<div class="IPBDescription">Effects on politics</div> I can hardly imagine Al Quaeda's ultimate goal of the WTC was to get themselves blown up, arrested, and hiding in caves.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Mar 15 2004, 02:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Mar 15 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can hardly imagine Al Quaeda's ultimate goal of the WTC was to get themselves blown up, arrested, and hiding in caves. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, but their goal was attention, someone to recognize what they're doing and the fact that they'll go to any lengths to achieve it. And that's exactly what they got.
<!--QuoteBegin-ThE HeRo+Mar 15 2004, 06:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ThE HeRo @ Mar 15 2004, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Mar 15 2004, 02:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Mar 15 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can hardly imagine Al Quaeda's ultimate goal of the WTC was to get themselves blown up, arrested, and hiding in caves. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, but their goal was attention, someone to recognize what they're doing and the fact that they'll go to any lengths to achieve it. And that's exactly what they got. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I dissagree. Attention is nice and all but what I think the real goal was is exactly what happened: Americans learned fear, had some of their precious freedoms revoked, and the American government demonstrated its arrogance in a very public way and **** off a good deal of other countries.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 15 2004, 07:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 15 2004, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-ThE HeRo+Mar 15 2004, 06:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ThE HeRo @ Mar 15 2004, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Mar 15 2004, 02:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Mar 15 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can hardly imagine Al Quaeda's ultimate goal of the WTC was to get themselves blown up, arrested, and hiding in caves. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, but their goal was attention, someone to recognize what they're doing and the fact that they'll go to any lengths to achieve it. And that's exactly what they got. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I dissagree. Attention is nice and all but what I think the real goal was is exactly what happened: Americans learned fear, had some of their precious freedoms revoked, and the American government demonstrated its arrogance in a very public way and **** off a good deal of other countries. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 3000 people died, you seem to be glad.
Woah-k gunna have to redirect this thread, please try to respond to my set of questions and original post, getting into fights with other posters isn't going to produce much discussion. At least for the first couple of pages just state your opinions and ideas in a constructive way and we can debate them once we have a set of ideas from different members.
<!--QuoteBegin-ElectricSheep+Mar 15 2004, 07:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Mar 15 2004, 07:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 15 2004, 07:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 15 2004, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-ThE HeRo+Mar 15 2004, 06:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ThE HeRo @ Mar 15 2004, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Mar 15 2004, 02:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Mar 15 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can hardly imagine Al Quaeda's ultimate goal of the WTC was to get themselves blown up, arrested, and hiding in caves. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, but their goal was attention, someone to recognize what they're doing and the fact that they'll go to any lengths to achieve it. And that's exactly what they got. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I dissagree. Attention is nice and all but what I think the real goal was is exactly what happened: Americans learned fear, had some of their precious freedoms revoked, and the American government demonstrated its arrogance in a very public way and **** off a good deal of other countries. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 3000 people died, you seem to be glad. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How you infer that from my post is beyond my resoning.
Anyways D:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While elections and war pacts are only necessary reactions to these attacks could these reactions possibly be seen as a success to the terrorists that commit these crimes? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Almost undoubtedly. See my above post.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If it becomes common happenstance that great political upheaveal and change occur in ever country that suffers a massive terrorist attack will this be insentive to Al Queda and like groups to continue these attacks?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, highly probable. Radicals are all about change, when they see that their ways incur change they will be encouraged to continue. Unless perhaps that change is severely more negative for them than it is positive.
Unfortunatly there isn't much that can be done about it, the public has to feel that something is being done and elected officials have to satisfy that need or risk losing office.
The Spanish citizens, who previously supported their president, are now voting against him for a socialist president because of the attacks and coalition support. I think the Daily Show said it best:
"Spain's response to these attacks sent a strong message to Al Queda: If you think we're going to back down in the face of threats... well, you got us. We're gonna back down in the face of threats."
<!--QuoteBegin-ElectricSheep+Mar 15 2004, 07:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Mar 15 2004, 07:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 15 2004, 07:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 15 2004, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-ThE HeRo+Mar 15 2004, 06:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ThE HeRo @ Mar 15 2004, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Mar 15 2004, 02:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Mar 15 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can hardly imagine Al Quaeda's ultimate goal of the WTC was to get themselves blown up, arrested, and hiding in caves. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, but their goal was attention, someone to recognize what they're doing and the fact that they'll go to any lengths to achieve it. And that's exactly what they got. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I dissagree. Attention is nice and all but what I think the real goal was is exactly what happened: Americans learned fear, had some of their precious freedoms revoked, and the American government demonstrated its arrogance in a very public way and **** off a good deal of other countries. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 3000 people died, you seem to be glad. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't see how slowly chipping away civil liberties qualifies as protecting its citizens
<!--QuoteBegin-killswitch1968+Mar 16 2004, 08:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (killswitch1968 @ Mar 16 2004, 08:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "Spain's response to these attacks sent a strong message to Al Queda: If you think we're going to back down in the face of threats... well, you got us. We're gonna back down in the face of threats." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, and I'd say that's the smartest thing. Bombing more eastern countries in "self-defense" sure isn't going to IMPROVE on things. Now, we just need to take the final step and try to see what we can do about it, rather than bomb them to dust and push them even further.
<!--QuoteBegin-xect+Mar 16 2004, 09:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xect @ Mar 16 2004, 09:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-killswitch1968+Mar 16 2004, 08:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (killswitch1968 @ Mar 16 2004, 08:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "Spain's response to these attacks sent a strong message to Al Queda: If you think we're going to back down in the face of threats... well, you got us. We're gonna back down in the face of threats." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, and I'd say that's the smartest thing. Bombing more eastern countries in "self-defense" sure isn't going to IMPROVE on things. Now, we just need to take the final step and try to see what we can do about it, rather than bomb them to dust and push them even further. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, Spain took the stupidest course of action and now just endangered America and all of her allies.
This is exactly what the Terrorists wanted.
Terriorists got a taste of victory, and now they will be encouraged to do it again, and fight onward. Each bout of victory serves as a morale booster.
Well, now that Spain has been attacked this whole "war on terror" shizz has offically become a war in my mind, complete with battles, victories, and defeats.
Who's next? Britian? Some small eastern European country?
