Tragedy in Spain

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Have I said they would? I'm merely pointing out that if the terrorist keep a part of their funding in Western countries, those countries can act on that and freeze it.

The US has been actively freezing terrorist funding - if we discover it. That is the part of the problem - we have ot discover it. It is also sometimes hard to tell who the good guys are and the bad guys.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You were the one that got on my case. I really would like to see those manners you speak of though. Sorry you can't take the rolleyes.

You are obviously very thin skinned if you were so offended by this...


Rome is a city - not a country. It was the Roman Empire - Rome was only the City though. And you can destroy a city in no time - just have a nuclear bomb shipped over.

Oh no....you and your unecessary sarcasm started it. My "skin is thin" to unprovoked rudeness. My intial casual comment about Rome (oh sorry..."The Roman Empire" ) was to Val, but you just had to butt in.... with your little "know it all" rolleyes. Spare me your smarmy corrections...I think the content of my remark was sufficient for the pleasant communication that was intended. I don't need your little superfluous snide remarks.

SGH, I'm sorry. ....I'll use the ignore button on JD and spare you anymore hassle on my end. I AM too "thin skinned" for JD's rude attack style posting.

_______________________

Bummer! Because JD is a moderator, the ignore function will not work for me.

________________________


OK....Now I just saw this in another thread.


________________________

From JD......
I missed this post.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lizra
That's supposed to mean I think people who purposely post to get under your skin need a new (interesting) hobby.
We don't seem to speak the same language. I have to walk on eggshells when you are near. It would be fun to talk in person! You'd know what I meant then!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From JD......

okay. Maybe I am taking what you mean wrong and maybe you are taking what I mean wrong.

_____________________________________________ _____


That must be what's going on......hopefully! I will take SGH's advice....cool it, and hope things restore themselves to pleasant potsing procedure. Sorry.

[The Gaffer]

* Rolls up sleeves *

I agree with:

What I wanted to say is that if we want to stop terrorism we have to achieve the collaboration of all countries in order to elliminate their training camps and refuges.

Naming it a war is IMO acknowledging the terrorists and justifying the fear of the public has of these people, which is exactly what they want.

On this basis, I believe it is Bush who is doing what the terrorists want. There were no terrorists in Iraq before the War, there are plenty now. Business is booming for Al-Qaida.

You simply can't fight a war with terrorism.

Sween on the "terrorist thread" is basically saying that we got what we deserved.

No he didn't and to say so is offensive.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well in order to break their terrorist camps - we have to treat it as a war. If Iran or Syria allow terrorist camps to be set up in their countries - we can't go around sayng "pretty please, dismantle the terrorist camps" like so many people in the thread seem to want to do.

If...

Any evidence that Iran or Syria are allowing al-Qaeda camps to be set up in their countries?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Lizra
The "it" that wasn't destroyed in a day was Rome....a country, not a building.
Well, I guess I'll just forget manners when it comes to you. Bleah.

It looks like my initial responses to Lizra on her first mention of Rome caused her to be misunderstood - and even made her subject to a good deal of 'correction' around here. Sorry about that Liz...

When Lizra first used that old expression 'Rome wasn't built in a day' - she was referring to the futility of the terrorists methods in getting what they wanted... in effect, 'building' their kind of society.

In my response that the terrorist goal was to 'destroy Rome rather than build it' - I understood what Lizra was saying, I think, but was just making the point more poignant... that their effort to 'build' what they held dear involved 'destroying' much of what the rest of us would hold dear - and that 'destroying Rome' could prove to be much easier to do than 'building Rome', in a symbolic sense. I'm as sure Lizra understood that as that I understood her. And in no way was she - or I - defending or diminishing the horrific actions of the terrorists.

I'd ask others to more carefully examine what each other is saying... and to try a bit harder to understand. Communication and understanding are, after all, among those very things that we hold dear.

Peace?

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
If...

Any evidence that Iran or Syria are allowing al-Qaeda camps to be set up in their countries?

I don't know about Al-Qaeda - but there are terror camps in Syria, and a few were bombed (by us) lately. Just as a warning to Syria. Not that it helped...

[Lizra]

Thank you Valandil! Good thoughts.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lizra
Oh no....you and your unecessary sarcasm started it. My "skin is thin" to unprovoked rudeness. My intial casual comment about Rome (oh sorry..."The Roman Empire" ) was to Val, but you just had to butt in.... with your little "know it all" rolleyes. Spare me your smarmy corrections...I think the content of my remark was sufficient for the pleasant communication that was intended. I don't need your little superfluous snide remarks.

