Which country will be the next victim then?

[sierraone]

Yeah Spaniards got themselves off the Al Qaeda list ,well done!! So they condemned all the western countries that will have elections to have 200 casualties the week before. Sure now all the opposition parties will have on their agenda to pull out their troops from Iraq (if they have any). They will say 'see what they did to Spain? do you want to follow?'

Spaniards gave a great victory to the terrorists. Aznar's party was ahead in the polls the very morning of the attacks. People that were going to vote for him switched sides blaming him for the attacks because he sided with US and UK. They spat on the graves of 200 of their own people. It is not cowardice, it is pure idiocy. Without realising -I hope- is that they proved that terrorism works.

Here in Greece now we are waiting for our turn to the slaughter.
Thank you Spain! Thank you Zapatero very f****ing much!

[pAt]

any country that goes aginst terriost are in danger of becomein a next victim

[aeternum]

Im sure the UK is pretty high on their hitlist, but it seems pretty hard for them to hit em, as the UK does a decend job and they have the channel for their protection. Not the first time it safes them ;)
So i would say Italy or Poland could be possible targets in the near future. But who knows, maybe they hit again, where no one expect them to hit... as always.

[IsdatU]

Does Australia have some elections coming up?

[fantassin]

as the UK does a decend job and they have the channel for their protection

You can't have read Argyll's recent posts on the subject if you think that...

I have driven a car through the channel tunnel at Christmas time; I could have loaded it with 500 kg of HE and turned the whole thing into an howitzer; my car wasn't checked a single time.

Next one could be the UK but it could also be Italy to isolate the US, or Poland for the same reason or France because of the veil, it's help of Ageria in its war against the moslem terrorist group GIA and of French troops in Afghanistan or Germany because of the relative fragility of its military comitment because of its past history.

To name a few...

[IsdatU]

Im sure the UK is pretty high on their hitlist, but it seems pretty hard for them to hit em, as the UK does a decend job and they have the channel for their protection. Not the first time it safes them ;)
So i would say Italy or Poland could be possible targets in the near future. But who knows, maybe they hit again, where no one expect them to hit... as always.

The UK has millions of muslims living there now. They are not safe behind the English channel anymore.

[MEGR]

UK is a prime target i believe. I have no doubt that if a bomb killed 200 people in London, Blair would be ousted in seconds, and the party that takes over will pull troops out of Iraq.

[aeternum]

You can't have read Argyll's recent posts on the subject if you think that...

I have driven a car through the channel tunnel at Christmas time; I could have loaded it with 500 kg of HE and turned the whole thing into an howitzer; my car wasn't checked a single time.


I wouldnt say it is that easy, because where do you want to get 500kg HE from? So i would bet if you would try to get your hand on that stuff you would be tracked down by the intelligent forces, im sure!

[cbreedon]

I have driven a car through the channel tunnel at Christmas time; I could have loaded it with 500 kg of HE and turned the whole thing into an howitzer; my car wasn't checked a single time.


If this is true, I can see the Chunnel going. That would be a wonderful target for them. I hope the security forces are taking notice.

[fantassin]

I wouldnt say it is that easy, because where do you want to get 500kg HE from?

ETA stole 8 TONS of Dynamite from a French public work depot a few years ago.

The French police has already recovered 3,5 Tons of it and the Spanish police some more in Spain but it shows it can be done unfortunately

[mack pl]

Terrorist trying attack Poland in december(air port in Warsaw, railway station in Gdansk).But ours ABW(Interior security agency)get information about it from other country(i dont know wich).So,terrorist cannot do anything.Few Arabic and one Poles was involved of that.This Poles was arrested(he have explosives).Arabic not,because they dont do anything wrong(they have no chance to do that).Its many info about it in polish media,maybe many of this info was false,but some part must be true.We are in danger still :( Regards.

[IsdatU]

I am wondering when France is going to get hit for unveiling those muslim girls.

[ShadowNeo]

UK is a prime target i believe. I have no doubt that if a bomb killed 200 people in London, Blair would be ousted in seconds, and the party that takes over will pull troops out of Iraq.

I think you misunderstand current UK politics. The only opposition party that can challenge labour is the conservatives, and you fail to realise - they were just as much in support of the war as labour was. Don't think that we are in a simmilar situation, politics-wise as Spain.

[fantassin]

We started getting terrorist attacks 20 years ago, the veil is not going to change anything.

It will just give Krauthammer and a few c**t like him something to cheer about.

[MEGR]

UK is a prime target i believe. I have no doubt that if a bomb killed 200 people in London, Blair would be ousted in seconds, and the party that takes over will pull troops out of Iraq.

I think you misunderstand current UK politics. The only opposition party that can challenge labour is the conservatives, and you fail to realise - they were just as much in support of the war as labour was. Don't think that we are in a simmilar situation, politics-wise as Spain.

