Terrorist Attacks In Spain
RyoOhki
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Over 130 dead</div> <a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8937065%255E2,00.html' target='_blank'>ETA blamed for attacks in Spain</a>
So what's everyone think about these? I don't know if we have any Spanish forumites around but I'd love to hear their views. Could the group being blamed for the attack have links to other terrorist groups? Though of course this is mere speculation, could the fact that Spain supported the Iraq war be a contributing factor? (Please note that is complete speculation by me and is supported by nothing other than sheer co-incidence, so please don't rip me apart over it <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
So what's everyone think about these? I don't know if we have any Spanish forumites around but I'd love to hear their views. Could the group being blamed for the attack have links to other terrorist groups? Though of course this is mere speculation, could the fact that Spain supported the Iraq war be a contributing factor? (Please note that is complete speculation by me and is supported by nothing other than sheer co-incidence, so please don't rip me apart over it <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Comments
the ETA is saying Al-qaida did it and the Spanish officials just announced they found and defused additional bombs that were supposed to go off when the emergency workers arrived..
btw, I hate terrorists....
OTOH, this is a great time to choose for a -political- attack and I don't think al-qaida cares about internal european politics..
btw, 600 injured...
The ETA has been a terrorrist group in Spain for many decades I believe.... So this would probably have nothing to do with Iraq if the ETA is behind it.
Do they have links to other terrorrist groups? No clue.
But since there is nothing official about the real perpetrators... I'm in a wait and see mode. Enough accusations are flying around atm to satisfy anyone.
An attack on this scale defies logic. I thought the idea of terrorist attacks was to strike fear so that people back down and give into demands. Something this over the top (though any killing is over the top really) is bound to just generate massive shockwaves of hate for whoever's responsible rather than further their cause, especially in these days of current world-wide anti-terrorist sentiment =P
An attack on this scale defies logic. I thought the idea of terrorist attacks was to strike fear so that people back down and give into demands. Something this over the top (though any killing is over the top really) is bound to just generate massive shockwaves of hate for whoever's responsible rather than further their cause, especially in these days of current world-wide anti-terrorist sentiment =P <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless they look for support from people of their own culture, who feel opressed but don't see a feasible way to strike back. In that case, providing proof that a large-scale attack is possible could attract hundreds of followers.
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
*edit*
Al-Quada??
..
ok, these guys are seriously starting to **** me off.
what's next? Berlin? London? <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
...
And, yes, there are a few spanish forumites around here, at least, that I know of. Like me.
Still shocked...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The horrible terrorist attacks that took place in Spain and which lead to the death and injury of hundreds of innocents today came as a shock to the world. These attacks should make us pose again to re-assess our look to how safe the world really is.
This time I have to disagree with our allies, and although it’s premature to say this, but I think that it wasn’t ETA who carried these attacks and I find myself compelled to agree with ETA’s spokesman and say that this was done by Islamic extremists.
Investigations may prove that I’m wrong, but I’m firmly on this opinion for many reasons:
-The way and timing of these attacks is not what we used to see from ETA. They rarely carried such huge attacks on merely civilians, not without a previous warning at least.
-ETA usually (not always though) announce their responsibility for the attacks the carry.
-The fact that Spain is one of the major coalition countries that strongly supported the US in her war against Saddam and global terrorism as well, makes her very prone for such attacks from extremist Islamists.
-There were many intelligence reports months ago about terrorist activities in Spain.
-Such attacks cannot be carried but by desperate people with no hope or legitimate political goals and the Islamic terrorists fit much more than ETA in this category.
-The nature of the attacks leaves no doubt that whoever carried them wanted to cause as much as possible causalities among civilians, which seems to be a trade mark for AL QUEDA.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right now, one of the things I'm concerned with is the date of this attack. To my knowledge and news sources this is the largest terrorist attack in Spain, most ETA attacks have killed people in tens up to 30 or so. This is another eleven tradgedy, 9/11, 3/11. My concern is that terrorist's newest strategy is to perhaps strike fear on these days. Maybe ?