SGH, I'm sorry. ....I'll use the ignore button on JD and spare you anymore hassle on my end. I AM too "thin skinned" for JD's rude attack style posting.
_______________________

Bummer! Because JD is a moderator, the ignore function will not work for me.
________________________


OK....Now I just saw this in another thread.


________________________

From JD......
I missed this post.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lizra
That's supposed to mean I think people who purposely post to get under your skin need a new (interesting) hobby.
We don't seem to speak the same language. I have to walk on eggshells when you are near. It would be fun to talk in person! You'd know what I meant then!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From JD......

okay. Maybe I am taking what you mean wrong and maybe you are taking what I mean wrong.

_____________________________________________ _____


That must be what's going on......hopefully! I will take SGH's advice....cool it, and hope things restore themselves to pleasant potsing procedure. Sorry.

Whatever Lizra. I don't care that you tried to put me on ignore. Do whatever you like.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Valandil
When Lizra first used that old expression 'Rome wasn't built in a day' - she was referring to the futility of the terrorists methods in getting what they wanted... in effect, 'building' their kind of society.

That isn't why I commented that Rome was a city and not a country. The reason why is because then she started complaining that I said that the twin Towers took 10 years to build and 1 hour to destroy. She then went on about how she was referring to Rome the country and got pissed that I brought up the fact that about the Twin Towers and used a rolleyes smilie in the post.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
* Rolls up sleeves *

I agree with:
On this basis, I believe it is Bush who is doing what the terrorists want. There were no terrorists in Iraq before the War, there are plenty now. Business is booming for Al-Qaida.

The reason there are terrorists in iraq is solely because they don't want a democracy to form there. Democracy will be the worst thing for the terrorists. it has nothing to do with bush and there business isn't booming. That's like saying that germany was fine until we attacked and got involved. The best way to destroy the terrorists is to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East and bin Ladin knows it.

You simply can't fight a war with terrorism.

Yes you can - the world just never really tried it before. Europe is in perpetual appeasement mode. If you think peace the world will be at peace. It doesn't work that way - unless everyone on the world wants peace - and bin Ladin doesn't. he wants the world to be Muslim.

No he didn't and to say so is offensive.

He did basically say that. If we don't set up companies in the Middle East and didn't provoke the terrorists and didn't piss off the terrorists - they wouldn't be attaking us, right?

And not as offensive as when he stated that we should just get over 9/11.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Any evidence that Iran or Syria are allowing al-Qaeda camps to be set up in their countries?

Not sure about camps - but there is evidence that they are harboring Al Qaeda members.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Whatever Lizra. I don't care that you tried to put me on ignore. Do whatever you like.

I will!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lizra
I will!

As will I.

[The Gaffer]

Well, the terrorists are in Iraq because there's a huge target (the US led Coalition forces) and hellish security situation which makes it easy for them to cast themselves

Originally posted by jerseydevil
He did basically say that. If we don't set up companies in the Middle East and didn't provoke the terrorists and didn't piss off the terrorists - they wouldn't be attaking us, right?

No, what he was saying was that many people around the world perceive the West, and the US in particular, as extending economic and cultural imperialism. That's not the same thing as saying the US deserved 9/11!!

It's a shame that, in trying to trace the origins of this kind of resentment in an honest way which attempts to unravel the complex interplay of attitudes, history, prejudice and culture, all people get is accused of terrorist appeasment and anti-Americanism.

As for the Spanish, I think it's a bit more complex than saying that they're appeasing the terrorists. I agree that they influenced the results of the election, but only by reminding people of what they already thought. IIRC, around 90% of Spaniards were against their government's involvement in the Iraq war. It was just that, in a typically modern, docile spoon-fed media torpor, that had been "yesterday's news" and no-one cared up until the bombs went off.

So, I don't think they were appeasing anyone, they were just reminded of what they really believed.

[Fat middle]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
As for the Spanish, I think it's a bit more complex than saying that they're appeasing the terrorists. I agree that they influenced the results of the election, but only by reminding people of what they already thought. IIRC, around 90% of Spaniards were against their government's involvement in the Iraq war. It was just that, in a typically modern, docile spoon-fed media torpor, that had been "yesterday's news" and no-one cared up until the bombs went off.

So, I don't think they were appeasing anyone, they were just reminded of what they really believed.

You're basically right. Well, I don't think anybody knows the exact percentage of spaniards against the war, but that 90% is plausible, specially after it was known that there were no massive destructing arms in Iraq as it had been said.

Also I think that in this mass-media dominated society people cannot be sure of nothing and therefore cannot be made responsible of their actions.

