Zapatero

[time]

I was ambivalent to the surprise election result in Spain - after all, the winners are Socialists. Mind you, as an outsider I've never really noticed whether a European country was 'socialist' or 'conservative'. Either way doesn't seem to have done the Scandinavian countries any harm, given their astronomical per capita wealth.

I guess that sort of thing just doesn't work with us less industrious countries ...

Anyway, I was bowled over by these statements from Spain's new Prime Minister:

"My position is the same. I have explained it throughout the election campaign," he told Onda Cero radio.

"I will listen to Mr Bush but my position is very clear and very firm."

Mr Zapatero, who is to formally take power at the end of April, says he would consult the US, Britain and other coalition allies "with prudence (and) responsibility" and expects them to respect his Government's decisions.

"Fighting terrorism with bombs and Tomahawk missiles is not a way to win but will instead provoke more extremism," he said.

"Terrorism is fought with the rule of law, international law, and with intelligence services."

Mr Zapatero has pledged to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq by July 1 if the United Nations does not take charge there.

"The occupation is a fiasco. There have been almost more deaths after the war than during the war," he said.

"The occupying forces have not allowed the United Nations to take control of the situation."


So, I'm guessing that this guy is ripe for assassination - you can't have national leaders going around stating the bleeding obvious - can you?

 

[Mercutio]

I imagine there's a CIA team working on it even as I type this.

 

[Howell]

Well, if he can reduce terrorism by bludgening someone with a law book rather than more expensive and violent means, he has my support. If you don't mind; I won't hold my breath.

 

[jtr1962]

"Terrorism is fought with the rule of law, international law, and with intelligence services."

Sounds good in theory except you need to actually catch the people first. Given that many of these terrorist types like to hide out in remote, heavily guarded areas sending in just the police would result in a nice massacre. Besides, what deterrent can the law possibly be against someone who would blow themselves up? By and large the law really doesn't even deter common criminals. Most people never think they're going to be caught.

There is only one way to deal with terrorists-naked, merciless force. It's the only thing they respect. While I disagreed about the invasion of Iraq, sending our troops to Afghanistan was entirely necessary. Had there not been a huge show of force, 9/11 would have been repeated countless times by now.

The knee-jerk reaction of Spain's voters to these incidents is a colossal mistake. The new leader's soft stance on terrorism will only increase terrorist activities manyfold. Ironically, I'm sure this was the very motive behind the attacks in the first place. The terrorists are playing Spain's population like a harp from hell.

 

[time]

Terrorism is fought with the rule of law, international law, and with intelligence services.

Read the bloody quote and stop trying to put a half-assed spin on it. 'Rule of law' means 'not illegal'. You know, like nations used to manage.

All readers can take it from this little outburst that I'm in a bad mood and not gonna take it any more. :x There's a growing worldwide trend against bullshit from elected representatives, and I've become an avid supporter of the trend.

No, I haven't suddenly embraced socialism/communism/terrorism, but call me an egoist: I have vastly more faith in my own intelligence than the failed lawyers that govern us.

In short, I'm just NOT A SOUNDBITE PERSON. If you want to debate with me, by Christ it had better be good (royalties to Mel for that reverence).

 

[time]

And that's a response to both Howell AND jtr, having had my post overtaken. NOWHERE, does the new PM indicate in any shape or form, that he is SOFT. This is just more BULLSHIT.

Yes, I am shouting. It's time that someone did.

 

[jtr1962]

I did read the quote, and my point is that regardless of how you go after terrorists sooner or later some sort of force will be required. They're not going to just turn themselves in for prosecution.

