Madrid Terrorist Attacks

[Minimi]

Hmm.. I haven't heard the news for a couple of weeks, and this is my main reason why I don't watch/listen it.
Always, everyday there is something on the news about boms, terrorism, useless violence, murder, raping and politics. Well... I'm not interested in all of those things. I do not say, that I denie that these things are going on, because it's reality, but what would it add to my life, by hearing everyday news about more suffering and pain?

Oh.. and bytheway, death penalty is not THE answer i.m.o. You shouldn't treat evil, with evil. I think we have to think further than to ask for their death. In my personal opinion, is someone that asks for the death of the killer, from the inside equal bad as the killer himself. CMON people, you can't judge about the life of someone else! Not even if that man/woman killed someone else.

[SSH]

OK, as this is the political thread here's my stuff on the death sentence...

Not to mention that the costs of keeping prisoners on death row and giving them all the appeals required to ensure that as few as possible wrong irreversible sentences are carried out (and yet they still happen) are VASTLY greater than a life sentence... why should we spend so much money on them?

Also, families of victims tend to find that they don't feel any better after the execution.

EDIT: I want to keep this thread shorter than the other one if possible, so all my extra comments are going in as EDITs

The Spanish regions have more autonomy than Scotland does, and yet the Scottish parliament hasn't really changed anything significant here. I don't think the Spanish government is really oppressing the Basques, so they're not really "freedom fighters". I can't believe that voting for a Prime Minister in Vittoria instead of Madrid is really worth the 1000 lives they have obliterated over the years.

[Nacho]

That's why I claim for a death penalty who can be ceased by the familiars... Also I just want it for exceptional cases, not just like in the U.S. when 10% of the cases of death penalties are based on mistakes in the trials...

I just demmand a special death penalty for this, I am just talking of 2,3 death penalties for decades (I.E. Oklahoma, Madrid, New York...)

[aussie]

I'm not too sure about this death penalty stuff. I don't really think we can dispose of other people's lives.

I think that only stirs hatred. If it was really ETA that did it, they still have support, and a series of capital punishments of their loved ones, (terrorists do have loved ones), would only harden their position and make the future more difficult for everyone.

It is a certainly a complex issue. Because on the other hand it can be argued that there's nothing wrong with killing in self defense.  And society has a right to defend itself.

Still I don't think it's the way to go.

[Minimi]

But Farlander, where do you draw the line? Isn't every murder, robbery, and action wich causes terror wrong? What does it matter, weither someone kills 20, or 200 people? Every human-being is important, and if you only punish the people from WTC, Oklahoma, Madrid etc... then that's pretty unfair, against a serial killer that killed 14 people, for example. And NO, I don't know it either how everyone should be judged, and I'm glad that I'm not a judge, but I think every case of an individual is different. For example, you can also give death penalty to the parents of some raper, for not giving any attention or love to their child, that as an effect of that, grew up like a loveless person, trying to fill the emptyness inside himself. It's pretty complicated... all I want to say, is that mankind has no rights to take the life of someone else, whatsoever.Not by terrorism, and not by death-penalty!

[Nacho]

Where do I draw the line? Good question, but I think that 100 deaths deserve at least to put some attention on it.

The "funny" thing of all is that in Spain nobody can be more that 30 years in prison. Each day you work during your penalty (And you must work in prison, because there's nothing to do) removes one day of penalty. That means that the penalty for this bastards is redouced to 15 years.

Having in mind that people reaches "third degree" when they accomplish 2/3 of the penalty, we are talking that a 176 people killer can be in the street in 10 years.

One thing is not to agree with the death penalty, I understand and respect it, but another thing is to be too naive and to see how this people laughs of us.

The members of ETA, enter to the prison saying to the familiars of the victims "hey, don't worry for me, I'll be back in 3 years!"

That's disgusting.

We had enough of laws which rather protect the criminal than then victims.

Ok... No death penalty... what about perpetual penalty?

[Robert Eric]

Too many hands.  Can you three have three seperate avatars?  It's starting to scare me.

[Minimi]

Too many hands.  Can you three have three seperate avatars?  It's starting to scare me.