Personally I see both problems as different. The war was against a country that was a possible danger for the world (if they had had those arms). The terrorist attack has been another thing. They (the terrorist) wanted to connect it with our participation in the war and perhaps there is some connection, but for me it is just terrorism, the same of ETA, that's why I am ashamed of our reaction, and specially of the reaction of the new government, because governments can be made responsible of their actions.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Fat middle
They (the terrorist) wanted to connect it with our participation in the war and perhaps there is some connection, but for me it is just terrorism, the same of ETA, that's why I am ashamed of our reaction, and specially of the reaction of the new government, because governments can be made responsible of their actions.

I agree that the terrorists want to make this connection in peoples' minds, and have probably succeeded. However, it was already put there by the governments who wanted to invade Iraq and used terrorism as a fig leaf.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
No, what he was saying was that many people around the world perceive the West, and the US in particular, as extending economic and cultural imperialism. That's not the same thing as saying the US deserved 9/11!!

Too bad that wasn't all he was saying. That if we stopped doing this stuff the world would be fine and we wouldn't be attacted. Basically it is all our fault - as usual.

It's a shame that, in trying to trace the origins of this kind of resentment in an honest way which attempts to unravel the complex interplay of attitudes, history, prejudice and culture, all people get is accused of terrorist appeasment and anti-Americanism.

Europe is trying to go with appeasement again. And there is no denying the anti-americanism coming out of europe. You may be blind to it - because it's not you. We get your news here though - I see it. And it is there.

As for the Spanish, I think it's a bit more complex than saying that they're appeasing the terrorists. I agree that they influenced the results of the election, but only by reminding people of what they already thought. IIRC, around 90% of Spaniards were against their government's involvement in the Iraq war. It was just that, in a typically modern, docile spoon-fed media torpor, that had been "yesterday's news" and no-one cared up until the bombs went off.

We knew perfectly well that the Spanish people were against the war. For you to say that "It was just that, in a typically modern, docile spoon-fed media torpor, that had been "yesterday's news" and no-one cared up until the bombs went off." Is completely ignorant. The fact remains though - that the ruling government was leading in the polls and was set to win - no matter how many snide comments you make about "spoon feeding" by the media and so forth. The terrorists succeeded in making the people of spain afraid of being tied too closely to the US and that was their goal and that is what the Spanish people handed to them on the silver platter.

So, I don't think they were appeasing anyone, they were just reminded of what they really believed.

Call it what you will - but Europe is apparently very weak. They tried appeasement with Hitler - and they want to try appeasement with terrorists. Oh - I know the PM wants to have his main objection be against terrorism - but I serirously doubt by his talk it is much to help the US. I hope Europe likes to be ruled by France and germany - since that is where this PM is aligning himself with. It's no secret that France, Germany and recently Britain are attempting to take control of the EU. In years - Eurupe and America will be enemies - are at the very least - allies of convenience as the new spanish PM said.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As will I.

Ha! That make two of us "stubborn blockheads"! Ahhhhh... (warm fuzzy feeling )

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I agree that the terrorists want to make this connection in peoples' minds, and have probably succeeded. However, it was already put there by the governments who wanted to invade Iraq and used terrorism as a fig leaf.

See - that is one of the problems between the US and Europe - you think that terrorism is just terrorism - we look at it as an overall war. it has been clear that that is the case by the way people from Europe are posting.

In order to combat terrorism - the countries of the Middle East must change. You can accept that or not - but the US will not stop until the fanatical muslim terrorist groups are weakened and destroyed - just nazism. Nazism isn't fully destroyed either - but it isn't what it was after Hitler was defeated.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Fat middle
Personally I see both problems as different. The war was against a country that was a possible danger for the world (if they had had those arms). The terrorist attack has been another thing. They (the terrorist) wanted to connect it with our participation in the war and perhaps there is some connection, but for me it is just terrorism, the same of ETA, that's why I am ashamed of our reaction, and specially of the reaction of the new government, because governments can be made responsible of their actions.

This is what seperates the European position from the American position and what they have been talking about on our news for the last couple of weeks. You just look at Al Qaeda as just terrorism - no different than the ETA. You ignore the fact the ETA doesn't want the distruction of Spain - they just want autonomy. Al Qaeda on the otherhand wants the destruction of the West. Until Europe wakes up to this fact - America will be fighting basically alone. I know that Europe and NATo is in on getting Al Qaeda - but I'm sure most of Erurope feels that once bin Ladin is captured or killed that it is over with and that is the sole goal.