wood burning stoves*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Appeasement, Part II Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Appeasement, Part II" Watch "Appeasement, Part II" New topic
Author

Appeasement, Part II

Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
Here's what happens when you attempt to appease a terrorist.
From the terrorists responsible for the Madrd bombings:
"If these demands are not met, we will declare war on you and ... convert your country into an inferno and your blood will flow like rivers," the letter said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4651993/
Joe
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 08, 2001
Posts: 2164
Yes, but the spanish have never appeased and will never appease to a terrorist.
They voted PSOE, because of the very closed information policy of Aznars PP and other reasons.
For sure not for having exagerated fear towards Al Quaida.
They are pretty used to terrorism because of ETA, you know.
Appeasement towards terrorism does not work and we know that in Europe.
Axel
[ April 05, 2004: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Regardless of the reason they now claim they voted out Aznar's party (who had been leading), the appearance that they gave is one of appeasement. Whether or not they truly are appeasers, all that matters is that the terrorists believe they are, and no after-the-fact justification of their actions will do anything to change that.
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 08, 2001
Posts: 2164
I see it more as an amateurish attempt by Bin Ladens bomb boys to drive a wedge between western countries.
Sometimes I have the impressions that americans have a very clear categorization about inhabitants of our planet:
1. plain evil
2. brain washed
3. those who make business with plain evil and want to appear as appeasers (France)
4. completly irresponsible
5. sheeps (appeasers)
6. new Europe (get the idea, but one can not trust them completly)
7. the good movers & shakers (Americans)
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Do you deny that the terrorists very likely view the Spanish election as something they influenced and therefore as a victory for themselves and justification of their tactics?
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 08, 2001
Posts: 2164
I trust that most spanish people will give the appropriate response.
I only fear that I probably will see some anti-moro activities of spanish mob at home in TV after having finished this boring admin documentation.
Those Al Quaida guys only want to drive wedges.
Spanish will never ever allow themselves to being pushed around by Al Quaida.
[ April 05, 2004: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Joe, I was missing you! Glad you are back!


Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Michael Yuan
author
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: 1427
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Do you deny that the terrorists very likely view the Spanish election as something they influenced and therefore as a victory for themselves and justification of their tactics?

I think terrorists would likly to view the Spanish election as their "victory". But that is irrelavant. Bin Laden views *everything* including the upcoming killing of himself as a "victory". Terrorists do not need "justification of their tatctics". They believe that "god" is always on their side and they are always winning no matter what happens.
We should not let the terrorists' feeling dictate what we do. If the "anti-terrorist party" mis-lead the country, the people should vote it out and install another party that has a better policy to fight terrorism.
You cannot win by just doing everything your enemy does not want you to do, escpeially if your enemy is crazy.


Seam Framework: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0137129394/mobileenterpr-20/
Ringful: http://www.ringful.com/
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Michael Yuan:
If the "anti-terrorist party" mis-lead the country, the people should vote it out and install another party that has a better policy to fight terrorism.

Except that in this case the winning parties stated aims are perfectly in synch with the terrorists aims, that is retreating from Iraq. The effect of this is that their "better" policy to fight terrorism means easing up in the fight against terrorists and retreating into their own borders.
These actions are very meaningful when they reinforce the terrorist behavior. Clinton did it in Somalia, a blunder whose effects are still being felt today and have directly resulted in American dead, and now the Spanish are poised to do it in Iraq. There is no doubt that the results of the Spanish actions will be felt by others sometime in the future, probably by other Europeans. You might have thought that Clinton's Somalia debacle taught people something, but apparently not, since the Spanish seem hell-bent on repeating it.
History has shown that retreat and appeasement are completely ineffective in the face of terror, and in fact only serve to make one a larger target. The terrorists don't need rational reasons for their acts, but we have to be careful in the way we respond to these acts and not bend an inch to their will, which only serves to reinforce their behavior.
Michael Yuan
author
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: 1427
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Except that in this case the winning parties stated aims are perfectly in synch with the terrorists aims, that is retreating from Iraq. The effect of this is that their "better" policy to fight terrorism means easing up in the fight against terrorists and retreating into their own borders.

