spanish bombing

what do you reckon we do now

Paint.

Fucking tragic ain't it.

well being a big real madrid fan it appalls me to see this happen in a city that i love. saying that it would appall me to see it happen anywhere and for whatever reason. A loaded gun wont set u free,so they say. prophetic words indeed.

Very sad shock to wake up to that terrible news this morning, my sympathies to those who perished in this cowardly act. It must've been extremely tough for the Spanish teams in the UEFA Cup today.....:(

Its getting out of hand now,the civilised world needs to stand up & fight back. Time to stop taking this off animals that hide in fuckin caves.

I have The Clashes "Spanish Bombs" stuck in my head. I hope they find the bastards that did this and punish they accordingly.

twist<-------wondering if some distant, distant Basque relative was responsible for this crime

Originally posted by steve52 Its getting out of hand now,the civilised world needs to stand up & fight back. Time to stop taking this off animals that hide in fuckin caves.

you cant "finish off" any terrorist orginisation anywhere in the world by use of force. its simply impossible. violence breeds violence.

you can have the biggest concentration of any army per head of population in the world (northern ireland during "the troubles") given power to do what they want if they sniff youre up to something, give them the best most sophisticated equipment available, and terrorists will still operate (n. ireland again)

noone ever "finished off" the ira, or the uda / uff for that matter. its impossible to do. likewise with eta or the islamics.

the only way to stop (or reduce) the happenings like yesterday is to listen to peoples grievances, find out why somebody (a human) ended up becoming a mass murderer (a sub human act). then set about talking and engaging them on an appropiate level.

remember that the greatest recruitment drive for terrorists up north was internment and the british government "getting tough" on terrorism. the end( or at least considerable reduction in deaths) of that war came with sensible talking.

i fear that governments "getting tough" on terrorists will just result in more state sponsored terror, and even more tragic days like yester.

ETA were formed in 1959 as a means of opposing Franco and gaining an indepent Basque state. ETA terrorism was at its highest in the post Franco period, which was part of the reason there was an attempted coup in 1981.

An interesting point is that in the mid 1980's, the Spainsh government created a Terrorist group the grupos antiterroristas de liberacion, or Anti Terrorist Liberation groups (or GAL) to fight ETA. These groups largely made up by Frech gangsters, attacked Basque refugees in the French Basque Country where their shelter was. This sponsoring of terorrism gave ETA a seriously large amount of legitmacy in the eyes of many.

Originally posted by steve52 Its getting out of hand now,the civilised world needs to stand up & fight back. Time to stop taking this off animals that hide in fuckin caves.

Sounds like a Hitler speach.

Sad to note the chanting from more than just a few of the Barcelona fans during last nights minutes silence at Parkhead. We're just ten rows from the travelling support and there was a helluva lot of noise. Mind you, wasn't that long ago that a fair few of our own "diehards" were shouting during the minutes silence for Omagh.

The whole "terrorist" thing losts its appeal after 9/11. Before then, I could sympathize more with the Basques, or the Irish Republican Army, just any group that felt its rights had been oppressed. But now I'm a bit less receptive to the reasons behind an attack, especially when innocent bystanders are the victims. You got a grievance with the government, go shoot up someone from the government (or perhaps take a nonviolent approach if you can. It worked for Gandhi). Don't drag innocent people into it.

I heard "Revolution" on the radio yesterday, thought that was apropos to the situation. I just hope one day I can explain to my children why "terrorist" isn't a word they recognize.

I don't know, these attacks look strange. They don't look like the usual ETA attacks. And neither that much like the Islamic attacks, though it seems more likely. They also happen so next to the elections, and of course everyone knows when these things happen, the voters get scared and are going to vote the most centrefield they can, ie the government. What they really recall to me are the attacks which happened in Italy from the end of the 60s to the start of the 80s, when bombs exploded in banks, railway stations and trains. Very few people were convicted because of those attacks, the authors of some are still unknown. They blamed everyone: communists, anarchists and fascists. What seems more likely now is they were the obscure work of an alliance of a wing of the secret services with a wing of the army and some right-wing small circles. They were scared of the communists being so strong and simply wanted to balance to the centre. It was called fright-strategy. We're not sure even now if this is the truth, maybe we'll never be. I'm just confused, I'm not saying I can tell the truth, it's just that maybe it's not so simple understanding what really happened yesterday. Terrorism must be fought anyway. In the 70s we had communist terrorists and they even kidnapped the prime minister (though he wanted to include the communists in the government and there's a theory he was kidnapped by fake terrorists to prevent that from happening). The government never accepted any of the requests of the terrorists, and they eventually killed the prime minister. But it was the beginning of the end for them. They understood they weren't going to get anything with terror, they found all the people against them and they split in a lot of groups. Many of them were found and are in prison.

Yesterday was exactly 911 days since September 11th 2001.

The next major world-shaking Al Qaida attack will take place 311 days from yesterday, on January 6th 2005. The dates have immense significance, Bin Laden is trying to change what people hold as values.

Originally posted by nearly there the only way to stop (or reduce) the happenings like yesterday is to listen to peoples grievances, find out why somebody (a human) ended up becoming a mass murderer (a sub human act). then set about talking and engaging them on an appropiate level.

*Yeah, forgot about this: sometimes it's just not possible. If the terrorists want to make, (for example), London capital of the new European fundamentalist Islam empire, you just can't do anything else than fighting them.

I stand by what i said,like it or not the truth is the intelligence agencies know who & where 99% of terrorists are (with exception to bin Laden). They should send in SAS or similar & just fuckin kill them all-yeah violence DOES lead to more violence,but we`re not the ones killin innocent people-The IRA have murdered fuckin hundreds & they let the bloody bastards join parliment? its a joke. Im not racist or nationalist,but its hard to sympathise with these people.

Oh,and the reason people like The Real IRA have stopped bombing is cos,if you remember the speech Bush gave after 9/11 he said the war on terrorism WOULDNT stop in afghanastan-it would go right round the world. If he can have bin Laden & Saddam on the run,every other terrorist know its over.

Originally posted by steve52 Oh,and the reason people like The Real IRA have stopped bombing is cos,if you remember the speech Bush gave after 9/11 he said the war on terrorism WOULDNT stop in afghanastan-it would go right round the world. If he can have bin Laden & Saddam on the run,every other terrorist know its over.

I realize it may not be correct to suggest this, but the "War on Terror" would be a perpetually losing struggle (at least on our parts) if we were to go after EVERY SINGLE TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. There are so many, and the way they get recruits is by being publically targeted (you can't buy publicity like "War on Terror" if you want to demonstrate that a group has some sway). I personally think we should've stopped at Afghanistan in order to make sure it could exist as a free democracy rather than beating the war drum again so soon.

And yes, Mike McDermott, I acknowledge that Saddam Hussein was a threat to our interests in the Middle East...but he didn't have what we accused him of having. Bush lied, and that's a fact. This administration is heavy on the rhetoric, but I doubt they respect democracy half as much as they claim.

The very definition of a "terrorist" is an iffy proposal, nevermind Bush's hyperbole. After all, wouldn't the colonists who overthrew the Brits in America 200 years ago qualify as "terrorists", in that they used unconventional warfare? I'm not saying that there's such a thing as a "good" terrorist group, but it would certainly behoove us to try and get inside their heads and learn WHY they do this and perhaps learn ways to help PREVENT it from happening again. Not necessarily address every grievance (after all, the main Islamic extremist complaint is against Western ways invading their culture, which is unavoidable in our connected age. Sorry, get over it, quit flying fucking planes into buildings because you can't handle it.), but try at least to cut off the source of terrorism (the anger and frustration brought about by whatever it is that's affecting them adversely).