You can and should use intelligence services, and hopefully you'll catch some operatives in your country before they have a chance to carry out their missions. However you won't catch all of them, and you won't stop new ones from being recruited in countries outside your jurisdiction. To draw an analogy, using intelligence services is like using a fly swatter to kill hornets. Some you'll get, others will get by and sting you. Far better to get them in their nest, before they have a chance to come out and sting you, than to attempt to pick them off one at a time when they're spread in every which direction. And by burning the nest, so to speak, you kill the queen, and end the threat once and for all. Granted, this isn't the best analogy, but the point is that you'll get more results by attacking and destroying terrorist training camps than by relying solely on intelligence to arrest terrorists in your country before they have a chance to carry out their objectives. You can and should use both approaches, but relying solely on intelligence services is in my opinion suicidal. And if by rule of law you mean that a country shouldn't attack a threat in another country without international approval first, I tend to disgree. The time taken to get such approval, if you can get it at all, is that much more time for the terrorists to plot an attack or an escape.

Terrorism is defined as using force to achieve a political end. In Spain that is exactly what has happened-they got rid of a ruling party they didn't like. The success of this operation has chilling consequences for the rest of the world, including the US. I think we can expect fresh attacks prior to November in an attempt to sway the election results.

BTW, I don't know whether Spain's new PM is soft or not. I merely surmised that based on what I know about American socialist leaders (the term we use here is liberal Democrat). By and large, they have tended to be very soft on both crime and terrorism. Indeed, one of my favorite lines I've heard used by them in the past is "criminals are victims of society". While this line of thinking is rarely used anymore, even among Democrats, it is still somewhat representative of the views of the left wing of the party. After 9/11 I had even heard some of New York's more liberal politicians talk about terrorists as if they were victims of Western oppression with no other course of action available to them. While I certainly feel many of the actions of the US abroad are misguided, there is never any excuse for willfully taking innocent lives to fulfill some political objective.

 

[flagreen]

David,

"Fighting terrorism with bombs and Tomahawk missiles is not a way to win but will instead provoke more extremism," he said.

Tell that to the Clinton Administration. At any rate that is not what we are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are many things which "provoke" extremism. Misguided religious education (try negotiating with the Qur'an some time and see how far you get) is the key culprit followed by oppresive non-representative governments. Succesful terrorist attacks, of which there have been many going back into the 90's, also swell the ranks of the Mujahideen. The root causes must be addressed which is precisely what we are doing in Iraq.

"Terrorism is fought with the rule of law, international law, and with intelligence services."

"Terrorism" is only a symptom of the problem. It is not enough to merely defend against attacks from terrorists. Proactive measures are necessary to address the decease which spawns terrorism. Again - that is what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The occupation is a fiasco. There have been almost more deaths after the war than during the war," he said.

This is misleading to the extreme and is essentially a meaningless statement (sound bite?). The "war" is not over in the first place. Assuming that he actually means since 5-1-2003 when President Bush declared major combat operations were at an end for legal purposes then it is grossly unfair to compare the deaths which occured in the 43 days of major combat operations, which were extremely light (138), to the deaths in the subsequent 321 days (467) in the war against insurgents. What these numbers really show is that the real war began after the end of major combat operations.

 

[time]

I was a bit dismissive of jtr there, Tea.

No, you weren't - you were diplomatic!

Whoops! Wrong persona. Got to remember Red Hill Corp is apolitical.

...

The hornet NEST analogy typifies the ongoing mistake that the US has made with foreign policy. Terrorists are part of us, they're amongst us. Go and watch the original 'Airport' movie if that helps you understand.

The time taken to get such approval, if you can get it at all, is that much more time for the terrorists to plot an attack or an escape.

Newsflash: the US did NOT - repeat DID NOT - capture Osama Bin Laden. AFAIK, for the US he personifies a terrorist. Perhaps he's still plotting an escape from Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Perhaps we should dub this whole distorted attitude, "John Wayne Syndrome"?

While I certainly feel many of the actions of the US abroad are misguided, there is never any excuse for willfully taking innocent lives to fulfill some political objective.

If that doesn't say it all ...

But my point would be once again: he (the Spanish PM) does not appear to be any kind of apologist for terrorism - you have merely assumed this without a shred of evidence.

