, set of rules.

As I said before, I know very little about the Chechen situation

You don´t need to know anything about that situation to understand that destroying tupolevs, placing bombs in the Moscow underground and helding children hostages make them lose any arguments they could have to justify their position.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I think it sad that the so-called french culture has no room for religion or headscarves, that the once celebrated cathedrals are merely tombs for kings.

They are also excellent tourist traps and add to the scenery. We love them

[NeOmega]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way to go Spain - aka The results of giving in to terrorist deman

[QUOTE] Originally posted by OliverFA

I refuse to continue talking with someone that says that the rules that guarantee the freedom of the individuals, their security, and their rights, can be compared to any terrorist rule. There is no point talking with someone that believes that. If you vision of the world is so distortionated there is nothing I can say that will convince you. That´s the last message that I answer from you.

Did I say anything about freedom etc? I am talking about the "rules of war". Man that strawman got a pounding, but I am over here.

When Western civilization does it (which is not truth but lets suppose it is) it is called slaughtering. When terrorists do it it is called self defence. I call it doble moral.

If it is an aggressive war a la Iraq, it is a slaughter. If it is people fighting an aggressive war, it is self-defense.

I will tell you some news. There are some people (not so many as we would like but many more than it seems) which really worry about their citizens, and do to rules not to take profit from them, but to guaranteee they have a better life.

The United States cares about it's citizens indeed... However, from what I've seen, teh US constituion does not apply in Iraq.... not one bit. Care to even waste your time trying to prove otherwise?

However they insist that they people they are attacking must follow a different, much more restrictive, set of rules.

That is because America brought the war to Iraq. This is not a difficult concept. And I will not anbide by it, nor will I accept any murder of any one in that country, from Saddam down to the smallest child, and any soldier in betweem as justifiable. The war was immoral, therfore, every person killed because of it is blood on American hands.

You don´t need to know anything about that situation to understand that destroying tupolevs, placing bombs in the Moscow underground and helding children hostages make them lose any arguments they could have to justify their position.

I need to know about a situation before I pass judgement. Otherwise I would be a fool. Perhaps they are striking back against the remanants of a soviet police state. Perhaps they are just being ruthless zealots, and only want money and power. I don't know, but I will neither condemn, nor praise them. As far as I understand it, it is an old conflict, and in that sense, the only judgemnt I would pass is this.

I am an American, and I don't see any reason to involve America in this particular situation.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by OliverFA


The disclassified information from the Spanish "intelligence" services (let´s be good with them and call them intelligence services) has demonstrated that the government said what the police was telling them at that moment.

But what is much more amazing is what the journalists investigations have shown. People inside the police lied on purpose. The same people that had been promoted under the new government...

lol... what lows are you ready to go to defend your useless position? For instance it's a known fact that 2 hours after the attack Spanish ambassadors were ordered to claim the attack had been conducted by the Basques. What newspapers do you read?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Have you had the opportunity to read the resolutions. IIRC they did not expressly state they superceded previous ones (this might be a quirk tho' of UN by laws). Nor did their penalty provisions ever expressly rule out previous resolutions.

That then leaves the 12 year period of status quo which in essence was not status quo in light of continued rebukes in the form of ongoing resolutions.

Yeah, but we have the four-year delay after the inspectors left Iraq, Clinton fired missiles and threatened worse if Saddam did not allow the inspectors back in. One could argue that the world acquiesced in the status quo so that a new threat to peace would have to emerge to justify a renewal of the Gulf War.

Regardless, I still believe 1441 did provide for consequence if Saddam did not comply.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Regardless, I still believe 1441 did provide for consequence if Saddam did not comply.

Indeed. They provided "serious consequences", which were not specified. Nowhere it is mentioned that a specific coalition would be empowered to invade Iraq in case of non-compliance.

The precise nature of the "serious consequences", and its enforcers, weren't described in 1441. This is why a second resolution was needed in order to legally start the invasion.

[:) Smiley]

Today was an important day for the headscarf ban. It was the first day of it being enforced, as 12 millions of students took class.

On those students, 240 came at school with a headscarf, and only 70 refused to remove it. The long-planned demonstration against the headscarf ban apparently didn't take place.

Thanks to the terrorists, all the valid opposition to this idiotic ban has been silenced at this juncture, as the Muslims make a point of standing together with the rest of the French society

Let's hope they'll release the hostage now.