Originally posted by steve52 I stand by what i said,like it or not the truth is the intelligence agencies know who & where 99% of terrorists are (with exception to bin Laden).

this isn't necessarily true. the reason terrorism is so effective is because of the use of 'cells,' in which several people work together to orchestrate an attack. only one person in the group receives the orders 'from above' and the other members of the cell sometimes don't even know who is receiving the orders. they're simply sent info. on where and when to meet and they go from there, no questions asked. so, if and when members of the cell are caught, even under the most intense interrogation they are unable to reveal the brains behind the operation.

the SAS and other special forces may be useful in infiltrating larger terrorist training camps, but terrorists aren't stupid--they simply convert into smaller, more evasive cells in order to carry out their missions. even al-qaeda is more of an ideological and financial umbrella organization than a single terrorist unit. many of the groups working on behalf of the al-qaeda name actually predate al-qaeda by years.

Its these "people up above" im on about,if they were dealt with then hopefully the little people that follow them would fade out-i know its impossible but its just hope really isnt it? no decent human being could ever want another Madrid,9/11 or Lockerbie do they? Thursdays outrage is no less horrific than what happened in New York. 1 life or 3000 lives its still a tragedy that innocent people die for nothing. If it was ETA then they do things for their so called political beliefs,which is only a thin excuse for murder. where as al-Qieda will never gain anything,which they already know. They just seem intent on destroying the world.

Originally posted by Al Jarvis > Originally posted by Green It must've been extremely tough for the Spanish teams in the UEFA Cup today.....:(

Noble sentiments, but I'm not sure your thoughts were necessarily shared by all supporters in the Barcelona camp last night. Read further down the report here. They're worlds apart - Barcelona and Madrid.

The weird thing is that I tend to alternate between idealism and cynicism, I was just hoping some of that could have been put aside for awhile. Human nature being what it is, there really is nothing new under the sun. *sigh* Thanks for sharing that, don't think I would've found it otherwise.

my point. if the british army came into your house, trashed it, and took your brother / father away without grounds or reason, would you (a reasonable human) be more or less likely to go and join the ira?

if the us army supported your puppet dictator, causing you and those around you untold suffering, theen to decide to get rid of the said dictator with daisy cutters (and other precision weapons) , would you be more or less likely to join in a "holy war" against the west?

i dont support any terrorist group (and that includes the governmental terrorists in the army). all im saying here is that there is a reason why human beings end up doing things like this.

would someone, brought up with clean water, and food , and a non religious, broad minded education end up in al qaeda? - i dont think so. is the reason that they dont get these basic human rights easily looked after (taking into account the cost of the "war on terror") - i think it is!

of course some (a tiny tiny section of society - ie mr shipman and the like) are predisposed to mindless acts of murder - and against these people, society must be protected.

in northern ireland (the closest example of such terrorism to me - mearly 90 miles away), the british army could listen to your conversations in your front room, went about a "dirty war" with the ira, brought in the sas - the works. nothing was spared from a security point of view - and that war only ended when they engaged with all sides. if they hadnt, there would be a lot more people dead(theres still beatings and killings, but they have scaled back big time).

im not going to be patronising to people in the middle east, or the north of ireland, or anywhere, all ill say is that youll never stop terrorism by reacting to it with "the sun" as your vanguard. it hasnt worked!

the war on terror hasnt worked, it isnt working, look at your tv, there is just more people dead - in america, in bali , in madrid , in afghanistan , in iraq, where next? the holy terrorists have divided and polarised the world - us and them - the islamics and the infadels. the governments have polarised the world - us and them - the civilised world and the cavemen. divide and rule - the one language that bin laden, bush and co understand.

as an aside, i doubt it was eta, i wouldnt be surprised if that comes out after the spannish election. a splinter group maybe? or proberbally an islamic group - it looks like them.

Originally posted by nearly there if the british army came into your house, trashed it, and took your brother / father away without grounds or reason, would you (a reasonable human) be more or less likely to go and join the ira?

*Not if it involved killing innocents. I can understand and even have sympathy for guerilla groups fighting the army, the police and the government. But never touch the people! I have great respect for Marcos in Chapas, Mexico, of the EZLN, National Zapatist Liberation Army. They don't even usually attack, just defend when the army or the fascist gangs sent by major country owners attack the people. And our partisans, including my relatives, attacked the Nazis and the fascists, but they never touched the people from which they actually received help. That's the way, if you attack people you're just gonna be an isolated criminal group.

the war on terror hasnt worked

*While I think a war like the one in Iraq is useful only to get oil at cheap price I don't think there's anything to do other than fighting terror. But attacking Iraq or other countries has very little to do with it, by fighting terror I mean preventing attacks and catch terorrists when you really know where they are. The only exception was Afghanistan because it was absolutely obvious the Talibans were terrorists. But the rest is a mistake. Now I hear they want an embargo against Sirya. That's madness. You see, that's what Bin Laden wants. Not destroying the world, but causing the USA to react so much they piss off every single Islamic country, so fanatics take the power and make a fundamentalist alliance from Morocco to Pakistan. THEN we'll be in trouble.

Originally posted by Mick Aneworderfan You see, that's what Bin Laden wants. Not destroying the world, but causing the USA to react so much they piss off every single Islamic country, so fanatics take the power and make a fundamentalist alliance from Morocco to Pakistan. THEN we'll be in trouble.

indeed it is. divide and rule.

id say there are an awful lot of people in iraq who are joining terror groups as we speak as a result od the oil war too. really tragic. its a pity this cant end

as i said, theres a big difference between hunting down terrorists around "the western world" - and spending billions on incoherantely zapping innocent civilians. one is part of a means to an end, the other is just completing the circle.

Hi from Madrid... I just wanted to say how I appreciate posts such as this. These are being terrible days in the city. Waking up with those bombs was a horrible thing. Some of my friends saved their lives because that day there was at strike at University. It's being really difficult to contact people in here, as the lines are collapsed most of the time. I won't "rest" until Monday, when I just hope to see many friends and not to hear bad news... This is been so huge that you cannot stay away from it, a friend of my brother lost her best friend. I know so many people who've lost a loved one... They've killed babies, kids, students, pregnant women, normal people who just were going to work to earn their living... I just can't understand. And the worst of all is that we don't know who it was. It could be ETA, or Al Qaida, or maybe the two of them together. The goverment say they're working on that, we really need to know. And there's nothing we can do. As you walk past the streets you can see flags with black laces hanging from almost every window... I even painted a black lace to place in mine. Yesterday I went with my family to the city's demonstration. There we were over 2 millions of people. It was an amazing sight, as it was pouring rain. So thank you again for all your words which make us feel less alone. Bye from a really sad city :(

Terrorism in not necesarrily caused by peoples grievances.

In Northern Ireland, it was inevitable the the political system would collapse. 50 years of Unionist misrule, and irredentist neighbour, economic stagnation, and two groups of people who really didnt (and still dont like each other). Three things that are forgotten about the conflict in Northern Ireland:

1- The troubles were not started by the IRA. No, in the late 1960's the IRA was at best, inactive. The first incident of the troubles was committed by the UVF in 1966.