It said one of its "death squads" had penetrated "one of the pillars of the crusade alliance, Spain".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
13 bombs in total at 3 train stations. Death toll currently over 190 according to www.news.com.au ( <a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8937065%255E2,00.html' target='_blank'>Full story here</a> )
This is deeply disturbing. Al Qaeda is still very much a going concern, and their capacity to undertake attacks seems to still be intact. This is despite the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which leads to the inevitable question: Are these tactics working? It would seem that they are not.
...
yes, that war should have stopped those iraqi terrorists!
all 0 of them.
if only those billions were spent on fighting terrorism instead of creating more enemies... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
...
yes, that war should have stopped those iraqi terrorists!
all 0 of them.
if only those billions were spent on fighting terrorism instead of creating more enemies... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you completely, I just mentioned the Iraq war because some people persist in believeing Bush's rhetoric that the Iraq war was part of the war on terror.
i aint never havin kids man... who would wanna bring up kids in this world man...
i mean spain used to be a nice place to go on holiday. now you go and u risk being blown up. :/
It's extremely f***ed up to see places where I've been, where I ate, where I slept..
all covered with blood and bodyparts
<!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
So last year, I went to spain instead.. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
this world sucks.
...
yes, that war should have stopped those iraqi terrorists!
all 0 of them.
if only those billions were spent on fighting terrorism instead of creating more enemies... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your intelligent statement means nothing in here in the US. If you aren't in agreeance with the "destroy our enemies" campaign you are labeled unpatriotic and a host of other things. I wanna move :|
...
yes, that war should have stopped those iraqi terrorists!
all 0 of them.
if only those billions were spent on fighting terrorism instead of creating more enemies... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iraq wasn't about terrorists. It was about OIL.
Key point: Notice they are handing back the government to Iraq, by creating a constitution however; all the OIL fields are still in US control, and if Cheney and Bush having anything to say about it come '04 - '08 it will stay that way. Got to love big businesses and greedy puppet leaders. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
...
yes, that war should have stopped those iraqi terrorists!
all 0 of them.
if only those billions were spent on fighting terrorism instead of creating more enemies... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your intelligent statement means nothing in here in the US. If you aren't in agreeance with the "destroy our enemies" campaign you are labeled unpatriotic and a host of other things. I wanna move :| <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So instead of destroying our enemies, you'd rather them walk all over us? It all comes down to standing up for oneself. Remember intermediate school? Bully would come pick on little kid, if the kid let the bully walk all over him, bully continued. If kid stood up for himself, the bully wouldn't do anything.
...
yes, that war should have stopped those iraqi terrorists!
all 0 of them.
if only those billions were spent on fighting terrorism instead of creating more enemies... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your intelligent statement means nothing in here in the US. If you aren't in agreeance with the "destroy our enemies" campaign you are labeled unpatriotic and a host of other things. I wanna move :| <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So instead of destroying our enemies, you'd rather them walk all over us? It all comes down to standing up for oneself. Remember intermediate school? Bully would come pick on little kid, if the kid let the bully walk all over him, bully continued. If kid stood up for himself, the bully wouldn't do anything. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our enemy is the state, not radicals. Think about why they hate us and you will understand. Also, pre-emptive strikes are an atrocity but define what the US is today. "Hey that arabic guy looked at me funny!" "*Presses big red button*" <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Government was created to protect the people, but at this point in time it seems to be digging us a deeper grave. I don't even worry about tomarrow because as far as they are concerned there is no tomarrow.
Government was created to protect the people, but at this point in time it seems to be digging us a deeper grave. I don't even worry about tomarrow because as far as they are concerned there is no tomarrow. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We should not be making these strikes. If Bush had told the truth, his war would be justified. But as he did -not- tell the truth and, as any politician, lied to get his way, he betrayed that which America stands for. We are supposed to symbolize liberty, freedom, and be responsible with what power our large nation has. Bush acts like an abusive admin. Unfortunately, this has been the trend of American actions lately, something I dearly wish to see end.
