Madrid Bombing Probe Finds No Al-Qaida Link

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by bushleaguer, Mar 12, 2006.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. jyris

    jyris

    Messages:
    568
    "We" (Americans) didn't even participate in the Crusades, so "we" can't "continue" to meddle. And what were the Crusades, anyway? Weren't they an attempt by Christians (the Catholic Church, actually) to RECOVER lands that they (or other Christians, i.e., the Byzantine Empire) had ruled, but which Muslim "aggression" took away from them? As to this issue not driving Ottoman (later Turkish) policy, just look at Cyprus.

    Look, Western Europe has largely gotten over the Crusades -- like, centuries ago. Most Americans frankly don't know jack shit about European or Middle Eastern history, and care even less. So, with the recent oil discoveries in Mexico, let's just annex THAT country (half of them are here, anyway) until we find a better energy alternative. Then the brutal Arab dictatorships can fade into the insignificance that they enjoyed for centuries, and which they richly deserve for the future.
  2. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    This is the crux of the policy debate. The Bushites think that the Islamic extremists want to kill us and/or convert us. The other side thinks they want to be left alone. It's an important debate.

    Let's look at the recent "cartoon" protests. The Islamic population in Europe has been growing for a very long time and as the European Intelligencia has purged Christianity from the public square, there is certainly an open door for a cultural change. The cartoons were published in Europe, but the protest was orchestrated world wide. So in this case, would you not agree that the Islamists are "meddling" with our own, nealry holy to us, freedom of speech principles?

    Or as Aretha put it, whose zoomin who?
  3. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    I they care so much about the Palestinians or a country that settled on arab land.... then why did Jordan and Syria slaughter more Palestinians than Israel ever did in the late 60's/early 70's?

    They no care about the Palestinians... it's just a convenient excuse. And its when people in this country start buying into those excuses and vilifying this country and Israel that they get exactly what they want.


    And if they no like a country that settled on Arab land, then why didn't these countries or people have a beef when the French and Brits controlled most of their territories after WWI?
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2006
  4. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    They resent us for the crusades because we continue to meddle in that part of the world. I supposed it is like throwing salt on an open wound. If we didn't throw our weight around in the middle east, didn't blindly support a country that settled on Arab land, etc. I really don't think they would be thinking much about the crusades. I don't know that the memory of the crusades drove much of the decision making process of the Ottoman Empire.

    Whether they would leave us alone entirely though I cannot say. All peoples have a tendency to expand, so what would come in the future if we were not currently involved in the middle east I do not know.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2006
  5. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    They resent us for the Crusades. And if you think they would leave us alone if we stayed in our hemisphere, then that explains your view quite well. The extremists want revenge for something that happened a long long time ago and they want to convert us or kill us. If we disengage, they will work on converting other muslims to their view. We must be involved.
  6. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    1) Engage the enemy where he lives ....

    2) Transform the governments and cultures where they live ...

    That's the plan.

    Item one is evident in the wars we have fought on behalf of Kuwait and Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Item two is evident in the democracies and democratic elections we have supported in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. And I maintain that the election in Palestine was a step in the right direction.

    And I disagree with all the Bush detractors. I think the Bush vision has been bold. If this works, he should get high marks. If not ......
  7. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    If the only thing we were doing was killing terrorists, then you would have a point, but it should be clear that we are trying to change the culture of the Middle East while we are killing terrorists. If the politicians in Iraq can form a government and build stability, that will be a big step.
  8. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    Bin Laden didn't have any issues when every president since Hoover who sent american support and supplies into the mideast to build all those oil rigs, or when Reagan sent american special OP's and US wepons into Afghanistan to help BL and the Mujahadeen run the then infidel soviets out of town. But when #41 sent US troops to Saudi Arabia to do the same with Sadam on a larger and not so secret scale, he went ape shit.


    My point is there is no absolute rational as to why BL or most Islamic fanatics hate us. Thats why they're fanatics.... If you saw some putz on the subway talking to himself, would you attempt to reason with him? And I'll bet dollars and donuts that the subway nut ain't nuts enough to strap a bomb to his ass.

