We Are All Spaniards

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ...
"John Galban" wrote in message
om...
That's a BS myth -- they were most definitely NOT indiscriminante.

Boy, I really hate to step into this thread, but there were
incidents of what would be called "terrorism" today by the jewish
factions in pre-Israeli palestine. The bombing of the King David
Hotel in 1946 comes to mind.

Better get some more info because that's (KD Hotel) one of the worst myths.
British were warned repeatedly and well in advance and arrogantly ignored
all the warnings.

No Tom, it's not a myth. The bombing actually took place and it was
done by a faction of the pro-jewish movement (IIRC, the Irgun). The
bombers admitted their participation publicly.

Using your logic, an action is not a terrorist action if you call
and warn someone in advance.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Hi Tom,

And an effective alternative is...what?

better intelligence work could have prevented 9/11 for a start.

And what could we have done with that intelligence?

arrest the would-be pilots before they board the plane?

I would guess you realize it's not like in the James Bond movies, and
for
information to be even moderately accurate is a bonus.

what are the various agencies there for, if not to provide information
enabling such arrests? I appreciate that it's not an easy job. Yet in
case of 9/11 it was found later, that such information was available.

Or
choosing our friends more wisely would be a good idea. E.g. not
supplying terrorists like OBL with weapons just because at the
moment
they are shooting them at people we don't like.

We supplied the Muhajeen with weapons to fight off the Soviets in
Afghanistan...that was a righteous fight. Oddly, we supplied the
Soviets
with Lend-Lease equipment 40 yers earlier. using that formula, we'd
never
had divorces between couple that once were in love but now want to
kill each
other.

It's not as if the Muhajeen had ever been in love with US or the West,
nor vice versa. They welcomed the weapons, but it was not so
unforseeable that they would just as well turn them against us.

Who, under that measure, could we ever consider our "friends"?

People who share our values, a common conception of human rights.

Please note that I'm not ruling out military action as an option,
if
there is reason to believe that possible future terrorist acts can
be
prevented.

Prevented how?

arresting (or killing) the terrorists.

Afghanistan was justified in my view, given that the taliban
openly supported OBL, only the job was not finished (yet again!).

What would "finish" that job in your view?

To be honest, I don't know. Support in establishing a stable form of
gouvernment and also development, I suppose. It is a very difficult
job, that's for sure, but noone said it would be easy.

Iraq
was never really about terrorism, was it?

They supplied equipment, training, military intelligence, possibly
funding.

Did they? I haven't read about any finds that back up that claim.
Wouldn't we know about that, given the short supply of WMDs as
justification for the war?

But even if this was the case: We should have much rather invaded Saudi
Arabia if that was our motivation.

For Iraq, the US was the hurdle to his domination of the region; for
the
Islamic fundelemtalists, it was our open, free and "immoral, infidel"
society.

Yes, I agree with that.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen." from my adress

Thanks - I concede your post is well argued and nuanced.

-- David Brooks

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...


Libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force for politcal ends,
but
we have no problem with taking a war to the enemy's back yard once it has
begun.

The current division in the LP is one of world view rather than of
principle.
....snip...go see the parent for all of it

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
Well, since in one of your other posts, you claim that Al Quaida's aim is to
get the U.S. out of the Middle East, and the WTC attack played a major part in
the establishment of bases in Kuwait, the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan,
and the invasion of Iraq, I'd say that it's had exactly the opposite effect of
what was desired.

All right, let me try again. The US has been interfering with
governments all over the world for many decades. Some very exceptional
and highly publicized interventions end up well (WW2). But most of
them lead directly or indirectly to poverty, famine and general misery
(Lat.America). In most of these places the people just sigh and go on
in their daily struggle to survive... Some have mixed feelings because
they have the rare privilege of having access to the US-produced
goods.

Maybe the US interventions in the Middle East have been much more
unbearable, or maybe the people there aren't so sheepish and they
fight back. So they don't really care if the US sends the tanks and
fighters. They just want to get even. Of course, the tanks and
fighters just reinforce their reasoning and so it may even serve their
cause.

I remember the day of the WTC attacks. Not only was I horrified and
shocked, but I also feared the spiral of violence that would come
next. Of course the US had the right to retaliate, and of course
whoever got attacked by the US (not the offenders, of course) had the
right to retaliate in turn, and so on. It's happening slower than I
thought, but it is happening, and I don't see an end to it, as much as
I don't see an end to the palestinian/israeli suffering...