Spanish Police has found 7 detonators in one van, and one tape with versicles from the Coran near them. And you have this letter to this newspaper, so you could think this has something to do with Al -qaida.
But i think the terrorist attack was done by members of ETA, because:
1º Last year, they stole lots of titadyne (sorry, i don´t know how is typed in english) in France, the explosive used in the attack (mixed with dynamite).
2º They were catched 4 or 5 times, carrying lots of explosives to Madrid.
3º They TRIED the same thing in Christmas, with 2 bombs.
Perhaps, they are now associated with Al-Qaeda. Who knows. But i believe ETA is trying to simulate a attack from Al-Qaeda, so the PP (the group who governs Spain right now) lost in Sunday's elections.
P.S: Sorry for my English, i´m from Spain, and right now is hard for me to focus in the text.
We'll see...
...
yes, that war should have stopped those iraqi terrorists!
all 0 of them.
if only those billions were spent on fighting terrorism instead of creating more enemies... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you completely, I just mentioned the Iraq war because some people persist in believeing Bush's rhetoric that the Iraq war was part of the war on terror. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
To realize this we have to understand where terrorism comes from. The Paletinians are fighting the wrong enemy. Completly. Israel, the US, the EU, even freaking SPAIN, are not the reason they are impoverished. In the end it comes down to a basic lack of freedom, economic and political.
It's undeniable that Iran and Syria use their 'education' system as a means of indoctrination. Thousands of students grow up with clearly divided political lines: Israel + US = bad. Combined with force and controlled controlled participation this is the way all dictatorships stay in power.
Dissenters are of course massacred in dictatorships. This is probably one of the large reasons you don't see as many anti-dictatorship groups. Saddam did an excellent job preventing Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other. But I don't think you would advocate this methods. Now that his iron first is no longer in control, it becomes much easier to 'hate-thy'neighbor' and they are back at each other's throats.
It's very 1982ish. People are lead to believe their poverty is due to some nation thousands of miles away, rather than from those in power who seek to undermine them both politically and economically.
In short: Middle eastern terrorism won't end as long as the dictatorships exist. If Iraq can get a stable economy and government going it will be very hard to recruit terrorists under such conditions.
We should not be making these strikes. If Bush had told the truth, his war would be justified. But as he did -not- tell the truth and, as any politician, lied to get his way, he betrayed that which America stands for. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nonsense. There's a difference between lying and not telling the truth. The key is whether or not Bush conciously lied or not, and only Bush really knows that.
Example: I could tell you I left my keys on my dresser, and you find them on my bed. Would you call me a liar, or would you call me mistaken?
You'd be hard pressed to make similar accusations against Bush. In case you didn't know, the entire adminstration, including the Democrats, Clinton, FBI, CIA and the rest were 90% sure Iraq had WMDs. They were wrong. But it doesn't make them liars.
Your own words tell us that in fact Bush and Co. were indeed lying. You say that the administration was 90% sure Iraq had WMDs. But Bush, Howard and Blair did not say "We are 90% sure Iraq has WMDs". They said "Iraq has WMDs". There was no question about it, no uncertainty: it was as if they were saying "The sky is blue". They never said they were unsure, or that the intelligance was shaky, or that it was strange that so many world nations didn't agree with them. They lied to us.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In short: Middle eastern terrorism won't end as long as the dictatorships exist. If Iraq can get a stable economy and government going it will be very hard to recruit terrorists under such conditions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, despite the fact that none of the S-11 hijackers were Iraqi, and no evidance has been found linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, we invaded Iraq? If the goal is to crush oppressive dictatorships that sponser terrorism, why the heck arn't US soldiers invading Saudi Arabia? That's where the S-11 hijackers were from, where Al Qaeda gets the majority of it's support. Yet here we are in Iraq, in the process generating support for Al Qaeda where previously there was little to none.
