[quote]majicka wrote:
I thought the government lost the election because they spuriously tried to blame the bombing on ETA, then the electorate seized on this to turf them out?
Sorry if that’s an over-simplification but that’s basically what I thought happened.[/quote]
Your error is forgiven.
JeffR
[quote]pat36 wrote:
The terrorists have kill more Muslims than anyone else, yet they are support by most Muslims. That is the sad part.[/quote]
Where did you get that piece of crap from? Do you know any Muslim who supports terrorists?
I’m lacking the words to describe how inacurate your view of the world is.
[quote]majicka wrote:
I thought the government lost the election because they spuriously tried to blame the bombing on ETA, then the electorate seized on this to turf them out?
Sorry if that’s an over-simplification but that’s basically what I thought happened.[/quote]
It’s the prevailing analysis anyway…
Out of the Wiki for the 11/03 disaster:
“Official statements issued shortly after the Madrid attacks identified ETA as the prime suspect, but the group, which usually claims responsibility for its actions, denied any wrongdoing.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/15/world/main606205.shtml
I don’t think it has anything to do with cowardice. Spanish media are nothing like American ones; they actually do their job objectively. Because of that, some might argue that Spaniards understood that violence breeds violence.
My personal interpretation is that they ousted the government because it went to war despite overwhelming popular opposition (90% of Spanish people were against the war) and the massive protests and demonstrations that drew millions of people out on the streets. If you find the 90% figure unrealistic, know that similar results were recorded in Italy.
On the other hand, I don’t see how Bush/Cheney won a second mandate after the Iraq blunder. Must be one of those things that can’t be explained rationally…
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
The terrorists have kill more Muslims than anyone else, yet they are support by most Muslims. That is the sad part.
Where did you get that piece of crap from? Do you know any Muslim who supports terrorists?
I’m lacking the words to describe how inacurate your view of the world is.[/quote]
So your claim is that no muslims support terrorism… 
I wish you were at the guest-lecture today: Religion and violence, how do they connect.
“Where did you get that piece of crap from? Do you know any Muslim who supports terrorists?”
Yeah, I know one.
Not personally…
His name is Bin laden.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
So your claim is that no muslims support terrorism… [/quote]
This topic has been rehashed to oblivion. Of course, some “Muslims” support terrorism. But a lot of Christians, Jews and even atheists do that too. Should we blame the religion for it?
Sounds interesting.
Here’s my take on it: Religion gives power. Power corrupts and leads to its abuse thru violence. The danger in my opinion doesn’t lie within the religion itself, but rather with the clergy who allegedly is more habilitated to interpret the texts for you. That’s why I totally reject it.
Close enough?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Yeah, I know one.
Not personally…
His name is Bin laden. [/quote]
LOL! What an inane post!
[quote]majicka wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Giving into terrorism equals safety,
Signed,
Spain.
How did Spain ‘give in’ to terrorism?[/quote]
The Madrid bombings and the subsequent election and pull out from Iraq.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
So your claim is that no muslims support terrorism…
This topic has been rehashed to oblivion. Of course, some “Muslims” support terrorism. But a lot of Christians, Jews and even atheists do that too. Should we blame the religion for it?
I wish you were at the guest-lecture today: Religion and violence, how do they connect.
Sounds interesting.
Here’s my take on it: Religion gives power. Power corrupts and leads to its abuse thru violence. The danger in my opinion doesn’t lie within the religion itself, but rather with the clergy who allegedly is more habilitated to interpret the texts for you. That’s why I totally reject it.
Close enough?[/quote]
There isn’t wide spread support for Hamas, Hizbolah? There wasn’t candy being handed out in the wake of 9-11 to celebrate in Gaza and the West Bank?
I guess I was wrong then, its the fucking Jews, I forgot.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
So your claim is that no muslims support terrorism…
This topic has been rehashed to oblivion. Of course, some “Muslims” support terrorism. But a lot of Christians, Jews and even atheists do that too. Should we blame the religion for it?
I wish you were at the guest-lecture today: Religion and violence, how do they connect.
Sounds interesting.
Here’s my take on it: Religion gives power. Power corrupts and leads to its abuse thru violence. The danger in my opinion doesn’t lie within the religion itself, but rather with the clergy who allegedly is more habilitated to interpret the texts for you. That’s why I totally reject it.
Close enough?[/quote]
Far from close… 
Religion rationalizes the thought of “cosmic war” and gives credit to the notion of “higher powers” which are far more important than the life we lead now. Religion is not the problem, but religion IS problematic and has a lot of mechanisms that lead to violence and war.
Further: Today, the combination of patriarc cultures and islam IS a barrel of gunpowder, blowing up several places around the world. You can do a comparative study on christian, buddhist, muslim and sihk terrorism the last 50 years, and find something interesting… it is not: “all are equal”.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The Madrid bombings and the subsequent election and pull out from Iraq.[/quote]
Yes, but the vast majority of the population was against the invasion of Iraq before the bombings. As I stated before, certainly the news coverage over here in the UK, showed that the Aznar government was basically trying to blame ETA, when everyone knew it wasn’t them.