I sure hope your right, because losing an ally like the UK would surely suck.

[ShadowNeo]

You won't lose us in the War on Terror, that can be assured.

[fantassin]

because losing an ally like the UK would surely suck


The US's gvt ally is part of the British gvt, not the British people, by very far and large.

[ShadowNeo]

The US's gvt ally is part of the British gvt, not the British people, by very far and large.

Concerning Iraq the country and politicians are divided, but the UK's stance on the War on Terror is as it always has been.

[aeternum]

The US's gvt ally is part of the British gvt, not the British people, by very far and large.

Concerning Iraq the country and politicians are divided, but the UK's stance on the War on Terror is as it always has been.

Same goes with Spain.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Its even pretty hard to find anyone in the UK that do not support the war on terror and I do not mean politicos and pundits I am talking about the man in the street, but Iraq well thats something else.

[Kriz]

I think any modern western country in Europe and north America is a potential target.

[IsdatU]

but Iraq well thats something else.

Why do you keep ignoring the capture of Abu Abbas in Baghdad?

[ShadowNeo]

Was capturing Islamic Terrorists the cause given to the public for war? As it stands the cause for war changes as those who conducted it see fit.

[IsdatU]

Was capturing Islamic Terrorists the cause given to the public for war? As it stands the cause for war changes as those who conducted it see fit.

It is a war on Islamic terrorism and Saddam Hussien's regime was supporting Islamic terrorists.

That he might have been producing WMD's makes it imperative that we go in. It turns out that Saddam was bluffing about the WMD's, but we called his bluff.

Anyway, it is good that we destroyed Saddam's regime in Iraq. Now for Syria and Iran!

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

but Iraq well thats something else.

Why do you keep ignoring the capture of Abu Abbas? There is more to Islamic terrorism than Al Qaida.
True and on that note there is more to terrorism than the Islamic kind remember the Contras, but it is Al-Q that present the greatest threat to you and me. :|

[SeanAshi]

Spaniards gave a great victory to the terrorists.USA and Israel will never give in to terrorist threats and demands.

[fantassin]

...and, as luck would have it, we also stumbled on those very large oils fields that we, of course, knew nothing about.

[Argyll]

Is this some kind of sweepstake here,or a genuine concern as to where AQ will strike next?

I hope to God this is not your idea of a joke?

[SeanAshi]

Is this some kind of sweepstake here,or a genuine concern as to where AQ will strike next?
Sweepstake? No! Concern? Hell yes.

[IsdatU]

but Iraq well thats something else.

Why do you keep ignoring the capture of Abu Abbas? There is more to Islamic terrorism than Al Qaida.
True and on that note there is more to terrorism than the Islamic kind remember the Contras, but it is Al-Q that present the greatest threat to you and me. :|

The Contras were fighting communist state terrorism.

You are showing some communist sympathies here and so your opinions are now suspect.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

You are showing some communist sympathies here and so your opinions are now suspect.
:D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: I hope your kidding you f*cking nugget. :lol:

[Argyll]

Was capturing Islamic Terrorists the cause given to the public for war? As it stands the cause for war changes as those who conducted it see fit.

It is a war on Islamic terrorism and Saddam Hussien's regime was supporting Islamic terrorists.


Its a war against Terror

That he might have been producing WMD's makes it imperative that we go in. It turns out that Saddam was bluffing about the WMD's, but we called his bluff.

To what cost?........the Spanish people have spoken through democracy,who's next?

Anyway, it is good that we destroyed Saddam's regime in Iraq. Now for Syria and Iran!

So the Coalition/civilain casualties since the end of the war all died of natural causes?and not at the hands of remnantsof his regime?The infrastructure maybe destroyed,but the idealism and logic has not been!

As for Syria and Iran.........who's going to do this?The US on it's own?
I think you'll not find a coalition of many for this
Not a chance mate,1st off finish Afghanistan and Iraq,you simply do not have the logistics to mount Operation of the magnitude seen in the 2 mentioned in Syria or Iran


Another clueless poster!!

[Argyll]

Yeah Spaniards got themselves off the Al Qaeda list ,well done!! So they condemned all the western countries that will have elections to have 200 casualties the week before.

This paragraph is not concern,its fokin cynicism!!

[Kilgor]

Yes... Australia does have gov elections up soon.

I think we have a good chance of copping it again.
Bali first, and that was well before the second Iraq war.

I think france is going to cop it for the Veil issue.

[wulfstan]

I think france is going to cop it for the Veil issue

That might make their stance on the war on terrorism a little hard to maintain, don't you think?

[Kilgor]

Yes, but it will make them realise that they are not safe.

[wulfstan]

they probably already know that, but will they shrink further into themselves and let the US/UK do the dirty work, or go on the offensive. All too horrible to think about.