I changed the colour, is this better?

[shbaz]

I feel for you guys. We never thought anything like it would happen in Oklahoma either.

The sad thing is that the Federal building and World Trade Center were political targets.. but buses in Israel and trains in Madrid are simply for terror.

Disgusting, really. It accomplishes nothing.

[Darth Mandarb]

I think that only stirs hatred. If it was really ETA that did it, they still have support, and a series of capital punishments of their loved ones, (terrorists do have loved ones), would only harden their position and make the future more difficult for everyone.

I would argue that a group of people who are willing to kill civilians in cowardly acts of terrorism are already pretty hardened in their resolve.  These scumbags don't deserve to share the air on this planet.  If the message that is sent is, "Well ... if we catch you we're going to paddle your bottom and then put you in prison where we'll have to pay to keep you for 10 life sentences ..."  this is pathetic.

If they had the balls to attack soldiers and military targets instead of weak and defensless civilians it would be a different story (at least to me), but no, these cowards go after civilians.  If you, as a terrorist, take even just 1 human life on purpose, you lose the right to your own life.  You took something from that person you had no right to take and hence you forfeit your own.

Slaps on the wrist and prison time are worthless when it comes to terrorism.

In my opinion there should be a world law that says, "If you're proven to be part of a terrorist group you get a 'short drop and a quick stop' and that's it."  [ hanging ]

There's no excuse, nor justification, for terrorisist attacks on civilians.

[ end rant ]

Sorry ... I really don't want to offend or inflame.  Just wanted to express my opinion.

~ d

[Fuzzpilz]

Hmm, so now after looking at some more detailed coverage of the attacks I'd say it looks more like the ETA now, but of course it's still all speculation.

About the whole death penalty thing... well, I can understand if many people want to give way to the voice that tells them to destroy them all, especially when the crime is as... not nice as this. I have to admit, even I can see the appeal.
But it's no good.
One, it's definitely not going to deter anybody who's serious about the whole terrorism thing.
Two, it will add to the group's ability to pretend it's fighting against oppression.
Three, it contributes to turning the judicial branch into institutionalized vengeance, which in my opinion is very much the wrong way to go.
Four, you're killing somebody. In my view, that's wrong under any imaginable set of circumstances and excusable only if you really, really can't avoid it. In such cases as this, it brings no added security to the remaining population, and it doesn't bring the dead back to life.
There's no point other than spite.

[Darth Mandarb]

One, it's definitely not going to deter anybody who's serious about the whole terrorism thing.
Two, it will add to the group's ability to pretend it's fighting against oppression.
Three, it contributes to turning the judicial branch into institutionalized vengeance, which in my opinion is very much the wrong way to go.
Four, you're killing somebody. In my view, that's wrong under any imaginable set of circumstances and excusable only if you really, really can't avoid it. In such cases as this, it brings no added security to the remaining population, and it doesn't bring the dead back to life.
There's no point other than spite.

Some VERY good points ...

What about if we just give them an injection of something that doesn't kill them, but turns them into a living vegetable?

Or we could put them in sensory deprivating tanks and slowly brainwash them into zombies who only like to make origami.

Hmmm ....

But we can't do these things because we certainly wouldn't want to inconvenience the nice terrorists.

~ d

[Fuzzpilz]

I wasn't really trying to argue against the death penalty - I was mainly stating my own reasons for disagreeing with those who call for it, or in the case of e.g. the US wish to retain it. A real discussion of all this would lead this thread far off-topic, and it would be of no benefit to anybody.

But we can't do these things because we certainly wouldn't want to inconvenience the nice terrorists.

(If I misinterpreted that part of your post, tell me so but otherwise disregard the following)

Now that's just unfair. I resent your implication that I'm somehow in favour of terrorists - is it so hard to accept that some people don't believe in the whole revenge thing? Is everybody either on the terrorists' side or in favour of throwing nuclear bombs filled with machine guns and ninjas and poisoned sausages at everyone who might be a terrorist?
I really don't like discussing in detail how action X is worse than action Y by Z number of EvilPoints(tm), but in general I obviously do think that a terrorist attack that kills dozens of people is "more evil" than executing or otherwise mistreating those responsible and the setback for the abolition of such practices this entails. (But if they are not yet legal, then the action of changing the law to make it so is quite a different matter to me.)