Good job Spain for screwing everyone else over. If Spain was going to be such a wussy, weak, and worthless ally they should not have came in the first place. Once you commit, you DO NOT BACK DOWN... EVER, esp. when the enemy is attacking you on your HOME TURF!
Man, the lack of logic on Spain's behalf is maddening.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Mar 16 2004, 03:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Mar 16 2004, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Good job Spain for screwing everyone else over. If Spain was going to be such a wussy, weak, and worthless ally they should not have came in the first place. Once you commit, you DO NOT BACK DOWN... EVER, esp. when the enemy is attacking you on your HOME TURF! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So you believe we should bomb all those innocent people just like that?
Why don't we just make it official then. East against west, kill all of them, every last one of them. Don't leave anyone alive, because they might hate us, and they do not have the right to hate us for bombing them. KILL THEM ALL! Or am I misinterpreting your post?
<!--QuoteBegin-xect+Mar 16 2004, 09:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xect @ Mar 16 2004, 09:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Mar 16 2004, 03:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Mar 16 2004, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Good job Spain for screwing everyone else over. If Spain was going to be such a wussy, weak, and worthless ally they should not have came in the first place. Once you commit, you DO NOT BACK DOWN... EVER, esp. when the enemy is attacking you on your HOME TURF! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you believe we should bomb all those innocent people just like that?
Why don't we just make it official then. East against west, kill all of them, every last one of them. Don't leave anyone alive, because they might hate us, and they do not have the right to hate us for bombing them. KILL THEM ALL! Or am I misinterpreting your post? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Its always been East VS. West. Ever since the United States feared the Soviet Union its been East Vs. West. And now apparently since Spain has opened its eyes a bit it will continue to be so. Red Dawn dosen't seem so far fetched when people realize they are being exploited.
Forlorn, guess who else liked preemptive strikes. Yep, you guessed it. Hitler <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-xect+Mar 16 2004, 09:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xect @ Mar 16 2004, 09:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Mar 16 2004, 03:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Mar 16 2004, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Good job Spain for screwing everyone else over. If Spain was going to be such a wussy, weak, and worthless ally they should not have came in the first place. Once you commit, you DO NOT BACK DOWN... EVER, esp. when the enemy is attacking you on your HOME TURF! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you believe we should bomb all those innocent people just like that?
Why don't we just make it official then. East against west, kill all of them, every last one of them. Don't leave anyone alive, because they might hate us, and they do not have the right to hate us for bombing them. KILL THEM ALL! Or am I misinterpreting your post? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> wow, xect, wow
He is saying that pulling out of iraq because you were attacked is stupid. Its like abadoning your friend in a fight because you got hit. We are not out there hunting down innocent people and killing them. In fact, if you didnt notice we stopped bombing Iraq and are now try to build up their government. Yes, innocents are dying there, but thats what happens when some idiot puts a bomb in a car and drives into a crowd.
I think that Spain actions are going to send a message to terrorists, if you hit us hard enough we will listen. We will see more terrorist attacks in europe, Britian will most likely be next. I am also very disappointed with Spain abadoning the iraqi poeple, they took part in the war and now they are going to just up and leave during the rebuilding phase. Even if you disagree with the war, you are just hurting the people even more by abandoning them at this point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Forlorn, guess who else liked preemptive strikes. Yep, you guessed it. Hitler <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well Godwin's law has been envoked, Forlorn wins the arguement. GG <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Mar 16 2004, 04:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Mar 16 2004, 04:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> He is saying that pulling out of iraq because you were attacked is stupid. Its like abadoning your friend in a fight because you got hit. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Try seeing it from their point of view. If you ask the terrorists, we started it all. And following your view, they should not back off before the war is won the war.
Now, two sides that both believe they should not back up before the war is won. Were have we seen that before? 1st world war? 2nd world war? American civil war?
I'm sure these are all examples of high happiness that we want to repeat. Face it, someone has to back up a bit to avoid war, it's called a compromise.
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Mar 16 2004, 05:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Mar 16 2004, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think that Spain actions are going to send a message to terrorists, if you hit us hard enough we will listen. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> On the other hand, Spain backing down is going to advocate more strikes, however, on the other hand it's also pre-emptively stopping strikes. What do you think terrorists think of this? "Gee, Spain actually listened to our message! Well, I guess we don't have to attack Spain anymore" If GB did the same, it most likely wouldn't have to suffer strikes either.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dread+Mar 16 2004, 05:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Mar 16 2004, 05:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Mar 16 2004, 05:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Mar 16 2004, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think that Spain actions are going to send a message to terrorists, if you hit us hard enough we will listen. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> On the other hand, Spain backing down is going to advocate more strikes, however, on the other hand it's also pre-emptively stopping strikes. What do you think terrorists think of this? "Gee, Spain actually listened to our message! Well, I guess we don't have to attack Spain anymore" If GB did the same, it most likely wouldn't have to suffer strikes either. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly.
And if people started listening to the message that the terrorists wanted to deliver in the first place, we might actually go in the right direction instead of pushing the world further into conflicts.
<!--QuoteBegin-xect+Mar 16 2004, 11:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xect @ Mar 16 2004, 11:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Dread+Mar 16 2004, 05:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Mar 16 2004, 05:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Mar 16 2004, 05:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Mar 16 2004, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think that Spain actions are going to send a message to terrorists, if you hit us hard enough we will listen. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> On the other hand, Spain backing down is going to advocate more strikes, however, on the other hand it's also pre-emptively stopping strikes. What do you think terrorists think of this? "Gee, Spain actually listened to our message! Well, I guess we don't have to attack Spain anymore" If GB did the same, it most likely wouldn't have to suffer strikes either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly.
And if people started listening to the message that the terrorists wanted to deliver in the first place, we might actually go in the right direction instead of pushing the world further into conflicts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> "Pacifists are nothing more than useful idoits."
- Joeseph Stalin
Yep, good old Uncle Joe would call you a tool.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Forlorn, guess who else liked preemptive strikes. Yep, you guessed it. Hitler <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was hitler responding to an existing threat, or one he made up?
Were we attacked in 9/11 before we started to invade other countries?
You know who didn't like pre-emptive strikes...
