| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/12/2004 01:37:40 AM · #1 |
article here:
//www.truthout.org/docs_04/031204B.shtml
as i post this, on the front page of CNN.com is a picture and article about gay marriage. only at the bottom of the front page under 'world' is one line about this terrorist attack on spain. |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 01:45:01 AM · #2 |
you make stupid allusions without acknowledging that the US will probably send the most aid and workers over to spain to help...who cares about cnn?
|
|
|
|
03/12/2004 01:50:35 AM · #3 |
Don't understand why people pay 45$ a month basic cable to watch CNN crap!!!!???
|
|
|
|
03/12/2004 02:23:51 AM · #4 |
Hi guys!
Yesterday was the worst day in Spain history with 198 death and more than 1400 hurts. Personally, I´m not fan of Aznar and his position against Europe supporting the political attitude of Bush.
Next Sunday, in Spain, we have to choose our new president and I hope our new president changes the mode of Aznar... and please, I´m sure the world will be better if Kerry will won Bush in November... only by this way, the world will be different.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2004 08:53:25 AM · #5 |
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.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2004 09:08:36 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
article here:
//www.truthout.org/docs_04/031204B.shtml
as i post this, on the front page of CNN.com is a picture and article about gay marriage. only at the bottom of the front page under 'world' is one line about this terrorist attack on spain. |
Well, my cnn looks like this:  |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 09:19:04 AM · #7 |
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
Message edited by author 2004-03-12 09:20:23. |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 09:36:54 AM · #8 |
| What in the *$^# did the INNOCENT passengers on this train do to stimulate Al - Qaeda ? |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 10:27:49 AM · #9 |
Out of interest - *IF* this attack is related to Al-Quaeda, how do you all see the future of the conflict?
I can't see any real way to combat terrorism - even better diplomatic
relations won't prevent future fanatics.
Nor can I see any feasible compromises available to either side.
Will the West simply have to live with repeated terrorist attacks - as the UK has done with the IRA, and Spain has done with ETA for the last few decades? There seems infinitely less chance of a resolution to the most recent threat. |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 11:11:24 AM · #10 |
In a world where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, is it in really any wonder that people feel left with no choices other than violence? You watch your families suffer and starve, while watch the west consuming mass quanities of unnecessary stuff. Your frustration and despari grow with the pains of hunger in your children as they cry for what you cannot provide. No one hears their cries or cares so it seems, violence seems a way to draw attn. I AM NOT saying such violence is acceptable. But I think that if we do not get to the root of WHY the behaviors happen we won't fix anything. Someone said,
'compassion is the only way to peace'.
Just an aside: Before US sanctions on iraq (even under saddam) they had a state of the art health care system and higher education was paid for by the govt in full.
And on CNN: As an amerinca living in canada, I can only say to my former countrymen, you may want to be a little humble in your opinions, especially if you have not spent much time abroad. Once you do go abroad you see how spoon fed you have been and how the world is much bigger (and in many cases better) than the good ol usa.
And to all those in spain suffering, my heart and prayers are with you.
Message edited by author 2004-03-12 11:13:43. |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 11:33:27 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
In a world where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, is it in really any wonder that people feel left with no choices other than violence? You watch your families suffer and starve, while watch the west consuming mass quanities of unnecessary stuff. Your frustration and despari grow with the pains of hunger in your children as they cry for what you cannot provide.... |
Terrorists don't wake up one day and say, hey i'm gonna kill innocent people! Instead they are molded by people in power or the wealthy. People from say Osama's group choose weak minded people and go after them. The black sheep in the mosc is targeted and brought in. he/she feels special, and then privilidged when asked to do a task.
The people who set off those bombs and the people who flew into the world trade center were disolutioned (sp?). They ewre not mad because they couldn't feed their kids. In fact they are mostly mad because were not all Muslims... Muslims Extremests are a BAD version of the KKK, not that I'm saying the KKK isn't horrible, just minimal in comparison!
Oh ya, to who ever it was above that said they were mad at Spain's president was aiding or working with the President Bush... WTF Do you expect, are you really so ignorant and full of hate that you would rather not go after the terrorists in favor of pushing your political adgenda? You should be thankfull Bush was in office during 9/11 and not someone like Gore or Kerry!
|
|
|
|
03/12/2004 11:36:21 AM · #12 |
What has bush done to 'fix' the tragedy of 9/11?