2- It was not the British government that intially who caused people to join the IRA. In derry, the city where the troubles effectively started, and the spiritual home of the Civil Rights movement, there was also a massive constitutional, non violent nationalist movement, which eventually formed the SDLP. Rather, it was the likes of Paisley, with their counter protests, the UWC general strike, and the Protestant Defence Associations (which merged into the UDA in 1972) which carried out attacks against Catholics which caused people to join the IRA.

3- When British troops arrived in 1969, they were welcomed by the Catholic community, who thought they would defend them from Protestant attacks. If you read the book 'Brits' by Peter Taylor, you will find accounts of British soldiors being welcomed into homes of Catholics in Northern Ireland. It was not until Internment was introduced and the troubles threatened to descend into all out civil war that relations between the army and catholics fractured.

Also, Terrorism is not caused by peoples grievances alone. It sometimes is, but the big question is, are those grievances genuine?

Take Israel/Palestine for example. Both sides have engaged in terrorism, (or at least what i consider to be terrorism) yet Israel has, in the last 11 years, offered peace and a Palestinian state. Each time this offer has been rejected and seen more Palestinian terrorism. Israel has a right to exist and defend itself. Yasser Arafat is worth an estimated $300 million dollars. His wife and daughter live in luxury in Paris. Yet the people who he claims to lead live in Poverty and Squalor. Why? Because to end the conflict Yasser Arafat would end himself.

Its the same in Northern Ireland, who runs the paramilitaries? People involved in drugs, crime syndicates etc etc. Thats how it is funded. The war in Northern Ireland is over. But the terror groups remain active because a few people are making a hell of a lot of money out of it.

indeed both the republican and unionist terrorists in n.i are more drug runners and extorsionists now than ideological terrorists - most of the beatings and killings that go on are related to that. thats the real reason the ira wont disband now - they are the biggest crime gang this side of the irish sea.

some terrorist groups have explicit political aims (eta, ira) others dont (al queda). i dont think you will ever end a terrorist group by conceding everything to them (see ira - in the case of a "united ireland" i think they would still exist as a crime gang, either formally or informally).

the issue here is much more subtle than "giving in" to terrorists (thats no way forward), but looking into why people join these groups , or are sympatethic in the first place.

this is generally related to ignorance or poverty, or (nearly alyaws) both.

there isnt a country in the world without zealots - be they US soldiers on the new "crusade" (bush's words) in the middle east, to rid the world of evil - or islamic suicide bombers flying jets into buildings packed with public service workers and bombing nightclubs. the question is : why do these people find (a varying level of) justification (religious or otherwise) for the killing they do? while others just go to church or dont eat certain foods?

the answer of course , is lack of education and opportunities - due to poverty. both groups got the shit end of the stick in their respective countries, and if we fixed that, there would be a lot less of them strapping explosives onto themselves or dropping megatonne bombs.

the power players on both sides need prople to fight their wars - a war that serves their intrest. millioniare scum like bin laden and bush wont be on the front lines for either side, but gross ignorance will be.

the victims of this terrible violence are everywhere.

as i said i dont think you will ever end a terrorist group by conceding everything to them , but you will by starving them of new recruits.

this "war on terror" is doing the exact opposite. Im afriad this horror in madrid wont be the last

No,Because all terrorist groups have politcal aims. You say al-qeada dont, but the two goals fo al qaeda are the destruction of the state of Israel and the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia and other islamic countries.

All terrorist groups are inherently political, no matter where they are from, or how they are structured, or what there goals are. Politics is what differentiates terrorist activity from criminal activity.

And the main reasons why people join terorrist groups:

1- Hatred 2- The desire to achieve, be it power, money, ego... 3- Propaganda and Brainwashing.

As far as Al qaeda et al are concerend, 1 and 3 are most relevant. Islamic terorrist groups are masters of propaganda, and it works on a global scale. Take the Israeli policy of house destruction. Those who houses are going to be demolished are given 24 hours notice. You see on the tv a picture of a woman crying holding her child. Yet Hamas gives those Palestinians whose houses have been demolished more money to get a better house. However, People see this, and Israel is a human rights violator (when in fact it has one of the best human rights records on the planet) and the Palestinians are being subject to "ethnic cleansing."

The best example is the teenage suicide bombers. Does a 12 year old girl have the capacity to decide to blow herself up and become a martyr? Of course not. But her elders will get her to do that. Why? the propaganda war. In these days, and thr Iraq war proved this, winning the media war is essential.

And on the second reason, lets not forget that before he was disposed Saddam Hussein gave $25000 cash to the family of any suicide bomber who killed jews. (Note: Not Israelis, Jews).

Originally posted by Uncle Liam And the main reasons why people join terorrist groups:1- Hatred2- The desire to achieve, be it power, money, ego...3- Propaganda and Brainwashing.As far as Al qaeda et al are concerend, 1 and 3 are most relevant. Islamic terorrist groups are masters of propaganda, and it works on a global scale. Take the Israeli policy of house destruction. Those who houses are going to be demolished are given 24 hours notice. You see on the tv a picture of a woman crying holding her child. Yet Hamas gives those Palestinians whose houses have been demolished more money to get a better house. However, People see this, and Israel is a human rights violator (when in fact it has one of the best human rights records on the planet) and the Palestinians are being subject to "ethnic cleansing." The best example is the teenage suicide bombers. Does a 12 year old girl have the capacity to decide to blow herself up and become a martyr? Of course not. But her elders will get her to do that. Why? the propaganda war. In these days, and thr Iraq war proved this, winning the media war is essential. And on the second reason, lets not forget that before he was disposed Saddam Hussein gave $25000 cash to the family of any suicide bomber who killed jews. (Note: Not Israelis, Jews).

Originally posted by Uncle Liam No,Because all terrorist groups have politcal aims. You say al-qeada dont, but the two goals fo al qaeda are the destruction of the state of Israel and the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia and other islamic countries.All terrorist groups are inherently political, no matter where they are from, or how they are structured, or what there goals are. Politics is what differentiates terrorist activity from criminal activity.And the main reasons why people join terorrist groups:1- Hatred2- The desire to achieve, be it power, money, ego...3- Propaganda and Brainwashing.As far as Al qaeda et al are concerend, 1 and 3 are most relevant. Islamic terorrist groups are masters of propaganda, and it works on a global scale. Take the Israeli policy of house destruction. Those who houses are going to be demolished are given 24 hours notice. You see on the tv a picture of a woman crying holding her child. Yet Hamas gives those Palestinians whose houses have been demolished more money to get a better house. However, People see this, and Israel is a human rights violator (when in fact it has one of the best human rights records on the planet) and the Palestinians are being subject to "ethnic cleansing." The best example is the teenage suicide bombers. Does a 12 year old girl have the capacity to decide to blow herself up and become a martyr? Of course not. But her elders will get her to do that. Why? the propaganda war. In these days, and thr Iraq war proved this, winning the media war is essential. And on the second reason, lets not forget that before he was disposed Saddam Hussein gave $25000 cash to the family of any suicide bomber who killed jews. (Note: Not Israelis, Jews).