France, during world war one, and two, and russia during world war two..
Just because Hitler was a physco doesn't mean pre-emptive strikes don't work, if anything he shows us how effective they are. I mean, saying we should not take advantage of pre-emptive strikes is like saying we should not use paper, because so did hitler - terrible logic CWAG.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its always been East VS. West. Ever since the United States feared the Soviet Union its been East Vs. West. And now apparently since Spain has opened its eyes a bit it will continue to be so. Red Dawn dosen't seem so far fetched when people realize they are being exploited.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, I'm sure the terrorsts are fighting for communism <img src='http://nonoobs.com/forums/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So you believe we should bomb all those innocent people just like that?
Why don't we just make it official then. East against west, kill all of them, every last one of them. Don't leave anyone alive, because they might hate us, and they do not have the right to hate us for bombing them. KILL THEM ALL! Or am I misinterpreting your post? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, let me guess, the terrorists killed GUILTY people, right?
This east vs. west crap is completely off-topic and unrelated btw, lets stop.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Try seeing it from their point of view. If you ask the terrorists, we started it all. And following your view, they should not back off before the war is won the war.
Now, two sides that both believe they should not back up before the war is won. Were have we seen that before? 1st world war? 2nd world war? American civil war?
I'm sure these are all examples of high happiness that we want to repeat. Face it, someone has to back up a bit to avoid war, it's called a compromise. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course it's going to be a long and bloody fight - they started it, and they got it!
Btw, your examples:
1st world war not backing down, sure, but no one fought for any reason, other than than for pride, today's situation is not the case. WW1 was the world coming to terms with a new era of warfare.
2nd world war; we all know how well appeasement worked then!
American Civil War; the north didn't back down and kept this great nation together.
Face it, backing down only prolong's conflict, get it over with as soon as possible and start to rebuild.
Oh, sorry if I sound harsh, but this really disturbs me, I don't think I've broken any rules in my post. Much <3 to all
why do people still think Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. no one makes sense on this board anymore <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
the majority of the population of Spain were opposed to the war, they elected a party who would withdrawl their troops. you can argue till your blue in the face about how wrong spain is or whatever, but the people democratically chose to pull out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Pacifists are nothing more than useful idoits."
- Joeseph Stalin<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, let's all follow Stalin's philosophy???
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Was hitler responding to an existing threat, or one he made up?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> One he believed in, surely. And probably a very real threat too. I would say the threat he responded to was just as real as the one the WMDs presented.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Were we attacked in 9/11 before we started to invade other countries?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Were they hit before they did 9/11? Did we send weapons to Israel and invoke sanctions?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, let me guess, the terrorists killed GUILTY people, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not really, but does that justify us bombing innocent people? I mean, they did it, so can we, right?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This east vs. west crap is completely off-topic and unrelated btw, lets stop.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Seemingly not, because it seems the general consensus in here is that we should kill all terrorists. And since the terrorists are there because we pushed the middle east too far, the only way we can kill all middle-eastern terrorists by violent means is to kill everyone.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Face it, backing down only prolong's conflict, get it over with as soon as possible and start to rebuild.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So, kill everyone it is then?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, sorry if I sound harsh, but this really disturbs me, I don't think I've broken any rules in my post. Much <3 to all<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's allright, I'm probably sounding a bit harsh too. Just discussion, no hard feelings, right? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> why do people still think Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. no one makes sense on this board anymore <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's quite simple actually, it's because in the common mind, they are two sides of the same thing. Due to the PR campaigns run for the wars, the Iraq war has come under the "war on terror" banner, a.k.a. "war on the middle east".
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Mar 16 2004, 10:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Mar 16 2004, 10:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-xect+Mar 16 2004, 09:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xect @ Mar 16 2004, 09:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Mar 16 2004, 03:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Mar 16 2004, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Good job Spain for screwing everyone else over. If Spain was going to be such a wussy, weak, and worthless ally they should not have came in the first place. Once you commit, you DO NOT BACK DOWN... EVER, esp. when the enemy is attacking you on your HOME TURF! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you believe we should bomb all those innocent people just like that?
Why don't we just make it official then. East against west, kill all of them, every last one of them. Don't leave anyone alive, because they might hate us, and they do not have the right to hate us for bombing them. KILL THEM ALL! Or am I misinterpreting your post? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> wow, xect, wow
He is saying that pulling out of iraq because you were attacked is stupid. Its like abadoning your friend in a fight because you got hit. We are not out there hunting down innocent people and killing them. In fact, if you didnt notice we stopped bombing Iraq and are now try to build up their government. Yes, innocents are dying there, but thats what happens when some idiot puts a bomb in a car and drives into a crowd.
I think that Spain actions are going to send a message to terrorists, if you hit us hard enough we will listen. We will see more terrorist attacks in europe, Britian will most likely be next. I am also very disappointed with Spain abadoning the iraqi poeple, they took part in the war and now they are going to just up and leave during the rebuilding phase. Even if you disagree with the war, you are just hurting the people even more by abandoning them at this point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Forlorn, guess who else liked preemptive strikes. Yep, you guessed it. Hitler <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well Godwin's law has been envoked, Forlorn wins the arguement. GG <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So, we should attack nations with terrorists! Exactly! If we attack them back then they will...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its like abadoning your friend in a fight because you got hit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN!
...maybe if we didn't do things to cause most nations to hate us we wouldn't be in this pickle....sure you can't please everyone but blowing up thirdworld nations and using them as scapegoats sure isn't helping.
Also, I'm sure the terrorsts are fighting for communism <img src='http://nonoobs.com/forums/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Disturbingly enough if you actually believe that crap that Saddam likes the terrorists then you could technically say they do. Saddam was a Bassist. That is a mutated facist-ish type of Stalinism, so technically, by your logic and beliefs that Bush has given you, then yes, they do.
I want to make it clear I don't agree with Bassism as it is a spit in the face to what communism stands for.
