Spain Struggles to Absorb Worst Terrorist Attack

03/15/2004 07:18:46 PM · #76

Wouldn't you have to ask: if Hussein had the wmd's when we invaded Iraq last year, then wouldn't he have used them on coalition troops since he's a madman if he had them?

Originally posted by Zeissman:

RonB,

Thanks for being a voice of reason on here. To those that say there have been no WMD is Iraq since 1994, you may want to look in the 2/17/2003 issue of the Seattle PI to find an article on the UN destroying mustard gas stash that was discovered in 1998, but inspectors were forced to leave before it could be destroyed.

Now, if they didn't destroy weapons that they knew we had found, why would they destroy others that we didnt?

BTW, I am very sorry for the loss of life in Spain, and I am equally saddenned that the terrorists won that battle, which will probably embolden them and lead to more terrorism against countries that dare take a stand.

Russell2566

03/15/2004 07:19:02 PM · #77

Originally posted by glimpses:

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.

I would have to say a motorcycle is everything BUT the safest way to travel. I've been riding for a long time and I can't count the number of times some idiot driver has tried to run me over... What were you trying to get at anyway with this post... I don't think I followed?

MadMordegon

03/15/2004 07:20:41 PM · #78

read this interview w/ John McCain. to put some things in perspective. also remember he is a republican.

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

03/15/2004 07:21:12 PM · #79

This is probably the only thing I'll ever agree with you, Russell...lol

Originally posted by Russell2566:

Originally posted by glimpses:
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.

I would have to say a motorcycle is everything BUT the safest way to travel. I've been riding for a long time and I can't count the number of times some idiot driver has tried to run me over... What were you trying to get at anyway with this post... I don't think I followed?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/15/2004 07:50:30 PM · #80

Originally posted by RonB:

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.

To stand up and say "Gee, boys and girls, some very important business has come up which I really need to take care of right away. I'll try to come back again soon so we can finish our stories ... bye-bye now" takes THIRTEEN seconds (I tried it, one reading, making it up as I went). What was he doing the other 4:47?

I actually hadn't heard about this story at all until now (!?!), but the image which immediately springs to mind is a guy in a toga with a fiddle ....

BTW: don't overlook the value of comic relief -- there's a good case to be made that it is our sense of humor which most separates us from the "lower" animals ....

Message edited by author 2004-03-15 19:51:41.

Russell2566

03/15/2004 08:40:34 PM · #81

Originally posted by GeneralE:

What was he doing the other 4:47?

Well lets think about this rationally:
A plane crashes and the President is alerted... It is assumed a horrible accident, pre 9/11 so no one is jumpy... What on gods green earth do you expect the President to do. Can anyone really be so short-minded to not be able to put this whole thing into context without a baby-sitter!

03/15/2004 09:38:12 PM · #82

Ron, I can't believe that of that entire big article which chronicles a long and sordid history of the Bush's and brings so much out you choose to bring up probably the most insignificant fact of that entire article, but have nothing to say about all the other issues?!

This was an article of many many facts...I have read many of your links and they don't back up what you're saying. For instance, the article about the Brit that was arrested on SUSPECTED charges of trying to smuggle missles into the US was unfounded and he was let go with 5 or 6 other Brits who were illegally detained in Guantanamo Bay.ur articles on Haiti's president Aristede and the elections there don't back up what you say.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

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.

To stand up and say "Gee, boys and girls, some very important business has come up which I really need to take care of right away. I'll try to come back again soon so we can finish our stories ... bye-bye now" takes THIRTEEN seconds (I tried it, one reading, making it up as I went). What was he doing the other 4:47?

I actually hadn't heard about this story at all until now (!?!), but the image which immediately springs to mind is a guy in a toga with a fiddle ....

BTW: don't overlook the value of comic relief -- there's a good case to be made that it is our sense of humor which most separates us from the "lower" animals ....

03/15/2004 10:24:53 PM · #83

To Olyuzi. I have patiently provided answers to each and every one of your questions and charges up to this point. You are free to dispute them to your heart's content. You, however, continue to evade my questions and charges. So, until you respond to MY questions and charges, I will ignore the remaider of you rants.

from my post of 3/12 @ 5:46 p.m.

Apparently there were OTHER reports that were supportive of the Iraq/Al Qaeda link. Do you think that Bush & Company should ignore TWENTY other reports that there WAS a link in favor of ONE report that Tenet said was not to be relied on?

from my post of 3/13 @ 9:53 a.m.

If Kevin Phillips documents the whole rotten history, how can he conveniently "skip" the eight year span of Clinton's administration?

from my post of 3/15 @ 9/24 a.m.

Why do you choose to believe one faction over the other when BOTH are "very firm"?

from my post of 3/15 @ 11:38 a.m.

If Saddam Hussein was there why did it take so long for the coalition forces to find him?
If Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan/Afghanistan, why haven't the coalition forces found him?

from my post of 3/15 @ 12:00 p.m.

Which point of yours did I prove?

Ron

03/15/2004 10:36:38 PM · #84

Originally posted by RonB:

No, not ignore them...but not rush off to war when there are conflicting reports.