i said al qaeda diddnt have EXPLICIT political aims. the bringing down of the israeli state or annihilation of western culture is an ideological aim - not a political aim. you wont deal with the issue of ending the state against popular concensus within state structures - its absurd! the ira on the other hand demanded a withdrawl of british rule from a terrartory and constitutional amendments in the republic and in the union.

your assertion that "Politics is what differentiates terrorist activity from criminal activity" is just wrong. a terrorist act may be political (most obvious example - the brighton bomb) or may be non political (mos obvious example - the washington sniper). terrorist activity is always criminal. terrorist activity generally has an ideological aim and social context (killing a judge)- criminal activiy is motivated out of individiual profit (eg robbing a bank).

poeple do not join terrorist groups out of "The desire to achieve, be it power, money, ego..." - they become criminals! noone joins al qaeda with aspirations of a life on the costa del crime.

hatred is an emotion. whatt you should be looking for here is what is behind the hatred. is it seeing your mothers head chopped off by the usaf, or your brother being kicked to death by the ruc? - or is it just plain evil - the work of the devil. id say the former,there is a social context to most hatred - certainly the kind that makes you strap a set of bombs onto your 12 year old daughter, or carry out the most disgusting sub human acts of thursday last.

brainwashing and propaganda certainly plays a part in the formation of the terrorist mind. as i said in my previous post , those in the most desperate social circumstances , with limited formal or informal education are most likely to be taken in by propaganda - be it bin ladens incoherant bullshit, or sky news supporting "our boys" as they go about willful pre-meditated murder!

"Islamic terorrist groups are masters of propaganda, and it works on a global scale" - i dont know how you square up a few tapes of osama and co qouting the koran and 24/7 news conditioning, government spin doctoring. i suspect that you suspect those who talk about human rights and shit as secret islamic propagandaists. i despise the state of isreal as much as i can any state, but not for one moment do i see yasser arafat or hamas as being anything but lowlife scum. i presume if your local council gave you 14 hours to leave your community that youd be greatful because the local band of terrorists and suicude bombers could buy you a new, better one!

to say that israel has one of the best human rights records around is pure and total horse shit. ill leave that argument to human rights watch, if your not happy , then ill repost with un statistics and amnesty intl: figures.human rights watch .

saddam husssein is a horrible mass murderer - and most proberbally an anti semite (although i never heard those claims you make about him paing off jew killers, and find it highly unlikely). i detest saddam hussein as much as the next state mass murderer - tony - josef - mao - ariel - george- adolf - that list runs and runs.

the way you see "winning the media war" in the west, as a solution to palestinian paernts wrapping their kids in explosives is pure twisted dillusion. im sorry liam, fellow new order fan, but it seems as if the bullshit and propaganda has won the media war in your head.

i dont think what i say is infallable- just that the simplistic, moronic atitude of kill the bad guy, win the war belongs in 1916. time to think, time to reason, or the gut wrenching images of madrid will be beamed accross the world in another 6 months from another city.

george bush doesnt fly united. jose maria azanar doesnt use the metro, tony blair doesnt use the underground. osama bin laden doesnt strap bombs onto his chest.

we are the potential victims.

the kids in the west bank are dead, so are the israeli schoolchildern blown up on the bus, so are the iraqis - killed by indiscriminate leaders backed by us, killed by wars designed by us to replace indiscriminate leaders with another set.

the imigrant workers of madrid, the students, the train drivers, the people that make society beautiful are dead in madrid.

if uncle liam has his tuppence in this debate, they wont be the last

well taboo has raised an interesting subject as to "why do they do this"?. if u listen to the rehtoric of al queda (what a shite name for a terror org) dont even know if i spelt it right. ite because of the continued oppresion of the masses ect in islamic countries ect,via western govs ie:g7. hence they are the main targets,now im not going to argue the whyfores ect on this issue but surley to god if you wanted to hurt any gov in the g7 why would you kill innocent people. every state in the g7 does tht every day in one form or another and although politicians stand up in front of cameras and spout words of indignation,they as a ehole couldnt give a shit. the political wheels will turn and it will be forgotten in time(i dont mean to belitlle what has happened in madrid ) but we have seen it all before. which leads me to think that it is more about power and money than any noble cause on either side. lets asume that bin laden gets his way ,would things be better for any of us,i doubt it. hes no better than bush or blair ,hes just got more of a sense of the dramatic,ie the attacks they have commited. i admire the people of spain for there defiant peacfull protests this weekend to end violence in this form. i just hope and pray someone will listen.

I fail to see how the Washington Sniper is terrorism, thats the same as saying Harold Shipman, Ian Brady, Myra Hindley are all terrorists.

Israel DOES have one of the best human rights records in the world. In 2002, the Israeli government admitted htat it used "excessive force" in destroying the camp. Palestinians claimed that israel had "massacred" 3000 citiizens. the UN found that 52 palestinians had been killed, over 40 of whom were armed combatants.

As for Israels human rights record.

1- Israel is the only state in the middle east that operates under the rule of law. 2- Israel has set aside a significant proportion of its medical resources to fighting terrorism. Israeli hospitals treat casualties from both sides. 3- The Israeli supreme court has repeateldy overuled the army and government and made them operate under the rule of law. It has protected the rights of the Palestinians, non combatants, POW's and others, often at the risk to Israeli civilians. Also, the Israeli supreme court has been the only court to directly address the issue of applying physical pressure (nonlethal torture) to captured terrorists in an effort to secure information to prevent further terrorist attacks. Despite this action could save lives, it has prohibited its use.

Yes, Israel has made mistakes and overreacted to terrorism and other threats, But compared to human rights in North Korea, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Zimbabwe, China, Pakistan, etc etc. And lets not forget the Palestinian record on human rights, which is FAR worse than israels.

Israel has a good human rights record, HA! http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-isr/index

Spain was awfully quick to blame the ETA, when the smoke hadn't even cleared yet. The ETA did step up their terror campaign recently. While I don't agree with terrorism, a good argument can be made that Spain has none but itself to blame for the ETA. The Basques have no democratic avenues to achieve the Basque nation they aspire to. Spain calls itself a democracy, but the only Basque nationalist party has been banned, because of ETA terrorism. Article 2 of the Spanish Constitution states "The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards, and recognizes the right to autonomy of the nationalities and regions which make it up and the solidarity among all of them." Ludicrous to call the Basques "Spaniards," but given the unconstitutionalality of creating a basque nation, and the fact that the Basque nationalists have been banned from the democratic process, what avenues for achieving independence are left to them?

However, it doesn't appear likely that this act was the work of ETA. More likely Al Quaeda, or even elements within the State, given the proximity of the bombings to the national election.

The reason Spain blamed ETA so quickly was likely to have drawn attention away from Spains involvement in Iraq. If Aznar had came out and said ti was al-qaeda, then it would have seriously damaged Partido Populars election chances. This is why, i think, Spain is not yet absolving ETA of blame.

It's awfully hard in the post-9/11 world to justify terrorist groups existing the world over, but what often gets lost is the very fact that in some cases (not ALL, though) there is a legitimate complaint being raised by the groups involved. The American colonists who broke into Boston Harbor and dumped all that tea were doing so because their rights were suddenly being violated by the British overlords after a century of disinterest and self-rule. They were just as much "terrorists" in their own era (especially in the eyes of the Brits) as al Qaeda is in our. The difference being, off course, that we laud such "terrorists" as Ben Franklin, George Washington, and so on as "founding fathers".