Besides fabricate a war that did not need to be fought? |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 11:41:12 AM · #13 |
| You may have thought diffrently depending on where you live. I am sure most people in Iraq are very happy to see Saddam out of power... |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 11:54:05 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
Just an aside: Before US sanctions on iraq (even under saddam) they had a state of the art health care system and higher education was paid for by the govt in full. |
Twisted, as usual.
First of all, they were notU.S.sanctions on Iraq - they wereU.N.sanctions ( Resolution 687 ).
Secondly, the original sanctions would have been lifted the day after they were imposed if Saddam had complied with U.N requirements - which were VERY simple: allow U.N.inspectors into Iraq to determine that Iraq's programs to build weapons of mass destruction had been dismantled. Saddam held the power to lift the sanctions at any time, but you blame the U.S.?
In 1996, the U.N. modified the sanctions to permit the UNLIMITED sale of oil, so long as the proceeds were used for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs. From that time on, if money was NOT spent on those things, it's only because Saddam was diverting the funds to his own pockets - or was intentionally holding back on the amount of oil he sold - just to make his people suffer.
To me, the whole issue of the Iraqi's suffering under sanctions can be laid squarely and fully on the back of Saddam Hussein - not the west.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 12:05:16 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
What has bush done to 'fix' the tragedy of 9/11?
Besides fabricate a war that did not need to be fought? |
First of all, NO ONE, let alone Bush, can 'fix' the tragedy of 9/11. The best that can be done is to do our best to prevent another attack like it from happening again.
Secondly, the fact that an attack like it has NOT happened again in the U.S. is testimony to what Bush's policies, with the cooperation of the Congress, have enabled our law enforcement agencies, TSA, etc., to accomplish.
Thirdly, I'd challenge you, as I have others, to provide proof that either Bush or any of his administration "fabricated" anything. It's easy to throw out accusations and innuendo. It's quite another to back it up with facts. Remember, a fabrication or a lie is something that was known to the author to be false at the time it was authored - not something that was shown to be false after the fact. For what it's worth, no one has yet met that challenge.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 12:13:26 PM · #16 |
I think white house personnel have said that 'there were no weapons of mass destruction' the main 'reason' for going to war. And in terms of 'proof', there is none linking saddam to bin laden.
(the war and getting saddam out of power are not the same thing IMO, the latter could have happened without the former).
(re: sanctions yes UN vs US, and I did not blame them just stated what life was like before them)
Message edited by author 2004-03-12 12:15:07. |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 12:29:37 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
I think white house personnel have said that 'there were no weapons of mass destruction' the main 'reason' for going to war. And in terms of 'proof', there is none linking saddam to bin laden.
(the war and getting saddam out of power are not the same thing IMO, the latter could have happened without the former).
(re: sanctions yes UN vs US, and I did not blame them just stated what life was like before them) |
I think that white house personnel have said that we have not yet found WMD's and that much of the intelligence upon which we based our decisions was found to have been in error - after-the-fact. That is not the same as saying that there were, in fact, no WMD's.
How do you suppose the latter could have happened without the former? If Saddam would not comply with 16 U.N. resolutions over a 12 year period, what makes you think that he would have relinquished power with anything less than the war?
Ron |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 12:41:57 PM · #18 |
As a soldier in the U.S. military that has been around the world I can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I've seen how people in other places of the world live. I served in Kosovo during their attempt at elections and am now doing the same thing in Afghanistan.
The disillusionment of the majority of anti-American posts are that the rest of the world hates us. From the places I've been, the people that we are there to help (this being the normal people; not politicians, soldiers or relatively-rich personages with access to the internet & nothing better to do to help their fellow countrymen but blast America) not only are happy we are there but they love us for it. We show them that there is another way to live besides the oppression thrust upon them by people in power or those who rule by fear.
Whatever link there may or may not be between Saddam & Osama is irrelevant. Saddam has been asking for trouble for over two decades. Pushing the envelope & then backing out at the last minute to save face. He needed to be dealt with & there was no other option than to do what was done. I would like anyone to tell me what other option there was then to go to war with him. Last time I checked assassinations defied the Law of War set down between the U.N. & NATO organizations.
America may be alot of things & it may not be alot of things, but you cannot deny that when shit hits the fan, who is there & who is sitting on their thumbs talking about those who are there.