03/15/2004 10:39:03 PM · #85

Originally posted by RonB:

Kevin Phillips has written many many books...I'm sure he's got something for you about Clinton.

03/15/2004 10:41:24 PM · #86

Originally posted by RonB:

Hmmm...You got me on that one Ron.

03/15/2004 11:41:01 PM · #87

Originally posted by RonB:

Is this your reasoning as to why we haven't found wmd's yet?
I really don't know why it took the time it did to find him...maybe he knows all the good hiding places? Maybe we had him all along? Maybe we have Osama too. Maybe he's dead. I don't know.

But if I may, I would like to ask you some questions now:
Why did the US give $43 million dollars to the Taliban in 2001?
why didn't GW arrest bin Laden when he was staying in an American hospital in July of 2001 and supposedly met with a CIA representative at that time? Here's one article: [thumb]//www.robertscheer.com/6_biography/[/thumb]

Also, here's a question of mine you haven't answered yet:
If Sadaam Hussein had wmd's when we invaded Iraq, then why didn't he use them on coalition forces?

03/15/2004 11:54:00 PM · #88

This being the answer to the final question that I did not answer of yours. Your giving an example of J. Kerry and saying something often enough that people would believe it and my following that logic and applying it to what the Bush admin did with the al qaeda/Hussein connection.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I agree with you completely here...When someone says something often enough, and in the right places at the right times, then their statements can cause people to believe it's true even without evidence...such as a link between al Quaeda and Hussein. Thanks for proving my point, Ron.

Originally posted by RonB:

You are certainly entitled to "wonder". But I "wonder" if it wasn't really the Democrats that backed Papa and Baby Doc. Wondering is just another liberal tactic that causes some to question what is being said. I could just as easily say "I wonder if Kerry has successfully kicked his cocaine habit"? I have NO basis for that statement, but if uttered in the right place, it could cause some to believe that he had a cocaine habit. Please make provide some logical connection when you make implications of this nature.

5) Last paragraph...Aristede became Haiti's first DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT.

You can lay claim to that legalese ONLY if you concede that George Bush IS our DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED ( not SELECTED ) PRESIDENT.

Ron

03/15/2004 11:55:20 PM · #89

I don't see any wmd's in that picture, do you?

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
How were satellite pictures able to pick up something so small and if satellite pictures are so good at spoting things so small, then why can't they pick them up today? The recorded telephone conversations have been questioned in their translation and intelligiblity and if that evidence is anything like the evidence that Colin Powell presented to the UN about the links between al Quaeda and Sadaam Hussein, then they were no evidence at all.

Yes, the satellites ARE able to pick up something that small.
As in this Satellite Photo
They can't pick them up today because Saddam is gone and site sanitization is no longer occurring.
As for the telephone recordings: ANYTHING can be questioned - what's more important is WHO is doing the Questioning, and Why.

Ron

03/16/2004 07:20:38 AM · #90

Originally posted by andywightman:

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.

I took a look at "the most authoratative source" you linked to and the first entry I saw looks like this:

Incident Code: K021
Date: 01 Feb
Time: 11:00 AM
Location: Irbil
Target: offices of PUK and KDP
Weapons suicide bombers carrying explosives
Reported Minimum: 107
Reported Maximum: 109
Sources: AP 04 Feb; NYT 10 Feb

I did not do a complete analysis, but I don't think that I would include the victims of suicide bombers in MY "civilian death" count, unless the suicide bomber was a U.S. Infantryman. There are row after row of similar "incidents".

Ron

03/16/2004 07:39:24 AM · #91

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Ron, one of the links below you cited, I think it was Insight.com is owned by News World Communications who is owned by the Unification Church...they are led by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon...Hmmm...Sorry, that doesn't fly with me.

The ABC link you cited says that the person was arrested on SUSPICION. Wasn't he one of the 5 or 6 from GB that the US held at Guantanamo Bay and had let go last week because they coudln't find any evidence to support their claims? I think so.

Are you just citing claims here with nothing of substance?

The mark of a closed mind is to ignore the truth if it does not come from a source whose politics or religious leanings are in agreement with those of the reader.
You may think that the person arrested under SUSPICION was one of the 5 or 6 detainees if you choose to. Do you have ANYTHING that would support your "thought"? Or are you just throwing out more baseless, unsupported rhetoric? Perhaps you could just explain WHY you "think so"?
No, there's substance there - you just choose to ignore it because of the sources.

Ron

03/16/2004 08:03:48 AM · #92

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Yes, and I can see by your explanation down below how good our defenses were that horrible 9/11 day. I thought you said Bush did so much to improve our defenses? Now I don't know about you, but I would think that the pentagon would be one of the most defended institutions anywhere in the world...but all the leaders were meeting that were supposed to be, sitting with their thumbs up their asses!What were they talking about, the beautiful weather that day?...I'm sure they were safe when innocent people were being killed.

When an air threat happens the FAA contacts Norad immediately...they then initiate fighter planes to be up in the air within 5 minutes...this is standard operating protocol. What happened to Bush's improved defenses that day? Or is he going to blame Clinton for that one too?