[mocking_loudly_died]

What’s amusing about this is the local media in Australia love this stuff.
It's like they can't wait for a bomb to go off here, so they can run decade long tribute to victims specials.

Sounds harsh, but it's the reality.

[wulfstan]

That's sick, altho many media types are parasites as you suggest.

[Durandal]

What’s amusing about this is the local media in Australia love this stuff.
It's like they can't wait for a bomb to go off here, so they can run decade long tribute to victims specials.

Sounds harsh, but it's the reality.

That is truly bizzare...

[usa320]

US, UK, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Poland, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Italy and Bahrain are all potential targets as far as im concerned.

[Durandal]

Here are my thoughts on the subject. There are a couple threads going about similar topics Spain, Iraw, terrorism, etc. So I think Imay just make one post and put it here...

I disagree that Iraq was not part of the terrorist equation two years ago. I know that is not the topic of this thread, and I am sorry I making a comment that is going astray.

But the proof is there. Iraq, while not supporting AQ, certainly did have its hand in the Islamic fundamentalist pot. In no way was Iraq the only Middle Eastern nation doing this, quite obviously...eventually, something needs to be done about those nations and quite honestly I have no idea how to deal with them. I think a democratic government (pro-American or not) is a good start, but in no way the final solution. I could go way out in left fiedl and say that the world's need for petroleum products is probably lending a huge hand in the matter. Curb that, the desparity of wealth changes, the leverage some of these nations have also changes. It is a mess that give me nightmares...

I hate the idea that we are somehow wanting to see another attack. I do not think we will see the end of terrorism in Spain, by any stretch, afterall, you still have the "hoegrowns" to worry about, nor do I want to see Spain close up their borders or go on a anti-muslim crusade (even low key stuff like the actions of France) within their own borders. Spain has come along way since the Civil War and I would hate to see stuff degenrate into another mess. When stuff like this happens, common sense goes out the door (as I believe we can see in the recent election).

I am, however worried about Italy, which I guess means, I am adding my two cents in on who gets a load of violence next. Italy has a rather awful history (politically) dealing with terrorism and that may, just may, come back to bite them on the ass. I am not too sure if Italy would cave in or politics would be influenced in such a way that we have seen in Spain, but who knows.

What I hope we do not see is a new wave of terrorism though. Europe, on a whole has had far too much of it over the last 30 to 40 years and it would be nice to see a unified, rigid stance on the subject among all the nations on that continent, both in how to deal with the criminals and how to share intelligence information to increase the level of interceptions...

One can dream I suppose.

[Ballistic]

Does Australia have some elections coming up?

Yeah we do. I just hope Howard gets back in.

[cut]

Here are my thoughts on the subject. There are a couple threads going about similar topics Spain, Iraw, terrorism, etc. So I think Imay just make one post and put it here...

I disagree that Iraq was not part of the terrorist equation two years ago. I know that is not the topic of this thread, and I am sorry I making a comment that is going astray.

I agree 100%, but do you think Iraq was part of the terrorist equation before the war there?



But the proof is there. Iraq, while not supporting AQ, certainly did have its hand in the Islamic fundamentalist pot. In no way was Iraq the only Middle Eastern nation doing this, quite obviously...eventually, something needs to be done about those nations and quite honestly I have no idea how to deal with them. I think a democratic government (pro-American or not) is a good start, but in no way the final solution. I could go way out in left fiedl and say that the world's need for petroleum products is probably lending a huge hand in the matter. Curb that, the desparity of wealth changes, the leverage some of these nations have also changes. It is a mess that give me nightmares...



Iraq was did not have more of a hand in the islamic fundamentalist pot then any other arab country, you can't declare war on all the arab countries that is what AQ want.

Iraq was one of the least islamic nations in the whole of the arab world. That has changed, it is far more likely to become an islamic nation now, then it ever was under saddam. I think that is a big mistake by the US.


I hate the idea that we are somehow wanting to see another attack. I do not think we will see the end of terrorism in Spain, by any stretch, afterall, you still have the "hoegrowns" to worry about, nor do I want to see Spain close up their borders or go on a anti-muslim crusade (even low key stuff like the actions of France) within their own borders. Spain has come along way since the Civil War and I would hate to see stuff degenrate into another mess. When stuff like this happens, common sense goes out the door (as I believe we can see in the recent election).


I don't think that is likely to happen, a nightmare for everyone.


I am, however worried about Italy, which I guess means, I am adding my two cents in on who gets a load of violence next. Italy has a rather awful history (politically) dealing with terrorism and that may, just may, come back to bite them on the ass. I am not too sure if Italy would cave in or politics would be influenced in such a way that we have seen in Spain, but who knows.

I think Italy would deal with terrorism the same way as america, with just the military (not really the right way)



What I hope we do not see is a new wave of terrorism though. Europe, on a whole has had far too much of it over the last 30 to 40 years and it would be nice to see a unified, rigid stance on the subject among all the nations on that continent, both in how to deal with the criminals and how to share intelligence information to increase the level of interceptions...