<!--QuoteBegin-Melatonin+Mar 16 2004, 01:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Mar 16 2004, 01:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> why do people still think Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because by Fuhrer Bush's logic, Saddam is friends with the terrorists, so we have
Saddam <ul><li>Long time enemy of the US</li><li>Happens to be in the middle east</li><li>Oil rich nation</li><li>Apparently he has "links" to terrorists</li></ul>Terrorists<ul><li>Invisible target</li><li>Unpredectable</li><li>Middle-Eastern</li><li>Friends with Oil rich nations</li></ul> Logically speaking, Saddam is a prime target. As is Iran, Syria, Libya, and all other nations that have lots of oil and don't particularly like us.
Iraq seems to make an awfully convienient scapegoat
Could we stay on topic please? Lets not discuss whether we believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. We are talking about the 3/11 attacks on Spain that led to the election of an party that is going to pull them out of Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other hand, Spain backing down is going to advocate more strikes, however, on the other hand it's also pre-emptively stopping strikes. What do you think terrorists think of this? "Gee, Spain actually listened to our message! Well, I guess we don't have to attack Spain anymore" If GB did the same, it most likely wouldn't have to suffer strikes either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes they will get the idea if we kill people they will listen to us, and for Spain that is a bad thing. For the unintiated, Spain is home to the ETA, a terrorist organiztion that wants spain to give them the northern tip of Spain as a homeland. If this is the message that they got, then you are going to see more attacks in Spain. The ETA normally gives warnings to limit the death toll to government official, this might stop if a death toll brings action.
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Mar 16 2004, 08:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Mar 16 2004, 08:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes they will get the idea if we kill people they will listen to us, and for Spain that is a bad thing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But really, do you seriously believe that the terrorists, the people who are fighting to protect their countries because that's all they have left, are going to stop killing you because you destroy their homes?
<!--QuoteBegin-xect+Mar 16 2004, 02:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xect @ Mar 16 2004, 02:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But really, do you seriously believe that the terrorists, the people who are fighting to protect their countries because that's all they have left, are going to stop killing you because you destroy their homes? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Since when are these terrorrists fighting to protect their counties? How many of the 9/11 terrorrists were from Saudi Arabia? Have we attacked Saudi Arabia? How many of the terrorrists in Afghanistan were actually from Afghanistan? Or was Afghanistan just their base of operations because the Taliban supported them and needed their support?
The terrorrists are not "freedom fighters" and they are not doing this to "protect their countries".
Many of the terrorrist organizations claim that our support of Israel is why we are a prime target. We are not going to stop supporting Israel anytime soon no matter the number of attacks we suffer. Americans do not respond well to being attacked. If they continue to attack us it'll just anger us more and more. I for one do not want to see the US population extremely angry.
Spain's response to the terrorrist attacks only sends one message. Terrorrism works.
<!--QuoteBegin-othell+Mar 16 2004, 02:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Mar 16 2004, 02:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-xect+Mar 16 2004, 02:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xect @ Mar 16 2004, 02:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But really, do you seriously believe that the terrorists, the people who are fighting to protect their countries because that's all they have left, are going to stop killing you because you destroy their homes? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Since when are these terrorrists fighting to protect their counties? How many of the 9/11 terrorrists were from Saudi Arabia? Have we attacked Saudi Arabia? How many of the terrorrists in Afghanistan were actually from Afghanistan? Or was Afghanistan just their base of operations because the Taliban supported them and needed their support?
The terrorrists are not "freedom fighters" and they are not doing this to "protect their countries".
Many of the terrorrist organizations claim that our support of Israel is why we are a prime target. We are not going to stop supporting Israel anytime soon no matter the number of attacks we suffer. Americans do not respond well to being attacked. If they continue to attack us it'll just answer us more and more. I for one do not want to see the US population extremely angry.
Spain's response to the terrorrist attacks only sends one message. Terrorrism works.
That is not a message we want to send. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed. Its called Terrorism because the point of it is to instill fear, terrorism is not patriotism.
True true. And just want to make clear that I'm NOT trying to support what they do in any way. It's disgusting, and it has to go. It's just an old habit of mine, when someone do things I don't understand, to try and justify it, because it makes it a whole lot easier to understand it. So whatever I say in here, I do not support terrorism in any form <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How many of the terrorrists in Afghanistan were actually from Afghanistan?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then why did we bomb Afghanistan?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The terrorrists are not "freedom fighters" and they are not doing this to "protect their countries".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, they must be doing it for some reason. If that reason is the fact that we support someone who want to take over their countries (a.k.a. Israel), then isn't that a viable reason. I mean, after all, I would be **** off if someone sent weapons to my enemies for no reason I could comprehend. As far as I can see, they have no other choice. What should they do, try and be diplomatic? Do your seriously think anyone in the west would listen if they asked us nicely, anyone with influence? I don't think so.
Well, considering that Stalin was the most brutal dictator alive, I'm sure we can take his advice on how to <b>exploit</b> people most. Stalin's quote is quite relevent and wordly in today's context. Even if you don't like the man, it does not make him wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One he believed in, surely. And probably a very real threat too. I would say the threat he responded to was just as real as the one the WMDs presented.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the hell? We are not talking about justfying Iraq, we are talking about whether or not Spain did the right thing and comparing it to 9/11.
Example:
9/11: America is attacked. America fights back
3/11: Spain is attacked. Spain retreats into it's own borders
See the difference? Also, you responded to my quote about Hitler:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Was hitler responding to an existing threat, or one he made up?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which was talking about about the idea before America actually invaded any other countries, the terrorists clearly attacked us first. Hitler invaded first, no questions asked.
The comparision you make is so weak, off-topic, and pale, I don't even know where to begin...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Were they hit before they did 9/11? Did we send weapons to Israel and invoke sanctions? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They weren't hit before 9/11. Or maybe we did, with Clinton's bombing of various middle eastern countries and 3rd world country. Yeah, that could have been it... another Clintonian botch-up. Or maybe it was European colinization of them for the first 50 years or so of the 20th century. Or maybe it was America trying to prevent communism from spreading into these countries?
Regardless of whatever your point was, I hope you realize that you made another off-topic and irrelevent point, because there is none.
OH, and weapons were sent to Iserail long after they were attacked by other Arab nations so they could defend themselves. Yeah, mean ole USA! But again, I think this point is off-topic as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seemingly not, because it seems the general consensus in here is that we should kill all terrorists. And since the terrorists are there because we pushed the middle east too far, the only way we can kill all middle-eastern terrorists by violent means is to kill everyone.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A terrorist could be anyone. The fact they are mostly eastern and muslim is mostly just coincindence, but no where does it mean you should kill all of one type of group.