That might be true but it is not, IMHO, *why* they won the election. They won because the ruling party tried to blame the bombing to another group with a lie. People are fed up with that. Now, let's see how this connect to the Iraqi war and the bigger picture of "war on terror":
I personally think the Iraqi war is a big failure in the fight against terrorism. Those Iraqis were not killing Americans and Al Quada was not there, when Sadam ruled. They all hated Sadam instead. I agree that Sadam is bad for Iraqis, but for all practical purposes, his regime made the US safer since we have a single point to pressure (and threaten millitary action against). Unlike Bin Laden, Sadam wants to live and enjoy his power and hence he is much easier to deal with. I think Bush I made the right decision *not to* remove Sadam after Gulf war I. Hey, previous republican administrations armed Sadam in the first place.
Said that, I do not think that we should leave Iraq now -- *we* have turned it into a terrorist hotbed and we have to take care of it. But, the people who get us into this mess must be punished. I think that is the whole point of the Spanish election. I do not think the Spanish people liked the "get out of Iraq now" part of the message (the appearent "appeasement" to terrorists). But they are too eager to get rid of the failed current leadship that they are willing to make this compromise. Talking about choosing the lesser evil.
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
The Spaniards were upset about being "lied to" and wanted to replace the government with another one because of it. This wasn't the entire reason, but was the last straw - this was the same government that sent the country to war against the wishes of most of the population. Ignoring for the moment if they should or shouldn't have gone to war, when a government in a democratic country goes against the wishes of most of the electorate, they are going to suffer. I'm also fairly sure (I'll have to try and find a link), that opposition were leading in the poles just before the attacks.
The Spanish aren't appeasers, they are not a bunch of morally weak people who have given up in the face of a terrorist attack - they have struggled with terrorism for many years against ETA, and if anything this will have strengthened their resolve against terrorism. Yes the lunatic terrorists will use the election as propaganda, but then they use just about anything as propaganda. Bush could spill his morning coffee and they'd say it was a sign of the fall of western civilization - they are crazy optimists by definition.
Even though I think Iraq will be much better off in a few years because of the invasion and we have stopped a lot of human rights violations, purely in terms of the war on terrorism the war has not helped, and has made it (hopefully just in the short term) worse. We have to stay in Iraq now because we have made it worse - unless we can make a stable government in Iraq, then the entire war was for nothing. That's why I'm positive we must remain in Iraq, even though I'm not sure that we should have invaded in the first place.
[ April 06, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
The Spanish government had every reason to believe ETA was behind it...
ETA had until then been the ONLY terrorist organisation active in Spain (apart from recruitment and raising funds among north African (illegal) immigrants).
Bombs shortly before elections are one of their hallmarks.
Both made it logical to strongly suspect ETA until other evidence was available and proven correct. The evidence presented was just too convenient to be seen as believable, and I still think it may have been planted in order to corrupt the elections (which probably was the true goal of the entire exercise and which worked like a charm).
Who planted the evidence I can't tell, was it the perpatrators or was it the winning political party (which would indicate they'd had knowledge of the attacks prior to them taking place)? Most likely it was the former of course, Spain isn't THAT much of a banana republic.
Fact is that terrorism scored a major victory in Spain which they're now trying to cash in on.
Given the attitude of apeasement of the Spanish socialists (or rather the attitude of European socialists in general to not act against terrorists but rather to silently condone their actions) I'd not be surprised if Spain gives in to these demands.


42
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
The Spanish government had every reason to believe ETA was behind it...
ETA had until then been the ONLY terrorist organisation active in Spain (apart from recruitment and raising funds among north African (illegal) immigrants).
Bombs shortly before elections are one of their hallmarks.

They didn't have every reason to believe it. Al-Q have been threatening to attack Spain for a while now. To leap to the conclusion that it was ETA before any investigation had taken place was a little odd. Considering that evidence came to light that suggested that it wasn't ETA on the same day, its certainly true that the government lept to a conclusion far too quickly. I can understand that they were angry and emotional - this does make people act in a quick and rash manor, but perhaps it would have been better for them to wait a couple of days before assigning blame to one particular group or another.

The evidence presented was just too convenient to be seen as believable, and I still think it may have been planted in order to corrupt the elections.