As for Bush. The events of one's life shape the person, not the other way around. If it wasn't Bush it would be someone else that would have no other option. Rudy Giulianni was a bad mayor until 9/11 & then he was great. It's the event that made him famous, not the way he handled it. Hobo Bob could've been mayor & he would've been touted a hero. |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 01:12:23 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by fullmontez:
As a soldier in the U.S. military that has been around the world I can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I've seen how people in other places of the world live. I served in Kosovo during their attempt at elections and am now doing the same thing in Afghanistan.
The disillusionment of the majority of anti-American posts are that the rest of the world hates us. From the places I've been, the people that we are there to help (this being the normal people; not politicians, soldiers or relatively-rich personages with access to the internet & nothing better to do to help their fellow countrymen but blast America) not only are happy we are there but they love us for it. We show them that there is another way to live besides the oppression thrust upon them by people in power or those who rule by fear. |
Thanks for the uplifting news that the people where you serve have recieved you with gladness. Whenever I hear news like that, especially from our military men & women living abroad, I am thankful to have them represent the people of our country. You are ambassadors for the people of the U.S., as much as, if not more than those who sit on Embassy Row are ambassadors for the government of our country. Thanks for being there. I truly wish that I could serve again, but I'm just a wee bit too "old" for Uncle Sam.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 02:20:57 PM · #20 |
Has anyone on this board heard or realized that this attack came exactly 911 days after (NYC time) the 9/11 attack on our shores? It was 912 days on Spain's time, but 911 days NYC time.
Before US sanctions on iraq (even under saddam) they had a state of the art health care system and higher education was paid for by the govt in full.
Oh yes, Saddam was such a great humanitarian in his leadership! I wonder just exactly who in Iraq qualified for their state of the art health care and higher education being paid for? D*mn sure wasn't the poor schleps who he was feeding into the shredder! And women? Fugetaboutit!
What I hear most of the left saying in effect is this:
"If Bush had just appeased the terrorist, been nice to them and tried to understand their troubled ways, they never would have attacked, and now it's his fault that they're attacking other countries!"
Horse Apples.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2004 03:23:15 PM · #21 |
"If Bush had just appeased the terrorist, been nice to them and tried to understand their troubled ways, they never would have attacked, and now it's his fault that they're attacking other countries!"
ahaha that must be the extreme left side on that one ;) |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 04:02:15 PM · #22 |
What did Sadaam Hussein have to do with international terrorism? It's now all coming out how he wasn't any kind of threat to the US or any of his neighboring countries in the region. David Kay has stated that all of his wmd's were destroyed by 1994. In addition, the fabrication that Hussein and al Quaeda were working together to expand terrorism has proven false. Just this week, Goerge Tenet, director of the CIA, under questioning by the Senate, admitted that he had personally informed George Bush and Dick Cheney that a Pentagon intelligence report stating
that Iraq and al Quaeda were working together was FALSE, but the Bush administration decided to ignore that.
So it could be argued, and has already been put forth by others, that after successfully overthrowing the Taliban and putting al Quaeda on the run but not yet finishing the job, we diverted our attention, funds and resources into a war that was not needed. So despite what the right has been saying about all that the Bush admin has been doing to combat terrorism, we witness yet another devasting attack of terrorism on innocent people and we here in the US are constantly being told about how vulnerable we still are and how another terrorist attack is yet to come.
I don't know who you've been talking to in the left, but no one in that camp that I know of has been saying we should be playing footsie with the terrorists. In fact, though, the Bush's have. They have had long dealings with the Saudi Arabia from the 1980s, a country that is a monarchy and treats its people as badly as Sadaam Hussein did. Women have no rights there. It's been known that the Saudis helped fund the attackers of 9/11. But they are still our friends.
Most recently, we helped to fund a group of about 250 thugs and criminals to overthrow a democratically elected president in Haiti by funding them and giving them weapons. What threat had Haiti posed to us?
GW...I wish we could fuget about him.
Originally posted by kaycee:
Oh yes, Saddam was such a great humanitarian in his leadership! I wonder just exactly who in Iraq qualified for their state of the art health care and higher education being paid for? D*mn sure wasn't the poor schleps who he was feeding into the shredder! And women? Fugetaboutit!
What I hear most of the left saying in effect is this:
"If Bush had just appeased the terrorist, been nice to them and tried to understand their troubled ways, they never would have attacked, and now it's his fault that they're attacking other countries!"