If anyone actually beleved the crap you spouted on purpose (problably just to get people like me riled up), then why would we bother rebuilding not one, but two countries in the middle east?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, kill everyone it is then?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, get the damn war over with and move on. The faster the better. It does not involve killing everyone, it only invovles killing who are in the way and moving forward.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Logically speaking, Saddam is a prime target. As is Iran, Syria, Libya, and all other nations that have lots of oil and don't particularly like us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, Oil managed to get in this topic!
GREAT!
I love how people assume since it was an Oil rich nation that was the reason we invaded... no, we wouldn't just bought it from them for absurdly low prices, that's not it at all, we'd rather spend close to 100 billion invading... yeah, that's it! <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->..maybe if we didn't do things to cause most nations to hate us we wouldn't be in this pickle....sure you can't please everyone but blowing up thirdworld nations and using them as scapegoats sure isn't helping.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The idea is that you take away people who support the Terrorists and get others to make sure they do not side with them.
Worked well for communism, there is a good chance it will work again. Getting others to unite against an idea will eventually kill it.
Hmm.... how long before this one gets locked? It actually had the potential for some interesting discussion... shame
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->9/11: America is attacked. America fights back
3/11: Spain is attacked. Spain retreats into it's own borders<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
9/11: America is attacked by nation-less terrorists organisations. America bombs Afghanistan to a state that will take many years to rebuild, killing thousands of innocents who never did anything to deserve it.
3/11: Spain is attacked. Spain lets democracy (you know, the kind of democracy you are supposedly trying to insert into the middle east, right?) rule, and follows the people's opinion, ceasing hostilities.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Which was talking about about the idea before America actually invaded any other countries, the terrorists clearly attacked us first.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ya', except for all the wars that you indirectly participated in. Israel, the gulf war and so on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OH, and weapons were sent to Iserail long after they were attacked by other Arab nations so they could defend themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right now it seems the Israeli are using these weapons to kill and dominate the Palestinians.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A terrorist could be anyone. The fact they are mostly eastern and muslim is mostly just coincindence, but no where does it mean you should kill all of one type of group.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, but as long as you keep bombing the crap out of the middle east, people will keep signing up for terrorist causes. The only way you can make sure that the middle eastern terrorist organizations stop recruiting big-scale, provided you want to do it the bloody way, is to kill them all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(problably just to get people like me riled up), then why would we bother rebuilding not one, but two countries in the middle east?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dominate seems more like the word. I seem to remember someone refusing stubbornly to let the U.N. take charge, while walking down the streets of Baghdad with bullet-proof armors, loaded rifles and superior attitudes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, get the damn war over with and move on. The faster the better. It does not involve killing everyone, it only invovles killing who are in the way and moving forward.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, but if "who are in the way" includes potential terrorists, there won't be a lot of people left.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah, Oil managed to get in this topic!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Agree with you there, oil seems like a really weird reason to go to war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The idea is that you take away people who support the Terrorists and get others to make sure they do not side with them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, kill them all. Because killing only some will just make the terrorism snowball.
Comments
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/15/spain.election/index.html' target='_blank'>(Source)</a>
Some people are even claiming that this was the goal of Al Qaeda.
No, but their goal was attention, someone to recognize what they're doing and the fact that they'll go to any lengths to achieve it. And that's exactly what they got.
No, but their goal was attention, someone to recognize what they're doing and the fact that they'll go to any lengths to achieve it. And that's exactly what they got. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dissagree. Attention is nice and all but what I think the real goal was is exactly what happened: Americans learned fear, had some of their precious freedoms revoked, and the American government demonstrated its arrogance in a very public way and **** off a good deal of other countries.
No, but their goal was attention, someone to recognize what they're doing and the fact that they'll go to any lengths to achieve it. And that's exactly what they got. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dissagree. Attention is nice and all but what I think the real goal was is exactly what happened: Americans learned fear, had some of their precious freedoms revoked, and the American government demonstrated its arrogance in a very public way and **** off a good deal of other countries. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
3000 people died, you seem to be glad.
No, but their goal was attention, someone to recognize what they're doing and the fact that they'll go to any lengths to achieve it. And that's exactly what they got. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dissagree. Attention is nice and all but what I think the real goal was is exactly what happened: Americans learned fear, had some of their precious freedoms revoked, and the American government demonstrated its arrogance in a very public way and **** off a good deal of other countries. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
3000 people died, you seem to be glad. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How you infer that from my post is beyond my resoning.
Anyways D:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While elections and war pacts are only necessary reactions to these attacks could these reactions possibly be seen as a success to the terrorists that commit these crimes? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Almost undoubtedly. See my above post.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If it becomes common happenstance that great political upheaveal and change occur in ever country that suffers a massive terrorist attack will this be insentive to Al Queda and like groups to continue these attacks?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, highly probable. Radicals are all about change, when they see that their ways incur change they will be encouraged to continue. Unless perhaps that change is severely more negative for them than it is positive.
Unfortunatly there isn't much that can be done about it, the public has to feel that something is being done and elected officials have to satisfy that need or risk losing office.
"Spain's response to these attacks sent a strong message to Al Queda: If you think we're going to back down in the face of threats... well, you got us. We're gonna back down in the face of threats."
No, but their goal was attention, someone to recognize what they're doing and the fact that they'll go to any lengths to achieve it. And that's exactly what they got. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dissagree. Attention is nice and all but what I think the real goal was is exactly what happened: Americans learned fear, had some of their precious freedoms revoked, and the American government demonstrated its arrogance in a very public way and **** off a good deal of other countries. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
3000 people died, you seem to be glad. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see how slowly chipping away civil liberties qualifies as protecting its citizens
Yeah, and I'd say that's the smartest thing. Bombing more eastern countries in "self-defense" sure isn't going to IMPROVE on things. Now, we just need to take the final step and try to see what we can do about it, rather than bomb them to dust and push them even further.
Yeah, and I'd say that's the smartest thing. Bombing more eastern countries in "self-defense" sure isn't going to IMPROVE on things. Now, we just need to take the final step and try to see what we can do about it, rather than bomb them to dust and push them even further. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, Spain took the stupidest course of action and now just endangered America and all of her allies.
