TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- At least 186 killed in Madrid bombings.
Pages (7): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Yep, looks likely it was al-Qaeda now. If only we had actually targetted al-Qaeda instead of Saddam Hussein... ?

How do you propose we "target" Al Qaeda? It's not a person, or a location. It's a nebulous organization of cells with no easy way of identification. It's not like taking down a government or a person, it's like trying to take down the KKK. They don't advertise or allow themselves to be tracked. If you have some magical way to get rid of Al Qaeda, please share that info with the western world, they'd love to hear it.

I'm sorry, but it's rather nieve to say that we should have "gone after Al Qaeda" instead of Saddam. Firstly, going into Afghanistan was one major way of going after Al Qaeda, since they were backed by the Taliban. Secondly, when you have gone after direct sources of terrorism, you can only then afford to go after the indirect sources, which was Saddam, in the case of Iraq.

What we do, and where we go from here I do not know. But it will be interesting to see now that terrorism of this scale has reached the European continent. It will be interesting to see if Europe continues its post WWII approach to violence in looking the other way, or again trying diplomacy, or if it actually rallies into action. Very interesting days ahead, I believe.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Yep, looks likely it was al-Qaeda now. If only we had actually targetted al-Qaeda instead of Saddam Hussein... ?

Heh, I wouldn't like to be in Aznar's seat now. He lead a war against the will of more than 85% of his people, and the only thing he succeeded in was bringing the wrath of muslim fundamentalists upon Spain. I'd say things will be pretty bad for him on the next elections.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono How do you propose we "target" Al Qaeda? It's not a person, or a location. It's a nebulous organization of cells with no easy way of identification. It's not like taking down a government or a person, it's like trying to take down the KKK. They don't advertise or allow themselves to be tracked. If you have some magical way to get rid of Al Qaeda, please share that info with the western world, they'd love to hear it. I'm sorry, but it's rather nieve to say that we should have "gone after Al Qaeda" instead of Saddam. Firstly, going into Afghanistan was one major way of going after Al Qaeda, since they were backed by the Taliban. Secondly, when you have gone after direct sources of terrorism, you can only then afford to go after the indirect sources, which was Saddam, in the case of Iraq.

quote:

What we do, and where we go from here I do not know. But it will be interesting to see now that terrorism of this scale has reached the European continent. It will be interesting to see if Europe continues its post WWII approach to violence in looking the other way, or again trying diplomacy, or if it actually rallies into action. Very interesting days ahead, I believe.

obviously this more shows that violence brings violence, than that diplomacy doesn't work...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew obviously this more shows that violence brings violence, than that diplomacy doesn't work...

In order to have diplomacy, you must have two sides that will:

1) Talk to each other!
2) Respect the resolutions that have been made.
3) Be willing to compromise.

I'm not saying the West is perfect in all these situations, but do you really think Al Qadea is just going to show up and negotiate? What would they realistically want? Who would be their negotiator? Would every Al Qaeda cell be willing to do this, and do abide by a treaty made in this manner? Al Qaeda is not a country, or a single entity. It is a group of loosely affiliated cells intent on destruction as a means of change, not compromise or negotiation. If Europe thinks it can "negotiate" with Al Qaeda, I cringe at the thought of an outcome.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono In order to have diplomacy, you must have two sides that will: 1) Talk to each other! 2) Respect the resolutions that have been made. 3) Be willing to compromise. I'm not saying the West is perfect in all these situations, but do you really think Al Qadea is just going to show up and negotiate? What would they realistically want? Who would be their negotiator? Would every Al Qaeda cell be willing to do this, and do abide by a treaty made in this manner? Al Qaeda is not a country, or a single entity. It is a group of loosely affiliated cells intent on destruction as a means of change, not compromise or negotiation. If Europe thinks it can "negotiate" with Al Qaeda, I cringe at the thought of an outcome.

diplomacy with terrorists are somewhat different from diplomacy between countries. to get deplomacy to work with terrorists you have to solve the problem that is the root for the terrorism. i cannot come up with any exampel where a "terror war" has ended without some kind of diplomacy, please help me, i may be wrong, but i don't think so... even CIA has said that fighting the root of the problem is more important than actually fighting the groups...

