Spain Struggles to Absorb Worst Terrorist Attack

03/15/2004 03:04:28 PM · #51

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

What foreign intelligence agencies? You mean Great Britain's? We know how reliable they've turned out to be. Now if the US gov't and the intelligence community was left so bad off by Clinton when he left office, as has been said many times by rightwingers, then why did Bush heed those reports when he should have known better, given how poorly clinton left the state of the military and intelligence?

What planned attacks were thrawrted since 9/11? Can you give specifics, like who was involved, newspaper articles?

To your first question: British, Australian, and Israeli for a start.
I won't even dignify your second statement with an response, since it offers no support for a position, but does unilaterally elevate YOU to be the spokesman for who-knows-what faction ( the "royal" WE perhaps?).
As for the third, we rightwingers knew that Clinton had reduced funding for the agencies, but did not realize how bad they had been hampered until recently. Now that their funding has been ratched back up, our intelligence is better - good enough to have prevented any serious terrorist attacks within our borders since 9/11.
As for the fourth, here are a few references:
"U.S. forces have disrupted several planned terrorist attacks against Western and other targets in the Horn of Africa and local authorities have killed or captured more than two dozen militants, the U.S. general in command of an anti-terrorism task force told The Associated Press." Ref HERE
"A British national was arrested this morning on suspicion of being involved in a plot to smuggle a surface-to-air missile into the United States, ABCNEWS has learned...Undercover agents took the man to a warehouse in New Jersey so he could see the missile and then to the Wyndham Hotel in Elizabeth, N.J., where he thought he was going to get final payment for the missile. Instead, he was arrested." Ref HERE
"The United States and its allies have thwarted more than 100 terrorist attacks since 9/11. "I feel confident that more than 100 activities on the part of al-Qaeda have been disrupted and interrupted around the world," Attorney General John Ashcroft told reporters in August...Some of the foiled incidents include: Detonation of a radioactive "dirty bomb" inside the United States; Attacks on U.S. forces in Bosnia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen; Attacks on U.S. and NATO ships in the Strait of Gibraltar; Bombing of the U.S. embassies and consulates in France, Italy, Pakistan, Singapore and elsewhere; Detroit-based attacks inside Jordan, Turkey and the United States; Illegal sale of antiaircraft missiles to al-Qaeda." Ref HERE

Ron

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/15/2004 03:18:42 PM · #52

Originally posted by RonB:

I am glad that SOMEONE has at least come to a logical conclusion, and agree that we have NO PROOF that they did NOT exist.

Ron

or that they did exist.

In fact, why not just state it as 'someone has at least come to the logical conclusion, and agree that Bush had no proof' ?

Message edited by author 2004-03-15 15:20:20.

andywightman

Nikon D80

03/15/2004 03:27:36 PM · #53

Let us accept that there is no proof that WMD existed in Iraq prior to the invasion AND that we have no proof that they didn't exist. Logically, therefore, surely the burden of proof is on those whose claimed so emphatically that they DID exist to prove it since on the basis of their claims, we invaded a sovereign country in a pre-emptive military strike killing thousands of innocent people.

PS, the reason the new Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, intends to withdraw from Iraq is that he was opposed to the invasion along with 90% of the Spanish people. I don't think it can be read as giving into terrorism since Iraq was not responsible for any of the events that launched the so-called 'war on terrorism'

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/15/2004 03:41:02 PM · #54

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

I am glad that SOMEONE has at least come to a logical conclusion, and agree that we have NO PROOF that they did NOT exist.

Ron

or that they did exist.

In fact, why not just state it as 'someone has at least come to the logical conclusion, and agree that Bush had no proof' ?

Someone HAS - it's just not ME. Because I don't agree with that statement. I believe that Bush DID have proof. Only it is not possible to substantiate that proof after-the-fact. I also believe that subatomic particles exist, though no scientist can produce one. The only "proof" that they exist, is the "evidence" of their passing. It is nearly impossible, in the absence of documentary film, to "prove" that a tornado has passed through, but most would accept the "evidence" of its passing as "proof" enough. Similarly, the "evidence" of banned weaponry was provided- so even though it cannot be "produced" at this time doesn't mean that we should discard that evidence.