 

[sechs]

The problem with terrorism is that each side gladly provokes the other.

Case in point: Israel. I cannot remember when the actions of Israel or Palestinian groups was not retaliation of some sort for an action that the other side made. Israelis knock down a building, Palestinians set off a bomb, Israelis asasinate a Palestinian, the Pastinians set off a bomb....

Knock down a couple of our buildings? We'll go invade two Muslim nations. That should show you how enlightened and accepting we Americans are!

 

[Mercutio]

I thought we were in Iraq because of WMDs.
Oh. Wait. That was only until July of last year. Then we were there to "liberate the Iraqi people from a corrupt and evil dictator" (that's "people we didn't give a shit about until some analyst realized there weren't going to be any weapons"). Apparently now we're there to address the root causes of Islamic opposition to Western Imperialism.

I'm sure the ~500 guys who have died since the end of "major hostilities" will be happy to know that.

"Misguided Religious education" == "Someone with different, religious beliefs from you".

That's the nature of religious education Bill. Everyone's holy book has some weird slant that in no way resembles objective reality (IMO). If you teach someone to unflinchingly behave according to that weird slant, there are doing to be irreconcilable differences with the rest of the world. But at the same time, if most of the people around you share the same cult mindset, you're going to get a really skewed perspective on how the world really is.

Which is why arabs were talking about how jews bombed the WTC right after 9/11 and why asshole baptists think they can come to my door at 8:30 on a Saturday morning and talk to me about my personal relationship with their spook on a stick.

 

[flagreen]

I thought we were in Iraq because of WMDs.
Oh. Wait. That was only until July of last year. Then we were there to "liberate the Iraqi people from a corrupt and evil dictator" (that's "people we didn't give a shit about until some analyst realized there weren't going to be any weapons"). Apparently now we're there to address the root causes of Islamic opposition to Western Imperialism.

I'm sure the ~500 guys who have died since the end of "major hostilities" will be happy to know that.

"Misguided Religious education" == "Someone with different, religious beliefs from you".

That's the nature of religious education Bill. Everyone's holy book has some weird slant that in no way resembles objective reality (IMO). If you teach someone to unflinchingly behave according to that weird slant, there are doing to be irreconcilable differences with the rest of the world. But at the same time, if most of the people around you share the same cult mindset, you're going to get a really skewed perspective on how the world really is.

Which is why arabs were talking about how jews bombed the WTC right after 9/11 and why asshole baptists think they can come to my door at 8:30 on a Saturday morning and talk to me about my personal relationship with their spook on a stick.

Your sarcasm belittles your argument. If you worked half as hard on basing your argument on facts - rather than on sarcasm - you would have much more powerful argument to present.

WMD was only one of the reasons given right from the beginning. All of the reasons were given over and over again prior to the war beginning. Go back and read Bush's State of Union Address from 2003 and you'll see very clearly that the other reasons you mention were also stated within the context of the War on Terror. I know it serves your purpose, and that of all who diagree with Bush, to pretend that the only reason given was WMD but that simply isn't true. The decision to intervene in Iraq was a tactical decision based upon all of the reasons which President Bush stated. Addressing the root causes of terrorism was and is a strategic decision made at the beginning of the war on terror. Hence it was not discussed within the context of making the specific tactical decision to intervene in Iraq.

As for my comment on "misguided religious education" I am not talikng about my differences in my beliefs with Islam or those of any religion's beliefs which differ from those of Islam. I am talking about the differences in belief which exist within Islam itself. Consider that nearly every statement given to the press from Al-Qaeda contains quotations from the Qur'an. According to most Islamic scholars these are incorrectly interpreted by Al-Qaeda to justify their actions. It's as if one were to interpret the Old Testament literally and then proceed to start stoning to death one's wife for adultry believing that one is acting upon orders from God. Wahabism is the main culprit as it used to be (hopefully no longer is) taught in the Universities of Saudi Arabia. If you doubt that look in to it.