I don’t think it’s correct to say that Spain capitulated to terrorism- most people didn’t want Spain in Iraq, anyway. After all, Spain, like the UK has experienced terrorists attacks on a not infrequent basis for several decades. What outraged the population was the government’s botched cover-up.
Here’s a quote from Wikipedia:
'Two days after the Atocha bombings, demonstrations of crowds took place across Spain demanding news from the investigation, where chants such as “We want the truth before we vote” and “Who is responsible?” were heard.
Three days after the train bombings, the opposing socialist party PSOE won the elections.
The investigations held by a Parliamentary Committee were characterised by bitter partisan exchanges between the various political parties, with great disputes over who may have been responsible for the bombings.
However, the unanimous view of the security services as well as of all political parties except the PP is that ETA was not involved in the attacks’
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Far from close…
Religion rationalizes the thought of “cosmic war” and gives credit to the notion of “higher powers” which are far more important than the life we lead now. Religion is not the problem, but religion IS problematic and has a lot of mechanisms that lead to violence and war.
[/quote]
Yeah, sure. But don’t you think the clergy is one of the main “problematic mechanisms”?
Personal question and feel free to disregard it: Are you religious in any way?
Be it patriarchy or clergy, the problem can be essentially broken down into “too much power in too few hands”. But you seem more than happy with oligarchy, so, I won’t go any further…
[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Far from close…
Religion rationalizes the thought of “cosmic war” and gives credit to the notion of “higher powers” which are far more important than the life we lead now. Religion is not the problem, but religion IS problematic and has a lot of mechanisms that lead to violence and war.
Yeah, sure. But don’t you think the clergy is one of the main “problematic mechanisms”?
Personal question and feel free to disregard it: Are you religious in any way?
Further: Today, the combination of patriarc cultures and islam IS a barrel of gunpowder, blowing up several places around the world.
Be it patriarchy or clergy, the problem can be essentially broken down into “too much power in too few hands”. But you seem more than happy with oligarchy, so, I won’t go any further…[/quote]
It is interesting to notice that you seem to know what I’m “more than happy with” without me making any statements about what kind of government i would prefer… Do you think that kind of statements are very… constructive in any way?
And no, I’m not religious.
The problem with religions is that they give you a higher cause. “So what if my daughter gets mentally and physically damaged from not getting an abortion after the rape, she will not go to hell for the abortion” -
That line of reasoning is one that christians in parts of the world use, to refuse their daughters the right to an abortion after something as terrible as a rape. It is the same reasoning that lead sikh terrorism, the same reasoning that lead militant buddhist terror in japan in 93 (or 94?).
The notion that this life isn’t important… the notion that 1.000.000.000 palestinians give or take isn’t that important if the goal is to create the condition for the second coming of christ… The notion that you can’t lose the war, you can’t let Israel as a nation live, beacause it is god’s will…
The problem is that many countries in the west helps CREATE that image… the image of a war between good and evil, a war between the godly and the secular…
When the buddhists gassed the subway in tokyo, Japanese government didn’t go out on an rampage to take out militant buddhists an mass, they made the ones responsible go to court. When timothy mcveigh bombed the federal building, USA didn’t try to take out all fundamentalist christians in US…
These are examples on how you go about NOT to help these create the image of a war… These examples show how you SHOULD deal with religious terrorism. Instead, we today give muslims around the world a clear view of the “holy war” that many wants. We help them create the hard front… THAT is the problem.
And religion is a large part of that problem, beacause it gives the rationalizing and reasons behind a cosmic war between good and evil. What one SHOULD do, is to empower the moderate forces inside Islam, empower them and help them reform Islam. Instead of a liberalisation of Islam in USA, Norway, Sweden, England… we have the last 10-20 years seen a more conservative interpretation, this is… wrong.
We should empower the moderate forces, encourage a reformation…
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
It is interesting to notice that you seem to know what I’m “more than happy with” without me making any statements about what kind of government i would prefer… Do you think that kind of statements are very… constructive in any way? [/quote]
Forgive my haste there. I inconsciously assumed that someone in the security business has to be convinced that the status-quo is worth protecting. I shouldn’t have done that and apologize accordingly.
This was quite insightful. Thanks for sharing.
Reforms are taking place all over the Arab/Islamic world, with intellectuals and courageous women leading the way. Their actions are however severely undermined by the US/Israel systematic resort to violence. It’s not easy selling a picture where everybody lives happily when such things as the 2003 Iraq and the 2006 Lebanese war take place.
In short, the combination of religion and extremism lead to dire consequences. Be it the Al-Qaeda sheikh or the guy currently in the white house. Both claim to receive their orders directly from God and that’s where it gets really messy.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
It is interesting to notice that you seem to know what I’m “more than happy with” without me making any statements about what kind of government i would prefer… Do you think that kind of statements are very… constructive in any way?
Forgive my haste there. I inconsciously assumed that someone in the security business has to be convinced that the status-quo is worth protecting. I shouldn’t have done that and apologize accordingly.