This is exactly what the Terrorists wanted.
Terriorists got a taste of victory, and now they will be encouraged to do it again, and fight onward. Each bout of victory serves as a morale booster.
Well, now that Spain has been attacked this whole "war on terror" shizz has offically become a war in my mind, complete with battles, victories, and defeats.
Who's next? Britian? Some small eastern European country?
Good job Spain for screwing everyone else over. If Spain was going to be such a wussy, weak, and worthless ally they should not have came in the first place. Once you commit, you DO NOT BACK DOWN... EVER, esp. when the enemy is attacking you on your HOME TURF!
Man, the lack of logic on Spain's behalf is maddening.
So you believe we should bomb all those innocent people just like that?
Why don't we just make it official then. East against west, kill all of them, every last one of them. Don't leave anyone alive, because they might hate us, and they do not have the right to hate us for bombing them. KILL THEM ALL! Or am I misinterpreting your post?
So you believe we should bomb all those innocent people just like that?
Why don't we just make it official then. East against west, kill all of them, every last one of them. Don't leave anyone alive, because they might hate us, and they do not have the right to hate us for bombing them. KILL THEM ALL! Or am I misinterpreting your post? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its always been East VS. West. Ever since the United States feared the Soviet Union its been East Vs. West. And now apparently since Spain has opened its eyes a bit it will continue to be so. Red Dawn dosen't seem so far fetched when people realize they are being exploited.
Forlorn, guess who else liked preemptive strikes. Yep, you guessed it. Hitler <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
So you believe we should bomb all those innocent people just like that?
Why don't we just make it official then. East against west, kill all of them, every last one of them. Don't leave anyone alive, because they might hate us, and they do not have the right to hate us for bombing them. KILL THEM ALL! Or am I misinterpreting your post? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wow, xect, wow
He is saying that pulling out of iraq because you were attacked is stupid. Its like abadoning your friend in a fight because you got hit. We are not out there hunting down innocent people and killing them. In fact, if you didnt notice we stopped bombing Iraq and are now try to build up their government. Yes, innocents are dying there, but thats what happens when some idiot puts a bomb in a car and drives into a crowd.
I think that Spain actions are going to send a message to terrorists, if you hit us hard enough we will listen. We will see more terrorist attacks in europe, Britian will most likely be next. I am also very disappointed with Spain abadoning the iraqi poeple, they took part in the war and now they are going to just up and leave during the rebuilding phase. Even if you disagree with the war, you are just hurting the people even more by abandoning them at this point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Forlorn, guess who else liked preemptive strikes. Yep, you guessed it. Hitler <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well Godwin's law has been envoked, Forlorn wins the arguement. GG <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Try seeing it from their point of view. If you ask the terrorists, we started it all. And following your view, they should not back off before the war is won the war.
Now, two sides that both believe they should not back up before the war is won. Were have we seen that before? 1st world war? 2nd world war? American civil war?
I'm sure these are all examples of high happiness that we want to repeat. Face it, someone has to back up a bit to avoid war, it's called a compromise.
On the other hand, Spain backing down is going to advocate more strikes, however, on the other hand it's also pre-emptively stopping strikes. What do you think terrorists think of this? "Gee, Spain actually listened to our message! Well, I guess we don't have to attack Spain anymore" If GB did the same, it most likely wouldn't have to suffer strikes either.
On the other hand, Spain backing down is going to advocate more strikes, however, on the other hand it's also pre-emptively stopping strikes. What do you think terrorists think of this? "Gee, Spain actually listened to our message! Well, I guess we don't have to attack Spain anymore" If GB did the same, it most likely wouldn't have to suffer strikes either. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.
And if people started listening to the message that the terrorists wanted to deliver in the first place, we might actually go in the right direction instead of pushing the world further into conflicts.
On the other hand, Spain backing down is going to advocate more strikes, however, on the other hand it's also pre-emptively stopping strikes. What do you think terrorists think of this? "Gee, Spain actually listened to our message! Well, I guess we don't have to attack Spain anymore" If GB did the same, it most likely wouldn't have to suffer strikes either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.
And if people started listening to the message that the terrorists wanted to deliver in the first place, we might actually go in the right direction instead of pushing the world further into conflicts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Pacifists are nothing more than useful idoits."
- Joeseph Stalin
Yep, good old Uncle Joe would call you a tool.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Forlorn, guess who else liked preemptive strikes. Yep, you guessed it. Hitler <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was hitler responding to an existing threat, or one he made up?
Were we attacked in 9/11 before we started to invade other countries?
You know who didn't like pre-emptive strikes...
France, during world war one, and two, and russia during world war two..
Just because Hitler was a physco doesn't mean pre-emptive strikes don't work, if anything he shows us how effective they are. I mean, saying we should not take advantage of pre-emptive strikes is like saying we should not use paper, because so did hitler - terrible logic CWAG.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its always been East VS. West. Ever since the United States feared the Soviet Union its been East Vs. West. And now apparently since Spain has opened its eyes a bit it will continue to be so. Red Dawn dosen't seem so far fetched when people realize they are being exploited.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, I'm sure the terrorsts are fighting for communism <img src='http://nonoobs.com/forums/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So you believe we should bomb all those innocent people just like that?
Why don't we just make it official then. East against west, kill all of them, every last one of them. Don't leave anyone alive, because they might hate us, and they do not have the right to hate us for bombing them. KILL THEM ALL! Or am I misinterpreting your post? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, let me guess, the terrorists killed GUILTY people, right?
This east vs. west crap is completely off-topic and unrelated btw, lets stop.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Try seeing it from their point of view. If you ask the terrorists, we started it all. And following your view, they should not back off before the war is won the war.
Now, two sides that both believe they should not back up before the war is won. Were have we seen that before? 1st world war? 2nd world war? American civil war?
I'm sure these are all examples of high happiness that we want to repeat. Face it, someone has to back up a bit to avoid war, it's called a compromise. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course it's going to be a long and bloody fight - they started it, and they got it!
Btw, your examples:
1st world war not backing down, sure, but no one fought for any reason, other than than for pride, today's situation is not the case. WW1 was the world coming to terms with a new era of warfare.