I agree that europe should have a unified stance but I don't think it has to be in line with that of the US.

[cut]

Does Australia have some elections coming up?

Yeah we do. I just hope Howard gets back in.

What's the alternative?

[Ballistic]

Labor's Mark Latham. He is inexperienced as a leader, only being in leadership for less than a year, and after his performance before the War in Iraq where he acted a like a complete and utter immature imbocile and spouted so much anti Americanism, Green's Senator Bob Brown was put to shame, I think he would be a bad choice. I think he lacks the balls and commitment to get the job done. And Im afraid every good thing thats happened to Australia in the last few years, including one hell of a strong economy will be flushed down the toilet.

[Kilgor]

Iraq was one of the least islamic nations in the whole of the arab world. That has changed, it is far more likely to become an islamic nation now, then it ever was under saddam. I think that is a big mistake by the US.

.

Why ?
Because Saddam brutally oppressed any religious showings.
They simply werent allowed.

[cut]

Labor's Mark Latham. He is inexperienced as a leader, only being in leadership for less than a year, and after his performance before the War in Iraq where he acted a like a complete and utter immature imbocile and spouted so much anti Americanism, Green's Senator Bob Brown was put to shame, I think he would be a bad choice. I think he lacks the balls and commitment to get the job done. And Im afraid every good thing thats happened to Australia in the last few years, including one hell of a strong economy will be flushed down the toilet.

so the choice is the liberal party of australian or Labor? bah, doesn't matter Oz doesn't really have an alternative but sticking by the US, but don't worry once we gain influence you can join our club ;)

[cut]

Iraq was one of the least islamic nations in the whole of the arab world. That has changed, it is far more likely to become an islamic nation now, then it ever was under saddam. I think that is a big mistake by the US.

.

Why ?
Because Saddam brutally oppressed any religious showings.
They simply werent allowed.

Maybe, I'm not defending him, but it meant that there were no muslim extremists in Iraq, just people who were pissed of with america (but weren't terrorists).

[Kilgor]

The religion was always there, but saddam banned any relgious gatherings, you only see it now because the Americans allow it.

[Ballistic]

Labor's Mark Latham. He is inexperienced as a leader, only being in leadership for less than a year, and after his performance before the War in Iraq where he acted a like a complete and utter immature imbocile and spouted so much anti Americanism, Green's Senator Bob Brown was put to shame, I think he would be a bad choice. I think he lacks the balls and commitment to get the job done. And Im afraid every good thing thats happened to Australia in the last few years, including one hell of a strong economy will be flushed down the toilet.

so the choice is the liberal party of australian or Labor? bah, doesn't matter Oz doesn't really have an alternative but sticking by the US, but don't worry once we gain influence you can join our club ;)

Which club is that ? :) EU ? No thanks :D

I'm a Liberal supporter through and through. Howard has made some bad moves, but he's more than made up for them with the good his government has done over the past few years. Not too mention being strong in the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, where others would buckle he stood strong. I respect that.

[mocking_loudly_died]

If labor wins, we are f*cked.

Lathem hates Americans.

[Kilgor]

If labor wins, we are f*cked.

Lathem hates Americans.

Kevin Rudd really ****s me more

[mocking_loudly_died]

If labor wins, we are f*cked.

Lathem hates Americans.

Kevin Rudd really ****s me more

Kevin Rudds favorite word "frankly".

"Well frankly us labor party members can't run an economy plus we want to hand the country over to China and sever all ties with the USA and while we are at it lets change the Australian flag to a big turd." - Kevin Rudd

[Durandal]

I agree 100%, but do you think Iraq was part of the terrorist equation before the war there?

Yes, and that is the statement I made. AQ is not the only terroist organization out there. Nor is it the ONLY terrorist organization that has hurt/killed/kidnapped/raped citizens of Western nations.

Quite frankly, if terorists *and we are talking indigenous as well foreign, fell ther is a need to take the fight to Iraq, so be it. Yes, it makes the job of establishing a free democracy all that more difficult, but resources of the terrorists are being squandered...human as well as weapons and money. I think it is a fight that needs to be fought. If that makes me a war monger or some sort of radical right-winger, so be it.



I don't think that is likely to happen, a nightmare for everyone.

Nor did I say it would. I said it could happen. Lets be honest here, Western European nations, as group, have a crappy track record dealing with terrorism on their continent since the 1960s.


I think Italy would deal with terrorism the same way as america, with just the military (not really the right way)

I am not too sure what you mean here. I also have to disagree with the use of force. Proper force when applied in the right situations is much more idea than EVER dealing with terrorists, hostage takers, and criminals. A duly elected government, byt the people, shoudl NEVER bend to terrorism. Since a good government would not yield anything to terrorists, what other option is there other than force. Because, while a nation has a responsibility to its people by NOT dealing with terrorists, it also has a responsibility to protect its people...which means, the use of force, whether that be taking out hostage takers, raiding safehouses, or interecpting armshippments. If they live, you lock them up...forever.