This is the same evidence that led the police to the flat of the people behind the attacks - the same people who had plenty more bombs ready to use. All the evidence points to the fact that they didn't want to be found yet - why would they plant false evidence? Especially considering that a tape claiming responsibility was realised shortly after the attack - they didn't need the evidence to get accross that it was them.

(which probably was the true goal of the entire exercise and which worked like a charm)

Not so sure about this. It could have been, but its more likely that they did it during the election build up simply because it would get more media coverage.

Who planted the evidence I can't tell, was it the perpatrators or was it the winning political party (which would indicate they'd had knowledge of the attacks prior to them taking place)? Most likely it was the former of course, Spain isn't THAT much of a banana republic.

Spain isn't a banana republic at all, its every bit (if not more) democratic as the USA, which not many people would call a banana republic.

Given the attitude of apeasement of the Spanish socialists (or rather the attitude of European socialists in general to not act against terrorists but rather to silently condone their actions)

Speaking as a European and a socialist, I strongly refute the idea that European socialists condone terrorism. Terrorism is despicable, and I doubt that you could find more than 1% of the population of Europe (socialist or not) who condone it in any way. That is totally crazy, right-wing nonsense.
[ April 06, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Speaking as a European and a socialist, I strongly refute the idea that European socialists condone terrorism. Terrorism is despicable, and I doubt that you could find more than 1% of the population of Europe (socialist or not) who condone it in any way . That is totally crazy, right-wing nonsense.

I would like to take that bet. You are saying that only 1% of Europeans support the Palestineans?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
I would like to take that bet. You are saying that only 1% of Europeans support the Palestineans?

No Paul, they're different. They're not terrorists murdering children that they target, they're freedom fighters murdering children that they target. :roll:
Interesting (and telling) fact... Europe is the largest single donor to the Palestinians.
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

I would like to take that bet. You are saying that only 1% of Europeans support the Palestineans?

Not at all. Where do you think I am?
I think that more than 1% of the population of Europe feel that the Palestinians should have an independent state, but I very much doubt that more than 1% condone terrorism of any kind by anyone. 1% of the population of Europe is approx 6,664,980 people. There is no way that there are 6,664,980 people in Europe who condone blowing up civilians.
The idea that Europeans like to see Palestinians kill Israelis is as much a myth as the idea that Americans like to see Israelis kill Palestinians.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Michael Yuan:
Those Iraqis were not killing Americans and Al Quada was not there, when Sadam ruled.

They certainly were killing a lot of Iraqis and funding the killing of Israelis though (not to mention they tried to kill President Bush). On top of that, they were shooting at Americans every day in the skies over Iraq. Further, Iraq was a supporter and exporter of international terrorism, with many terrorists seeking shelter within its borders. Whether or not any of those groups were associated with al-Qaeda is irrelevant.
Fourteen UNSC resolutions on Iraq and still the international community was not going to do what needed to be done, despite the fact that they had flagrantly violated those resolutions and broke the terms of the 1991 cease fire (which should have resulted in the resumption of hostilities anyway). After being responsible for one million dead and three wars, I don't see how any argument can be made that the world is not a better place without Hussein's Baathist regime. If the Jihadists now want to flock to Iraq to try to kill Americans, all the better. It's easier to kill them that way, and certainly preferable to them being in Washington DC or anywhere else in this country.
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Further, Iraq was a supporter and exporter of international terrorism, with many terrorists seeking shelter within its borders. Whether or not any of those groups were associated with al-Qaeda is irrelevant.

Sorry to gate-crash into this thread, this late, but its funny, this description fits America�s present major 'non-nato' ally, Pakistan very well, except that Pakistan (pretend to) co-operate with American administration, in return of bundle loads of American tax payers money (some sort of 'positive' bribe? )! As we all agreed in another thread couple of weeks ago, present US policy to Pakistan is a 'compromise' for them to not to go to the darker side. I wonder if US admin get a chance to try that kind of diplomacy with Saddam.
Well, coming back to the original topic, I don't think Spain did something that they shouldn't have. They were lied to, they were lied to in a hurry, and it was a clear attempt by the ruling party to cover their back, which public figured-out and responded well. If that somehow helped the terrorists, its unfortunate, but that's because they (terrorists) planned their act (the bombings) for maximum benefit. Its bit like blaming New Yorkers for the WTC collapse when terrorists crashed Boings into it. Spain's public are victims, not criminals, IMHO.
[ April 06, 2004: Message edited by: Ashok Mash ]

[ flickr ]
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Ashok Mash:


Spain's public are victims, not criminals, IMHO.

