Spain Struggles to Absorb Worst Terrorist Attack

03/16/2004 08:54:49 AM · #101

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

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.

Maybe he does. And maybe that's why we haven't found the wmd's.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

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?

Please check your sources more closely. Those left-wing rags will twist the truth mercilessly. The $43 million was not DOLLARS. It was $28 million dollars WORTH of WHEAT, from the Department of Agriculture, $5 million dollars WORTH of food commodities, and $10 million in "livelihood and food security" programs, both from the U.S. Agency for International Development. It was HUMANITARIAN aid - as reported by CNN HERE

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

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]

All of the left-wing articles take care to qualify their accusations as "reported", "alleged", etc. THIS LINK says that even bin Laden himself denies the reports in an interview with Pakistan's Dawn Newspaper.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

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?

You'll have to ask Hussein.

Ron

03/16/2004 08:54:50 AM · #102

Originally posted by RonB:

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 09:01:51 AM · #103

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

There you go again...democrat/republican...black and white thinking...no intervening gray in between. That's the only game in town for you...democrat/republican democrat/republican...Bush/Clinton...Bush/Clinton

Originally posted by RonB:

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

First, my response was to Madmordegan. But feel free to respond for him.
Secondly, Madmordegan's the one who took care to point out that McCain is a Republican.
Thirdly, I purposefully did not cut off my responding quote when it reached the point where it says "not to mention those Republicans who objected to the law's restrictions on issue advocacy.", even though, by doing so, I could have hoped to influence readers.

Ron

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/16/2004 09:02:02 AM · #104

Originally posted by RonB:

Please check your sources more closely.

So you are quoting the Moonies and Osam Bin Laden and you are saying people should check their sources ? This trolling gets funnier and funnier. The only worry is that you might actually believe any of it.

Message edited by author 2004-03-16 09:02:34.

03/16/2004 09:08:06 AM · #105

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Please check your sources more closely.

So you are quoting the Moonies and Osam Bin Laden and you are saying people should check their sources ? This trolling gets funnier and funnier. The only worry is that you might actually believe any of it.

I notice that you, too, avoid responding to the CONTENT and/or the ISSUES - only to the SOURCES. Figures. And you shouldn't worry. It causes wrinkles.

Ron

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/16/2004 09:13:06 AM · #106

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Please check your sources more closely.

So you are quoting the Moonies and Osam Bin Laden and you are saying people should check their sources ? This trolling gets funnier and funnier. The only worry is that you might actually believe any of it.

I notice that you, too, avoid responding to the CONTENT and/or the ISSUES - only to the SOURCES. Figures. And you shouldn't worry. It causes wrinkles.

Ron

Well this probably explains why nobody has found laden...

mbardeen

Canon PowerShot G3

03/16/2004 09:19:18 AM · #107

This is so sad. An awful event used as an excuse to spout partisan rhetoric.

Grow up.

Alexys

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

03/16/2004 09:37:46 AM · #108

Originally posted by RonB:

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)

As spanish citizen I think I can explain why spanish people changes their votes at last moment. Perhaps, one week before the election, AznarÂ´s party has a good advantage against ZapateroÂ´s party. But, I think itÂ´s important to know that four years ago Aznar won the spanish election with a great advantage, he had more than 50% votes of people. This 4 years of AznarÂ´s government was very bad for Spain. Not only the war with Irak, furthermore Aznar prefered to be near the U.S. politic than European politic, and, no doubt, it was a great mistake, in my opinion. But, this is an important answer to understand why his party doesnÂ´t won the election, but itÂ´s not the most important reason. The most important reason is that Aznar and his ministres had manipulated the information, they manipulated the public tv, they manipulated writing press, they manipulated radios... definitely, they manipulated the information to get a big politic advantage. Finally, when Al Qaeda attacks Madrid with his bombs, in the first moment one of the ministre of Aznar said that without doubt the attacks was made by ETA (basque separatist terrorist group). But, the people thought that it was very strange, because ETA has a different form of kill people, they killed politic people, or police, but only one time they killed 21 people in my city, but it was a mistake of the police, because when they put a bomb, they call to advice... But, AznarÂ´s government didnÂ´t to know that possibly was Al Qaeda, because they know that if they recognize the Al QaedaÂ´s attaks, they will lost the election... so, they prefered to hide the information. Thursday at evening, you could read different non-spanish e-press, and you get better information out .... itÂ´s terrible!

