Discussion in 'Serious' started by SJH, 11 Mar 2004.
I hope they bring those bombers to justice for this awful act
Terrible. What do they, whoever they are, hope to acheive? It's beyond me
What amazes me is that somewhere there are people cheering and celebrating a successful bombing attack. To my mind it is utterly incomprehensible how anyone could be inhuman enough to carry out the attacks and then to celebrate afterwards.
It might be Eta, they want independence for the northern part of the country. Though they have only killed 3 people with their bombings so far and normally telephone a warning before the bombs go off and claim responsibility for bombings.
There are people who say it could be an Al Qaeda mainly because of the scale of it and the fact that Osama specifically named Spain as a target.
Either way its horrible what happened.
the same happens in israel but i dont see anyone commenting on that...
Looks like it could be Al Qaeda's doing. Reported tapes found in Arabic containing lines from the Qur'an 'dedicated to the cause'.
Does seem a bit extreme for Eta & they normally claim responsibility straight away
edit: update from the beeb:
the world is so F***ed up man
Sounds like someone wants people to believe it was al qaeda. Why would anyone leave some islamic tapes and detonators in a place where they could easily be found, unless they wanted them to be found? Well they're either stupid, or it's deliberate. There was also an email where al qaeda confessed to the deed and warned that they're almost done preparing for their upcoming attack on USA (perhaps just in time for the 2004 presidential election). They're still trying to verify the authenticity of the email. So then the question is, is it a frameup, or was it al qaeda. Also, why do they insist that ETA is the prime suspect even though obviously some people want us to believe it was al qaeda. Do they know something we don't know?
The timing is also quite significant. Just just before the election. This will certainly affect who people vote for to some extent. There's a lot of questions to be answered.
Whoever did it must have had some pretty powerful motives to commit such an act. That combined with a certain degree of insanity.
There is also the date, the 11 March, exactly 2.5 years or 911 days from 9/11. Some coincidence. I wouldn't be surprised 9/11 was deliberately chosen for a campaign with more than one attack, ie not just the twin towers.
I think it's really callous to plan attacks on people just trying to get to work - surely blowing up a casino or something would be a better anti-west target? But I guess their objective is terror, and blowing up people just trying to get on with their lives is going to be most effective.
I hate the world sometimes...
Are you sure about the "only killed 3 people" bit, where did you get that information? It's just that my g/f (who happens to be Spanish) disagrees with that.
Oh that comment is completely wrong, I know that now... one of the fools at work told me that and I believed it stupidly.
Since the 3 years after 9/11 we have seen terrorism escalated to dangerous proportions. Every day people are fearful of being killed, what has our world become. These countless acts of terrorism affect everyone no matter where we are on the planet. It seems we, as a species, have gone back to the beginning, where people kill other people to prove a point. No one seems to know what the point is, but many speculate. Maybe its exactly what they want, us to be afraid to step out into the real world, us to become racist against religions/beliefs which we believe "make terrorists". This is completely unacceptable, we as the nations of the world must come together to prosecute these offenders. Going to war against Iraq is not the answer, it was never even the answer to began with.
Well, Al Qaeda is certainly ticked off. It scares me what these monsters have been able to do. The game of life will be very interesting for the next couple of years. No one expected Osama and crew to be so intelligent in a freakin' scary way.
On a lighter note:
Everyone keep your eyes peeled; I predict someone will find a hint in the new American $20 bill warning of the most recent Spain attacks.
Haha! You all think you're so cool with your monopoly money! Well now we got color printers too!
The trouble with sending in troops to fight terrorists is that you will likely piss even more of em off. Especially if you drop bombs. Every stray bomb that kills innocents will piss the population off more and they'll want revenge. They'll be more likely to support the terrorists. You can't fight terrorists if you don't know who the terrorists are. Look how long it took for them to find Saddam, and he was like americas most wanted man. Now imagine looking for someone in the same way when you didn't even know what that terrorist looked like? Impossible. They know roughly what Osama looks like and they still haven't got him. It's been over 2 1/2 years.
And even if you kill some terrorists, it's not like it takes many of them to load up a truck full of explosives. And how do you punish someone who's dead? You can't punish them. So if you do punish anyone for it, you'll be punishing innocents. That makes you the bad guy and increases support for the terrorists. Powerlessness.
The real solution to terrorism is in making peace with the terrorists and their sympathisers. Easier said than done. The leaders of america should start by looking at why they do the things they do and see if there's any way to set that straight. It'd likely be easier and more effective to make peace than to spend hundreds of billions on counterproductive wars and it'd certainly be cheaper.