The problem with religions is that they give you a higher cause[…]
This was quite insightful. Thanks for sharing.
We should empower the moderate forces, encourage a reformation…
Reforms are taking place all over the Arab/Islamic world, with intellectuals and courageous women leading the way. Their actions are however severely undermined by the US/Israel systematic resort to violence. It’s not easy selling a picture where everybody lives happily when such things as the 2003 Iraq and the 2006 Lebanese war take place.
In short, the combination of religion and extremism lead to dire consequences. Be it the Al-Qaeda sheikh or the guy currently in the white house. Both claim to receive their orders directly from God and that’s where it gets really messy.[/quote]
The problem is a violent spiral, the Hamas paint a picture of a ungodly enemy in Israel, they ignite the fire with terrorist acts at the wrong time and place, Israel responds AS the ungodly enemy, and such fulfills the prophecy of the religious part of Hamas… This is the mechanisms in a simple way.
You know, I gave you some shit in another thread and now you go and post something rather thought provocing.
So how do we break this cycle? Hamas isn’t going to back down now that it has gained political power and influence and Isreal is going to continue to defend itself aggressively and with no regard for the rest of the international community.
"You know, I gave you some shit in another thread and now you go and post something rather thought provocing.
So how do we break this cycle? Hamas isn’t going to back down now that it has gained political power and influence and Isreal is going to continue to defend itself aggressively and with no regard for the rest of the international community."
Exactly the question I have been asking and have yet to receive an anwser. How do we defeat the muslim extremists like Bin Laden and his ilk, without creating more just like him?
Also, how do we stop the people in Iraq from killing each other? If we stay or if we leave the killings will continue, so how do we, or the world, put an end to this?
[quote]BH6 wrote:
So how do we break this cycle? Hamas isn’t going to back down now that it has gained political power and influence and Isreal is going to continue to defend itself aggressively and with no regard for the rest of the international community.
[/quote]
The Arab league recently (re)introduced a peace plan that has the backing of the WHOLE international community and Hamas said that they have nothing against it. The US and Israel - once more - stand alone in refusing the proposal. I, along with many many people, believe that it could just be the way out.
I urge you to look at it if you haven’t already. It’s fair to both sides (incidentally, it’s nothing but a reframing of UN res, 242 that the US and Israel has been blocking ever since its introduction). The Israeli government itself found nothing to criticize in it.
[quote]majicka wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The Madrid bombings and the subsequent election and pull out from Iraq.
Yes, but the vast majority of the population was against the invasion of Iraq before the bombings. As I stated before, certainly the news coverage over here in the UK, showed that the Aznar government was basically trying to blame ETA, when everyone knew it wasn’t them.
I don’t think it’s correct to say that Spain capitulated to terrorism- most people didn’t want Spain in Iraq, anyway. After all, Spain, like the UK has experienced terrorists attacks on a not infrequent basis for several decades. What outraged the population was the government’s botched cover-up.
Here’s a quote from Wikipedia:
'Two days after the Atocha bombings, demonstrations of crowds took place across Spain demanding news from the investigation, where chants such as “We want the truth before we vote” and “Who is responsible?” were heard.
Three days after the train bombings, the opposing socialist party PSOE won the elections.
The investigations held by a Parliamentary Committee were characterised by bitter partisan exchanges between the various political parties, with great disputes over who may have been responsible for the bombings.
However, the unanimous view of the security services as well as of all political parties except the PP is that ETA was not involved in the attacks’
[/quote]
majica,
Sorry, I missed this post.
I thought we were past this. Your understanding was flawed and you were corrected. You had received forgiveness.
Why are you continuing to argue this point?
The incumbent government was going to win reelection by all indicators.
Then the bombs hit.
They ran away/appeased. Plain and simple.
Do you really want to argue this more?
If yes, then we’ll have to dig up some actual numbers.
My hope is that you let this go and move onto some other area in need of correction.
JeffR
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Exactly the question I have been asking and have yet to receive an anwser. How do we defeat the muslim extremists like Bin Laden and his ilk, without creating more just like him?[/quote]
That’s a tough one. You cannot magically make them disappear and using violence only breeds more of them. So, the first thing is to lower your expectations of “immediate results”. This can take up to a generation to settle. All you can do is decrease the number of them.
You can’t make them disappear anymore than you can stop people from taking drugs or people armed robberies. You must act on the causes. In this case, stop acting like you own the world, dismantle your many many bases around the world and stop the interventionist policy. You guys did the total opposite and that’s why the world is pissed at you.
Contemplate the absence of Islamist terrorist attacks/threats on China, Switzerland or Japan.
Wasn’t that the purpose of the Baker-Hamilton study? They used your tax-money to issue the report if I’m not mistaken. Take a look at the original document; they pretty much state that peace CANNOT be achieved without involving Iran and Syria.
That is, sitting down with them and talking. Bush has done the exact opposite; i.e: further isolating the two regimes and escalated the threats to use violence.