[Pumaman]

In terms of the death penalty, often it doesn't give victims the relief you would imagine. We had a doctor who was recently given a life sentence for killing over 200 of his patients; he then committed suicide in his cell, and the relatives of the victims all felt cheated that he took the easy way out.

The greater difficulty is, if this was a suicide attack (which of course we don't know yet), what can you do to stop it? No punishment in the world is going to be effective as a deterrent against people who are prepared to sacrifice their own lives for their 'cause'.

[Barcik]

From DebkaFile:

Al Qaeda claims Spain bombing in letter reaching London-based al Kuds. Spanish official earlier reported Arabic tape with Koran verses found in van packed with explosives near Madrid.

As the toll of the Madrid rail attacks climbs rapidly to 190 dead, 1,200 injured, terror experts note their appalling scale dwarfs any previous ETA assaults. They suggest the hand of al Qaeda or collaboration between the Islamist group and Basque terrorists behind the bombings. A senior Washington security official sees definite al Qaeda hallmarks. No group has claimed responsibility.

[Darth Mandarb]

Fuzz - I totally meant it when I said you had some good points!  I wasn't AT ALL trying to say you favor them.  I apologize for ANY confusion there.

That part of my post was more to point out that there really isn't a solution to the problem!  Because yes, killing somebody because they killed somebody IS, in the end, a little hypocritical.

It's such a sticky situation ...

Pumanman - that's always been my thought about Terrorism ... how can threatening to execute them be a detterent, when they're willing to die anyway?  Kind of hard to threaten them ...

[irony] although dying by the hands of the infidel is worse than glorious suicide. [/irony]

[Fuzzpilz]

Cooperation between Al Qaeda and the ETA seems unlikely to me. I'm no expert on either organization, but I don't think their ideologies are compatible, and they do seem to be quite devoted to their causes.
From what I hear, experts are arguing back and forth on this, of course. We'll probably know more soon, though.

(Thanks for clearing that up, Darth, and sorry for all the yelling - it's a point that's important to me, that's all.)

[RickJ]

But Farlander, where do you draw the line?

I suppose, when there are no longer terrorists.  

Isn't every murder, robbery, and action wich causes terror wrong?

Absolutely not.  Terrorism is about money, power, and fanaticism.  Your question seems to imply there is justification for terrorist acts such as this one, I couldn't disagree more.  In  my opinion groups who resort to terrorist acts give up any claim to anything.  

What does it matter, weither someone kills 20, or 200 people?

I suppose it would be important to at least 180 folks and their families, friend, coworkers, etc.

Every human-being is important, and if you only punish the people from WTC, Oklahoma, Madrid etc... then that's pretty unfair, against a serial killer that killed 14 people,

Unfair to whom??  The terrorists or the seial killer?  

One, it's definitely not going to deter anybody who's serious about the whole terrorism thing.

I disagree.  There are a finite number of terrorists, so if you find out who they are and kill them all, including their leadership and supporters you will put a serious dent in their desire to continue.   Perhaps if  death is not a deterent to such people that penalty is not harsh enough?  

Two, it will add to the group's ability to pretend it's fighting against oppression.

Such groups and individuals have already prersuaded themselves of this anyway.  In the case of radical islam they have been brain washing their children for half a century o motre to blame everything on the Jew and the West.   They can only possible benefit can be achieved if the rest of us buy into that proposition.  

Three, it contributes to turning the judicial branch into institutionalized vengeance, which in my opinion is very much the wrong way to go.

One could say the same for any form of goverment imposed sanction.  

Four, you're killing somebody. In my view, that's wrong under any imaginable set of circumstances and excusable only if you really, really can't avoid it.

Do you not believe that defending the lives of yourself, your family, and fellow citizens is such a case?  So how do you propose to eliminate terrorism?  

In such cases as this, it brings no added security to the remaining population, and it doesn't bring the dead back to life.  There's no point other than spite.