And how do you know that Bush left the kindergarden in 5 minutes? Were you there?

Bush took office on Jan 20, 2001. The attack on the World Trade Center took place on Sep 11, 2001 - 234 days later. Just how much ramping up of defenses do you expect in that period of time, following 8 YEARS of downsizing during the Clinton administration?

If you can provide a link to a photo showing them with their thumbs up their asses, then I will believe you. Otherwise, please confine your inflamed rhetoric to your circle of friends.

Unless you were in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or a field in Pennsylvania, YOU were also safe when innocent people were being killed. So WHAT? Being safe by virtue of geographic location has NOTHING to do with anything.

Why should I believe that YOU know how the FAA operates vis-a-vis NORAD? Why should I believe that YOU know what standard operating protocol is? Please provide links to back up those statements.

Bush does not blame Clinton for the attacks. He blames Islamic terrorists.

No, I wasn't there. But MANY were. A whole host of media companies ( including some of your favorites ) compiled a chronology of the events of 9/11. That chronology can be found HERE
Actual video with time markings ( showing that Bush left 5 minutes after being told ) can be found HERE

Ron

03/16/2004 08:13:18 AM · #93

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

read this interview w/ John McCain. to put some things in perspective. also remember he is a republican.

And after he worked to get passage of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill to correct the problems he states in that interview, we get this:
"Soft money is back, and it's making hypocrites of all those Democrats who fervently championed the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law, not to mention those Republicans who objected to the law's restrictions on issue advocacy." Ref HERE

Ron

03/16/2004 08:16:56 AM · #94

Originally posted by GeneralE:

It only takes 1 second to shout FIRE! in a crowed theater, too. But it will probably be more prudent to take a calmer approach and try for an orderly evacuation instead of a stampede. If Bush had jumped up and ran out the door, there would have been panic in the streets all across America. He did what he thought was best for the country at the time. And I think that he did the right thing.

Ron

03/16/2004 08:24:00 AM · #95

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I will, at your insistance, provide other commentary - later.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

This was an article of many many facts...

That remains to be seen. The first few FACTS, of course, were NOT facts, in fact, as I pointed out.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I have read many of your links and they don't back up what you're saying. For instance, the article about the Brit that was arrested on SUSPECTED charges of trying to smuggle missles into the US was unfounded and he was let go with 5 or 6 other Brits who were illegally detained in Guantanamo Bay.

Please provide a supportive link that the Brit who was arrested was let go. Please provide a supportive link that the Brits that were let go were illegally detained.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Your articles on Haiti's president Aristede and the elections there don't back up what you say.

Yes they do. You just choose to not believe them.

Ron

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/16/2004 08:24:53 AM · #96

I can feel Godwin waiting in the wings...

03/16/2004 08:26:43 AM · #97

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Kevin Phillips has written many many books...I'm sure he's got something for you about Clinton.

And I'm sure he doesn't. Since you brought him up as supporting YOUR position, the burden of proof is on you. Please provide something substantive to show that he's got something for me about Clinton.

Ron

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/16/2004 08:30:22 AM · #98

Originally posted by RonB:

Please provide a supportive link that the Brit who was arrested was let go. Please provide a supportive link that the Brits that were let go were illegally detained.

Here are a couple of legal views on the legality of the 2.5 year detention without charge of a about 600 people by the US.

But before you go to the link - think about that. 2 and half years, without any due process. None of that pesky constitution or rights for foreign nationals here.

Comparative analysis

I suppose it depends if you feel that the ends justify the means, or if the whole land of the free and rights and stuff actually means anything at all. Honestly, I find the argument in support of detaining these people without charge abhorent. Yes, on a series of technicalities it might be legally justifyable. Yes, you can claim that US law doesn't apply, nor does international law apply. and I do realise that might makes right in these cases, but if you are even pretending to be doing this to stand up for freedom and democracy and the American way, it would be real nice to even give the appearance of giving a damn for human rights. Basic things like checking to see if the people you've locked up for over 30 months actually did anything, stuff like that.

Message edited by author 2004-03-16 08:34:48.

03/16/2004 08:44:04 AM · #99

Yep...I'm pretty closed minded (sarcasm).
Are you a Moonie?

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, one of the links below you cited, I think it was Insight.com is owned by News World Communications who is owned by the Unification Church...they are led by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon...Hmmm...Sorry, that doesn't fly with me.

The ABC link you cited says that the person was arrested on SUSPICION. Wasn't he one of the 5 or 6 from GB that the US held at Guantanamo Bay and had let go last week because they coudln't find any evidence to support their claims? I think so.

Are you just citing claims here with nothing of substance?

The mark of a closed mind is to ignore the truth if it does not come from a source whose politics or religious leanings are in agreement with those of the reader.
You may think that the person arrested under SUSPICION was one of the 5 or 6 detainees if you choose to. Do you have ANYTHING that would support your "thought"? Or are you just throwing out more baseless, unsupported rhetoric? Perhaps you could just explain WHY you "think so"?
No, there's substance there - you just choose to ignore it because of the sources.

Ron