 

[zx]

First, I think the main idea of Zapatero is that the Iraq war did not serve the war on terrorism. That's what made him retreat the troops. In his eyes (and I guess much of his people agreed with him), the war with Iraq did not prevent terrorists from putting bombs in the Madrid train system. The war on Iraq did not help in any way to make the world more safe from terrorism, or at least from the islamist type of terrorists.

I hear that some of the people in the press that whoever did this wanted to get the conservatives out of the government. (There is a good chance that this might be true, IMO). Seeing the result of the election, those same people said that the Spaniards were influenced by those attacks, and since the conservative party lost, they conclude that the terrorists had manipulated the elections and that it worked.

This, is a total lack of respect of the Spanish people. Those who hold this opinion should be ashamed of themselves. It's as absurd as saying to the Americans that if they elect a democrat government, it's because of 9/11.

The main reason why the conservatories were thrown out of power is that people felt that this government had lied to them about the attacks, blaming the separatist (ETA) organization instead of Al-Qaeda. The conservatories took their people for fools, exactly like those people in the media saying that the terrorists manipulated the election. And thus (IMHO), they deserved to lose. It's exactly what would have happened in the US if Bush had tried to blame Saddam Hussein for the 9/11 attacks, even if everything pointed to Al-Qaeda.

 

[Tea]

Yeah. The right-wing American posters here have the correct idea. If you can't catch the actual bad guys, just kill people at random. Sooner or later, there won't be anyone left to kill, and the problem will go away.

 

[Mercutio]

Bill, I firmly believe that history will show that the only real reason we went to war in Iraq was the extension and preservation of an American hegemony in the middle east.
Flatly, I think anything else Mr. Bush says on the matter is to some greater or less degree a lie:
Bush: Iraq promotes terrorism.
Rest of the World (including Mr. Zapatero): Huh? Where?
Bush: Iraq has WMDs that'll hurt Americans.
Rest of the World: Let inspectors find 'em.
Bush: Iraq should be a prosperous democracy
Rest of the world: So why are you so happy to support other cruel dictatorships? And is the Iraqi standard of living any better?

Well?

Hussein's regime hated the US, and had military plans against US allies. So? I've yet to see or hear ANY credible evidence of connection between muslim fundamentalist terrorists and the former Iraq government.
Iraq didn't even belong in the same sentence with "root cause of terror".

Wanna fix the root causes of terror, really? Well, I think there's a couple of things we'd have to do. One of them is to stop supporting Israel. That'd be a big one. I don't even think it would be a big deal, except that certain factions in our own government have reasons for wanting to see the continued existance of a Jewish state. Wanna know something else that would fix a root cause of terror? How about not undertaking unilateral military action in the middle east. The US is a lot more popular when shores are guarded by "Baywatch" rather than fleets of destroyers. The muslim world has 15 centuries of culture under its belt; we can't change it as simply as telling someone them that their whole worldview has been wrong for centuries; things don't work that way.

The Wahabist viewpoint is that westerners are corrupt and decadent, and Saudi Arabia is in fact founded on Wahabist principles. You might not agree with those principles, but they're part of Mainstream Islamand like it or not these guys are part of our world. Killing every one of 'em you can find isn't going to change that fundamental philosophy, any more than slaughtering Pentecostals or Hasaidim would. By modern, mainstream standards, any of the above has some rather extreme viewpoints, but by the same token, none are that unacceptable to the mainstream of their cultures. Not only that, but there really isn't anything that ANYONE can do to correct unusual interpretations of someone else's holy book - describing someone else's religious teachings as "wrong" just leads to the kinds of warm, fuzzy conflicts that we now call "ethnic cleansing". If you asked a Branch Davidian or a follower of Qutb if their own interpretations of their holy books were better than some academic expert, what do you think they'd say?
Let's talk about context for a moment: You can't even get Methodists and Presbyterians to come to ecclesiastic agreement. Given that, why even attempt to measure another faith's worth without introducing relativism?