Ron

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/15/2004 03:51:47 PM · #55

Originally posted by RonB:

So you'd agree that there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And you'd also agree that it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones ?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/15/2004 04:10:29 PM · #56

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Someone HAS - it's just not ME. Because I don't agree with that statement. I believe that Bush DID have proof. Only it is not possible to substantiate that proof after-the-fact. I also believe that subatomic particles exist, though no scientist can produce one. The only "proof" that they exist, is the "evidence" of their passing. It is nearly impossible, in the absence of documentary film, to "prove" that a tornado has passed through, but most would accept the "evidence" of its passing as "proof" enough. Similarly, the "evidence" of banned weaponry was provided- so even though it cannot be "produced" at this time doesn't mean that we should discard that evidence.

Ron

So you'd agree that there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And you'd also agree that it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones ?

How about some unknown knowns, just for variety ...

03/15/2004 04:19:50 PM · #57

Originally posted by andywightman:

I've cut this quote in half, because up to this point, I am in total agreement with what you say. The burden of proof IS on those who claimed that they DID exist.

Originally posted by andywightman:

since on the basis of their claims, we invaded a sovereign country in a pre-emptive military strike killing thousands of innocent people.

I challenge you to back up the claim that our military killed "thousands" of innocent people. Soldiers don't count. Human shields don't count. And I would also not include those innocents who died as a result of being used by the Iraqi military for cover. It is against the "rules of war" to use civilians as shields. If they died as a result of military action against Iraqi military targets, then it is the Iraqis who are responsible for their deaths, not our military.

Originally posted by andywightman:

PS, the reason the new Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, intends to withdraw from Iraq is that he was opposed to the invasion along with 90% of the Spanish people. I don't think it can be read as giving into terrorism since Iraq was not responsible for any of the events that launched the so-called 'war on terrorism'

If Iraq was not responsible for any of the events then why is al Queda taking responsibility for the terrorist attacks in Spain? What does al Queda have against Spain ( since many people say that al Queda had/has no ties to Iraq )? I do, indeed read it as the Spanish people giving in to terrorism. Until the terrorist attacks, the conservative party was generally expected to win the election. What caused people to change their minds, if not the terrorist attacks and the percieved threat of additional terrorism if the conservative party retained power?

Ron

(edited to add missing third {quote} intro)

Message edited by author 2004-03-16 07:06:59.

03/15/2004 04:22:55 PM · #58

Originally posted by Gordon:

Yes.
Those who know not and know not they know not, know not.
Those who know and know not they know, know not.
Those who know and know they know, know not.
Those who know not and know they know not, know.

Ron

03/15/2004 04:48:48 PM · #59

In few days people who, evidently, IS NOT a commuter in one the major european cities, and who, evidently, DOES NOT take a bus in Israel and who, evidently DOES NOT lives in Iraq, has ALREADY stopped talking about the victims and turned the attention on politics.

I am not surprised about what happened in Spain and I find ridicolous to say that Al Qaeda has won there.

Sure, without that event the elections would have probably ended differently.

Does it mean that terrorists decided the elections? I don't think so.

It just means that people who REALLY risks something naturally takes more interest in what can be done to reduce that risk.

And the way I see it, the only way to reduce it, it is by removing or, at least, limiting the source of problem, if possible.

Differently from what's happening in US, it is already clear to many people in Europe that politicians have sold too many bullshit during latest years. That becomes really difficult to accept when your own life is under a real risk.

Then you have to think CLEAR and CRISPY regardless the many subtle lies singing in the media.

Have politicians REALLY find the responsibles for what happened? Have they really found an answer to WHY it did happened? Do you really think that people could keep believing the religious bullshit once that the risk of life would have become EVIDENT?

It is not Al Qaeda which left a sign in the history of Spain but the VICTIMS. The same victims that Al-Qaeda and their ignoble and hidden allies have valued zero.

I hope that US (and Europe) will find good politicians soon because they are ABSOLUTELY needed.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

03/15/2004 04:49:17 PM · #60

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Someone HAS - it's just not ME. Because I don't agree with that statement. I believe that Bush DID have proof. Only it is not possible to substantiate that proof after-the-fact. I also believe that subatomic particles exist, though no scientist can produce one. The only "proof" that they exist, is the "evidence" of their passing. It is nearly impossible, in the absence of documentary film, to "prove" that a tornado has passed through, but most would accept the "evidence" of its passing as "proof" enough. Similarly, the "evidence" of banned weaponry was provided- so even though it cannot be "produced" at this time doesn't mean that we should discard that evidence.