First of all, I disagree that removing Saddam from power diminished any immediate to intermediate threat from Al-Qaeda. As a matter of fact, I would pose that it actually increased the immediate threat from Al-Qaeda. Whether this increase in immediate threat was worth eliminating any long-term possible effects is anybody's guess.

That being said, one cannot negotiate with groups like Al-Qaeda because there's simply nothing you can really negotiate on. You think they really care about the plight of the Palestinian people? That peace in that region is going to quell their fire? Of course not, they simply use that one particular cause out of many as a tool to increase their ranks. Their long-term goal is NOT to destroy the United States or to destroy Europe ... their goal is to reform the middle east into a fundementalist state. That was the whole point behind Bin Laden's exile from Saudi Arabia and subsequent formation of Al-Qaeda. So unless you're willing to give them a fundamentalist middle east, then the west has nothing to offer on the bargaining table.

I predict Europe will coware from the face of the danger ahead of it, much as St. Andrew has indicated. Instead of realizing that some thigns must be fought for, they will view this terrorist attack as a justification of their pacifist theory. They will say "we did too much", "we fought with the Americans", "violence breeds violence" and will begin to pull out even further from the world.

I don't think this would have changed even if the attacks were in Germany or France, which they could just as easily have been in if Al Qaeda wished it.



You all realize that is such an attack would have been carried out in the USA today instead of Spain, and it would have been linked to Al Qaeda, the USA would probably invade either Iran or Syria by the next week. I don't think the Spanish will have any retort. Even if they would like to get at Al Qaeda they have no means to do it.

[quote=NeoPhono]Secondly, when you have gone after direct sources of terrorism, you can only then afford to go after the indirect sources, which was Saddam, in the case of Iraq.[/quote]
There is actually no evidence (as GW Bush himself admitted) of a link between al-Qaida and Saddam. And if you look at it ideologically, it doesn't make sense (bar the fact they are both Muslims). Bin Laden and Saddam would be as opposed to each other as they both are to the Americans. Saddam even warned his men to be wary of and not to trust foreigners who came to Iraq to fight the Americans.

Yeopus, what exactly do you want Europe to do? Go and invade a country? For a start there is no "Europe" when it comes to actions in policy areas like this. Some have said Europe will do nothing like usual...but the UK went into Afghanistan as it went into Iraq like other European countries.

There is no nation on Earth bar America that can mount a successful military operation on a large scale. Spain cant do shit, neither can the rest of the EU countries unless it is through NATO (which is why we are developing our own military capabilities, which are not ready yet and funnily enough, what America, for some reason (!) is opposed to)

And lets face it, military force has not got rid of al-Qaida has it? Attacking Iraq or Afghanistan has not worked. How can you win a war on terrorism?

I can only see to choices...

Either you merely fight (which means you will fight forever and terrorism will never ever go away)

Or you try to erradicate the reasons terrorism exists.

Now I will admit that I do not know exactly what al-Qaida wants and if your honest, I dont think many people do. Maybe they do just want to kill all 'Kafir' and if the do then we should come down hard, but I dont think thats it. Maybe they want to take over all Islamic territory and install that Shira law and kick the Kafirs out?


Two questions...

1)What are we (Europe) supposed to do?
2)How exactly do you win a war on terror?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Or you try to erradicate the reasons terrorism exists. Now I will admit that I do not know exactly what al-Qaida wants and if your honest, I dont think many people do. Maybe they do just want to kill all 'Kafir' and if the do then we should come down hard, but I dont think thats it. Maybe they want to take over all Islamic territory and install that Shira law and kick the Kafirs out?

Well, I'll tell you what Al Qaeda wants.

This was found in an Al Qaeda house in Afghanistan during the Taliban war by two New York Times Reporters. It was intitled "Goals and Objectives of Jihad:"

-Establishing the rule of God on earth
-Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God
-Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity

In 1998, several Al Qaeda leaders also issued a declaration calling on Muslims to "kill Americans�including civilians�as well as those who are allied with them from among the helpers of Satan."

How the hell do you give in to those demands? Are you saying we are all to now be forced to be fundamentalist Islamics? Do we kill all Americans now to appease them? Once again, there IS no way to be diplomatic with terrorism.

What I think Europe needs to do is at least act like there will be consequences for such actions. Raid some houses, vow to never let this happen again, threaten military action. At least show that there is a direct and unwanted response to these events. Europe showed sympathy towards America, even raided a few houses, but with the exception of England, really did nothing to back their words. Europe has to be ready to stand united and forecfully against terrorists. Not pacifism and sure as hell not diplomacy will make these types of events go away.