I cannot understand why Jason's and Joe's simple point cannot be acknowleged; that our actions can influence the probabilities of terrorists attacks and/or the targets selected for attack. Who would assume terrorist attacks are random? There are factors that influence attacks, why can't that be admitted?
Its not a matter of blame, its a matter of recognizing reality. If terrorists think they achieved success in influencing an election, then this increases the chance of further such attempts. They do not have unlimited resources, they must chose targets based on anticipated outcome. This is all common sense.
Bhau Mhatre
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 199
herb slocomb ---------
...our actions can influence the probabilities of terrorists attacks and/or the targets selected for attack. Who would assume terrorist attacks are random? There are factors that influence attacks, why can't that be admitted?
---------

Admitted. What factors influenced the attacks on 9/11 ?


-Mumbai cha Bhau
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by Bhau Mhatre:
Admitted. What factors influenced the attacks on 9/11 ?

1. The jihadist hatred for west and its beliefs
2. The abundance of freedom in the west which is lacking in the jihadi nations
3. The fact that west is predominantly christian and/or secular
4. USA's support for Israel


Commentary From the Sidelines of history
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Bhau Mhatre:

Admitted. What factors influenced the attacks on 9/11 ?

The mere presence of infidels in Saudi Arabia was one factor. Another was the close association of the Saudi royal family with the US. These are the motivations of OBL. Later, after the attacks, he mentioned the Palestinain issue, but we know that was simply propaganda.
Other background factors, such as the weak or non-existent US responces to years of terrorism, also encouraged the attacks.
Of course, I know by the real point of your question, although I believe it to be without real merit, and now you will help to prove it by either giving the factors you believe influenced the attack, or by your silence...
[ April 06, 2004: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
Bhau Mhatre
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 199
From Paul McKenna ---------------------------
1. The jihadist hatred for west and its beliefs
2. The abundance of freedom in the west which is lacking in the jihadi nations
3. The fact that west is predominantly christian and/or secular
4. USA's support for Israel
---------------------------
1. If that was the case, why did not they attack comparatively easy targets - Madrid or London before 9/11? Equally western places.
2. If that was the case, why did not they attack comparatively easy targets - Madrid or London before 9/11? Equally free places.
3. If that was the case, why did not they attack comparatively easy targets - Madrid or London before 9/11? Equally Christian/secular places.
4. Could be.
5. Somthing else we don't know?
In short, those attacks on NYC were not a result of any kind of appeasement by the US, correct?
So, on one hand, we believe that they attacked US because they hate free, western societies. On the other hand, they did not attack Europe because they hate western, free societies, but we believe that they "will" attack Europe in the future if they follow appeasement. These two seem to be contradictory to each other.

From herb slocomb ---------------------------
The mere presence of infidels in Saudi Arabia was one factor. Another was the close association of the Saudi royal family with the US. These are the motivations of OBL. Later, after the attacks, he mentioned the Palestinain issue, but we know that was simply propaganda.
Other background factors, such as the weak or non-existent US responces to years of terrorism, also encouraged the attacks.
Of course, I know by the real point of your question, although I believe it to be without real merit, and now you will help to prove it by either giving the factors you believe influenced the attack, or by your silence...
------------------------------------------------------
Herb,
Now can you be more clear and specific, please? The first two paragraphs is what you believe are the reasons, or are they just your assumptions about the reasons you thought I would come up with?
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by Bhau Mhatre:
1. If that was the case, why did not they attack comparatively easy targets - Madrid or London before 9/11? Equally western places.
2. If that was the case, why did not they attack comparatively easy targets - Madrid or London before 9/11? Equally free places.
3. If that was the case, why did not they attack comparatively easy targets - Madrid or London before 9/11? Equally Christian/secular places.
4. Could be.
5. Somthing else we don't know?
In short, those attacks on NYC were not a result of any kind of appeasement by the US, correct?