Ron

So you'd agree that there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And you'd also agree that it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones ?

How about some unknown knowns, just for variety ...

Now THAT link provided some comic relief. An erudite article written by a "writer, activist, musician, carpenter, and farmer".
Among his "factual" claims are:
"George W. Bush, commander-in-chief, sat in a second-grade classroom for 20 minutes after he was informed that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center, listening to children read a story about a goat"

In fact, it was only 5 minutes, not twenty.

"the Number 2 man, Dick Cheneyâ��even knowing that "the commander" was on a mission in Floridaâ��nevertheless sat at his desk in the White House, watching TV, until the Secret Service dragged him out by the armpits."

When Cheney was dragged out of his office, it was not yet apparent that the plane crash into the north tower was a terrorist attack. For all Cheney knew, it could have been just a terrible accident. Most estimates put Cheney's departure from his office at the same time, or very shortly after the second tower was struck.

"While the 9/11 attacks were occurring, the entire top of the chain of command of the most powerful military in the world sat at various desks, inert."

"Brigadier General Montague Winfield is in command of the National Military Command Center (NMCC), "the military's worldwide nerve center." {CNN, 9/4/02} According to NORAD command director Captain Michael Jellinek, at some point not long after the WTC hit, telephone links are established with the National Military Command Center (NMCC) located inside the Pentagon (but on the opposite side from where the Pentagon explosion will happen), Canada's equivalent command center, Strategic Command, theater commanders, and federal emergency-response agencies. An Air Threat Conference Call is initiated. At one time or another, Bush, Cheney, key military officers, leaders of the FAA and NORAD, the White House, and Air Force One are heard on the open line. (Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02, CNN, 9/4/02, ABC News, 9/11/02} Says Winfield, "All of the governmental agencies there that, that were involved in any activity that was going on in the United States at that point, were in that conference." Ref HERE

If the farmer can't be accurate about such easily verifiable events, why would I tend to believe anything else he has to say?

Flash

Nikon D700

03/15/2004 04:57:07 PM · #61

The Spain Train explosions and resultant deaths/injuries are a true tragedy. However, soft targets will continue to be exploited throughout the world by those seeking to inflict terror and thereby influence a variety of positions.

Unfortunately, the United States of America found itself in a predicament when some historical supporters/allies vehemently and publically disagreed with our recognition that Saddam needed to go. Logic and reason led to strong arming and ultimately the backed into a corner position of "requiring a sale" to the american people. As in virtually all sales......the information shared is "designed" to get the individual/family/group/company/corporation/state or country to "buy". A tremendous amount of "sale" information is less than "complete". As in the "whole truth, nothing but the truth...so help me god".

Recall some product advertising/campaign promises/religious tenet/far right/left dogma, etc. and evaluate if sales = complete honesty OR if sales = get them to buy. I trust that you will conclude that the objective intent is to sway the target with enough facts to be credible and enough hype to stir a favorable reply/action.

It is certainly true that Sadaam had manufactured and used WMD's. It is true that Sadaam had ejected the UN inspectors. It is true that the UN had voted on a number of resolutions in an attempt to "sell" Sadaam on the idea of changing course. It is true that Sadaam's Baath Party ruled with an iron fist, crushing/torturing those who opposed it. It is true that Sadaam invaded Kuwait. It is true that Sadaam warred with Iran. It is true that Sadaam warred with the Kurds. It is true that some concluded, that Sadaam was unstable enough, had demonstrated the capabilities, had refused to cooperate with inspectors and therefore was a high risk of becoming a "supplier" if it suited his purposes.

My take is that the US has come off as a bully, partly due to the demeaner of its highest ranking elected officials and their cabinet, and partly because of alliances that Sadaam had with some of the US's historical allies. Most people don't care much for bullies. But almost everyone wants the bully on their side in a dark alley.

We are headed into some very dark and dangerous places. Where the "weapons" of war and "rules of engagement" are those of a street fight rather than the Queensbury rules of boxing. It would be prudent for all of the world, to assess their allies, determine if they increase their strength or dimininsh it, and plot a course for co-existence. When so much of US money is given throughtout the world, it is sometimes hard for americans to understand why they get bit by those being fed. Perhaps the answer is to not feed them. Or know that if it is charity, then there can be no strings attached......understanding that some people do not want our help and resent the fact that we think they need it.