Here's a good link about all types of terrorism. LINK

Whoa, the markets sure as hell got scared today as a result:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/11/mar...dex.htm?cnn=yes

Not that I put too much weight onto the ever-so-vulnerable stock markets, but it sure isin't a good sign.

Well said NeoPhono.

And i'll add that: as for today, Euorope is blind and lives in some kind of an imaginiray world. This is starnge considering it's History. Like Hitler didn't go away with deplomecy - also Islamic terror won't - if things will continue to go the same path, this threat will be treated - too damn late. I hope with all my heart that this time it will be diffrent.

lets at least hope that the injured in madrid will recover as soon as possible.

well, i can also say that i honestly don't know _exactly_ why al quaida is doing what they are doing.. they are obiously fighting for something they strongly believe in, much like the western world fight for what we belive in - a free world and democracy. it's not like i have a solution to the problem but i don't think invading coutry after country will do it. of course afganistan was probably the right decission, and iraq could have been if you believed in all the propaganda and such before the war. BUT you can never control the whole world, there will always be places for this if you don't fight the real problems (like povertry, lack of free speech, too much religion etc).

to all you "war is the only solution people":
do you honestly think that you can bomb al quaida to an end?
i still miss an successful example of no diplomacy - whatsoever - solution to a terrorist conflict, please give me one...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew to all you "war is the only solution people": do you honestly think that you can bomb al quaida to an end? i still miss an successful example of no diplomacy - whatsoever - solution to a terrorist conflict, please give me one...

First, I'm not a "war is the only solution" type of person. However, when there is no hope of diplomacy, I'm not going to kid myself. There is no way to meet the demands of Al Qaeda, much less get "them" in a room to even talk about it.

Secondly, can you give me examples of where a terrorist organization of this magnitude has ever been appeased by diplomacy? I can think of individual groups, or events being averted, but never an entire movement stopped. It may buy small intervals of peace, only to flare up again in violence (it does not solve the root problem, only elongates tension). I can give you a whole list where diplomacy didn't work. Northern Ireland, Libya, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Palestine, Haiti, Iraq, etc.

Diplomacy has a place, as I said, when the conditions are right. You cannot force those conditions into place, much the same way you cannot force a resolution into place.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Heh, I wouldn't like to be in Aznar's seat now. He lead a war against the will of more than 85% of his people, and the only thing he succeeded in was bringing the wrath of muslim fundamentalists upon Spain. I'd say things will be pretty bad for him on the next elections.

The elections are on Sunday and he is not a candidate. He has governed in total 8 years and he doesn't want another reelection so he told a few months ago he will not propose his candidatury in the next elections.

And for me this attack, if is Al-Qaeda the responsible, could be a good justification for have more collaborations with States against the terrorism and for jusify the support to Irak's war. Also he will have a big part of the society against him as you said in your post, I'm sure. I dunno many things will change after these new terrorist attacks.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid."
- Dwight Eisenhower

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke


my condolences to all the people of spain

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

nice !

di�plo�ma�cy
n.
The art or practice of conducting international relations, as in negotiating alliances, treaties, and agreements.
Tact and skill in dealing with people. See Synonyms at tact.


How can you be diplomatic with a terrorist group? They are no nation, they have no embassies, they obey no institutions. Diplomacy is the conduct of negotiation between states, not groups.

If the hint that terrorist don't fall into the realm of diplomacy wasn't enough of a hint not to use diplomacy to solve their problems, something should be deeply troublying you.


Solutions for Europe:

-Support the US in its war on terrorism, or at least remain silent, not like France, even if you disagree with it. Stop arguing about the necessities of fighting a brutal war such as Guantanumo Bay.

-Provide economic assistance to Iraq to build a liberal democracy and champion the crusade of liberalisim throughout the middle east.

-Create your own 'patriot acts' and beef up your security.

-Threaten the destruction of terrorist-supporting regiems such as Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia.

- Start condeming terrorism in all its forms strongly especially in the international forums you dominate.

- Open charities and media stations to shift the Arab mind.