Now, in regards to Madrid, I don't think this applies. When you target innocent civilians, who had nothing to do with whatever cause you're trying to promote, then you cross a line that seperates the "terrorists" of early America from the "terrorists" who fling themselves with bombs attached underneath Israeli buses and the like. Even the French Resistance occasionally went after civilians who collaberated with the Germans during WWII, but their main objective was honorable. In some ways, it's hard to fault the reasons behind some actions (but not the actions themselves). The Palestinians did have their land taken from them, but the Jews have some rights to the land as well. Without getting into the specifics and truly infuriating mind games on each side for justification for whatever, you have to admit the situation was a bad one from the get-go.

Where am I going with all this? Am I trying to excuse the Madrid bombing? Not by a long shot: no matter how noble your aims may be (if al Qaeda did this, that doesn't apply, but anyway), the minute you use innocents to make your point is the minute you lose any chance of being heard. Madrid was unnecassary and cruel, just as 9/11 and all the suicide bombings. I wish someone would finally ask the question "If our God requires us to kill, is He worth worshipping?" There doesn't seem to be a lot of questioning going on anymore, on the Muslim side of the aisle. Maybe it's good to have a little atheism once in a while, you know? A lot of people wouldn't have anything to kill for anymore, that's for sure.

Originally posted by Uncle Liam I fail to see how the Washington Sniper is terrorism, thats the same as saying Harold Shipman, Ian Brady, Myra Hindley are all terrorists.Israel DOES have one of the best human rights records in the world. In 2002, the Israeli government admitted htat it used "excessive force" in destroying the camp. Palestinians claimed that israel had "massacred" 3000 citiizens. the UN found that 52 palestinians had been killed, over 40 of whom were armed combatants. As for Israels human rights record. 1- Israel is the only state in the middle east that operates under the rule of law. 2- Israel has set aside a significant proportion of its medical resources to fighting terrorism. Israeli hospitals treat casualties from both sides. 3- The Israeli supreme court has repeateldy overuled the army and government and made them operate under the rule of law. It has protected the rights of the Palestinians, non combatants, POW's and others, often at the risk to Israeli civilians. Also, the Israeli supreme court has been the only court to directly address the issue of applying physical pressure (nonlethal torture) to captured terrorists in an effort to secure information to prevent further terrorist attacks. Despite this action could save lives, it has prohibited its use. Yes, Israel has made mistakes and overreacted to terrorism and other threats, But compared to human rights in North Korea, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Zimbabwe, China, Pakistan, etc etc. And lets not forget the Palestinian record on human rights, which is FAR worse than israels.

would you say that the people of washington were terrorised for the few weeks that guy was lurking around? i know i sure as hell wouldnt like to go fill my car up with "gas" or go to crusty burger, or whatever constitutes everyday life in washington (im a little ignorant of that, but im sure it doesnt involve getting shot!). thats terrorism.

as for israels human rights record, ill just say this - their prime minister is a war criminal, and any defence of a nations human rights record that relies on comparisons to kim in north korea is a tad fucked up.

i have an equal problem with all the other states you mention.

(note - you brought israel into this thread u.liam!) its funny you should mention israel here - to my mind the perfect example of a state that has "got tough" on terrorism. as a direct result, there is no shortage of suicide bombers. maybe if those billions and billions and billions and billions of israeli state moneys and US tax dollars was speant on giving everyone a decent shot at life in the middle east, israel and the "occupied terroatories", a home not paid for by hamas, and a secular education, then both the western and mid eastern world would be a better place.

Originally posted by Spotnick Hum, Al-Quaida now officially claimed them on video tape...And don't get me wrong, but it's done AGAIN on the 11th of a month... 3-11Exactly 2 years and a half after the WTC

As I said earlier, exactly 911 days after 9/11.

Originally posted by Uncle Liam The reason Spain blamed ETA so quickly was likely to have drawn attention away from Spains involvement in Iraq. If Aznar had came out and said ti was al-qaeda, then it would have seriously damaged Partido Populars election chances. This is why, i think, Spain is not yet absolving ETA of blame.

No. Spain blamed ETA initially as this was two days before the national elections, and it was likely that ETA would make some kind of statement as they have before other elections, regardless of which political party stood to benefit. Nobody wanted to believe it was Al-Qaida, nobody wants to believe that they are that close. The blaming of ETA wasn't about diverting attention from Spain's involvement in the Iraq war. It's not about Iraq either, it is about countries in which Muslims and Christians live in apparent harmony. Al-Qaida do not want harmony, they want a perpetual struggle. Look at other countries who have suffered at their hands, Turkey, Indonesia, Kenya - the mould fits. Look around you to see where is next.

Congratulations to the Spanish people for getting rid of the right-wing liars and choosing the socialists! The rest of Europe will hopefully follow in June...

Originally posted by Mick Aneworderfan Congratulations to the Spanish people for getting rid of the right-wing liars and choosing the socialists! The rest of Europe will hopefully follow in June...

And you can say this on a New Order site ?

Originally posted by Uncle Liam The reason Spain blamed ETA so quickly was likely to have drawn attention away from Spains involvement in Iraq. If Aznar had came out and said ti was al-qaeda, then it would have seriously damaged Partido Populars election chances. This is why, i think, Spain is not yet absolving ETA of blame.

And in the end it did end up damaging them (Not like Mariano Rajoy had any chance, that guy has the personality of a sponge)...

Still... a shame to bring politics to such a tragedy

Originally posted by Detweiler And you can say this on a New Order site?

1 This is the off topic forum 2 If we talk about American politics, we can talk about European politics too, and it's already happened, in the thread about Australian poor people and others. If anyone can say "vote Nader", I can say "well done for voting the PSOE, now Europe please follow" (we have European elections in June) 3 This thread is about Spain, and yesterday there were elections in Spain 4 Those elections sent home a party which lied blaming the ETA (and then proved wrong) when they still knew fuck all about the authors of the bombings only because if it turned out they were the Islamic fanatics they'd have lost a load of votes, like afterwards fairly happened in fact 5 I'm happy the socialists won, but of course if someone isn't they can say it too. We can disagree, but we've the right to express ourselves (and disagreeing doesn't mean we aren't still part of the same New Order brotherhood, I've got plenty of friends who disagree with me on politics), this is the great thing of this forum and the main difference to any other. 6 I also find really interesting reading other political opinions from other countries: America, Argentina, England etc. it doesn't matter if they agree with me or not, it's just interesting because I can usually discuss politics only with Italians. This doesn't mean we have to talk about politics all the time, but, just as it already is, it's good to talk about the most important things sometimes: Kerry, the Spanish bombs, the poverty in Western countries (and you're contributing too, of course you can choose to say if you support one side or the other)... also, if others aren't interested can choose to not open the threads...

I love it when irony is wasted on people ! Now you've got all hot and bothered under the collar when you've completely missed the tongue-in-cheek nod to various allegations of New Order having right-wing sympathies over the years. We'll have to start calling you Clockwork Mick to differentiate you to Digital Mike, you are so easy to wind up !

sorry man, it's just your reply was so similar to what Warren of Ceremony would have written me, seriously... if you were joking it's alright then, sorry if I didn't get it...

As for being easy to wind up, you know, I'm Mediterranean, we're easy to get hot in discussions and in sex (especially)

Clockwork Mick... Mick The Gab... all cool nicks, must think about them...