Let's suppose your family's entire life savings are stolen by a criminal.    
Further, let's suppose this criminal spends the money in a non-recoverable manner.   Should we not bring this guy to justice because we can't recover the damages.    Suppose the penalty for such a crime is only 6 months in jail and others are not deterred by this penalty.  What would you suggest?  By your above logic you would reduce or just elimiate the penalties all together.

Hmm, so now after looking at some more detailed coverage of the attacks I'd say it looks more like the ETA now, but of course it's still all speculation.

Actually the last news report I heard disagrees with this notion.  Apparently a suspicious van was found abandoned nearby containing Arabic stuff, and also authorities noted that the ETA has yet to claim responsibility, which I understand is the normal case.  Not conclusive obviously, but it seems that the ETA are not the only suspects.

IMHO, I think one needs to think about how terrorism can be eliminated before rejecting other proposed solutions.  Suggest something better that get's the job done.        

[Pau]

I think the terrorist should be solved fixing the base problem. That's why I was against Irak war: you can kill Saddam, but in 5 years you'll have another Saddam if you don't solve the problem in the right way.

The frontiers hasn't been elected democratelly, if a group of people decide to do independent I can't see any reason to deny it.

I'm not deffending the army way (I'm completelly against it) but the Spanish goverment obssession to solve the problem only with the police is IMO a mistake.

[bspeers1000]

But Farlander, where do you draw the line?

I suppose, when there are no longer terrorists.  

Hmmm.  So just kill all the terrorists, yeah?  And what if (as it has done in every country where this tactic has been used), the terrorists simply grow in number and strength as a reaction to this repressive measure?

Most terrorist attacks in Israel follow further repressive measures by the Israeli government.  Sharon was among the first to reckognize this, and in many talks, he has made clear he believes the likely result of further repressive measures/counter attacks is further terror.  But don't take Sharon's word on it, try reading the history of the Iranian revolution, the Russian revolution, the Spanish Revolution, the French Revolution, all of which included mass terrorism that broke out after repressive measures by the state.  Look at Mexico, or Peru, or even the anti-globalization protests.  The Weather underground in the US, the Berkley demonstrators,   even Britain in the Blitz--being attacked almost always leads to retaliation, whether the victims of repression (such as the death penalty) are "good" or "bad".

Further, all reliable studies suggest that the death penalty does not deter crime.  When Canada eliminated the death penalty, for example, violent crime fell substansively.  Crime is a reaction to a sense of powerlessness (at least if you believe all the reliable studies ever produced), even if unjustified, and violent crime falls in periods of greater equality.

Isn't every murder, robbery, and action wich causes terror wrong?

Absolutely not.  Terrorism is about money, power, and fanaticism.  Your question seems to imply there is justification for terrorist acts such as this one, I couldn't disagree more.  In  my opinion groups who resort to terrorist acts give up any claim to anything.

If that's the case, what about the terror that began the American revolution?  Or the French Revolutionary terrorists?  What about the Russian anarchists of 1910, or the more recent struggles of the FARC and Zapatistas in South/Central America.  All of these struggles began with terrorism/civil warfare.

Are you saying the American revolution was meaningless?

Terror ALWAYS has an interest in social change, whether that change is good or bad.  If you actually want to combat these groups (which people who just want to kill them seem to have little interest in doing), you have to understand them, and not just ignore them or act as if they're completely irrational.  Terror will continue to grow unless you can address the structural conditions of international inequality.

Of course, you're entiteled to disagree with me, but if you're right, we should watch the swift international response and see if terrorism ends after that (like it was going to after the "War on Terror).  If you end terrorism that way in the next, say, 20 years, I will personally mail you 5000 dollars and an official apology.  But if terrorism rises through the strategy of active warfare, then maybe it's time we tried another method.
 

What does it matter, weither someone kills 20, or 200 people?

I suppose it would be important to at least 180 folks and their families, friend, coworkers, etc.

Agreed.

One, it's definitely not going to deter anybody who's serious about the whole terrorism thing.