There is no room to simply be nice and treat them like another nation or your own citizens. Terrorists are bad, possibly even the largest collection of destabilizing forces on this earth. Do not deal, do not treat them like children, do not offer amnesty. Period.


I agree that europe should have a unified stance but I don't think it has to be in line with that of the US.

Except it does HAVE to be with the United States...and Japan, and India, and Austrailia, and, and. I have no misgiving about even MY nation's ability to collect data. Neither should you, even when working in unison with its European partners. To suddenly say "We do not the need the United States" is pure folly. Just as much as it is for the United States to say the same of its European Allies. Only through a combined effort will ALL the nations of the Western world defeat this problem...

Dealing with the terrorists within the continent of Europe is up to Europe (with possibly the exception of when it involves another nationality outside of Europe...like attacks on Russians or Americans for example). If Europe as a "single entity" cannot deal with terrorists (no deals, no safe passage, no amnesty), you'll have the 60's and 70's all over again...

[Kilgor]

Kevin Rudds favorite word "frankly".

[/i]

"Frankly I look like a total pansy"

[usa320]

I agree 100%, but do you think Iraq was part of the terrorist equation before the war there?

Yes, even more so than it is now.

At least now these shadowy networks of cash and guns is out in the open and we can directly assault the terrorists.

Before the war, alot of money was going to various groups, alot of terrorist training was going on, and weapons were being made, weapons of mass destruction, and it all occured only because saddam allowed it too, he hid it. He isnt their to hide the shady doings any longer.

[cut]

I agree 100%, but do you think Iraq was part of the terrorist equation before the war there?

Yes, and that is the statement I made. AQ is not the only terroist organization out there. Nor is it the ONLY terrorist organization that has hurt/killed/kidnapped/raped citizens of Western nations.

Yeah but the war on terrorism is about AQ, the US can't go after all the terrorists that have terrorised western nations





Quite frankly, if terorists *and we are talking indigenous as well foreign, fell ther is a need to take the fight to Iraq, so be it. Yes, it makes the job of establishing a free democracy all that more difficult, but resources of the terrorists are being squandered...human as well as weapons and money. I think it is a fight that needs to be fought. If that makes me a war monger or some sort of radical right-winger, so be it.


I disagree, there are more terrorists being produced from Iraq then ever. And more support for AQ, as well as new AQ recruits from countries who believe that Iraq compounded there belief that the West doesn't give respect to arab countries.




I don't think that is likely to happen, a nightmare for everyone.

Nor did I say it would. I said it could happen. Lets be honest here, Western European nations, as group, have a crappy track record dealing with terrorism on their continent since the 1960s.

The UK doesn't anymore. If western europe has a bad record, why does the US think it can do better, you learn from your mistakes and western European countries know what mistakes they made, the US is going right ahead and making them.





I think Italy would deal with terrorism the same way as america, with just the military (not really the right way)


I am not too sure what you mean here. I also have to disagree with the use of force. Proper force when applied in the right situations is much more idea than EVER dealing with terrorists, hostage takers, and criminals. A duly elected government, byt the people, shoudl NEVER bend to terrorism. Since a good government would not yield anything to terrorists, what other option is there other than force. Because, while a nation has a responsibility to its people by NOT dealing with terrorists, it also has a responsibility to protect its people...which means, the use of force, whether that be taking out hostage takers, raiding safehouses, or interecpting armshippments. If they live, you lock them up...forever.

I've never suggested dealing with terrorist, I'm suggesting dealing with the countries currently branded as terrorist supporters. You can waste as much money as you want killing the terrorist but you need to cut it off at the source, and military force makes it worse.

Think of it as a leaking roof, you don't want the floor to get wet, you can put a bucket to catch the drops, but in the long term you nedd to fix the roof.




There is no room to simply be nice and treat them like another nation or your own citizens. Terrorists are bad, possibly even the largest collection of destabilizing forces on this earth. Do not deal, do not treat them like children, do not offer amnesty. Period.

As I said deal with another nation, because you can, not the terrorists. period. :P

violence breeds violence, us Europeans have learned that from past experiences with terrorists, maybe you should take heed of advice from those who have been through it before




I agree that europe should have a unified stance but I don't think it has to be in line with that of the US.

Except it does HAVE to be with the United States...and Japan, and India, and Austrailia, and, and. I have no misgiving about even MY nation's ability to collect data. Neither should you, even when working in unison with its European partners. To suddenly say "We do not the need the United States" is pure folly. Just as much as it is for the United States to say the same of its European Allies. Only through a combined effort will ALL the nations of the Western world defeat this problem...

