Madrid Terrorist Attacks

[RickJ]

I think the terrorist should be solved fixing the base problem.

The base problem is that there are people who desire power and money and will resort to any form violence to obtain it.  So how do you deal with that?  

[Pau]

The IRA problem was solved through a negotiation process. The Spanish goverment is completelly against to negotiate with ETA.

I only say that when someone is asking for something, you can negotiate or try to win in a battle of innocent deads.

If the goverment doesn't want to negotiate until the terrorists stop killing and the terrorists won't stop killing until the goverment start to negotiate, that's a stupid situation, which only gives us blood and revenge.

USA fighted Saddam and Bin Laden, killing innocent people. They claimed for venjance and kill our people. What will do USA if the Madrid attack is conffirmed to be made by AlQuaeda, more bombs?

We should stop that.

[Nacho]

There is a thing I want to ask... When people claims to be patient with the terrorists... who do they think the terrorists are? Poor guys, romanthic fighters who are fighting for a noble reason or something?

I think that terrorists are criminals whose work is to kill, and the political stuff is just an EXCUSE they use to make it. We're talking of rubbish, inhuman beings, psycos who really enjoy blowing people's lifes, because they are just fu*ing bastards who have envy of the relaxed existence of the civilians...

The nice image that Hollywood gives of the terrorist (A lovely family man who has lost his family and fights against the opressor...) bah, rubbish... They're a mob... Do you imagine what could happen in the Spanish government says tomorrow: "Well, you got it, Pays Basque will be independent!"? What would that web of terrorist do? They would be unemployed! I can bet that they will find something to complain and start the "war" again.

We can't negotiate with them, becase they don't want nothing!

What should the US do to avoid Al Quaeda strikes? To abandon Saudi Arabia? That's impossible, most of the arabs WANT the americans to be there and to make business with them.

In fact... Al Quaeda demmands all the "occidental" signs to dissapear of the holy lands of Islam... We're talking that his bastards won't stop the fight till the last can of Coke dissapear of their countries... Do you think that his is logical???

What should do the Jews for not being attacked by Palestinians? The foundational letter of the Palestinian terrorist groups want the total destruction of the sionism entity, anywhere they are, so... if we want the Palestinian terrorist groups to be dissolved we should pray for a Jews massive suicide???

We can't negotiate with them because they demmand something impossible to do.

So... we must eliminate them... Maybe not killing them, but we surely must take them out of the civilian life.

[Pau]

I think terrorists don't kill for fun. They kill because they HATE their enemy. And fighting with violence oly makes grow that hate in both sides, which is very far from a solution.

Whats your explanation to the IRA solution? What are these terrorists working at now?

I don't have a romantic vision of the terrorists, but I don't have a romantic version of the Goverments, it's intentions or the information that we get from the TV.

If the goverment shows the terrorists as mad people without any reason to kill is probably because the Goverment don't want the people to know that reasons or because it's easy to justify wars this way.

[Darth Mandarb]

The American Revolution = Terrorism??

Americans didn't go to England and kill thousands of civilians.  They declared war and fought, in the open, against their oppressors.  Now, being greatly out-numbered, they resorted to tactics that could be considered 'questionable' (covert destruction, the targetting of officers, etc.) but they were attacking military targets.

Now, if you're referring the British tactics during the American Revolution well ... that's another story altogether

Modern terrorists should declare war if it's really want they want.

Take on the military might of those they oppose, not target defensless civilians.

Since America has declared a 'War on Terrorism' it would be understandable if these fanatics would then attack American military forces (as they're at war with you if you're a terrorist) but no, they attack innocent people who have nothing to do with anything.

Pau - They [terrorists] may have what they consider justification for these cowardly acts of terrorism, but that certainly doesn't make killing innocents right and/or justified.  But I do see the point you're making.

~ d

[RickJ]

Pau - They [terrorists] may have what they consider justification/i] for these cowardly acts of terrorism, but that certainly doesn't make killing innocents right and/or justified. But I do see the point you're making.

I think rationalization[/i] is perhaps a more correct word in this context.

They kill because they HATE their enemy.

Nope, they kill to gain gain political power and huge amounts of cash.   Now that this is big news of a successful attack the money will come rolling in.   HATE of the enemy is used to persuade others to aid and join them, hate is just a tool of their politics.   Those who organize these kinds of things love their enemies because without enemies they are out of business.  That's why they will never satisfied, there is no concession you can make that will satisfy them.  That's why a death peanlty is the only answer for people who   subscribe to this kind of philosphy.

 

[DragonRose]

RickJ:  I believe you misunderstood Minimi's question "where do you draw the line."  There are many actions that cause "terror" (which is becoming a rediculously overused word) that do not involve bombs and hundreds upon hundreds of deaths.  Should you kill those "terrorists" too?  I'm freaking terrified of a guy back home who beat me up at least once a week for a whole school year.  Shall we give him leathal injection, hang him, or perhaps behead him? Is that going too far?  How many people have to be hurt before it's enough? 20? 50? 100? Give me a number and get back to me.