Horse Apples. |
Message edited by author 2004-03-12 16:05:00. |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 05:46:49 PM · #23 |
Where do I begin?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
What did Sadaam Hussein have to do with international terrorism? It's now all coming out how he wasn't any kind of threat to the US or any of his neighboring countries in the region. |
Tell that to the Kuwaiti's, the Turks, and the Iranians, among others.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
David Kay has stated that all of his wmd's were destroyed by 1994. |
Did David Kay witnessed the destruction? Or did he have evidence that the destruction took place? If so, why didn't he present that evidence in 1994 or 1995 or 1996 or 1997 or 1998 or 1999 or 2000 or 2001 or 2002 or 2003?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
In addition, the fabrication that Hussein and al Quaeda were working together to expand terrorism has proven false. |
Hmm. Must examine that logic. If a fabrication is a lie, and the lie was proven to be false, then that means that what was said was actually TRUE! Yeah.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Just this week, Goerge Tenet, director of the CIA, under questioning by the Senate, admitted that he had personally informed George Bush and Dick Cheney that a Pentagon intelligence report stating
that Iraq and al Quaeda were working together was FALSE, but the Bush administration decided to ignore that. |
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?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So it could be argued, and has already been put forth by others, that after successfully overthrowing the Taliban and putting al Quaeda on the run but not yet finishing the job, we diverted our attention, funds and resources into a war that was not needed. |
Yep. That could be argued. And apparently is being argued.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So despite what the right has been saying about all that the Bush admin has been doing to combat terrorism, we witness yet another devasting attack of terrorism on innocent people and we here in the US are constantly being told about how vulnerable we still are and how another terrorist attack is yet to come. |
Are you trying to blame Bush for the terrorist attack in Spain, because he hasn't done enough to combat terrorism? And because his administration says that we are still vulnerable? Just exactly what magical device do you have that can stop a suicidal maniac with a knapsack bomb from getting close enough to a train to kill & injure people when he blows himself up? Patent that and share it with us, would you?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't know who you've been talking to in the left, but no one in that camp that I know of has been saying we should be playing footsie with the terrorists. In fact, though, the Bush's have. They have had long dealings with the Saudi Arabia from the 1980s, a country that is a monarchy and treats its people as badly as Sadaam Hussein did. Women have no rights there. It's been known that the Saudis helped fund the attackers of 9/11. But they are still our friends. |
Hmm. "The Bush's have (been playing footsie with the terrorists)". "They have had long dealings with Saudi Arabia from the 1980's". Those statements being in such close proximity would lead me to believe that you are saying that the Saudi's are terrorists. Correct me if I'm wrong. Now, if they ARE, then why didn't the esteemed Mr. Clinton take care of them during HIS eight years in the Oval Office? Osama bin laden is a Saudi, isn't he? Clinton had not one, not two, but three separate opportunities to have bin laden in custody - and he refused the offer every time. But even though HE was president for longer than the Bush's put together, you blame THEM, not HIM.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Most recently, we helped to fund a group of about 250 thugs and criminals to overthrow a democratically elected president in Haiti by funding them and giving them weapons. What threat had Haiti posed to us? |
If you REALLY think that Aristide was "democratically" elected, you are deluded. He was democratically elected the same way that Castro get "democratically" elected EVERY TIME.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
GW...I wish we could fuget about him.
|
Yeah. I'm sure you do.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/12/2004 06:11:05 PM · #24 |
Thanks, Ron for your answers to Olyuzi - I actually was responding initially to the comments about Iraq's fine healthcare and educational system (tongue VERY firmly planted in cheek).
I agree with all you said here - it's a tough job trying to combat all the mis/dis information flowing through the CNN and the DU, LOL.
Message edited by author 2004-03-12 18:11:40.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2004 12:38:51 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
What did Sadaam Hussein have to do with international terrorism? It's now all coming out how he wasn't any kind of threat to the US or any of his neighboring countries in the region. |
Tell that to the Kuwaiti's, the Turks, and the Iranians, among others.
Bush-I gave a "wink and a nod" to Hussein to go invade Kuwait and both sides in the Iraq/Iran were both given weapons by the US.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
David Kay has stated that all of his wmd's were destroyed by 1994. |
Did David Kay witnessed the destruction? Or did he have evidence that the destruction took place? If so, why didn't he present that evidence in 1994 or 1995 or 1996 or 1997 or 1998 or 1999 or 2000 or 2001 or 2002 or 2003?