Originally posted by Mick Aneworderfan Congratulations to the Spanish people for getting rid of the right-wing liars and choosing the socialists! The rest of Europe will hopefully follow in June...

So the socialists aren't going to be liars too? All politicians are liars - it goes with the territory, particularly the kind of career politicians we get in the UK now. And i also seem to remember similar sentiments about getting rid of a right wing government and choosing 'socialists' over here back in 1997...and what do we have?

Originally posted by Philip Collins > Originally posted by Mick Aneworderfan Congratulations to the Spanish people for getting rid of the right-wing liars and choosing the socialists! The rest of Europe will hopefully follow in June...

So the socialists aren't going to be liars too? All politicians are liars - it goes with the territory, particularly the kind of career politicians we get in the UK now. And i also seem to remember similar sentiments about getting rid of a right wing government and choosing 'socialists' over here back in 1997...and what do we have?

tony blair is NOT by any strech of the imagination a socialist.

interviewer : "whats your greatest achievement" maggie tatcher "new labour".

its true that a socialist leader is as likely to lie to his/her people as a neo-conservative leader though. it depends on how authoritarian they are.

take the political compass test - its interesting. im on the bottom left - bottom left.

as a socialist though, im happy for any leftist party to win. i doubt its for the right reasons, but saying that , it seems rodriguez zapatero is a calmer type man than azanar, and less likely to react and be generally hawkish.

spain is a great country, heres hoping it has a bright future

tony blair is NOT by any strech of the imagination a socialist.

Which might explain the use of the inverted commas !!

take the political compass test - its interesting. im on the bottom left - bottom left.

This was actually a real revelation. I came out with x -4.00 y -2.31

which makes me a left libertarian. I'm neither, which makes me think that there has been quite a lot of weighting to some questions, and thus renders the whole thing a load of bollocks.

Thanks Tim and Ricardo...that's exactly my point. We all know Tony Blair isn't a socialist yet the party he has led into power is supposed to be a socialist one. All politicians are liars with only their own interests at heart and what happens as a result? Innocent people die whether it's in New York, Afghanistan, Iraq, Madrid or wherever the next atrocity is going to be.

The very desire to become a politician should preclude the individual from becoming one.....

Originally posted by Detweiler tony blair is NOT by any strech of the imagination a socialist.

Which might explain the use of the inverted commas !!

take the political compass test - its interesting. im on the bottom left - bottom left.

This was actually a real revelation. I came out with x -4.00 y -2.31

which makes me a left libertarian. I'm neither, which makes me think that there has been quite a lot of weighting to some questions, and thus renders the whole thing a load of bollocks.

Yeah, I came out as a left libertarian too...-4.88, -0.87. There were some shite questions in there - what's your opinion on astrology got to do with your political outlook?

Originally posted by nearly there > Originally posted by Uncle Liam> I fail to see how the Washington Sniper is terrorism, thats the same as saying Harold Shipman, Ian Brady, Myra Hindley are all terrorists.> > Israel DOES have one of the best human rights records in the world. In 2002, the Israeli government admitted htat it used "excessive force" in destroying the camp. Palestinians claimed that israel had "massacred" 3000 citiizens. the UN found that 52 palestinians had been killed, over 40 of whom were armed combatants. > > As for Israels human rights record. > > 1- Israel is the only state in the middle east that operates under the rule of law. > 2- Israel has set aside a significant proportion of its medical resources to fighting terrorism. Israeli hospitals treat casualties from both sides. > 3- The Israeli supreme court has repeateldy overuled the army and government and made them operate under the rule of law. It has protected the rights of the Palestinians, non combatants, POW's and others, often at the risk to Israeli civilians. Also, the Israeli supreme court has been the only court to directly address the issue of applying physical pressure (nonlethal torture) to captured terrorists in an effort to secure information to prevent further terrorist attacks. Despite this action could save lives, it has prohibited its use. > > Yes, Israel has made mistakes and overreacted to terrorism and other threats, But compared to human rights in North Korea, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Zimbabwe, China, Pakistan, etc etc. And lets not forget the Palestinian record on human rights, which is FAR worse than israels.

would you say that the people of washington were terrorised for the few weeks that guy was lurking around? i know i sure as hell wouldnt like to go fill my car up with "gas" or go to crusty burger, or whatever constitutes everyday life in washington (im a little ignorant of that, but im sure it doesnt involve getting shot!). thats terrorism.

as for israels human rights record, ill just say this - their prime minister is a war criminal, and any defence of a nations human rights record that relies on comparisons to kim in north korea is a tad fucked up.

i have an equal problem with all the other states you mention.

(note - you brought israel into this thread u.liam!) its funny you should mention israel here - to my mind the perfect example of a state that has "got tough" on terrorism. as a direct result, there is no shortage of suicide bombers. maybe if those billions and billions and billions and billions of israeli state moneys and US tax dollars was speant on giving everyone a decent shot at life in the middle east, israel and the "occupied terroatories", a home not paid for by hamas, and a secular education, then both the western and mid eastern world would be a better place.

Shamelessly ripped from my dissertation: It should be pointed out that, in its most widely accepted contemporary usage of the term, ‘terrorism’ is fundamentally and inherently political. This can be mainly attributed to the fact that terrorist organisations have primarily political goals. These goals include freedom and liberation, for example the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA). Terrorist groups can also take the form of armies or other military structures, such as Armed Revolutionaries of Colombia (FARC), the National Military Organisation, the Popular Liberation Army and the Fifth Battalion of the Liberation Army. Self Defence Movements can also be classed as terrorist groups. Organisations such as the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), the Organisation for the Defence of the Free People and the Jewish Defence Organisation. Terrorist groups can also take the guise of what David Whittaker classed as “Righteous Vengeance,” Organisations such as the Organisation for the Oppressed on Earth, the Justice Commando’s of the Armenian Genocide, and the Palestinian Revenge Organisation. Finally, a number of terrorist organisations deliberately choose names that are deliberately neutral and therefore bereft of al but the most innocuous suggestions or associations. Organisations such as the Shining Path, Front Line, and the Lantern Youth Movement. With such a large number of terrorist organisations, all seeking different goals, it has become increasingly difficult to define the term ‘terrorism’. Walter Lacquer has written:

“Terrorism has been defined in many different ways, and little can be said about it with certainty except that it is the use of violence by a group for political ends, usually directed against a government, but at times also against another ethnic group, class, race, religion, or political movement. Any attempt to be more specific is bound to fail, for the simple reason that there is not one but many different terrorisms”

According to Gerald L. Neuman, International Co-Operation has long been impeded by disagreements over whether ‘State Terrorism’ should be included, and whether National Liberation Movements should be exempted from otherwise accepted norms.  Treaties have attempted to finesse these difficulties by focusing on particular forms of violence typically employed by terrorists.  Rosalyn Higgins concludes:

“Terrorism is a term without legal significance. It is merely a convenient way of alluding to activities whether of states or of individuals widely disapproved of and in which either methods used are unlawful, or the states protected, or both… The term is at once a shorthand to allude to a variety of problems with some common elements, and a method of indicting community condemnation for the conduct concerned.”

Christopher Hitchens would support this view, denouncing the term as “brainless propaganda,” he writes: 

"It (the label “terrorist”) disguises reality and impoverishes language and makes a banality out of the discussion of war and revolution and politics. It’s the perfect instrument for the cheapening of public opinion and the intimidation of dissent.”

