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.

___________________
1+1=10

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.

___________________
Retro ...

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.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

[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.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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.

___________________

Best Album Ever:
* Infected Mushroom - B.P.Empire