Even if Iraq by some miracle becomes a prosperous democracy, what makes you think that will stop people sponsering terrorism? A lot of IRA funding comes from Boston for example. Even in prosperous democracies, impovrished individuals and dissastisfied elemants exist; take milita groups in the United States, or the ETA in Spain. Also take Indonesia; the world's largest Muslim nation, and a democracy to boot, but with terrorist sponsers aplenty.
Terrorists only require the support of a small minority of the population. Crushing a dictatorship won't remove that, and indeed it's far more likely to provide a terrorist organisation with more support (case in point being Iraq). Putting a democracy in power won't destroy support for terrorist groups either.
Oh come now. It was implied and you know it. No reasonable person believes anyone is 100% right about anything, it's an assumption. They obviously didn't say they were "90% sure" because it was unnecessary and it would make them look insecure about their decisions. Leaders can't be wishy-washy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if Iraq by some miracle becomes a prosperous democracy, what makes you think that will stop people sponsering terrorism? A lot of IRA funding comes from Boston for example. Even in prosperous democracies, impovrished individuals and dissastisfied elemants exist; take milita groups in the United States, or the ETA in Spain. Also take Indonesia; the world's largest Muslim nation, and a democracy to boot, but with terrorist sponsers aplenty.
Terrorists only require the support of a small minority of the population. Crushing a dictatorship won't remove that, and indeed it's far more likely to provide a terrorist organisation with more support (case in point being Iraq). Putting a democracy in power won't destroy support for terrorist groups either.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Militias groups are not terrorists. There are single extremists (like the unabomber), and hate groups, but none of them are at the level of Al-Queda in terms of sophistication. The IRA has been quite silent in recent years if you hadn't noticed. Prosperity is the best weapon against terrorism. And prosperity can not exist in a dictatorship, or any form of corrupt government. Like Indonesia for example.
Dictatorships assure a steady stream of willing new suicide bombers that would otherwise be harder to recruit. Terrorism may indeed always exist, but much of it will go when dictatorships fall.
I cam curious: What's your all-purpose solution to terrorism?
Implied? Sorry but when the leader of my country says "Iraq has WMDs" the only thing being implied is that Iraq has WMDs. If you don't want to be seen as insecure, you make damn sure that statements you make are correct. 90% sure doesn't cut it, and frankly given the amount of information now surfacing that pre-war intelligance was flawed, I find it very hard to believe that our leaders were 90% sure.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Militias groups are not terrorists. There are single extremists (like the unabomber), and hate groups, but none of them are at the level of Al-Queda in terms of sophistication. The IRA has been quite silent in recent years if you hadn't noticed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what prevents a militia or hate group from becoming terrorists? The unibomber undertook a terrorist act. The KKK committed terrorist acts in it's time, and they would certainly fall under the catagory of a hate group. The point I was making was that even within prosperous democracies, the elemants required to produce terrorists are still very much present.
The fact that the IRA has been quiet is linked to the fact that most of their demands for Ireland have been met; it still doesn't change the fact that a great deal of their funding came from within the United States.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And prosperity can not exist in a dictatorship, or any form of corrupt government. Like Indonesia for example.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So why is China doing so well for itself?
I fail to see how prosperity can prevent terrorism. Whilst people with lots of money arn't likely to be the ones blowing stuff up, they'll certainly sponser it if they want to. Al Qaeda gets money from Saudi businessmen, the IRA gets money from US businessmen, Hamas and the PLA get cash from doners across the world. Prosperity doesn't stop people funding terrorism.