In Hitchens view, the interjection of the term inevitably deadens critical discourse:

“Stalin was a terrorist. Mao was a terrorist, Europeans are soft on terrorism, and Latin’s are riddled with it. Whisk, Whisk… and there goes history, there goes proportion, there goes inquiry. All is Terror. The best that can be said for this method is that is emphasises on thought. You simply unveil it like a Medusa’s head and turn all discussion into stone.”

However, more recently, the Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism supplemented its list of prohibited acts with the residual category of any:

“Act to cause death or civilian or to any other person not taking active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such acts, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.”

That particular definitions emphasis on the status of the target also appears in the definition employed in the United States of America governments annual reports on terrorism: “Pre-Meditated, politically motivated violence against non combatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents.” A simpler definition can be found in the US army manuals published in 1984., where it states: “terrorism is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature… through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear” According to Adrian Guelke, one thing common in definitions of terrorism in the connotation of harm. The theme of violence is present in most, as is the theme of coercion.
When discussing terrorism, it is important to differentiate between terrorism and criminality. Like terrorists, criminals use violence as a mean to attaining a specific end. However, while the violent act itself may be similar, kidnapping, shooting, arson can all be used as examples, the purpose is clearly not. According to Whittaker, the criminal acts purely for selfish reasons, be it as a way to obtain money or material goods, or to kill or injure a specific victim, he is primarily acting for selfish personal motivations, usually material gain. Conversely, the terrorist does not act to have to have consequences, or create psychological repercussions beyond the act itself. The fundamental aim of the terrorist’s violence is ultimately to change the system- something which the ordinary criminal is not concerned with. Taking into consideration the overuse of the term ‘terrorism,’ and the often vague and broad definitions of it, it is essential to have a clear, working definition of terrorism. By clearly identifying terrorism from other forms of crime, and terrorists from other forms of criminals, it can be said that terrorism is: • Ineluctably political in aims and motives; • Violent, or equally, threatens violence; • Designed to have far reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target and; • Conducted by an organisation with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure. Therefore, terrorism is the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change. Terrorism is also the use of violence for political ends, in a situation where the essential democratic liberties- the rule of law and the freedom of speech, association, and representation are in operation.

Its a shame i cant copy and paste footnotes

oh my corazon, as a wise man once said

uncle liam, i think the likes of the washington sniper terrorised people , and got something out of that that was in no way political. i accept your line that: "Terrorism has been defined in many different ways, and little can be said about it with certainty except that it is the use of violence by a group for political ends, usually directed against a government, but at times also against another ethnic group, class, race, religion, or political movement. Any attempt to be more specific is bound to fail, for the simple reason that there is not one but many different terrorisms", nice to see its a bit more in depth than "the reason people join terrorist groups is

1- Hatred 2- The desire to achieve, be it power, money, ego... 3- Propaganda and Brainwashing."

but all that (the very definition of terrorism as having explicit constitutional vs anti state aims etc) is a major aside to the real issue of how do we deal with it here and stop another madrid (ill leave out that i consider us occupation of iraq etc to be terrorism on a grand scale).

as i said, the only way to kill off all "terrorist" (as you define it) groups, is to starve them of recruits. to do this you have to realise the issues behind pople joining up - the circumstances that breed such grand hatred - and the reasons people are so easily brainwashed by propaganda.

if you will liam, how do you see an end to terrorist organisations being brought about? you have failed to discuss any of the real issues here, or back up anything you say about israel (which you brought into this debate for no reason - as i said it perfectly illustrates that a reactionary hawkish attitude to terrorists just makes things worse for everyone)

the political compass isnt scientific or anyhing. id say the "do you believe in astrology" is code for "do you believe in religious bullshit "

Economic Left/Right: -9.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.59

Good to see you, Comrade Leon.

-4.88 -4.15

Somewhere over by Nelson Mandeal and the DalaI Lama.

Did i ever say that Terrorism/terrorist groups would ever stop? No, of course they wont. Why? because we will never live in a perfect world.

How to end Palestinian Terrorism? Grant them a Palestinian State. Which, as i said, has been offered time and time again in the last fifty plus years. Each time it has been rejected in place of more and more terorrism. The only theoretical solution is the complete destruction of Israel. Then what about the Israel vigilante groups? Where will they fit into the equation? Not to mention the Israeli people.

The war on terrorism is not a war of offence, but a war of defence. Although they will never admit it, the war on terrorism in unwinnable. Battles in the war can be won, but a complete victory (namely, the complete eradication of all terrorist groups) is impossible.

And as far as starving groups of members goes. Take a look back at the history of Palestinian (I am relectant to use the term 'arabic' even though many are pro-palestine terrorists are arabic) terrorism. From the mid 1960's, it has been continuously rewarded with Observer status at the UN, visits to downing street, papal audiences etc etc.

As the events of the last two and a half years have shown, the greatest danger facing the world today is from religiously inspired terrorist organisations. Perhaps if it is shown that terrorism will NOT be rewarded, by force if necesarry, then maybe the world might be a safer place.

This is such a complicated threat... I just hope my English doesn't betray me.

And what I want is to give an opinion from Spain, as you're talking about my country. The thing is sooo difficult...

First, the goverment wasn't doing fine. That's a fact. They just "pushed" us into a war 90% of the country didn't want. I was there, at most of the demonstrations. Then, elections time started approaching. All polls in the country said Rajoy was going to win, but then... the bombing. And just don't make me think about that, cos it's being a bloody hard time in here (as I live in Madrid and know quite a few people affected). I think that everybody, and not only the goverment (as some of you say) thought of ETA first as the ones to blame. Why? I'll give you a couple of reasons: first, because an ETA terrorist attack was being "waited", in the last few weeks the police intercepted quite a few cars containing ETA bombs leading to Madrid; and second because of the Catalonian "incident" (which is: it was found that one of the leader's in Catalonia's goverment had had ilegal conversations with ETA, telling them Catalonia would support them if they didn't attack them... which they didn't, as they appeared in Euskadi's -Basque- television to say). Many people thought ETA was "punishing" Madrid as we didn't talked to them...

Anyway, I think the goverment again acted sooo bad. At 1pm of the very thursday, Acebes (Interior Minister) said on the TV that ETA was 100% to blame. He just shouldn't have done that, because he wasn't sure, and you just CAN'T do that. Things started so bad that this whole was meant to happen. Soon evidences started to appear, ETA could not be to blame, this could be Al-Qaeda. This complicated things much more, as both "sides" had a political impact: if ETA was to blame, that'd benefit the PP (right party), if it was Al-Qaeda, it'd benefit the PSOE (socialists). It was so horrible, because all they were doing in the end was kind of playing with the attack, with the victims...

So, what do I think? I think that the elections should've been cancelled, and that all the major parties should've joined in a goverment just to solve this, which of course they didn't. And I'm not saying I'm not happy now that we've got rid of Mr.Moustache and his friends, but I just don't like this situation at all. I just hope that at least they get us out of the war...

You're right Laura about the elections going ahead, I was astounded that they proceeded with indecent haste, especially after pointing the finger at ETA without facts to support that. I think that they hoped it was ETA rather than the more sinister Al Qaida threat, and it suited the politicians to say it was ETA at the time. Typical politicians, applying bullshit to suit themselves when there are people lying dead and families grieving.