 

[sechs]

Someone with the screen name flagreen should knock-off the ad hominem attacks.

I won't stand for half-assed debate.

 

[flagreen]

Someone with the screen name flagreen should knock-off the ad hominem attacks.

I won't stand for half-assed debate.

I have no idea what you are talking about. None. Can someone else help me to see where I have attacked anyone? Because for the life of me I can't see it.

 

[flagreen]

Bill, I firmly believe that history will show that the only real reason we went to war in Iraq was the extension and preservation of an American hegemony in the middle east.
Flatly, I think anything else Mr. Bush says on the matter is to some greater or less degree a lie:
Bush: Iraq promotes terrorism.
Rest of the World (including Mr. Zapatero): Huh? Where?
Bush: Iraq has WMDs that'll hurt Americans.
Rest of the World: Let inspectors find 'em.
Bush: Iraq should be a prosperous democracy
Rest of the world: So why are you so happy to support other cruel dictatorships? And is the Iraqi standard of living any better?

Well?

On the question of Terrorism read this - http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/abu.htm

And this - http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19988.htm

On the question of WMD - No one knew, including the U.N. whether Iraq had them or not. Even Hans Blix who opposed the intervention has stated that he believes the adminstration's statements regarding WMD and Iraq where made in good faith. What was know by everyone, particularly by the U.N., was that they had not accounted for a great deal of weapons and prohibited WMD materials which they were obligated to account for under the various resolutions the agreed to abide by.

As for whether Iraqis are better off today read this - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040316/wl_nm/iraq_poll_dc_2

And this - http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/03/17/do1701.xml

Wanna fix the root causes of terror, really? Well, I think there's a couple of things we'd have to do. One of them is to stop supporting Israel. That'd be a big one. I don't even think it would be a big deal, except that certain factions in our own government have reasons for wanting to see the continued existance of a Jewish state. Wanna know something else that would fix a root cause of terror? How about not undertaking unilateral military action in the middle east. The US is a lot more popular when shores are guarded by "Baywatch" rather than fleets of destroyers. The muslim world has 15 centuries of culture under its belt; we can't change it as simply as telling someone them that their whole worldview has been wrong for centuries; things don't work that way.

You are correct in saying that "telling them" won't work. We must show them which is what the Iraqi people with our help and that of our allies will do. As for the Palestinian problem, this has never been one of Al-Qaeda's demands until the Afghanistan campaign got underway after 9-11-01. A resolution to the Israeli / Palestinian problem will not stop them from killing Americans wherever and whenever they can. Your point of view apparently is that the U.S. is the root cause of terrorism which is absurd. Not everything bad that happens in the world is our fault believe it or not.

The Wahabist viewpoint is that westerners are corrupt and decadent, and Saudi Arabia is in fact founded on Wahabist principles. You might not agree with those principles, but they're part of Mainstream Islamand like it or not these guys are part of our world. Killing every one of 'em you can find isn't going to change that fundamental philosophy, any more than slaughtering Pentecostals or Hasaidim would. By modern, mainstream standards, any of the above has some rather extreme viewpoints, but by the same token, none are that unacceptable to the mainstream of their cultures. Not only that, but there really isn't anything that ANYONE can do to correct unusual interpretations of someone else's holy book - describing someone else's religious teachings as "wrong" just leads to the kinds of warm, fuzzy conflicts that we now call "ethnic cleansing". If you asked a Branch Davidian or a follower of Qutb if their own interpretations of their holy books were better than some academic expert, what do you think they'd say?
Let's talk about context for a moment: You can't even get Methodists and Presbyterians to come to ecclesiastic agreement. Given that, why even attempt to measure another faith's worth without introducing relativism?

