Madrid Bombing Group Announces Next Possible Targets

[MMMMMM]

Gee, just before the bombing they knew very clearly who they wanted according to the polls, and it wasn't Zapatero. So they capitualted to the demands of a terrorist group that had just executed a horrific terrorist attack against them. Amazing that anyone would consider that a good or fair example of "democracy in action."

Hey next time you go to the voting booth how about letting Tony Soprano go into the booth with you with a loaded gun pointed at your head? Feel free to vote for whomever you choose.

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
Amazing that anyone would consider that a good or fair example of "democracy in action."

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. Clearly they're another rogue nation incapable of making good decisions and governing themselves. We'd better go invade them. Or better yet, have the CIA install a Saddam-like dictator.

[nicky g]

I have no idea how your response relates to my post.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe Kerry will form a better government becuase Bush lied (or at least was wrong) about WMD in Iraq and so vote for him are you an "appeaser"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I found this statement to be funny in more ways than one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

But seriously why are you holding back from sharing your expertise after you post this:

[ QUOTE ]
From your analysis of the reported statement it seems to me you don't have much experience or understanding of terrorism or terrorists (use of the word "appeasment" is highly correlated in this regard in my experiece)

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously inquiring minds would appreciate your sharing your understanding of terrorism and how the problem should be solved.

[nicky g]

M you have repeatedly made it clear that you oppose any objective that may be shared by a terrorist group regardless of whether it is right or wrong. THat is my point about the cliff analogy. Any step that may help resolve a conflict is regared as giving in to terrorism or weakness, even ones that would significantly reduce the the terrorist threat. That you really believe the Spanish should have voted for a government that shamelessly played politics with the Madrid bombings simply to show that they refuse to "give in" to the terrorists, despite the fact that they largely opposed the occupation before the bombings, shows how stubornly ingrained this belief has become. I can see that the result may encourage AQ to time its attacks around elections (though given this is an ageold terrorist tactic I hardly see any need for encouragement) but the idea that the result is to blame for AQ's statement that they will attack other US allies is absurd.

"Secondly the US did not withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia in order to appease terrorist demands. "

I wonder how true that is. SA and the sanctions against Iraq were clearly becoming a liability and you may wish to consider that as one of the strategic reasons behind the Iraq invasion. Regardless, Zapatero is not withdrawing from Iraq to appease terrorist demands. It was his stated policy for months, and the Spanish were long opposed to both the invasion and the presence of Spanish troops there.

[ComedyLimp]

The flaw in your argument is that you don't seem to realise that withdrawing from Iraq might be the right thing to do and might actually constitute progress towards defeating terrorism. You seem to have this blindspot that requires you to consider Spain's actions to be capitulation and appeasement when that need not be the case at all.

If the motivation were appeasement or giving in to terror blackmail why did the new government not just say we are pulling out full stop? As I understand what they have said, if the US, UK and Spain do handover control to the UN by June 30th then the Spanish troops can stay as part of an Internationalised security force. Surely if they wanted to reduce their own short term risk they would be out by next Wednesday?

Or consider this. If I were OBL sitting in my cave plotting my "War Against Freedom" (and possibly other abstract nouns to be announced later) what is the very best thing that can happen now? Bush announcing the imminent invasion of Syria would be pretty much like flopping a straight flush from his perspective -- and yet it is something that would get huge support from the usual NeoCon and Freeper loonies (not that I am saying you are a neocon or likely to support such a move you understand).

What's the worst thing that can happen from OBL's perspective (apart from the Rangers actually finding him)? How about the US ceeding control of Iraq to an international security force under UN control? That would rob him of lots of great anti-US propaganda, make the US seem maybe not so bad after all to lots of moderate Arabs, etc.

But hang on isn't that giving in to terror blackmail?

[andyfox]

It's amazing to me how both sides constantly say that god is on their side. How little we've "progressed" in the last thousand years.

The Christian and Islamic gods are evil.

[Phat Mack]

It's amazing to me how both sides constantly say that god is on their side.

It's interesting that fundementalists don't like each other. You would think that all those who thought god was on their side would band together, then sort out their religous differences when they eliminated rationality. Personally, I would like to see the war on terrorism replaced with a war on fundementalism.

[ComedyLimp]

"Seriously inquiring minds would appreciate your sharing your understanding of terrorism and how the problem should be solved"

My understanding of terrorism comes from -- like many people in Britain and Ireland -- having lived most of my life in a country with a major terrorist problem.