Yes, we need to be unified in fighting terrorism and we are, as long as you don't think the war in iraq was a war against AQ.



Dealing with the terrorists within the continent of Europe is up to Europe (with possibly the exception of when it involves another nationality outside of Europe...like attacks on Russians or Americans for example). If Europe as a "single entity" cannot deal with terrorists (no deals, no safe passage, no amnesty), you'll have the 60's and 70's all over again...

You think that the US knows how to deal with terrorists better than Europe, just because they have no track record. That is a dangerous assumption.

You see, it's better to have a mixed but long track record than none at all.

[cut]

I agree 100%, but do you think Iraq was part of the terrorist equation before the war there?

Yes, even more so than it is now.

At least now these shadowy networks of cash and guns is out in the open and we can directly assault the terrorists.

Before the war, alot of money was going to various groups, alot of terrorist training was going on, and weapons were being made, weapons of mass destruction, and it all occured only because saddam allowed it too, he hid it. He isnt their to hide the shady doings any longer.

I couldn't disagree more, al qaida didn't even have iraqi terrorists, and that is saying something. Taking out Iraq may or may not have been necessary but it was not a priority, AQ was the bigger threat. and OIF has IMO created much more terrorists then it has eliminated.

[Durandal]

[quote="cut"] US Bad, European nations flawed but better because of it, violence never solves anything, Iraw is creating more terrorists...

Your logic astounds me...

I also need you to show me reliable and unbiased proof that Iraq is creating more terrorists and international bombings than sitting on your ass doing nothing...or rather "dealing" in a non-violent fashion with supporting host nations.

[cut]

the US is always right, force cannot be used with diplomacy, all arab countries will be taken over if that's what it takes, and that is the way to deal with terrorists, trust us we have more experience then you




:roll:

[cut]

Your logic astounds me...

I also need you to show me reliable and unbiased proof that Iraq is creating more terrorists and international bombings than sitting on your ass doing nothing...or rather "dealing" in a non-violent fashion with supporting host nations.

think about it, why do AQ get new recruits, what do you think the west in general and the US have done to get them so pissed. I'm not necessarily talking recently I'm talking about the past 100 years too.

[Durandal]

Your logic astounds me...

I also need you to show me reliable and unbiased proof that Iraq is creating more terrorists and international bombings than sitting on your ass doing nothing...or rather "dealing" in a non-violent fashion with supporting host nations.

think about it, why do AQ get new recruits, what do you think the west in general and the US have done to get them so pissed. I'm not necessarily talking recently I'm talking about the past 100 years too.

Don't dodge the question. AQ is not about civil rights or fighting against the injustices of the west. They are on a religious crusade that enslaves people.

As far as fetting more recruits goes, if you can figure out how to infuse a sudden and massive middle class that has stable families, jobs, and a community (the very things that prevent a cult or terrorist group from getting recruits) into the Middle East and parts of Asia...then by all means give us the answer.

Until you can, setting up Iraq as a democracy where the people determine their direction rather than some religious fanatic, dictator, or king is the single best solution to that goal.

Do you think students in Iran will sit by passively while their neighbor enjoys everything that would love to have? Do you think that the entire region would not benefit from having an example?

Lord man, every nation should want nothig else. To somehow box off Iraw as a seperate case that does not influence terrorism (good or bad) is rediculous. Rather than running from it you need to support it, demand it, and make sure it works.

Instead, you lecture me on a 100 years of American foreign policy? Last time I checked we were just gearing up in 1904 and brokering the peace deal between Japan and Russia, a fledgling world power, not galavanting through the middle east.

Again...

Show me reliable and unbiased proof that Iraq is creating more terrorists and international bombings than sitting on your ass doing nothing...or rather "dealing" in a non-violent fashion with supporting host nations.

I am sure Lybia would have sacrificed their weapons program if France had asked nicely...or Iran would be a democratic state if America said "please"...or individuals in Saudi Arabia would stop funding terrorism if Germany held a party in their honor.

The concept of freedom and liberty is nto something gained by simply "dealing" with something. History has proven, time and time again, that freedoms and liberties are attained by violence and blood shed, because the poeple that wish to take those freedoms and liberties nderstand nothing else. To sit their in front of you computer condemning current events as being wrong simply because they are violent is pure folly...

[cut]

[quote=Durandal]
Your logic astounds me...

I also need you to show me reliable and unbiased proof that Iraq is creating more terrorists and international bombings than sitting on your ass doing nothing...or rather "dealing" in a non-violent fashion with supporting host nations.

think about it, why do AQ get new recruits, what do you think the west in general and the US have done to get them so pissed. I'm not necessarily talking recently I'm talking about the past 100 years too.


Don't dodge the question. AQ is not about civil rights or fighting against the injustices of the west. They are on a religious crusade that enslaves people.
no they are not about civil rights or fighting injustices but that is why the communities they come from hate the west. People are not born evil.