I think it's important to remember that Saddam was NOT a terrorist. Yes, he was an evil dictator who oppressed his people and carried out genocide, etc (hence the reason for war). Greed and power, not religion.
His regime was secular, and he was interested in shiny palaces not religion. Also, because he had a dictator's reputation to maintain, the services (water, electricity etc) in the country weren't that bad, though may have been denied to some people (especially the shia in the south, who he didn't like).
I sincerely doubt he was any danger to any external country or body, simply because it would have been asking for regime change by the US. Not to mention that there's noone worth fighting. Iran? no, would cause internal unrest. Kuwait? again? I dont think so. Syria? Turkey? why? Further afield country, eg europe or the US? How would that benefit his cosy palace life? Those famed WMDs would only have been used against his own people (not tht that's something to ignore, mind).
So infact the main threat after the war in iraq is the possibility of another islamic theocracy in the gulf, which would serve as a base for further al-qaeda development. Which is A Bad Thing.
1st time modder - I agree, so the only thing we can hope to is to promote pluralism ("A condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society." - sorry, not being patronising, I looked that up to check before I posted, I hate posh words used out of context). The trouble is, there are signs of the seeds of religious extremism here, for example that by that finsbury park mosque dude in the UK.
pr3zlen4 - probably way more intellegent than dubya... And it is worrying how they managed, with one event, smaller than an airline crash, to change the outcome of an election....
djgizmo - I think it's: catch the hardliners, bring round the sympathisers by persuasion/education. Maybe pipe BBC and CNN to every household. But certain key candidates for persuaders have made themselves so unpopular recently that it's gonna be hard. I think 5-10 years of positive commercial investment in these countries, helping to raise employment and living standards, and the locals will realise they can't do without western ways, and will become more moderate and wary of harbouring terrorists. That's assuming we can avoid more islamic theocracies like what might happen in iraq..
I would like to here what the answer might be ?
As an Amreican,a decident of Europe I would like to know what basis is the right basis to go to war ?
I hate to say it but we are all guilty of Saddam and leaders like him.Lok at tha Taliban,Libya,Iraq.N-Korea,Bosnia,Yamen,Somila.And where did Eddie Amiean DA DA come from lol.
If we do not begin to hold accountable nations whose governments slaughter there people so they may remain in power it is only a matter of time before we all become enslaved.
That is the measuring STICK free nations must use before deploying Troups.That is all the reason needed to attack a dictator that kills by the thousands. Yet somehow we have become so cold hearted that unless these nations can DIRECTLY affect OUR daily LIVES we just dont care. (nukes)
I GIVE BUSH AND BLAIR a 10+ for lieing to our faces so that they could wage a war for moral reasons.Reasons that alone should make the common man rise to the call of arms yet seam to have little or no effect on him. Oil you say ? Thats one reason , and because free nations depend on oil WAR is sometimes the only means by which you can secure it. Or did you forget the Falkland war where there was no colalition or UN backing ?
We have become the Guilty,It is the nations who CAN and choose not to that are Guilty for the millions of needless dead human beings that are victums of brutal governments.
Thank god i do not live in Bosnia,and thank god people in Iraq are free from a mad man who prefers Palace's over milk for the countries children.
I will end with this,As I stated in the beginning.What does it take to Justify war ? Under what conditions must you decide your felow man deserves your call to arms ? Sadly it took the threat of a nuclear bomb,or chemical war head to help Iraq. Does that mean the people in Ethiopia will forever starve because they have no weapons of mass destruction ?
Please think hard about what makes war an option before you reply,And remember the world is full of fellow humans that at times need the assistance of others,even if that asistance means placing our people in harms way to protect the helpless.
One small comment, is that even nowadays an 'invasion' (good or bad) will cost invader lives, and while you might think army people signed up knowing this, there is always an outcry when soldiers die, which is something politicians try to avoid. So perhaps it also depends on what you expect from your troops.
Also, I've heard a fair bit about bad morale in US troops, though some was no doubt 'bring them home' propaganda. I'd be interested to know about the morale of the british army and others in Iraq, as the brits, while a smaller force, come across as more experienced and disciplined.
I would only ask ya to look at force placement and missions assigned between the forces.Americans are doing all the dirty work in places Loyal to Saddam. Basira is more Anti Saddam then President Bush lol.................
There has been an all week special running here in America about the troups,It appears Moral is high.I would think it impossible for 100% of the troups to feel that way,killing is not pleasent or fun and I am positive soldiers have a concious UNLIKE THE DICTATOR that was found in a hole..
The hole ..I wonder if finding him in that hole had anything to do with Iran and Libya suddenly decided the UN could perform weapon inspections LOL...
Separate names with a comma.