Here is an excellent primer on the subject which clearly expalins the problem of the Wahabis- http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1067-2002Aug9?language=printer

 

[mubs]

Anti-War Activists Call for Bush Censure Over Iraq

 

[flagreen]

From - http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=4591197

Purported Al Qaeda Letter Calls Truce in Spain

Wed Mar 17, 2004 04:56 PM ET

CAIRO (Reuters) - A group claiming to have links with al Qaeda said on Wednesday it was calling a truce in its Spanish operations to see if the new Madrid government would withdraw its troops from Iraq, a pan-Arab newspaper said.

In a statement sent to the Arabic language daily al-Hayat, the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, which claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings that killed 201 people, also urged its European units to stop all operations.

"Because of this decision, the leadership has decided to stop all operations within the Spanish territories... until we know the intentions of the new government that has promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq," the statement said.

"And we repeat this to all the brigades present in European lands: Stop all operations."

Skepticism has greeted previous claims of responsibility by the group for attacks in Turkey and Iraq. U.S. officials say its links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network are unclear.

An unrelated videotape of a man describing himself as al Qaeda's European military spokesman also claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombing, saying it was in retaliation for outgoing Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's domestically-unpopular support for the U.S.-led Iraq war.

In a shock election result three days after the Madrid bombs, Spain voted in the Socialist party, which has since said it will probably withdraw its troops from Iraq.

"The Spanish people... chose peace by choosing the party that was against the alliance with America," the statement said.

WE WANT BUSH TO WIN

The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running out for allies of the United States.

"Whose turn is it next? Will it be Japan or America, or Italy, Britain or Oslo or Australia?" the statement said, adding Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were also targets.

The group is named after Muhammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs, a close bin Laden aide killed in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.

The comments about not wanting Kerry elected remind me of Brer Rabbit and the briar patch. I seriously doubt that they really want Bush reelected.

Imagine Al-Qaeda of all people calling anyone else foolish for dealing with matters by force! Apparently their idea of wisdom is flying two airliners full of innocent people into the WTC.

Will anyone be intimidated by this?

What is your take on the comments regarding Kerry?

 

[its.fubar]

That 30 percent of Americans people that are republican are very strange type they've always seem to enjoy bashing democrats is it because they have a inferiority complex case in point Clinton is accused of not going to war against Iraq well the answer to this does anyone believe for one moment the American people would except that proposal before 9-11 not even the present person sitting in that house on Pennsylvania avenue 1600 was considering doing that before 9-11 he was talking about disengagement of the American service personnel and bring them home and if that person wasn't such a cowboy in thinking he didn't require any help from anybody else such as the UN he wouldn't have the problems he has today and furthermore if that cowboy from Texas stop talking at the people and started talking to the people he would find many more people throughout the world would agree with him.

 

[its.fubar]

flagreen: Kerry Will be the next president of the USA but it will change very little in the short term for the simple reason it will take a great deal of time and energy to get back to some form off normality considering what that lunatic cowboy from Texas has set in motion.

another thing to take into consideration is if Kerry makes the mistake of allowing that lunatic cowboy to keep his job by way off the back door as this was the way he got in at the first election.

 

[The JoJo]

The opinion here in my country has been that the US went to Iraq for one thing, oil.

Or maybe a birthday gift for papa Bush, as he didn't go all the way the last time. ..

 

[The JoJo]

Let's rephrase that: the opinion of people in my close proximity...

As the credibility of Bush is a bit low in many peoples view.

 

[Mercutio]

Bill, I don't have time to read a bunch of right-wing propaganda. I'll apologize for that in advance, but I do have other things that take priority in my life. Like flossing my cat's teeth.

 

[Howell]

Bill, I don't have time to read a bunch of right-wing propaganda.

Right-wing propaganda? Reuters? Maybe you should take time.

 

[sechs]

Propaganda is news. Even to the liberal media.

 

[Mercutio]

I'm operating under the assumption that if flagreen linked to it, it's propaganda.

 

[flagreen]

Yeah. The right-wing American posters here have the correct idea. If you can't catch the actual bad guys, just kill people at random. Sooner or later, there won't be anyone left to kill, and the problem will go away.