All our thoughts are with you and your fellow people Laura, it will get better in time. Peace.

We will discuss our disgust forever.

we will go on killing each other with the force that is given to us at birth yet which to take away would remove our liberty and our freedom which we all so desperatly seek as a human race.

Its a mad world

Originally posted by Philip Collins So the socialists aren't going to be liars too? All politicians are liars - it goes with the territory, particularly the kind of career politicians we get in the UK now. And i also seem to remember similar sentiments about getting rid of a right wing government and choosing 'socialists' over here back in 1997...and what do we have?

*Tony Blair is a liberal, not a socialist. The Labour is no longer a real socialist party, they're really distant from the other European socialist parties and from what they used to be and many opposers inside the party know that. Anyway, as I've already written on another thread, the fact a governemnt is left-wing doesn't automatically mean they'll do the right things. It depends from the persons. They can make wrong decisions too. In fact, the old Labour was to blame as well, for the serious crisis of the 70s in England which paved the way to that bitch Margaret Thatcher. The difference is with left-wing parties you can hope they'll make more decisions in favour of the people, but this doesn't mean they'll do it. It's just that with the right-wing is more unlikely, as they exist only to defend privileges of the higher class, especially when you think about the social issues. Maybe the socialists will lie too, we'll see. But we have already seen the right-wing lied. And even if every politician is a liar, better a left liar than a right liar. Don't ever think politicians are all the same, they are, about many things. But there are still some differences, and not recognizing them cause the sort of indifference which usually favours extreme parties. The Fascists arrived to power because people were tired of democracy as they thought all the democratic parties, left or right wing, were the same. Of course they did no better. In 2001 the extreme left wing voters didn't vote the Italian centre-left coalition because they thought they were the same as Berlusconi. Now that bastard is at the government and we're all seeing the differences. The previous centre-left government wasn't that excellent, but they wouldn't have ever made laws like the "call contracts" which make people work (and be paid) only whenever they're called, or the several laws in favour of rich people not paying taxes, or against the judges fighting the Mafia.

By the way I think going on with elections was the right thing. Stopping them could have caused even more tension as would have sparked suspicions from the opposition, and stopping elections after bombs would give too many ideas to the terrorists. Democracy must go on.

Also a joint government wouldn't be a good idea. The country needs to take one direction or the other, not stagnating in an eternal compromise which wouldn't work and would paralyze the most important choices.

Yeah, I do realise that good ol' Tone isn't a socialist hence writing it as 'socialist'... I don't see that a left wing liar is better than a right wing one and as for making decisions in favour of the people - well it may not be socialist but this present government is more left wing than Maggie Thatcher's one yet seems to be making more unpopular policies than she ever dreamt of - at least when she took us to war there was an obvious majority (and motive) for it. And as Laura says the politicians of both sides in Spain try to use the situation to their own advantage...left and right they're as bad as each other and the real tragedy is that it's probably not going to be the last time we see something like this...

Originally posted by Uncle Liam Did i ever say that Terrorism/terrorist groups would ever stop? No, of course they wont. Why? because we will never live in a perfect world. How to end Palestinian Terrorism? Grant them a Palestinian State. Which, as i said, has been offered time and time again in the last fifty plus years. Each time it has been rejected in place of more and more terorrism. The only theoretical solution is the complete destruction of Israel. Then what about the Israel vigilante groups? Where will they fit into the equation? Not to mention the Israeli people. The war on terrorism is not a war of offence, but a war of defence. Although they will never admit it, the war on terrorism in unwinnable. Battles in the war can be won, but a complete victory (namely, the complete eradication of all terrorist groups) is impossible. And as far as starving groups of members goes. Take a look back at the history of Palestinian (I am relectant to use the term 'arabic' even though many are pro-palestine terrorists are arabic) terrorism. From the mid 1960's, it has been continuously rewarded with Observer status at the UN, visits to downing street, papal audiences etc etc. As the events of the last two and a half years have shown, the greatest danger facing the world today is from religiously inspired terrorist organisations. Perhaps if it is shown that terrorism will NOT be rewarded, by force if necesarry, then maybe the world might be a safer place.

i never said youd say that terrorism would stop. noone (apart maybe from neo cons and trots) think that. i also said conceeding to terrorists is not a way forward. starving them of recruits my having progressive social policy in affected areas rich in potential recruits would be a way to go - particularlly in israel. youre right in saying "As the events of the last two and a half years have shown, the greatest danger facing the world today is from religiously inspired terrorist organisations" but include me sharon and mr bush alongside mr bin laden there.

im a socialist , and think its unfortinuate HOW the election in spain went ahead, and a political orientation "won out" at the expense of terrorism and victims.

I refuse to include Ariel Sharon in the list of people facing the greaest threat to world peace as he is not religiosuly inspired, and is someone who was elected in hthe midlst of the al asqa intifida, and a person who has acted, and i admit sometimes incorrectly, in the interests of Israeli Security.

As for GWB. Yes, he is a fool, but your statement regarding him as a threat to world peace is simply wrong. GWB, like any other head of state, acts in the interest of the US state. Do i believe there were WMD's in Iraq? yes. DO i believe that saddam posed a threat? Yes. But even if i am proved wrong, which for once i hope i am, why was saddam so suspicious of UN inspections? surely if he had nothing to hide?

Anyway, Clockwork Conor, it is now time for you to answet the questions:

1- What "progressive social policy" do you believe will contribute towards the eradication of international terorrism?

2- Why do you hate the state of Israel?

Originally posted by Uncle Liam I refuse to include Ariel Sharon in the list of people facing the greaest threat to world peace as he is not religiosuly inspired, and is someone who was elected in hthe midlst of the al asqa intifida, and a person who has acted, and i admit sometimes incorrectly, in the interests of Israeli Security. As for GWB. Yes, he is a fool, but your statement regarding him as a threat to world peace is simply wrong. GWB, like any other head of state, acts in the interest of the US state. Do i believe there were WMD's in Iraq? yes. DO i believe that saddam posed a threat? Yes. But even if i am proved wrong, which for once i hope i am, why was saddam so suspicious of UN inspections? surely if he had nothing to hide?Anyway, Clockwork Conor, it is now time for you to answet the questions:1- What "progressive social policy" do you believe will contribute towards the eradication of international terorrism?2- Why do you hate the state of Israel?

i dont think anything will eradicate international terrorism, just if a portion of those billions that ( for instance the state of israel) spends on arms and "war on terror" went into providing full housing ( not paid for by hamas, which you seem to think is a desireable state of affairs for the palestinians ) education not coloured by bullshit religious dogma, etc (im not going to outline progressive taxation and social policy to a student of such) - then there may be less terrorist recruits.

to be super simple , ill outline the opposite - the get tough on terror approach, you give the army power to gunship who they want, build a fuckoff wall, act with vengance every time theres an attack , and you still get your kids blown up.

security and intellegance along with this kind of approach seems to be the best to me.

ive already outlined the state of israels human wrongs. man im not going to dig up another amnesty url.

not supporting the state of israel doesnt equal a fucking hamas loving terrorist supporting opinion.

reactionary approaches dont work.

also - no state is representative of its people. thats another thread - ive just outlined for the 10th time how i think we should deal with awful awful awful events in madrid

an eye for an eye ..........