And how does it prevent people joining up or sypathising with terrorist groups? A poor person is just as poor in a prosperous society as in a dictatorship. A religious fanatic is a fanatic anywhere. Terrorists will still be able to recruit people from within prosperous societies; recall that US, Australian and British men were all captured in Afghanistan allegedly fighting with the Taliban.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dictatorships assure a steady stream of willing new suicide bombers that would otherwise be harder to recruit. Terrorism may indeed always exist, but much of it will go when dictatorships fall.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How exactly do dictatorships provide a "steady stream of willing new suicide bombers"? Let's look at Saudi Arabia, a nation where a lot of terrorist recruits come from. The government does not actively sponser terrorism, and it does not preach war against the United States and it's allies. In fact, the government works hard against terrorists, as it has been targetted before by them. And yet almost all of the S-11 hijackers were Saudi.
Dictatorships don't provide any more or any less terrorist recruits than a democracy. Now it's true that most terrorist groups seem to draw support from Middle Eastern dictatorships. The reasons are a) There arn't Islamic democracies in the Middle East to recruit from, and it should be said that terrorists find good support in democratic Indonesia, b) Islamic terrorist groups are more likely to find Islamic recruits in the Middle East, same as Jewish fundamentalists will have more luck recruiting in Israel than India c) Much of their support base is located in the Middle East, due to the pressence of Israel, the clash between Western culture and Islamic culture and post-colonial feelings of hatred towards the West. Dictatorships play no part in those factors.
What's my all-purpose solution to terrorism? Well if I knew the answer to that I'd probably be very wealthy or very dead. Nonetheless I'll give a response.
Nothing the US does now, short of nuking the entire Middle East and most of South East Asia, will stop terrorism. What they're doing right now though <b>is not working</b> , and worse still, it's promoting further escalations. What better way for Al Qaeda to gather more recruits than the Iraq war? 130,000 infidel troops stationed in one of the oldest Islamic regions in the world. A region just itching to explode into full scale religious civil war. Right slap-bang in the centre of the Middle East. Annoying just about the whole globe didn't help either. Much needed support has been needlessly thrown away.
We should stop getting involved in the affairs of other nations. Cut support to Israel; they don't need it and it gives our enemies fantastic ammunition to use against us. Withdraw from the Middle East; turn control of Iraq over to the UN. Use existing alliances to work with governments there to track down terrorist cells and eliminate them. Use small-scale military force; pin-point strikes with Special Forces and in co-operation with existing governments. The US army is not designed to fight terrorists; it's designed to fight other armies, like virtually every military across the world. Invading a whole country just makes terrorists pack up and move elsewhere; it's like using a sledgehammer to kill cockroaches. Pump money into intelligance services; these guys are the ones who can hurt terrorists the most by revealing their locations and sources of funding.
The first 2 features alone would cut off a tremendous amount of support for terrorist groups. The other points are designed to combat terrorism as best we can. There is no ultimate solution and no way to completely destroy support for terrorist groups, but this would help. Trying to completely eliminate terrorism won't work; it's been with us for many centuries and it won't be defeated. The best we can do is try and minimise it's potential to hurt us. This war really can't be won.
Now does this mean we shouldn't fight terrorism? Certainly not. But we have to change our tactics.
<i><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Implied? Sorry but when the leader of my country says "Iraq has WMDs" the only thing being implied is that Iraq has WMDs. If you don't want to be seen as insecure, you make damn sure that statements you make are correct. 90% sure doesn't cut it, and frankly given the amount of information now surfacing that pre-war intelligance was flawed, I find it very hard to believe that our leaders were 90% sure.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--></i>
Nobody says anything with 100% certainty. Certainty isn't something we can tag a percentage on in any case, 90% was an arbitrary number. People say things when they are reasonably sure of them. I don't say "I'm 95% sure I'm going to the store". I say "I'm going to the store", despite whatever events may transpire that would impede such an action. Your point is moot.
But let's see the other 'liars', that is people who also thought Saddam had WMDs:
Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski
Hans Blix
Bill Clinton
Jacques Chirac
CIA director James Woolsey
Weapons hunter David Kay
-- all had reason to believe that Iraq had WMDs.