- Build up your own military and intelligence services


... more and more, you guys got a long list, the above is just a few seconds worth of thoughts on the topic, what are you waiting for?

this is really fucked...two different suspects, I hope Spain can find out which one of the two did it.

Man, some of you guys sound like a certain president from Texas I know from about thirty months ago. I like it. A small part of me hopes that offends some of you here So how DO you stop this rabid dog we call Islamic extremism. We all know islam respects strength, moral clarity and fortitude and overwelming strength and little else. So how do you show them we are not going to stand for this. How do you show them your strength and moral character without resorting to violence and at the same time keeping your own dignity.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus -Support the US in its war on terrorism, or at least remain silent, not like France, even if you disagree with it. Stop arguing about the necessities of fighting a brutal war such as Guantanumo Bay.

Agreed.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus -Provide economic assistance to Iraq to build a liberal democracy and champion the crusade of liberalisim throughout the middle east.

Agreed - aren't we doing this already?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus -Create your own 'patriot acts' and beef up your security.

We have "beefed" up our security a notch, but I think that most of us (me at least) would protest a patriot act.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus -Threaten the destruction of terrorist-supporting regiems such as Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia.

What good would that do? How did Bush's "axis of evil"-speech help him control events in North Korea and Iran?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus - Start condeming terrorism in all its forms strongly especially in the international forums you dominate.

I hope we already are.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus - Open charities and media stations to shift the Arab mind.

I believe we are currently focusing our attention on helping eliminate poverty and illiteracy in the most poor countries of the world (=Al Qaeda's next recruiting ground). I prefer this approach to propaganda and false charity.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus - Build up your own military and intelligence services

The need for intelligence is great, yes, and I don't think we are lacking in this respect. But are there a need for more military? Didn't we all agree on Al-Qaeda not being a attackable target?


St Andrew: Nice posts.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew to all you "war is the only solution people": do you honestly think that you can bomb al quaida to an end? i still miss an successful example of no diplomacy - whatsoever - solution to a terrorist conflict, please give me one...

The Jewish revolts against Rome in 66AD and 122AD?

Heh in all serious however, there is simply no one to initiate diplomacy with with respects to this conflict. Furthermore, I would pose the argument that violence does not necessarily beget violence in this specific situation. One could make the claim that the number of cases of attacks could potentially increase, but with respect to the combined effectiveness and sophistication of the attacks, I would make the claim that they would actually decrease over the cycle of violence. Why? Well, simply put, there is no concrete cause to rally against that would engender anything but individual sympathy for the terrorist cause. There is no homeland to protect, there is no great invader to repel (hopefully once the transfer is complete this will become self-evident), there is no grave injustice that is the root of the global Al-Qaeda cause. They are campaigning on a systematic offensive to attain idealogical goals. And while this may draw from the ranks of likeminded indivduals, it is relatively poor attraction for the general masses.

So in effect, while the cylce of violence may continue, over time, the random, indiscriminate attacks (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Iraq, whoever) will only strengthen global resolve and cooperation against these groups. Furthermore, the mere nature of the attacks alone unite the majority against the Al-Qaeda cause since their attacks directly affect the very group they are attempting to recruit from. Lastly as each attack against indiscriminate innocents unites global resolve, it also serves to remove the capability of Al-Qaeda type groups the ability to operate freely in ANY country that desires some kind of good relations with the rest of the world.

Therefore while violence may beget violence in the short term, it is not a fight Al-Qaeda can win in the long run. It would be erroneous to try and portray it as being similar to the Palestinian/Israeli cycle of violence. Imagine Palestinian terrorists who are completely isolated from the rest of the world, even from the PLO, and Israel possessed the greatest lattitude in dealing with them.

The ONLY possible way Al-Qaeda can successfully survive is IF it generates a true following of middle easterners who would be willing to sanction violence in an effort ot overthrow existing governments in order to acheive fundementalist states.

Or the west does something extremely stupid ...

quote:

[b]Originally posted by occrider [/b The ONLY possible way Al-Qaeda can successfully survive is IF it generates a true following of middle easterners who would be willing to sanction violence in an effort ot overthrow existing governments in order to acheive fundementalist states.