In a book titled Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun, Wess Roberts PhD writes, "Huns may enter war as a result of failed diplomacy; However, war may be necessary for diplomacy to begin."

andywightman

Nikon D80

03/15/2004 04:58:45 PM · #62

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by andywightman:
since on the basis of their claims, we invaded a sovereign country in a pre-emptive military strike killing thousands of innocent people.

I challenge you to back up the claim that our military killed "thousands" of innocent people. Soldiers don't count. Human shields don't count. And I would also not include those innocents who died as a result of being used by the Iraqi military for cover. It is against the "rules of war" to use civilians as shields. If they died as a result of military action against Iraqi military targets, then it is the Iraqis who are responsible for their deaths, not our military.
Ron

The most authoritative source on this subject is //www.iraqbodycount.net
For example, " As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq . These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004." at //www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_feb0704.htm

Personally, I do include innocent conscript soldiers as innocent people. If we hadn't invaded they'd still be alive. But even excluding them the count is in thousands. Not all of these innocents died directly at the hand of the invading forces but they died as a consequence of the war that the invaders initiated.

Russell2566

03/15/2004 05:05:32 PM · #63

The left's only hope of survival is to project failure apon the current administration. They are so blinded by their hate (which is ironic) that they can't even bare to read or hear the truth without going on some rampage.

I listen to some of the arguments on this board and many others, and the arguments from those such as my Fiance's grandmother, and I can barely keep from laughing out loud... So many of you don't even have an ounce of clues, you just blurb out what you've heard on your radio or TV and when someone like me disagrees you call me a war mongor or a racist or stupid or a liar...

Message edited by author 2004-03-15 17:12:04.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/15/2004 05:08:44 PM · #64

Originally posted by Russell2566:

I listen to some of the arguments on this board and many others, and the arguments from those such as my Fiance's grandmother, and I can barely keep from laughing out loud...

I agree completely. Many of them are laughably blind.

Russell2566

03/15/2004 05:10:12 PM · #65

Originally posted by andywightman:

But even excluding them the count is in thousands.

While this obviously bloated number might seem large, it's pretty small in comparison to the number that would have died over say just the next 5 years if people like Kerry had their way...

Of course of Dodge Viper is an epxensive car, but its dirt cheap compared to say a Ferrari Stradale.

Wake up and use some common sense people.

03/15/2004 05:15:15 PM · #66

Flash, It was a pleasant surprise to read your commentary. Respectful, thoughtful, insightful, articulate. Thank you.
FWIW, I agree with your assesment.

Ron

03/15/2004 05:16:43 PM · #67

Originally posted by Russell2566:

and I can barely keep from laughing out loud...

Surely nowadays a motorbike is a much more secure way to travel than a bus or a train but is that enough to make you laugh about such arguments? I don't think it's a problem about the motorbike.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

03/15/2004 05:18:24 PM · #68

Originally posted by Russell2566:

While this obviously bloated number might seem large, it's pretty small in comparison to the number that would have died over say just the next 5 years if people like Kerry had their way...

You people are incredible.. not even a terrorist would be able to make a better use of terror.

Zeissman

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

03/15/2004 05:20:02 PM · #69

Originally posted by frozensun:

Originally posted by KarenB:

Originally posted by a_berenguer:
... only by this way, the world will be different.

If only life were so simple.
If a simple change of head of state in any country could have such dramatic effects, perhaps we could have had peace by now. Unfortunatley, it is far too complex. Humans, no matter where they are from, what family they were raised by are inherently argumentative and violent.
"I'm not violent" someone reading this might say.
Well, I don't consider myself violent either, but I want the terrorists dead.
I'm unwilling to point the finger at anyone but them.

Occupation raises Resistance wich might be adopted in some cases as Terrorism in the western countries. You have to look to the stimulus first.

Serge

What occupation? these weren't Iraqi's or Palestinian's. The worst oppression in the middle east comes from their own governments who get rich while their people live in poverty.

The only way to give people hope is to give them control of their own nations - not through Kings or Sultan's but through elected officials.

George Bush has freed 50,000,000 in the last 4 years, what has France done but profit off the blood of others?