Ok.. by the above I get the impression you are not aware of all the facts. Let me remind you about some of them..
1. 9/11 was not the first attack on the West. In 1993 WTC was bombed by Al Qaeda and 17 people died in those attacks
2. USS Cole, Kenya and Tanzania come to mind when you talk about US appeasement. The Democratic administration did nothing, nada, zip in response to those attacks
3. London is a haven for Islamic militants. WSJ had an article the other day on how London harbors some of the world's most dangerous radicals. For example, the killer of Daniel Pearl was from London, Ayman Al-Zawahiri resided in London for a long period of time after he was ousted from Egypt and many more.. England seriously needs to do something about its growing radical Islamic population.
4. Dont you remember warning issued by Al-Qaeda asking muslims to stay out of tall buildings in Western Europe after 9/11??
5. Western Europe may share many of the values with US but it has its fair share of problems. France is a classic example. With a muslim population of 10% and growing, it houses one of the most anti-semitic, radical and fundamentalistic Islamist populations anywhere in Europe. These radicals maynot have struck the Eiffel tower but they strike fear in the hearts of french people with day to day acts of violence.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Actually, in December 1994 there was a foiled hijacking where the terrorists supposedly planned to ram the plane into the Eiffel Tower. Attacks have been made in and against Europe, they just don't always work out as planned.
The real cruxt of the issue is what you do after you are attacked. Do you cower in fear, retreating into your borders? Maybe you try to ignore them and hope they bother somebody else? Maybe you try to appease them so that you stay off of their radar screen? Or do you go after the terrorists on their own soil? Previous to 9/11, the US policy was pretty much to ignore them. Luckily that policy has now changed. The appeasement policy seems to be popular amongst the majority of citizens of some countries though.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Bhau Mhatre:
From herb slocomb ---------------------------
The mere presence of infidels in Saudi Arabia was one factor. Another was the close association of the Saudi royal family with the US. These are the motivations of OBL. Later, after the attacks, he mentioned the Palestinain issue, but we know that was simply propaganda.
Other background factors, such as the weak or non-existent US responces to years of terrorism, also encouraged the attacks.
------------------------------------------------------
Herb,
Now can you be more clear and specific, please? The first two paragraphs is what you believe are the reasons, or are they just your assumptions about the reasons you thought I would come up with?

I picked up those reasons from various popular media (radio/TV, magazines) sources several years ago who claimed to have experts who reviewed statements of OBL prior to 9/11. I usually try not to make up "assumptions" without some basis in fact, although the facts are of course second and third hand. I have not seen contradictory facts since then, but admittedly have not devoted much time to it. But that's why I come to Javaranch, so that you may emnlighten me as to the "real" reasons... (still waiting)
I dig a quicky google and dug up a link to give some basis for some of statements I made.
Osama's fatwh :
"The fatwah declared: �The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies � civilians and military � is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Holy Mosque [in Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. "

http://www.ajc.org/Terrorism/BriefingsDetail.asp?did=221&pid=737
[ April 06, 2004: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Yeah Herb, people tend to forget that whole fatwah thing. They look for reasons they attacked us, but OBL laid it out plain as day in his fatwah.
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Originally posted by Joe King:
is as much a myth as the idea that Americans like to see Israelis kill Palestinians.

What makes you think that's a myth?
Even here in left wing Massachusetts, I think that at least 5% of the population likes to see Israelis kill palestinians - I know a couple personally. I suspect the percentage is much higher elsewhere in the U.S.
Many Americans believe that Israeli killings of Palestinians civilians are qualitatively different from Palestinian killings of Israeli civilians because Israel is a recognized state and has is protecting legitimate state interests in its actions. I personally disagree with that view, but I often feel like I'm in the minority here on it.
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
BM: So, on one hand, we believe that they attacked US because they hate free, western societies. On the other hand, they did not attack Europe because they hate western, free societies, but we believe that they "will" attack Europe in the future if they follow appeasement.
Man, you just don't get it. The bloodthirsty terrorists will kill anyone they think they can get away with killing, including promising everlasting joy in heaven to some poor shmuck in order for him to turn himself into spam along with a few dozen innocent civilians.
But, since they are cowards of the worst sort (especially their leaders - when was the last time you heard of a high-ranking cleric strapping up and walking into a disco?), they will attack the weakest targets. Weakness is perception in many cases, and if you cower from a bully's beatings, chances are he will beat you again rather than pick on someone who might fight back. Spain APPEARS right now to be cowering. Whether they are or not is not the issue - the appearance is enough to endanger not only them but the rest of Europe who espouse any sort of conciliatory approach with these madmen.
The surest way to fight a coward is to make sure he knows you will beat the crap out of him if he crosses the line. And until either the people sheltering these slinking murderers decide to stop it, or the free world goes in and beats the tar out of every single one of them, these craven attacks will continue.
Joe
Bhau Mhatre
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 199
Paul McKenna ---
Thanks Paul. I agree with you on all the five points that you mentioned. But the discussion seems drifting. So here's something before we continue- I understand that appeasement does not work. Did not work with Nehru. Did not work with Congress. Can I be more clearer than that?