    And Israel could be an island in the Bahamas and never having killed a single Palestinian, and the Arabs would still hate us for supporting them.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2006
  9. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    US foreign policy, which is adversely affected by our dependence on oil. We wouldn't give two shits about half of what happens over there if it wasn't for oil, and we'd leave them alone to work out their own self-determination. As it is, we meddle, they resent it and attack us. Anybody who thinks these guys are just born hating the US does not know their history. Anyone who does not understand why they are indoctrinated against the US does not understand that they want to determine the course of their own life, just as we do. Attempts to demonize the enemy are as old as the hills, but in the end are useless at solving real-world problems.

    I love this country enough to criticize it when I think it is wrong.

    I don't claim that this is all Americas FAULT but I do believe our foreign policy is our RESPONSIBILITY
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2006
  10. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    If you listen to Bin-Laden it was Bush 41 when they stationed American troops on Saudi soil during/after Desert Storm. That plus US support for Isreal.
  11. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
    I answered that already.

    U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
  12. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725

    I agree fucking completely and have been saying much the same all over these threads.


    My dad said thirty years ago that Islamic fanatics reminded him of the Japanese during WWII. When Palestinians started blowing themselves up 30 ago years and the world was shocked at this new form of combat, my dad couldn't figure out why anyone was shocked by this and why no one ever compared them to the kamikazi's who did the same a few decades earlier. The Japanese were not to be rationed with nor could they ever be convinced to negotiate or surrender short of showing them their futute annihilation by dropping those two bombs. He fought them, he ran up those beaches and crawled thru those jungles and looked them in the eyes. He said the world was in for a rude awakening if the Islamic fanatics ever spread their policy of hate and terror beyond the mid east and picking on Israel. He said there would be no negotiating with them for one because unlike the Japanese where there was a govt in charge of things, with the Islamic fanatics they are on their own and that the world which had become soft would be too unwilling to do what was needed to be done with them as was done with the Japanese when there were no other options left.

    Interesting thing while we're on the subject... a few days after 9/11 I took my dad downtown with a friend of mine who had total access to the area and as soon as my dad stepped out of the car and took one wiff he said it reminded him of Saipan when the US troops burned thousands of Japanese dead on the beaches. That was the first time in 30 year he said he had flashbacks to his days in the Pacific.


    As far as changing our policy towards foreign oil... Not in our lifetime unless we change the way the govt works. For one there should be term limits on senators and reps. Actually we can do without the house... too fucking many to watch and too many are stealing and scheming, thats where you always find the thieves. Limit them to two per state and two terms and thats it. The fact Ted Kennedy and others from both sides are in office almost as long as fucking Castro is ludicrous. Two terms like with the president and get the fuck out. A very wise man once told me... "they hang around too long and they learn how to steal too well".
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2006
  13. bushleaguer

    bushleaguer The CDC

    Messages:
    684
    Don't get me wrong, I think Clinton did a terrible job on that front. But I don't see this as a democrat vs. republican thing. I'm just sick of the partisan politics. Today some head Democrat (not Dean, someone else) was unveiling their platform for the mid-term elections, and one of their issues was impeaching Bush. This is nothing more than political payback for the impeachment of Clinton, and it will be a colossial waste of time and money.

    I'm not a republican, and I think Bush has done a poor job as a president. But I don't think he has been a total failure, and I think in a democracy that people should support an elected leader even if it wasn't the person they voted for. That's the irony about democratic elections....you get your vote but you have to live with the person who wins the vote. People have to give the elected leader a chance, or nothing ever gets done. I can't stand watching the State of the Union address and smiles and frowns on either side of the isle. I hope we can get some third party people in there who run on what they believe in. I mean....is it so bad to have a person run who is a card-carrying NRA member and is pro-life???