Darth:

Americans didn't go to England and kill thousands of civilians. They declared war and fought, in the open, against their oppressors. Now, being greatly out-numbered, they resorted to tactics that could be considered 'questionable' (covert destruction, the targetting of officers, etc.) but they were attacking military targets.

I think you need to go and look at your history book again, my friend.  Have you ever heard of the Swamp Fox?  He was an American Revolutionary named Francis Marion. He would take his men into the woods and hide behind the trees.  As columns of British soldiers marched past, they would open fire.  Because it would take too long for them to load their muskets and they would be surrounded, the Redcoats didn't stand a chance. As a result, they often refused to enter any wooded area. If you don't feel like looking it up, Mel Gibson's character in "The Patriot" is loosly based off of him.

Furthermore, have you ever heard of the United Empire Loyalists?  They were the civilians living in North America who wanted to remain loyal to the crown.  If it was found out that you were a "British Sympathiser,"  you could be tarred and feathered, have scalding tea poured down your throat (as a protest against the East India Company monopolies), and "hung by the neck until you are dead".  Just because you wanted to remain British.  I call that pretty terrifying.

Yeah, that was a bit off topic. Sorry. Please continue with your regularly scheduled debate.

[RickJ]

Dragon Rose:  1

[Darth Mandarb]

I didn't realize it was competition ...

I think you need to go and look at your history book again, my friend. Have you ever heard of the Swamp Fox? He was an American Revolutionary named Francis Marion. He would take his men into the woods and hide behind the trees. As columns of British soldiers marched past, they would open fire. Because it would take too long for them to load their muskets and they would be surrounded, the Redcoats didn't stand a chance. As a result, they often refused to enter any wooded area. If you don't feel like looking it up, Mel Gibson's character in "The Patriot" is loosly based off of him.

I know who he is/was.  However, this doesn't really counter my point.  They were still attacking military targets.  I would counter that those tactics, used by the Fox, were far smarter than the ways wars were fought back then with Napoleonic tactics.

Furthermore, have you ever heard of the United Empire Loyalists? They were the civilians living in North America who wanted to remain loyal to the crown. If it was found out that you were a "British Sympathiser," you could be tarred and feathered, have scalding tea poured down your throat (as a protest against the East India Company monopolies), and "hung by the neck until you are dead". Just because you wanted to remain British. I call that pretty terrifying.

This is something I knew about ... and it is unfortunate.  In a war, and it was a declared war, if I found out that a certain person was giving the enemy information about me and my comrades they cease being neutral and become the enemy.  There were hundreds of "United Empire Loyalists" who lived out the war without being harmed because they didn't aid the British in anyway other than wishing to remain under the control of the crown.

I didn't say Americans were guilt free of committing atrocities, just that events back then don't really relate to modern terrorism.

Perhaps you consider them linked, I don't.

~ d

[Nacho]

There is a basic problem if we talk with terrorists:

a) If we talk to somebody who kills 200... which is the message we send to the little terrorists groups which have killed, let's say, 10 people? kill 190 more people or we won't take you seriously?

Remember that there is another terrorist group in Spain, Grapo, and if they see that the bombing is a good argument to sit in a table and negociate they can feel tempted to increase the fight.

In addition, we can't really use the IRA like an example that terrorists can abandon the fight and negotiate, because the target of IRA was very clear from the beginning: The Ulster to reach the same status as the "free" Ireland. On the other hand we have most of the rest of the terrorist groups, whose objectives are vaguely defined and can be regularily "updated" by their leaders if needed.

Let me put an example: ETA wants a "free and socialist Basque County"... So... Where would them draw the line? In the independence? Probabl not, I think that they go on fighting if they were independent, but ruled by PNV (conservative) because they are also radical socialists. Actually, I think that they're just a mab with an excuse to work in something they love... kill people.

So... why talk to them? We won't never be able to give them something they would feel acceptable to stop fighting.

[SSH]

Maybe so, but you're going to get far more support for an independent Basque country than you will for a Basque communist coup... support meaning peoples hearts, minds and wallets. If there was an independent Basque country, then ETA support would diminish greatly and they might fizzle out. No doubt when Ireland eventually is unified (which will evantually happen democratically due to higher birth rates amongst republicans...) there will still be some extremists but their support will be tiny and they will be fighting their own poilce...

The greater problem is actually more liekly to be that any form of Basque independence would be done by referenda in Pais Vasco, Navarra, and any other region claimed by ETA. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those regions said "no" and so ETA would carry on the fight for those regions. Pretty much what happened when the northern counties of Ireland voted to stay in the UK...

[Las Naranjas]

I'm sorta hoping that it is ETA, not for any political reasons on global powers or the like, but just that it may be better for Spain.
It would seem to increase the liklihood that those responsible would be able to be found and tried without the need for a war which to a degree gives them status as soldiers, and a sort of mandate that violence is a legitimate tools.