I hope you can understand my poor english, I promise you that IÂ´ll take some lessons to improve it....

Take care

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

03/16/2004 09:40:36 AM · #109

It's still black and white thinking Ron.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
There you go again...democrat/republican...black and white thinking...no intervening gray in between. That's the only game in town for you...democrat/republican democrat/republican...Bush/Clinton...Bush/Clinton

Originally posted by RonB:

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

First, my response was to Madmordegan. But feel free to respond for him.
Secondly, Madmordegan's the one who took care to point out that McCain is a Republican.
Thirdly, I purposefully did not cut off my responding quote when it reached the point where it says "not to mention those Republicans who objected to the law's restrictions on issue advocacy.", even though, by doing so, I could have hoped to influence readers.

Ron

Flash

Nikon D700

03/16/2004 09:46:00 AM · #110

Originally posted by RonB:

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

Ron

RonB.....
I appreciate your acknowlegement. Stay the course. Measured. Balanced. Fair.

There are always good, bad, and ugly choices.

Initially after the last election, President Clinton was publically vocal in the press and critical of the incoming administration. Since the sad day in September 2001, he has taken a much lower keyed profile. I believe that there is an "honor code" amongst presidents, whereby even if one's politics is directly opposite anothers, certain topics are closely guarded by successors. I believe that anyone sitting in the Oval Office, or at the head of any State/Country, understands the immense responsibility entrusted to them from their countrymen. There are few items any more stirring than Soverienty and Safety.

Regarding "sales" and the tactics used to market an idea, philosophy or product. I've perused the portfolio of several photographers here on dpc and in the vast majority of cases, they contain the best works of that person. According to some of the arguments/positions taken in this thread, it seems that "full disclosure" should translate into portfoilio's containing some of one's worst photographs as well. As in "the truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me God". This way, prospective buyer's could know your actual ratio of good to bad shots and therefore decide who "really" are the good photographers. We could also, establish inspectors to go visit photographers hard drives to insure compliance with dpc resolutions, and if a photographer refused the inspectors access, then further sanctions could be voted upon.

Of course at some point, the alliances will have a falling out, as some photographer's photographs will be so bad that they will be coveted by terrorist seeking to insert these into anothers portfolio to influence the market place and forward their own ideas/philosophy/product. These WMD's (Worst of Mankind Displays) would be banned from manufacture, but available on the black market to rogue photographers. The rogue photographers guild, feeling stepped on by the mighty dpc administration, would justify their actions via quotations from various photographer Greats, thus mobilizing young impressionable apprentices to accept suicide missions in the name of Glory. After many portfolio deaths, the world would reach a point where either the agenda of the rogue photographers guild would prevail or they would be crushed.

That war is in our midst. There is no appeasing those bent on terror and determined to overthrow the current World. Our choices are simple. Give up. Or crush them.

03/16/2004 09:50:30 AM · #111

Excellent points, a_berenguer! Thank you for that explanation. And you see, the same has happened, and continues to happen in the US. The mass media has been manipulated by the gov't and the corporations.