Also, fwiw, I've personally been nearly blown up by the IRA twice (the Harrods bomb in London and the Manchester bomb), I have a number of friends who have lost family members or close friends to acts of terrorism, I have met at least one genuine real-life terrorist (a member of the IRA) and quite probably a few more as well, my partner works for the British government and was (in a former role) involved in a minor way with the political process that lead to the Good Friday Agreement, I was politically involved as a student in the 80s with the situation in Northern Ireland and specifically the idea that a solution required us to talk to the IRA's political representatives Sinn Fein -- a view that in the 80s got one branded as an appeaser even though the solution (which is still a work in progress) utlimately required exactly that. Overall, although I do not claim any level of expertise it has been a serious issue for me, my family and friends for 30 years and its something I have given quite a lot of my time and effort to.

Regarding how I think the problem should be solved it's obviously not quite that simple but I will give you two principles that I beleive to be absoluitely fundamental to the process:

1) Anyone who thinks you can beat terrorism via military means is flat out wrong and will often do more harm than good (albeit from the best of intentions).

2) Terrorists can exist and prosper because they have the tacit support of moderate, mainstream people. Since its essentially impossible to defeat the terrorists directly the best approach is to address the issues that cause these normal people to support the extermists. Essentially, to use a Americanism, the war against terrorism is a battle of "hearts and minds".

I don't pretend for one moment that the situation w.r.t. to al-Qaeda and the Middle East is not a lot more complicated and murderous than the situation in Northern Ireland (although if you go back to the early 70s and Bloody Sunday, mainland no warning pub bombings, Diplock trials, internments, etc. there are actually strong parrallels) but everything I have experienced tell me these principals apply here as well. And when I read stuff like MMMMMMM's talk of appeasment and giving in to terror blackmail it sounds *exactly* like the guff I heard from British (well English actually) politicians in the 80s that did little more than keep the bombing and murdering going for another 20 years.

Matthew
Off to the Pub

[adios]

First of all thanks Matthew for your cogent and reasoned post it's appreciated.

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding of terrorism comes from -- like many people in Britain and Ireland -- having lived most of my life in a country with a major terrorist problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you would say something like this and FWIW it is a worthwhile and insightful perspective IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, fwiw, I've personally been nearly blown up by the IRA twice (the Harrods bomb in London and the Manchester bomb), I have a number of friends who have lost family members or close friends to acts of terrorism, I have met at least one genuine real-life terrorist (a member of the IRA) and quite probably a few more as well, my partner works for the British government and was (in a former role) involved in a minor way with the political process that lead to the Good Friday Agreement, I was politically involved as a student in the 80s with the situation in Northern Ireland and specifically the idea that a solution required us to talk to the IRA's political representatives Sinn Fein -- a view that in the 80s got one branded as an appeaser even though the solution (which is still a work in progress) utlimately required exactly that. Overall, although I do not claim any level of expertise it has been a serious issue for me, my family and friends for 30 years and its something I have given quite a lot of my time and effort to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok

[ QUOTE ]
1) Anyone who thinks you can beat terrorism via military means is flat out wrong and will often do more harm than good (albeit from the best of intentions).

[/ QUOTE ]

If my take is correct the Northern Ireland experience and the actions of the British government in response to terrorism in the 80's lead you to this conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Terrorists can exist and prosper because they have the tacit support of moderate, mainstream people. Since its essentially impossible to defeat the terrorists directly the best approach is to address the issues that cause these normal people to support the extermists. Essentially, to use a Americanism, the war against terrorism is a battle of "hearts and minds".

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok then what should be done about Middle East terrorism?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't pretend for one moment that the situation w.r.t. to al-Qaeda and the Middle East is not a lot more complicated and murderous than the situation in Northern Ireland (although if you go back to the early 70s and Bloody Sunday, mainland no warning pub bombings, Diplock trials, internments, etc. there are actually strong parrallels) but everything I have experienced tell me these principals apply here as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume the parallels are valid, what course of action would you recommend. Any response appreciated.

[ QUOTE ]
And when I read stuff like MMMMMMM's talk of appeasment and giving in to terror blackmail it sounds *exactly* like the guff I heard from British (well English actually) politicians in the 80s that did little more than keep the bombing and murdering going for another 20 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was giving in to terror blackmail part of the solution in Northern Ireland? I assume you mean that you feel M is viewing the situation in Spain incorrectly.