    But I digress....I just think that we need a new tact in regards to the war on terror because we are fighting an ideology, not a set group that can be eradicated and that's that. The thing we can do right now is end our dependance on foreign oil, and we could accomplish that quicker than the timeline that Bush suggested. We need politicians who don't reside in the back pockets of the oil companies (this includes both republicans and democrats).
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2006
  14. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    No you're going to compare 8 months with no attacks to 8 years with several.

    Look... Bush should have done more, he should be doing more now. But regardless.... it's still more than Clinton did which is when most of the attacks occured and AQ was still in its infancy, not so wide spread and beatable...... and he did nothing.
  15. bushleaguer

    bushleaguer The CDC

    Messages:
    684
    Well, I was focusing on our efforts in Iraq, but you make some good points.

    I disagree, however, with pointing the finger at Clinton. O.K., the Clinton administraton did nothing about all of the terrorist attacks it suffered while in charge. So is your man Bush any better? And what I mean by that is this - if Bush was so wise in regards to the threat of terrorism, why didn't he declare a "war on terror" the minute he stepped into office? What did Bush do those 8 months he was in office before 9/11/01? What did he do in August when he was handed a memo that stated that Al-Qaida was planning major attacks on U.S. soil?
    Nothing.
  16. fumpton

    fumpton

    Messages:
    3,316
    not virtually nothing. They did launch a few tomahawks at some empty tents in the desert once. That really showed those terrorists.
  17. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725


    Whats your definition of "working well"?

    Last stats I recall seeing and these are about a year or so old were between 20,000-30,000 AQ, Taliban or various terrorists and enemy combatants killed or captured since 9/11 (and these numbers DO NOT reflect Iraq)... Including several high ranking AQ leaders as well as two of the primary planners of the 9/11 attacks, Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed .

    A thwarted terror attack on a Los Angles office building (Library Tower/US Bank Tower) which resulted in several arrests of Southeast Asian al Qaeda operatives who were in on the plan.

    Numerous arrests and captured terrorists thru-out the US, including at least one busted terror cell in upstate NY.

    Numerous cases of shutting down dummy organizations and charities that funded AQ as well as other terrorist organizations.

    Not a single terror attack on US soil since 9/11 nor any non military related terror attacks on any American interests overseas (ie... US cole or Embassy bombings).




    I guess to you that ain't much.... but its a hell of a fucking lot more than the Clinton administration did... which btw suffered several different attacks on American targets under their watch and did virtually nothing.
  18. bushleaguer

    bushleaguer The CDC

    Messages:
    684
    So what is the answer? I'm not saying that sarcastically....I don't pretend to have the answer. I'd like to know what others think we should do, because what our government is doing now doesn't seem to be working that well.
  19. bushleaguer

    bushleaguer The CDC

    Messages:
    684

    I was only reacting to your earlier insistence that this group from Madrid was inspired by Osama Bin Laden - therefore there is a link of sorts to Al-Qaida.
    All I'm trying to say is what you have said here.....it doesn't matter if this group was linked in any way to Al-Qaida or not. What this article shows is that Al-Qaida does not need to be pulling the strings for acts like this to happen. We are not waging a "war" against a certain group of people, we are fighting an ideology.
    I agree....muslim extremists are muslim extremists. The problem, as I see it, is that there are 1 billion muslims all over the world, and if the ideology spreads so will the violence. My issues with the Bush administration are based on past comments such as "We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" and "The terrorists are showing their faces now and are being drawn into Iraq." They speak as if there is a set number of "terrorists" and once we kill them the problem is over. This is narrow minded thinking that is far from reality.
    I don't pretend to have the solution to the entire problem, but I think Bush is onto something when he says "America is addicted to oil." Of course this has been known for a long time now, but I think we would do very well to fix that problem. If we could put a man on the moon, then we can put an engine into our automobiles that runs on alternative fuel sources. If the government can lay down emissions regulations to car manufacturers, then they can mandate this as well. Not having such a big interest in the Middle East is a great place to start. I don't think it's a final solution, but it's a start.
  20. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    Allow me to answer what I know is coming....

    Our policy of backing a terrorist govt in Israel.