Originally posted by a_berenguer:

Originally posted by RonB:

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)

As spanish citizen I think I can explain why spanish people changes their votes at last moment. Perhaps, one week before the election, AznarÂ´s party has a good advantage against ZapateroÂ´s party. But, I think itÂ´s important to know that four years ago Aznar won the spanish election with a great advantage, he had more than 50% votes of people. This 4 years of AznarÂ´s government was very bad for Spain. Not only the war with Irak, furthermore Aznar prefered to be near the U.S. politic than European politic, and, no doubt, it was a great mistake, in my opinion. But, this is an important answer to understand why his party doesnÂ´t won the election, but itÂ´s not the most important reason. The most important reason is that Aznar and his ministres had manipulated the information, they manipulated the public tv, they manipulated writing press, they manipulated radios... definitely, they manipulated the information to get a big politic advantage. Finally, when Al Qaeda attacks Madrid with his bombs, in the first moment one of the ministre of Aznar said that without doubt the attacks was made by ETA (basque separatist terrorist group). But, the people thought that it was very strange, because ETA has a different form of kill people, they killed politic people, or police, but only one time they killed 21 people in my city, but it was a mistake of the police, because when they put a bomb, they call to advice... But, AznarÂ´s government didnÂ´t to know that possibly was Al Qaeda, because they know that if they recognize the Al QaedaÂ´s attaks, they will lost the election... so, they prefered to hide the information. Thursday at evening, you could read different non-spanish e-press, and you get better information out .... itÂ´s terrible!

I hope you can understand my poor english, I promise you that IÂ´ll take some lessons to improve it....

Take care

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

03/16/2004 09:58:28 AM · #112

Originally posted by a_berenguer:

Thanks for the post, Alexis.
Please understand, I am not unsympathetic to the feelings of the Spanish People. I, myself, with my entire family, visited Spain just a few years ago. We even took a train out of the Atocha Station. We were VERY favorably impressed with the Spanish people and their culture. We were well aware during our entire visit, however, that the Basque separatists posed a constant threat, and were careful to be on the lookout for "unattended" baggage, etc.
My statements, however, were to the effect that if the attacks on Spain had NOT occurred, would Aznar's party have won the election? If the attacks had occurred two weeks earlier, and there was ample proof that the attacks were the responsibility of ETA, would Aznar's party have won the election? I believe that these attacks WERE the responsibility of al Qaeda, and that the timing was purposefully selected by them to cause a change in the outcome of the election - and I think that they succeeded.
My condolences to all of my Spanish brothers and sisters. Life in Spain will never be the same as it was before these brutal attacks.

Ron

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/16/2004 10:13:11 AM · #113

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
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 ....

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

You are comparing apples to oranges, not speaking to my point at all.

In my little script, I tried to imaging the calm, deliberate response I'd give to a class of young children, not "jumping up and run[ing] out the door."

I want you to try your own "thought experiment;" imaging you are sitting in a class listening to kids read a story about a goat, when a Secret Service operative whispers in your ear that an airliner has just hit the WTC. Now, try to sit there for FIVE MORE MINUTES without further info ... most of us, when we heard about it, it took about five seconds to turn on a radio or TV to find out more, but I guess the President was more concerned about hurting that little girl's feelings, or was it he just REALLY wanted to know how the story came out?

Some of your other posts in this thread have been tainted with logic, but I think you're out in left field .... sorry, out in right field on this one.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/16/2004 10:19:07 AM · #114

Originally posted by RonB:

I didn't know that anyone ( let alone WE ) were LOOKING for purple elephants in North Dakota.

Seems they've found WMD there though.

Russell2566

03/16/2004 10:22:04 AM · #115

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Some of your other posts in this thread have been tainted with logic...

I will try to emulate the left as much as possible, and in the future use as little logic as possible... Thank you for your insight into my problems. This whole time I didn't realize I could make stuff up or rely simply on good intentions or good thoughts...