Joe Pluta : Man, you just don't get it.
I got it, Joe. I got it long time back. I got it when I was in school when I heard of Dawood Ibrahim and ISI. When I was returning from collage in Mumbai on March 12, 1993. All the while from late 1980s till date I haveing been learning it. I got it when I heard about Kandahar in 1999.

Herb (in a previous post): Later, after the attacks, he (OBL) mentioned the Palestinain issue, but we know that was simply propaganda.
Herb: I picked up those reasons from various popular media (radio/TV, magazines) sources several years ago who claimed to have experts who reviewed statements of OBL prior to 9/11...
Osama's fatwh :...
I have not seen contradictory facts since then

Thanks for clarifying. That will hopefully help understand the situation a little better. I thought that OBL had a fatwah against America because of their presence in the Mid-East. I thought the entire Mid-East. Paul gave me an impression that OBL had a fatwah against ALL western countries. But now you are helping us being more specific. The fatwah was against Americans only (not all Europeans) for its presence in Saudi Arabia precisely (not Palestine).

--- But that's why I come to Javaranch, so that you may emnlighten me as to the "real" reasons... (still waiting).
Well then, nice to know that we are in the same boat..
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
BM: I got it, Joe. I got it long time back. I got it when I was in school when I heard of Dawood Ibrahim and ISI. When I was returning from collage in Mumbai on March 12, 1993. All the while from late 1980s till date I haveing been learning it. I got it when I heard about Kandahar in 1999.
Is there a point here? I don't understand what this does to counter the observation that Spain's elections are likely to cause more terrorism rather than less.
Joe
Bhau Mhatre
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 199
Joe: Is there a point here?
This is what you wrote--- "The bloodthirsty terrorists will kill anyone they think they can get away with killing, including promising everlasting joy in heaven to some poor shmuck in order for him to turn himself into spam along with a few dozen innocent civilians."
My response was to the above statement. I do understand that. And I gave you examples of why I do understand that.

Joe: I don't understand what this does to counter the observation that Spain's elections are likely to cause more terrorism rather than less.
Let's not forget the third possibility-
a. Spain's elections are likely to cause more terrorism
b. Spain's elections are likely to cause less terrorism
c. Spain's elections do not matter and terrorists will do what they want to, if they can, whenever they can, wherever they can, regardless of the outcome of Spain's election.
Let's ask Paul McKenna: If Aznar had won those elections, would Al-queda have stopped hating US for its free western society?
Let's ask Herb Slocomb: If Aznar had won those elections, would Al-queda have stopped hating the US for its presence in Saudi Arabia?
And let's ask ourselves: If Aznar had won those elections, and had maintained more troops in Iraq, would that have stopped Al-queda from increasing terrorism in Spain, or anywhere else, if they could?
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
The answer is:
a. Spain's elections are likely to cause more terrorism

There's simply no debating this point. If you believe that Spain's elections have had zero effect on the terrorists, then in my opinion you really don't get it.

Joe
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by Bhau Mhatre:
Let's ask Paul McKenna: If Aznar had won those elections, would Al-queda have stopped hating US for its free western society?

No, those who hate will not stop hating the ways of the free. But if Aznar had been elected he would have showed them that the west can fight back hate. The newly elected leader of Spain simply bowed down and said that he would withdraw his troops from Iraq.
Bhau Mhatre
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 199
Joe---
Let me add to what you said: The bloodthirsty terrorists will kill anyone they think they can get away with killing, regardless of whether their targets are brave Americans or coward Spainards. The fight is getting complex, the solution going farther.
Paul McKenna: No, those who hate will not stop hating the ways of the free. But if Aznar had been elected he would have showed them that the west can fight back hate. The newly elected leader of Spain simply bowed down and said that he would withdraw his troops from Iraq.