I disagree.  There are a finite number of terrorists, so if you find out who they are and kill them all, including their leadership and supporters you will put a serious dent in their desire to continue.   Perhaps if  death is not a deterent to such people that penalty is not harsh enough?  

See my above notes.

But in terms of practicality, the idea of "kill them all" (which is EXACTLY the terrorist's attitude) is just not do-able.  You say kill all the teorrorists and their leader--well, on the one hand, that shows a very ironic disregard for the lives of the non-terrorist families, friends and loved-ones of the terrorists.  Remember, terrorists are not magic demons, but have relationships of their own, children, etc.  You kill these terrorists, what are their families going to do?  Children?  Probably join the cause.  But that's okay, right, because you can just kill them too.  And their friends and families.  All the while it's in the name of "respect for human life.

And then how do you reach the leader?  Bush (whose family has long had economic deals with the bin laden family) has still not found bin laden.  He found Sadam Hussein, a professed enemy of bin laden, and a national leader, but certainly not laden himself.  So how do you expect them to find all the terrorist leaders?

Further, according to the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI and most other intelligence services, these groups act by a "leaderless cell" system, which means they all share an ideology, and do not need direct leadership.  This is the official information of international intelligence--I know some people think they know otherwise without any evidence, but if you trust the best minds in the country, you will agree that killing the leaders will have no detrimental effect to these groups at all.  In fact, if you read national reports, and history, you will know that it is likely to create "martyrs."  If you die in a holy war, you go to heaven, after all.

It is a problem when people believe they can kill an idea.  An ideology, however odious and terrible, is not killable.  In Viet Nam and throughout east asia, Communism was the evil idea that the US government (against the will of the majority of US people) tried to stamp out through murder.  It failed.  Because you can't kill and idea.  An idea travels as long as there is one person on the earth who can speak or write.   Even then, ideas persist.  You can't kill an ideology, you can only affect the structural conditions.

But if you're right, and we do kill all the arabs and that solves terrorism, I will personally send you money and an apology.

Two, it will add to the group's ability to pretend it's fighting against oppression.

Such groups and individuals have already prersuaded themselves of this anyway.  In the case of radical islam they have been brain washing their children for half a century o motre to blame everything on the Jew and the West.   They can only possible benefit can be achieved if the rest of us buy into that proposition.  

I assume you have studied radical islam and sociology of those countries extensively, say 3 years reading the holy texts, and another three observing in those countries, because otherwise, these would just be racist assumptions with no logical or empirical backing.

Three, it contributes to turning the judicial branch into institutionalized vengeance, which in my opinion is very much the wrong way to go.

One could say the same for any form of goverment imposed sanction.  

Yes...  so...

Most of the rest of this "debate" is repetition, so I'm snipping it for brevity's sake.

In such cases as this, it brings no added security to the remaining population, and it doesn't bring the dead back to life.  There's no point other than spite.

Let's suppose your family's entire life savings are stolen by a criminal.    
Further, let's suppose this criminal spends the money in a non-recoverable manner.   Should we not bring this guy to justice because we can't recover the damages.    Suppose the penalty for such a crime is only 6 months in jail and others are not deterred by this penalty.  What would you suggest?  By your above logic you would reduce or just elimiate the penalties all together.

Okay, but we're not talking about money, we're talking about people's lives.  And if the sanctions aren't working, increasing them isn't going to help.  It's like if you can't get a square peg into a round hole, so you just hit it harder.   Even if you do get that peg in, you're going to split the wood.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind -Gandhi.

Actually the last news report I heard disagrees with this notion.  Apparently a suspicious van was found abandoned nearby containing Arabic stuff, and also authorities noted that the ETA has yet to claim responsibility

And neither have Islamic fundamentalists.  Why assume that they're the bad guy just because there was a van with some arabic sayings?  Remember Oklahoma city?  The unibomber?

IMHO, I think one needs to think about how terrorism can be eliminated before rejecting other proposed solutions.  Suggest something better that get's the job done.        

Perhaps if we thought about all the methods that have failed (such as warfare), and all the methods that haven't been attempted (such as listening to the cause of terror) then we might be closer to a real solution.