Alexys

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

03/16/2004 10:22:41 AM · #116

Originally posted by RonB:

Hi Ron,

I only want to explain you the reasons of AznarÂ´s party lost. I think that if the terrorist attacks didnÂ´t happened, probably AznarÂ´s party will won the election, no doubt. ItÂ´s true that they lost a lot of votes respect the last election. To your second question, about if AznarÂ´s party won the election if the attack would be 2 weeks earlier, perhaps the answer will be the same, they will won again. But, I think I have to clear my answer. IÂ´m not sure how to explain it you, but Im going to try it. AznarÂ´s party is party that detest the regional nacionalism like basque or catalonian. By this reason, is the "best" party to fight against regional nacionalism. And by this reason, if the terrorist attack was made by ETA, a lot of spanish people will vote to AznarÂ´s party. In the other side, Socialist party thinks that we can live in the same country with different cultures, and itÂ´s not good that there are people who speaks spanish and their regional language. IÂ´m catalonian, but at the same time IÂ´m spanish.
Only one thing more, I think this is a change that Spain needs. After 8 years of AznarÂ´s party, is good a change in our politic.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

03/16/2004 10:23:11 AM · #117

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

I didn't know that anyone ( let alone WE ) were LOOKING for purple elephants in North Dakota.

Seems they've found WMD there though.

Who's Next?

robsmith

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG for Canon

03/16/2004 10:23:18 AM · #118

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

I didn't know that anyone ( let alone WE ) were LOOKING for purple elephants in North Dakota.

Seems they've found WMD there though.

Thanks for the link Gordon, must be true it's on the internet.

PS Am I right in thinking that "North Dakota" is a euphemism for "up their own backsides"?

Message edited by author 2004-03-16 10:25:38.

Alexys

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

03/16/2004 10:25:41 AM · #119

@ Ron: I donÂ´t think that you are unsympathetic about spanish people, IÂ´m not with U.S. people and IÂ´m not unsympathetic about earth people. We think in different ways and I think the dialogue is the best way to communicate and understand our thoughts.

Message edited by author 2004-03-16 10:26:32.

Flash

Nikon D700

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

03/16/2004 10:25:44 AM · #120

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

I didn't know that anyone ( let alone WE ) were LOOKING for purple elephants in North Dakota.

Seems they've found WMD there though.

Gordon....pretty funny. The article is well written. My kind of satire.

03/16/2004 10:47:51 AM · #121

Originally posted by GeneralE:

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt reacted in a manner similar to Bush's. Without PANIC. Quote follows:
"The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor at 7:55 A.M. (Hawaii time.)
In Washington D.C. it was early afternoon. President Roosevelt was having lunch with Harry Hopkins, his trusted friend and chief policy aide. The phone rang . It was Roosevelt's Secretary of War, Henry Stimson. Stimson told the President of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Hopkins refused to believe the report. The President believed it.
The rest of the afternoon was spent receiving news of the attack, in bits and pieces, from the Navy Department. Other members of the President's advisory committee would eventually come to the Oval Office and be brought up to date regarding the events at Pearl Harbor. Grace Tully, the President's secretary would take down the information from the phone in shorthand as it was relayed by the Navy then transcribe it to her typewriter. The massive impact of what had happened slowly became apparent to all. Shortly after 5:00 P.M. the advisors, with the exception of Hopkins, left the Oval Office. Roosevelt requested that his secretary, type a draft of the speech he had prepared for his war message to Congress. He spoke the words to her slowly and clearly.
The entire message delivered to a joint session of Congress on December 8th was short. It took the President less than six minutes to read. The opening phrase, "Yesterday, December 7,1941 - a date which will live in infamy -- The United States was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan." would later be regarded as the most famous phrase ever uttered by an American President."
Ref HERE

I believe that it is prudent for Presidents to act diliberately, and with calmness in the face of such calamity. People see his demeanor and act accordingly. No panic ensues. Resolve, yes; Panic, no.

Ron

robsmith

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG for Canon

03/16/2004 10:57:59 AM · #122

Originally posted by RonB:

"Yesterday, December 7,1941 - a date which will live in infamy -- The United States was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan." would later be regarded as the most famous phrase ever uttered by an American President."

Surely the simple 'ouch' uttered John F Kennedy is known by more people?