2nd world war; we all know how well appeasement worked then!
American Civil War; the north didn't back down and kept this great nation together.
Face it, backing down only prolong's conflict, get it over with as soon as possible and start to rebuild.
Oh, sorry if I sound harsh, but this really disturbs me, I don't think I've broken any rules in my post. Much <3 to all
no one makes sense on this board anymore <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
the majority of the population of Spain were opposed to the war, they elected a party who would withdrawl their troops.
you can argue till your blue in the face about how wrong spain is or whatever, but the people democratically chose to pull out.
- Joeseph Stalin<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, let's all follow Stalin's philosophy???
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Was hitler responding to an existing threat, or one he made up?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One he believed in, surely. And probably a very real threat too. I would say the threat he responded to was just as real as the one the WMDs presented.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Were we attacked in 9/11 before we started to invade other countries?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Were they hit before they did 9/11? Did we send weapons to Israel and invoke sanctions?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, let me guess, the terrorists killed GUILTY people, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really, but does that justify us bombing innocent people? I mean, they did it, so can we, right?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This east vs. west crap is completely off-topic and unrelated btw, lets stop.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seemingly not, because it seems the general consensus in here is that we should kill all terrorists. And since the terrorists are there because we pushed the middle east too far, the only way we can kill all middle-eastern terrorists by violent means is to kill everyone.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Face it, backing down only prolong's conflict, get it over with as soon as possible and start to rebuild.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, kill everyone it is then?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, sorry if I sound harsh, but this really disturbs me, I don't think I've broken any rules in my post. Much <3 to all<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's allright, I'm probably sounding a bit harsh too. Just discussion, no hard feelings, right? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> why do people still think Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
no one makes sense on this board anymore <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's quite simple actually, it's because in the common mind, they are two sides of the same thing. Due to the PR campaigns run for the wars, the Iraq war has come under the "war on terror" banner, a.k.a. "war on the middle east".
So you believe we should bomb all those innocent people just like that?
Why don't we just make it official then. East against west, kill all of them, every last one of them. Don't leave anyone alive, because they might hate us, and they do not have the right to hate us for bombing them. KILL THEM ALL! Or am I misinterpreting your post? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wow, xect, wow
He is saying that pulling out of iraq because you were attacked is stupid. Its like abadoning your friend in a fight because you got hit. We are not out there hunting down innocent people and killing them. In fact, if you didnt notice we stopped bombing Iraq and are now try to build up their government. Yes, innocents are dying there, but thats what happens when some idiot puts a bomb in a car and drives into a crowd.
I think that Spain actions are going to send a message to terrorists, if you hit us hard enough we will listen. We will see more terrorist attacks in europe, Britian will most likely be next. I am also very disappointed with Spain abadoning the iraqi poeple, they took part in the war and now they are going to just up and leave during the rebuilding phase. Even if you disagree with the war, you are just hurting the people even more by abandoning them at this point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Forlorn, guess who else liked preemptive strikes. Yep, you guessed it. Hitler <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well Godwin's law has been envoked, Forlorn wins the arguement. GG <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, we should attack nations with terrorists! Exactly! If we attack them back then they will...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its like abadoning your friend in a fight because you got hit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN!
...maybe if we didn't do things to cause most nations to hate us we wouldn't be in this pickle....sure you can't please everyone but blowing up thirdworld nations and using them as scapegoats sure isn't helping.
Also, I'm sure the terrorsts are fighting for communism <img src='http://nonoobs.com/forums/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Disturbingly enough if you actually believe that crap that Saddam likes the terrorists then you could technically say they do. Saddam was a Bassist. That is a mutated facist-ish type of Stalinism, so technically, by your logic and beliefs that Bush has given you, then yes, they do.
I want to make it clear I don't agree with Bassism as it is a spit in the face to what communism stands for.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because by Fuhrer Bush's logic, Saddam is friends with the terrorists, so we have
Saddam
<ul><li>Long time enemy of the US</li><li>Happens to be in the middle east</li><li>Oil rich nation</li><li>Apparently he has "links" to terrorists</li></ul>Terrorists<ul><li>Invisible target</li><li>Unpredectable</li><li>Middle-Eastern</li><li>Friends with Oil rich nations</li></ul>
Logically speaking, Saddam is a prime target. As is Iran, Syria, Libya, and all other nations that have lots of oil and don't particularly like us.
Iraq seems to make an awfully convienient scapegoat
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other hand, Spain backing down is going to advocate more strikes, however, on the other hand it's also pre-emptively stopping strikes. What do you think terrorists think of this? "Gee, Spain actually listened to our message! Well, I guess we don't have to attack Spain anymore" If GB did the same, it most likely wouldn't have to suffer strikes either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes they will get the idea if we kill people they will listen to us, and for Spain that is a bad thing. For the unintiated, Spain is home to the ETA, a terrorist organiztion that wants spain to give them the northern tip of Spain as a homeland. If this is the message that they got, then you are going to see more attacks in Spain. The ETA normally gives warnings to limit the death toll to government official, this might stop if a death toll brings action.
But really, do you seriously believe that the terrorists, the people who are fighting to protect their countries because that's all they have left, are going to stop killing you because you destroy their homes?
Since when are these terrorrists fighting to protect their counties? How many of the 9/11 terrorrists were from Saudi Arabia? Have we attacked Saudi Arabia? How many of the terrorrists in Afghanistan were actually from Afghanistan? Or was Afghanistan just their base of operations because the Taliban supported them and needed their support?
The terrorrists are not "freedom fighters" and they are not doing this to "protect their countries".
Many of the terrorrist organizations claim that our support of Israel is why we are a prime target. We are not going to stop supporting Israel anytime soon no matter the number of attacks we suffer. Americans do not respond well to being attacked. If they continue to attack us it'll just anger us more and more. I for one do not want to see the US population extremely angry.
Spain's response to the terrorrist attacks only sends one message. Terrorrism works.
That is not a message we want to send.
Since when are these terrorrists fighting to protect their counties? How many of the 9/11 terrorrists were from Saudi Arabia? Have we attacked Saudi Arabia? How many of the terrorrists in Afghanistan were actually from Afghanistan? Or was Afghanistan just their base of operations because the Taliban supported them and needed their support?