So I don't know what has to be done to stop this madness, but one of
the sides should drastically change positions. Of course it is very
difficult for the fighters to step down, forget and forgive and take
the blame, but someone has to do it. Maybe the new JFK is the only
hope.

On 17 Mar 2004 18:22:35 GMT, ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:

In article ,
(Alex) writes:


Their agenda is not freedom -- it is the downfall of Western civilization,
in the name of God.

It's thier own freedom from western opresion. Believe it or not, they
don't see America as their saviour, but as their invader.



Actually, it's all about Brittany Spears.

Their sons, and worse, their daughters, think Brittany is cool. That is death
to their mysogenistic, sixth century culture. For centuries, they could
indoctrinate their sons in madrasas's, and their daughters at their mothers
knees, into their backward, authoritarian feudal culture in isolation, but now,
in the electronic age, Brittany rains down on them from our satelites and their
stick in the mud culture cannot compete for the hearts of the next generation.

And they are ****ed.

They can't win. Their people thirst for information from the outside. As soon
as we struck down the Taliban, satelite dishes buried in back yards sprouted up
like daffodils in the spring. Their culture cannot stand open exchange with the
outside world, and technology will no longer give them a place to hide. So
their culture is dying, but like a snake with a broken back, they are lashing
out blindly.

The sooner we drag them out of the sixth century, the fewer of them we will
have to kill to stop the violence. Dropping the rule of law and self
determination right into the heart of the middle east in Iraq is the quickest
way to bring the struggle to an end.


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Wow. I never thought of Brittany Spears as a valiant agent of change,
crusader of American "culture". I always thought she was just a
slightly dimwitted so called singer, blessed with a lusty body and
willing to flaunt it.

The things you learn in this group.

Corky Scott

ospam (Rosspilot) wrote in message ...
You should read more
non-US media...

1. Spaniards changed their vote not because of terror, but because the
government manipulated the information regarding the terror attacks
and tried to mislead the people for their own advantage (ring a
bell?).

2. Terrorists are not fighting a religious war. They are fighting the
US and its allies, not Christianity.


can you post a relevant URL please?
www.Rosspilot.com

http://www.prensalibre.com/pls/prens...icion=16-03-04
http://www.clarin.com/diario/2004/03/15/i-01616.htm
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2004/mar0...5/003n2mun.php

You can do your own search.

ospam (Rosspilot) wrote in message ...
You should read more
non-US media...

1. Spaniards changed their vote not because of terror, but because the
government manipulated the information regarding the terror attacks
and tried to mislead the people for their own advantage (ring a
bell?).

2. Terrorists are not fighting a religious war. They are fighting the
US and its allies, not Christianity.


can you post a relevant URL please?
www.Rosspilot.com

Also, in case you can't read Spanish:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4535595/

where you can read:
'Analysts say that Aznar's party lost the race because Spaniards saw
their rush to judgment against the ETA as a politically convenient
deception. "In trying to get an electoral victory, they emphasized the
ETA-theory to such an extent that the manipulation was too obvious,"
says Nuñez. "And, in the end, the population reacted to being
manipulated." A policeman at the end of the island on Line 2 at Atocha
station said it in other words, whispering with repressed anger, "All
the politicians can go to hell."'

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

What is relevant is what the terrorists perceive. They have now seen
that
"Bomb+Massive Casualties=Troops out of the Middle East."

No matter how you cut it, there is nothing good here. We are all much
more
vulnerable, thanks to the Spanish.

The first part is certainly true, but I'm not sure the last bit is.
Given that attacking the U.S. resulted in two shooting wars, plus
manifold other actions against terrorism, I don't think that the U.S.
is the next logical target. Surely Italy is. Or, if the message is
"all crusaders bad", then France.



Well we do have an election in November and with their success in Spain I
would very surprised if we don't have a major terrorism attempt in the US in
October.

Martin Hotze wrote:

"S Green" wrote:


How many Americans register to vote and how many actually do? Democracy
means fig all when you are struggling to survive when others get fat through
abusing the democratic processes.


democracy is dictatorship of the majority.



Which is why we don't have that here.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:50:52 +0100, Martin Hotze
wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote:

Yep, murder a couple hundred Spaniards and the whole country will do
whatever you want.


We want to keep you statement for the Google archive. It is so ... honest.


Welll... Look at it this way.
We had 9/11 and it made us angry.
The lost a couple of trains and said if we leave them alone maybe they
won't bother us any more. At least that is what the world wide
financial community is seeing.

In one fell swoop they gave the terrorists a tremendous boost in
incentive and moral that repeating such operations will eventually let
them win.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
#m