As far as fetting more recruits goes, if you can figure out how to infuse a sudden and massive middle class that has stable families, jobs, and a community (the very things that prevent a cult or terrorist group from getting recruits) into the Middle East and parts of Asia...then by all means give us the answer.

You think that will prevent terrorists? AQ terrorists are not poor like palestinian terrorists, AQ terrorists are relatively rich middle class arabs, that could easily have a kushty life in the west, all the american perks you can tempt them with won't work.




Until you can, setting up Iraq as a democracy where the people determine their direction rather than some religious fanatic, dictator, or king is the single best solution to that goal.

Yes but as long as you don't force anything on them, that's what we did 60 years ago. And the way arabs look at it the US is intervening in arab affairs coming and putting in a US-friendly government.


Do you think students in Iran will sit by passively while their neighbor enjoys everything that would love to have? Do you think that the entire region would not benefit from having an example?

Morrocco is very westernised, has that changed anyhting? You're forcing me to sound like someone who's against the war, but I'm not, I'm just pointing out the failures.


Lord man, every nation should want nothig else. To somehow box off Iraw as a seperate case that does not influence terrorism (good or bad) is rediculous. Rather than running from it you need to support it, demand it, and make sure it works.

Iran or Iraq?


Instead, you lecture me on a 100 years of American foreign policy? Last time I checked we were just gearing up in 1904 and brokering the peace deal between Japan and Russia, a fledgling world power, not galavanting through the middle east.

American foreign policy? you are so ego centric, the arabs have a long memory they feel the way they do not because of being given a rough deal by the US but also by the British empire and the French the last time they were happy was when it was the Ottoman empire, which was somewhat anarchic but at least they were happy.



Again...

Show me reliable and unbiased proof that Iraq is creating more terrorists and international bombings than sitting on your ass doing nothing...or rather "dealing" in a non-violent fashion with supporting host nations.

What do you want me to do? find an article on the internet? you know as well as I do that the internet can't be trusted for unbiased info. And even if it is unbiased how can I prove it. What else do want me to do? make transcripts of the lectures I go to? scan the newspapers and books I read?



I am sure Lybia would have sacrificed their weapons program if France had asked nicely...or Iran would be a democratic state if America said "please"...or individuals in Saudi Arabia would stop funding terrorism if Germany held a party in their honor.

and syria will give up their support for terrorsim if america keeps attcaking their neighbours, it goes both ways.



The concept of freedom and liberty is nto something gained by simply "dealing" with something. History has proven, time and time again, that freedoms and liberties are attained by violence and blood shed, because the poeple that wish to take those freedoms and liberties nderstand nothing else. To sit their in front of you computer condemning current events as being wrong simply because they are violent is pure folly...

Gandhi? Cuban missile crisis would have been much better if someone had lobbed a nuke over, and finally the crucial one, terrorism, when has a terrorist group ever been beaten by violence and bloodshed?

[tooms]

why the hell do you say that spain gives up the war on terror because of this election ??!!

80% of them were against the war in iraq.

the war against al quaida continues in Afghanistan where spanish have some troops!

it would be stupid to let them there if they want to feel safe

some of you should think a bit more !

[Argyll]

So has anyone put a ballpark figure on the number of AQ members?

[cut]

So has anyone put a ballpark figure on the number of AQ members?

there must be hundreds. But it's hard to tell because of the cells are autonomous, it would be impossible for contact between Bin Laden and the cells. The attack in Spain proves that.

[Durandal]

You think that will prevent terrorists? AQ terrorists are not poor like palestinian terrorists, AQ terrorists are relatively rich middle class arabs, that could easily have a kushty life in the west, all the american perks you can tempt them with won't work.

Who said anything about American perks? Last time I checked, Austrailia and Japan had little in the way of member signing up in the dozens to strap a bomb to themselves. There is a VERY direct correlation between poverty/education and terrorism. While there are certainly examples of intellectual/moderate to high income types that swallow their leader's banter as truth, a vast majority (a perfect example would be Chechan and Afghanistan terrorists..) come from poor backgrounds that have been indoctrinated because local literacy rates for males are in less than 30 percent.

Come on now.

Terrorism these days is no longer carried out by the intellectual socialists fighting for the worker...this is not Europe in the 60s...


Yes but as long as you don't force anything on them, that's what we did 60 years ago. And the way arabs look at it the US is intervening in arab affairs coming and putting in a US-friendly government.

I am sorry they are that ignorant. Do you have another solution? Because I would LOVE to hear it. Share it with the group...


Morrocco is very westernised, has that changed anyhting? You're forcing me to sound like someone who's against the war, but I'm not, I'm just pointing out the failures.