Trying someone is a far greater indication that what they did is unacceptable. Moreover is displays all the virtues of Democracy and the notions of freedom we are meant to be upholding. Victory in a war, unless you claim the weight of god, can easily be seen as only superior arms, whereas a fair trial has all the weight of authority.

That wasn't possible in the case of Sept. 11, and there too the war failed in aims to bring organisers to justice. The wound will take longer to close.

It was thus very lucky for my region that those who caused the events in Bali were subjected to trial. It helped curb the inevitable and self defeating need for vengence which is sadly natural. So anger was drowned out by condolence and mourning, and shared pain is lessened.

I wish however that they had not imposed the death penalty, for simple reasons both pragmatic and in a search for the most appropriate punishment. It's illogical to to choose death as a punishment for a man who believes his crimes will take him to paradise. A wasted life in prison, seeing the futility of what he has achieved and eventually having to face what he has done, seeing dreams of glory evaporate seems a greater punishment. And if we imprison him til the end of his days, there increases the chance he may face what he has done and show remorse. A show of remorse would give infinitely greater comfort to victims than the illusionary pleasure of execution.
On the pragmatic side, imprisonment works for the images of men like Mandela and Gandhi. They don't work for  those of men who would blaze in glory. The former had a great weight of justice about their cause, enforced by the patience with which they pursued it. The violent ideologies that spawn acts of violence work on illusions, on smoke and mirrors and a need for heroic martyrs.
Seeing figures like Mandela in a cell, waiting, only compliment the virtues of patience and the aura of justice. A would-be martyr sitting in a cell is just sad. It helps dispel the dreams of heroic martyrdom, the delusions of grandeur on which terrorism and other violent means base their recruitment.
Execution creates a martyr, an asset to terrorism, imprisonment brings a liability.

But anyway, hope for a trial, for Spain's sake.

[Nacho]

SSH wrote a good point: ETA does not just want the independence of the Pais Vasco... they also claim for lands in France and Navarra... They also count with àlava, a basque nations governed by "Unión Alavesa" (part of the Popular Party). It is quite clear demmand things that can't be archieved. Which is the purpose of that? Imo, their intention is to delay the conflict as much as possible.

On the other hand, whereas people vote independist parties, this very parties are reluctant to give the final step of claiming for the independence... They're pragmant, they just want a high level of authonomy, and if there was a referenda about independence, people should say no, that's quite clear.

For instance, Catalunya has been governed during 20 years by a nationalist party and they have never been INTERESTED in making a serious claim for independence.

The referenda stuff is just useless, because terrorists wouln't give up if they loose it.

Edit: 199 deaths, the last one a 7-month baby girl.

[Barcik]

Here's a political analysis I have read:

The Iraqi war is very unpopular among the Spanish population. In fact, George 'Jorge' Bush is one of the most widely disliked people in Iberia. Seeing as Aznar was the man who sent Spanish troops to Iraq, the governing pary PP is widely associated with this war. If indeed it is Al-Qaeda behind the attacks, then the anti-war feelings will become stronger, and the PP's electoral campaign will be harmed.

Edit: Top reason not to negotiate (under their terms) with terrorists: Oslo 1993.

[Nacho]

7 islamists arrested: 5 moroccan, 2 indian and 2 muslim spanish...

It's evident that this hasn't added points to my "religion-o-meter"...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/spain_bombings_arrests

[Barcik]

DebkaFile's full analysis.

[Meowster]

Hang on. Woah. Stop. Rewind.

The IRA problem was solved through a negotiation process. The Spanish goverment is completelly against to negotiate with ETA.

Did I oversleep or something? The IRA problem got solved?!

The IRA problem did not get solved. The IRA were 'replaced' with 'The Real IRA', or in other words the members renamed themselves when a couple of their leaders agreed to dissolve the group. The IRA are still active, still angry, still pining for their cause. They're not 'solved' at all.

[Nacho]

Which aims to the same direction I told before: Terrorism is their business and they will allways find a reason to go on.

Thanks Yufs.

[makri]

Terrorists, catholic, muslim or whatever, believe in their cause beyond the level we can comprehend. It has nothing to do with money, violence or thrill and everything to do with revenge, hatred and faith. They believe what they're doing is right and makes the world a better place. They believe they're fighting against the scum of the world and everything that is evil. They believe they're the good guys. They see themselves as freedom fighters, heroes and martyrs. They see their actions not only justified but as a greater form of goodness.

It's easy to underestimate them when we don't agree with their views, goals and means. We all can understand reasons why ETA hates the Spanish, IRA hates the Brits, Palestinians hate the Jewish and Al Qaeda hates the Americans. What we don't understand is their level of hatred and what they are willing to do because of it.

[Barcik]

Makri, you described the terrorists themselves. Yet, we mustn't forget that there is always a bigger fish. Behind the terrorists stand polticians, who use these fanatics as tools. They do not acted from hatred, but from hard cold logic.