Trying not to come off as a smartass because i agree with everything in your post, but was this an ironic statement? It seems to the rest of the non muslim world that al-queda does have a true following of not just middle easterners but a global pool of fresh hearts and minds to pull from. All it takes is a few to affect many in more ways one.


i fuckin hate'm

i've been thinking about the terrorist problem (mainly suicide bombers) and how to solve. i came to the same conclusion that the only way is to kill them. it's time to level the playing field. those poor folk in madrid just copped a hammering.

basically there needs to be a policy whereby terrorists or suspected terrorists are monitored and tracked. once reasonable evidence has been gathered in regards to that persons belief, intention or membership to certain groups, then a military unit of some kind is sent in to execute them. no judge, no jury, no innocent until proven guilty, no wait for the first offence. if they are monitored and proven to have relations with known terrorists then its kill time.

sorry, it costs too many human lives for a 'first offence'.

i'm pretty sure after some period of time people would second guess joining and being affiliated with certain groups, in fact the very act of being affiliated with such groups would be outlawed (punishment: death). it's time to stop being fucking pussies and playing by their rules, they arent humans and they dont fuckin deserve no justice, except the sweet justice only a 5.56mm round can deliver.

it would work ladies, even if you'd have to turn a blind eye because you have a weak stomach for that certain thing. there is no other alternative. its like a sport or a game, we have to control the tempo, we have to control the rules, we have to methodically kill the known terrorists until there are none left, and then work on the 'suspects'.

we must stop them before they can even begin to plan one of their 'missions'.

who would be in control of such a thing? i dunno, maybe the UN? perhaps if it had a LEADER of some sort, kofi annan just doesnt fill me with hope for the human race guys.

said it once and i'll say it again, if it wasnt for these religious assholes and their bullshit conflicts, we'd already have moon bases and space exploration would be going along much nicer.

Comparing Spain's problem with the Palestinian one is a mistake. Spain is not literally killing and expelling Basque people from their homes and stealing their food and water everyday. Basques are seperatists, they wish to separate from Spain. Palestinians wish to gain their homeland back from military rule. Palestinians are fighting for independence after an invasion and destruction of their homeland. I'm not saying the Basques aren't desperate people. They have wanted to separate since the 1930s, maybe even earlier. But from the little information I know, I believe the Basques should have seriously kept negotiating and speaking out. I don't think there was a lot of effort put into that. And Spain wasn't building illegal settlements or expelling Basques from the country while the negotiations were going on in the 90s.

About Al Qaeda. They want American military bases out of the Middle East and to establish Islamic Sharia Law in the Middle East.

I would also like to see American military bases gone. Military bases actually makes a huge difference. Having bases across the world makes a country so much more powerful. In the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein got the unexpected. Saudi Arabia allowed the US to use its land for military bases to strike Iraq. In fact, in the first Gulf war every missle that was dropped on Iraq (which was more missles used than the Second World War) were deployed from other countries far away due to US military bases in those countries.

I certainly don't want the second thing Al Qaeda wants. Neither do the majority of Arabs.

There are very racist views on this topic, especially against arabs...

So you people think that killing the al-qaeda is the only solution?
I think that will only strenghten them.

There is NO SOLUTION for the problem of islamic terrorism. They're fundamentalists which supposedly base themselves on the Quran for their actions (supposedly, because as any other religious guide, it has to be taken with a grain of salt).
These people are reaccionaries, which don't adapt themselves to modern times. In modern times the religious guides have to have a different interpretation. Things were different when they were written...

In my view, the best solution for the atrocities commited in the name of religion would be banning religion altogether. That wouldn't be a problem for me (i'm an agnostic), but it would be a severe blow in individual liberties.
With that out of the equation, is there any other solution?
Well, maybe a long term one, with several phases.

1- Resolving the palestinian-israeli conflict (here we go again )
This is a major source of anger for the arab nation and arabs all over the world, both agaisnt jews, US and europe.

2- Democratizing the "great middle east"
Not the extremist US way, but rather in the diplomatic EU way. Like sanctions against despotic governments, ban on weapons exports to those countries, ban from international institutions, etc.

3- Creating government programmes for a better immigrant integration
So that the culture/religious shock isn't so big... in any country of the world.

I know the first 2 are utopic and the 3rd one is very difficult to achieve, so don't bother to point that.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Spanish police and military regularly launched missiles into Basque villages,

Oh boy... you are so ignorant... Spain is not Israel you know?


Much love and respect to my spanish friends... after all Spain and Portugal are pretty much the same people, little differences aside.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.