I don't know what evidence David Kay had for saying what he did, but he's not alone as there were others who said the same, such as Scott Ritter. Now your logic can also be turned around...Did Bush see himself or know of any of Hussein's WMD's? Was there any concrete evidence presented by Bush for a case for war?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
In addition, the fabrication that Hussein and al Quaeda were working together to expand terrorism has proven false. |
Hmm. Must examine that logic. If a fabrication is a lie, and the lie was proven to be false, then that means that what was said was actually TRUE! Yeah.
I don't feel the need to respond to this.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Just this week, Goerge Tenet, director of the CIA, under questioning by the Senate, admitted that he had personally informed George Bush and Dick Cheney that a Pentagon intelligence report stating
that Iraq and al Quaeda were working together was FALSE, but the Bush administration decided to ignore that. |
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?
What reports are these and who put them out??? I haven't heard about any of them. If your top CIA man is telling you that a report is wrong and you go against what he says, you have an agenda and you choose to listen to whomever you want. If there exists other reports, they didn't come from the CIA, your top intelligence agency.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So it could be argued, and has already been put forth by others, that after successfully overthrowing the Taliban and putting al Quaeda on the run but not yet finishing the job, we diverted our attention, funds and resources into a war that was not needed. |
Yep. That could be argued. And apparently is being argued.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So despite what the right has been saying about all that the Bush admin has been doing to combat terrorism, we witness yet another devasting attack of terrorism on innocent people and we here in the US are constantly being told about how vulnerable we still are and how another terrorist attack is yet to come. |
Are you trying to blame Bush for the terrorist attack in Spain, because he hasn't done enough to combat terrorism? And because his administration says that we are still vulnerable? Just exactly what magical device do you have that can stop a suicidal maniac with a knapsack bomb from getting close enough to a train to kill & injure people when he blows himself up? Patent that and share it with us, would you?
No, I'm not blaming Bush for the terrorist attacks in Spain. I am saying that by diverting our attention and resources to an uneccessary war and away from the real terrorists we've allowed al Quaeda to regroup and get stronger and that we haven't gained much in security from the Bush administration to date.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't know who you've been talking to in the left, but no one in that camp that I know of has been saying we should be playing footsie with the terrorists. In fact, though, the Bush's have. They have had long dealings with the Saudi Arabia from the 1980s, a country that is a monarchy and treats its people as badly as Sadaam Hussein did. Women have no rights there. It's been known that the Saudis helped fund the attackers of 9/11. But they are still our friends. |
Hmm. "The Bush's have (been playing footsie with the terrorists)". "They have had long dealings with Saudi Arabia from the 1980's". Those statements being in such close proximity would lead me to believe that you are saying that the Saudi's are terrorists. Correct me if I'm wrong. Now, if they ARE, then why didn't the esteemed Mr. Clinton take care of them during HIS eight years in the Oval Office? Osama bin laden is a Saudi, isn't he? Clinton had not one, not two, but three separate opportunities to have bin laden in custody - and he refused the offer every time. But even though HE was president for longer than the Bush's put together, you blame THEM, not HIM.
I blame him too, Ron...what makes you think I like Clinton? But you and many of the other right wingers I hear love to bring up Clinton's name, over and over and over again as if the only politics in town is Clinton vs conservatives. It's a case of hate the one you love. I've stated many times that the dems aren't much better than the Republicans. And, I have heard from a number news reports that the Saudi's have funded terrorism in the past and 9/11 as well.
Yes, the Bush's have been playing footsie with unsavory types since about 1980. Read Kevin Phillips, he documents the whole rotten history.
Also, tell me why with Saudi Arabia having such a horrendous record of abuses against their own people, we are still friends with them.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Most recently, we helped to fund a group of about 250 thugs and criminals to overthrow a democratically elected president in Haiti by funding them and giving them weapons. What threat had Haiti posed to us? |
If you REALLY think that Aristide was "democratically" elected, you are deluded. He was democratically elected the same way that Castro get "democratically" elected EVERY TIME.
Ok, Ron...I"m listening...tell me how Aristede was elected...I hope it wasn't the same way Bush got SELECTED in 2000.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
GW...I wish we could fuget about him.
|
Yeah. I'm sure you do.
Ron |
texttext |
|