The terrorrists are not "freedom fighters" and they are not doing this to "protect their countries".
Many of the terrorrist organizations claim that our support of Israel is why we are a prime target. We are not going to stop supporting Israel anytime soon no matter the number of attacks we suffer. Americans do not respond well to being attacked. If they continue to attack us it'll just answer us more and more. I for one do not want to see the US population extremely angry.
Spain's response to the terrorrist attacks only sends one message. Terrorrism works.
That is not a message we want to send. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. Its called Terrorism because the point of it is to instill fear, terrorism is not patriotism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How many of the terrorrists in Afghanistan were actually from Afghanistan?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then why did we bomb Afghanistan?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The terrorrists are not "freedom fighters" and they are not doing this to "protect their countries".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, they must be doing it for some reason. If that reason is the fact that we support someone who want to take over their countries (a.k.a. Israel), then isn't that a viable reason. I mean, after all, I would be **** off if someone sent weapons to my enemies for no reason I could comprehend. As far as I can see, they have no other choice. What should they do, try and be diplomatic? Do your seriously think anyone in the west would listen if they asked us nicely, anyone with influence? I don't think so.
Well, considering that Stalin was the most brutal dictator alive, I'm sure we can take his advice on how to <b>exploit</b> people most. Stalin's quote is quite relevent and wordly in today's context. Even if you don't like the man, it does not make him wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One he believed in, surely. And probably a very real threat too. I would say the threat he responded to was just as real as the one the WMDs presented.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the hell? We are not talking about justfying Iraq, we are talking about whether or not Spain did the right thing and comparing it to 9/11.
Example:
9/11: America is attacked. America fights back
3/11: Spain is attacked. Spain retreats into it's own borders
See the difference? Also, you responded to my quote about Hitler:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Was hitler responding to an existing threat, or one he made up?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which was talking about about the idea before America actually invaded any other countries, the terrorists clearly attacked us first. Hitler invaded first, no questions asked.
The comparision you make is so weak, off-topic, and pale, I don't even know where to begin...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Were they hit before they did 9/11? Did we send weapons to Israel and invoke sanctions? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They weren't hit before 9/11. Or maybe we did, with Clinton's bombing of various middle eastern countries and 3rd world country. Yeah, that could have been it... another Clintonian botch-up. Or maybe it was European colinization of them for the first 50 years or so of the 20th century. Or maybe it was America trying to prevent communism from spreading into these countries?
Regardless of whatever your point was, I hope you realize that you made another off-topic and irrelevent point, because there is none.
OH, and weapons were sent to Iserail long after they were attacked by other Arab nations so they could defend themselves. Yeah, mean ole USA! But again, I think this point is off-topic as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seemingly not, because it seems the general consensus in here is that we should kill all terrorists. And since the terrorists are there because we pushed the middle east too far, the only way we can kill all middle-eastern terrorists by violent means is to kill everyone.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A terrorist could be anyone. The fact they are mostly eastern and muslim is mostly just coincindence, but no where does it mean you should kill all of one type of group.
If anyone actually beleved the crap you spouted on purpose (problably just to get people like me riled up), then why would we bother rebuilding not one, but two countries in the middle east?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, kill everyone it is then?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, get the damn war over with and move on. The faster the better. It does not involve killing everyone, it only invovles killing who are in the way and moving forward.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Logically speaking, Saddam is a prime target. As is Iran, Syria, Libya, and all other nations that have lots of oil and don't particularly like us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, Oil managed to get in this topic!
GREAT!
I love how people assume since it was an Oil rich nation that was the reason we invaded... no, we wouldn't just bought it from them for absurdly low prices, that's not it at all, we'd rather spend close to 100 billion invading... yeah, that's it! <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->..maybe if we didn't do things to cause most nations to hate us we wouldn't be in this pickle....sure you can't please everyone but blowing up thirdworld nations and using them as scapegoats sure isn't helping.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The idea is that you take away people who support the Terrorists and get others to make sure they do not side with them.
Worked well for communism, there is a good chance it will work again. Getting others to unite against an idea will eventually kill it.
Hmm.... how long before this one gets locked? It actually had the potential for some interesting discussion... shame
9/11: America is attacked. America fights back <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
stoppit stoppit stoppit.
the way you keep harping on, anyone would think saddam had flown those planes himself.
3/11: Spain is attacked. Spain retreats into it's own borders<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
9/11: America is attacked by nation-less terrorists organisations. America bombs Afghanistan to a state that will take many years to rebuild, killing thousands of innocents who never did anything to deserve it.
3/11: Spain is attacked. Spain lets democracy (you know, the kind of democracy you are supposedly trying to insert into the middle east, right?) rule, and follows the people's opinion, ceasing hostilities.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Which was talking about about the idea before America actually invaded any other countries, the terrorists clearly attacked us first.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ya', except for all the wars that you indirectly participated in. Israel, the gulf war and so on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OH, and weapons were sent to Iserail long after they were attacked by other Arab nations so they could defend themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right now it seems the Israeli are using these weapons to kill and dominate the Palestinians.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A terrorist could be anyone. The fact they are mostly eastern and muslim is mostly just coincindence, but no where does it mean you should kill all of one type of group.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, but as long as you keep bombing the crap out of the middle east, people will keep signing up for terrorist causes. The only way you can make sure that the middle eastern terrorist organizations stop recruiting big-scale, provided you want to do it the bloody way, is to kill them all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(problably just to get people like me riled up), then why would we bother rebuilding not one, but two countries in the middle east?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dominate seems more like the word. I seem to remember someone refusing stubbornly to let the U.N. take charge, while walking down the streets of Baghdad with bullet-proof armors, loaded rifles and superior attitudes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, get the damn war over with and move on. The faster the better. It does not involve killing everyone, it only invovles killing who are in the way and moving forward.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, but if "who are in the way" includes potential terrorists, there won't be a lot of people left.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah, Oil managed to get in this topic!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agree with you there, oil seems like a really weird reason to go to war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The idea is that you take away people who support the Terrorists and get others to make sure they do not side with them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, kill them all. Because killing only some will just make the terrorism snowball.