So you are saying that he has bowed down, which means he will let the terrorists go free? The new government will not prosecute them? Will not take further preventive steps?

From Spanish point of view (imho, of course)---------------------------
The only thing different, if Aznar had won, would have been more Spanish troops in Iraq. Didn't the newly elected leader of Spain promise to withdraw his troops from Iraq even before the bombings? May be he too happened to believe like Herb Slocomb that Al-queda has nothing to do with Palestine. It is Iraq that supports Palestinian terrorism not Al-Queda. So fighting in Iraq is not fighting Al-queda. So what's the point of sending troops in Iraq while Al-queda's terrorism is brewing at home?

From Al-queda's point of view (again, imho ofcourse)---------------------------
Here's the pattern:
First the US
Then Riyadh
Then Bali
Then Karachi and Mussaraf personally was attacked.
Then Madrid
Where next? London? Warsaw? Wherever it is being planned next, it is probably irrespective of what happened at the previous target. Or say, it was probably already planned in advance even before Madrid. In parallel. Because the idea in their fatwah is 'Strike wheverever you can, strike whenever you can'. The fatwah does not say do one thing if Spain goes left, or do another if Spain goes right.
[ April 06, 2004: Message edited by: Bhau Mhatre ]
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
The bloodthirsty terrorists will kill anyone they think they can get away with killing, regardless of whether their targets are brave Americans or coward Spainards.
Are you purposely trying not to understand? I'm not calling the Spaniards cowards, I'm saying that the election makes them appear to be bowing under the pressure of the terrorists. That sort of behavior will definitely make them more of a target.
The terrorists know we'll blow them up. They know the Spaniards won't. Who do you think a coward is more likely to attack?
Anyway, we're going over the same territory again and again. As usual, I'm amazed at the lack of common sense by otherwise intelligent people, but by this time I'm no longer surprised that it happens. Every common sense position I've ever proposed has always had at least one otherwise sensible person absolutely insisting that up is down. In this case, it is you.
We won't agree, so I'm done.
Joe
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Are you purposely trying not to understand? I'm not calling the Spaniards cowards, I'm saying that the election makes them appear to be bowing under the pressure of the terrorists. That sort of behavior will definitely make them more of a target.
The terrorists know we'll blow them up. They know the Spaniards won't. Who do you think a coward is more likely to attack?
Anyway, we're going over the same territory again and again. As usual, I'm amazed at the lack of common sense by otherwise intelligent people, but by this time I'm no longer surprised that it happens. Every common sense position I've ever proposed has always had at least one otherwise sensible person absolutely insisting that up is down. In this case, it is you.
We won't agree, so I'm done.
Joe

I dont think this kind of a post is conducive to any meaningful discussion. You are letting your anger get the better of you. Bhau has been trying his best to keep the discussion civil even if he may disagree. But for you to say that his post lacks common sense is unwarranted.
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
But for you to say that his post lacks common sense is unwarranted.
And why is that? His posts in this thread consistently say that my position does not make sense. So it's hardly uncivil to point out that I feel the same about his. This is not a personal judgment; I in fact made a point of saying that his posts are normally intelligent, just that this particular position displays a lack of common sense. No anger, no name calling, just expressing my opinion.
Please, Paul, no lectures on civility. I'm one of the most civil people here. My greatly curtailed attendance is proof of that .
Joe
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
His posts in this thread consistently say that my position does not make sense.

I just did a quick scan of his posts and I didnt see anything like that. He did ask a few questions that seemed to poke in the eye but nothing to the effect that "Joe, your posts are nonsense".
I am not trying to be Father Jim here but I am just letting you know the impression I got after reading your post. Its quite likely that Bhau may also get the same impression and stop discussing further. That wouldnt exactly be the idea behind a "discussion" forum would it??
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
I guess the point is moot. While the position taken by many here except Bhau seems to be obvious to me at least, I guess we'll know for sure come the next attack in Europe whether or not the Spanish retreat has emboldened them.
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: Appeasement, Part II