No, you are making yourself sound like you are against any violence...


think Italy would deal with terrorism the same way as america, with just the military (not really the right way)

or

violence breeds violence, us Europeans have learned that from past experiences with terrorists, maybe you should take heed of advice from those who have been through it before

Yeah, ok...I tolerate and enjoy conversations with people that I disagree with who speak their mind and do not contradict themselves. You, however, just flop around whining...


American foreign policy? you are so ego centric...


I was simply responding to your comment:


think about it, why do AQ get new recruits, what do you think the west in general and the US have done to get them so pissed. I'm not necessarily talking recently I'm talking about the past 100 years too.[quote]

I am an American, I am most familiar/knowledgeable in regards to my history more than yours. Am I familiar with European nations screwign the pooch in the Middle East sure. God knows those nations are FAR more responsible for the problems we see now than America. Then again, how many times are you going to place blame, rather than solve the problem.

[quote]What do you want me to do? find an article on the internet? you know as well as I do that the internet can't be trusted for unbiased info. And even if it is unbiased how can I prove it. What else do want me to do? make transcripts of the lectures I go to? scan the newspapers and books I read?

WTF!? If you use internet sources, use several, make a list of readings. Maybe, just maybe, I or other people have read some of the literature. Lectures...I am lucky enough to be within in a quick drive of Dayton airforce Museum, which has a wonderful selection of seminar or readings by a vast array of individuals onthis very topic.

For cats, proof, solid opinions based on fact, rather than chit chat...


syria will give up their support for terrorsim if america keeps attcaking their neighbours, it goes both ways.[quote]

It can only last so long and when Iraw is in the bag, they might be looking down the barrel...who knows. No one snaps their fingers and things happen magically in the real world...patience.

[quote]Cuban missile crisis would have been much better if someone had lobbed a nuke over, and finally the crucial one, terrorism, when has a terrorist group ever been beaten by violence and bloodshed?

The Cuban missle crisis did involve the use of force. I suggest you read up on the event a bit more. Just because guns were not fired, it was a conflict. One solved by flexing one's military might. Cuba was cut off from the outside world and US forces prevented anyone from entering their territorial waters.

It was not done through talks or flowery speeches. It was done through simple military strength and the threat of violence. "Turn around or we will fire upon your ship."

Two fantastic examples.

A) Lybia 1986...Operation Elderado Canyon. I am sure you a familiar with the events that led to this American airstrike, the direct result ont he ground, and the results following the strike.

B) Phillipines post Spanish-American War...Under Arthur MacArthur (Douglas MacArthur's father). The end of Muhommadist insurrections through use of mad violence (unless you call executing a bunch of guys with pork covered bullets and dumping them in lard filled graves a tea party).

[Durandal]

why the hell do you say that spain gives up the war on terror because of this election ??!!

*buzzzz* wrong answer!

The attacks had a direct effect on the reuslts of the elections.

Now we see a muslim group in France begin to make demands "or they will blow up trains"...

Spain has just shown not just AQ but every cheese **** with an axe to grind that violence, when used against a legitimate government can make a difference.

Bad call man, a VERY bad call. The fact that you do not see this...well, what can I say.

Sorry.

[cut]

The attacks had a direct effect on the reuslts of the elections.




You don't know, no-one knows that this and you can't prove it, the spanish polls did predict a favourite to win the election.

[Durandal]

You don't know, no-one knows that this and you can't prove it, the spanish polls did predict a favourite to win the election.

Of course I do not "know" this. Since I did not conduct the interviews and polls. According to not one news source but dozens, this was the case.

Now, I can sit around and say "I will never know anything because no one tells the truth and everyone lies" or I have at least a little faith in at least taking a cross section of news sources and applying a bit of logic to them.

The bombings polarized the people. The people voted.

End of subject.

You cannot claim on one hand to know everything about the increased membership of AQ because of actions in Iraq THEN claim that I do not know that the bombings in Spain did not in ANY way influence the election.

I am not asking much of you cut...only that you be consistent in your arguments.

Hell, I'll even go a bit further...here are some of my sources. I am still waiting on yours.

*******

Thursday's bombs, which authorities initially blamed on armed Basque separatists ETA, revived popular anger at Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's support for the U.S.-led Iraq war, helping Zapatero to a surprise victory.

CNN

The surprise victor in the election over Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's Popular Party, Zapatero vowed

BBC

Most commentators agree the result has been heavily influenced by the Madrid attacks...

The Guardian

The bombing sent voters rushing to the polling stations, producing at one point a 7% increase in turnout on previous elections, favouring the Socialists.

FOX News

The surprise win by the Socialists over Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's (search)*favored Popular Party Sunday came amid charges that Aznar made Spain a target for terrorist by supporting the Iraq war.

New York Post

But if people see al Qaeda's hand in the carnage, Spaniards might view the attacks as retribution for Aznar's Iraq policy and punish the Popular Party.

That is a just a VERY small portion of the sources...