It was a mistake, a bad one at that. But there is no evidence that Bush knew there were no WMDs. If you can prove that, you have a case. Otherwise I'll conclude this part of the discussion.
<i><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And what prevents a militia or hate group from becoming terrorists? The point I was making was that even within prosperous democracies, the elemants required to produce terrorists are still very much present.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--></i>
You missed a key point. Dictatorships produce <b>more</b> terrorists than democracies. Eliminating dictatorships won't <b>stop</b> terrorism, it just ebbs the flow considerably. How can you deny this? Terrorists don't become terrorists at random. It requires controlled, targeted, propaganda. And that is best delivered in a media-isolated dictatorship. It can be delivered in a democracy, but it's far easier when opposing views can be screened out.
China is doing well because they have made concessions to their citizens, that is economic concessions. No longer are all facets of production run by the government. This is economic freedom, and the results have been great. There are <b>zero</b> prosperous dictatorships in a GDP/capita sense. Similarly, countries with high GDP/capita have a lower tendency to produce terrorists. There are exceptions, but the rule holds.
<i><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How exactly do dictatorships provide a "steady stream of willing new suicide bombers"? Let's look at Saudi Arabia, a nation where a lot of terrorist recruits come from.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--></i>
Oh COME ON. Saudia is one of the worst for propaganda and brutalization. Their public statements are for show and nothing more! If you actually saw Saudi textbooks and television you would see this too.
You cannot deny that a world of true democracies will have MUCH less terrorism than a world that does not.
<i><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The reasons are a) There arn't Islamic democracies in the Middle East to recruit from, and it should be said that terrorists find good support in democratic Indonesia, b) Islamic terrorist groups are more likely to find Islamic recruits in the Middle East, same as Jewish fundamentalists will have more luck recruiting in Israel than India c) Much of their support base is located in the Middle East, due to the pressence of Israel <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--></i>
Those are all valid reasons, but that's irrelevant to my original proclamation: If these nations were not dictatorships, and did not have the level of propaganda that they do, there would be far less terrorism. That is undeniable. Think about it for a minute here. Imagine the sheer amount of propaganda it takes to convince someone to <b>blow themselves up, slaughter innocent people, and still expect to go to heaven</b>. It's fascinating. This is what's been poured into Syrians, Saudis, and the like.
<i><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->130,000 infidel troops stationed in one of the oldest Islamic regions in the world. A region just itching to explode into full scale religious civil war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--></i>
What if those troops leave though? Once again, in a fascinating display of government propaganda, <b>people are being convinced to kill themselves and fellow muslims and they expect to go to heaven</b>. Incredible.
Your recommendations are good. Nonetheless, my point remains. Only in a dictatorship can that amount of propaganda be driven down so many people's throats. They are alienated from other opinions. Propaganda does occur in a democracy, but not on the level that occurs in dictatorships.
What's happening with Afghanistan anyway? I haven't heard of much terrorism coming out of there? Or am I mistaken?
Man, don't worry about it. If that happened near me, I wouldn't be on these forums. Hang in there.
Disagreed, I believe you are missing the key point here. For such things to happen, there has to be a certain amount of hate. For them to sacrifice their lives, we have to have hit them first. For years and years, we've been living high, running a prospering society without them. If I was sitting there, starving, dying and seeing my fellow middle-eastern <u>humans</u> be gunned down by weapons sent from the rich, western countries for MORE money, I would for damn sure consider becoming a freedom fighter too.
Because that's what you're missing I think. What they are is not people who have been hyped up to hit innocent americans. What they are is people who have suffered so much that the <u>only hope they have left</u> is to give up their life for their family, their country.
<u><b>One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter</b></u>
Too many westerners forget to ask themselves why the terrorists are doing it, blinded by their own beliefs that "we are good and they are evil".