Tea,

Take a lesson from what happened to the last ape who attacked Americans -

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114606,00.html

 

[Pradeep]

I believe something like 90% of the Spanish people didn't want to enter into the war in Iraq. The Prime Minister went ahead anyway. Turns out the WMD was a bit of a boo boo. I imagine he would have lost the election anyway, terrorist bombings or not.

Perhaps the new guy meant that the intelligence services could do select assasinations as Mossad are want to do? Except nowadays the covert part is gone and they rain down rockets from Apache gunships...

 

[its.fubar]

Unfortunately to day if you listen to what is being said and report on Foxnews you will soon realize what is definitely wrong in the USA, they promote violence and disorder in so much as they suggest they are reporting fair and balance news when all they are doing is promoting the republican point of view.

I once again ask this question
before 9-11 would any politician including the then president receive the American people's including Congress permission to go to War in Iraq.

 

[mubs]

More damaging assertions against Bush.

 

[Tea]

What it boils down to is this:

Osama and various of his cronies wanting to kill somebody and someone saying: There aren't any good targets in the US or Israeli military and there are lots of good targets in New York.

Bush and various of his cronies wanting to kill someone, and Rumsfeld saying: 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.

The Osama quote I made up, but it's likely true enough. The scary part about it is that the Rumsfeld quote is real.

 

[CougTek]

Your point of view apparently is that the U.S. is the root cause of terrorism which is absurd.

This is where me and you have a real problem to understand each other's view on the subject.

IMO, by supporting unilaterally, a lot times in modern history, only one side of many given conflicts, with its very superior military power, the U.S. has made many enemies and created a feeling of persecution and oppression in the heart of millions of people who happened to be on the opposite side that the U.S. decided, often immorally, to support.

That created and still creates the perfect cocktail for terrorism to rise.

I'm not saying all terrorists are victims of the U.S., far from it. What I'm saying is that U.S. involvement in many conflicts concerning people not sufficiently understood by U.S. (lack of) intelligences has created more hatred against U.S. than against any other nation in modern times.

I don't see the absurdity here.

Capiché? Nah? Oh well, I tried.

 

[mubs]

For all native born Americans who've never travelled to other countries, especially Asia - please do. The U.S. is admired for its indomitable strength, its innovations. But it will be an eye-opener, the degree to which the U.S. is reviled and hated for its hypocrisy and bankrupt foreign policies.

 

[Mercutio]

I went to Canada once. Does that count as travel to another country?

 

[mubs]

Nope. The N/S? American continents don't count. :spiderman:

 

[flagreen]

Your point of view apparently is that the U.S. is the root cause of terrorism which is absurd.

This is where me and you have a real problem to understand each other's view on the subject.

IMO, by supporting unilaterally, a lot times in modern history, only one side of many given conflicts, with its very superior military power, the U.S. has made many enemies and created a feeling of persecution and oppression in the heart of millions of people who happened to be on the opposite side that the U.S. decided, often immorally, to support.

That created and still creates the perfect cocktail for terrorism to rise.

I'm not saying all terrorists are victims of the U.S., far from it. What I'm saying is that U.S. involvement in many conflicts concerning people not sufficiently understood by U.S. (lack of) intelligences has created more hatred against U.S. than against any other nation in modern times.

I don't see the absurdity here.

Capiché? Nah? Oh well, I tried.

I understand clearly what it is you are saying. However the absurdity of holding the U.S. foreign policy responsible for terrorism comes from the fact that "terrorism" is a crime. Even if one believes that U.S. foreign policy is "criminal" in nature, or even "terrorism", one crime or one act of terror does not justify another.

 

[CityK]

Nope. The N/S? American continents don't count.

Besides, Canadians don't hate America .... but we often end up shaking our heads in wonderment, as in "what in the hell are they doing now"

 

[Mercutio]

The more I think about it, the better British Columbia looks to me. Maybe I should just go live there.