Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Prosecutors had pressed for a murder charge to be brought against al Qaeda cell leader Imad Yarkas for helping the 9/11 hijackers, and sought sentences of 74,000 years on behalf of the victims of the attacks. But the Spanish court only gave him 27. After that he'll be able free to recruit and indoctrinate more would be terrorists for al qaeda.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4282764.stm
from BBC news




Edit: Subject changed since the poster spits in the face of all Spanish members on this board. /jarmo

Unless someone is Spanish I am not sure how one should comment on this.? I know nothing of the law there, nor how the sentencing guidelines work.? I don't know what evidence they had against him, nor whether being guilty of conspiracy also makes one guilty of all crimes in furtherance of, or foreseeable, from the conspiracy.? Outside of such info, the title to the thread is unwarranted.

Should he have gotten more, of course if he actually conspired.? But whether it was the court's fault or whether it was terrible laws is beyond my, and I would guess most people on this boards, level of knowledge to place an opinion on.

Giving a conspirator of 9/11 the benefit of the doubt is pathetic.

Did you read the fucking post?  My gosh . . .

I said I don't know whether it was the Spanish court's fault for this or whether it was terrible laws.  A judge is supposed to follow laws, not make them up on their own.  To claim that the court spit in the face of 911 victims is pretty strong words.  Absent any knowledge of the laws, I think it is unwarranted.

I was referring to the Spanish legal system, not your post.

I apologize then :hihi:  Sorry.

You quoted me when you wrote it, so I was misled.   :peace:

A question:

Since the act, itself, took place on US Soil...how does the Spanish court system have "jurisdiction"?? I wonder if that's why only the conspiracy charge and membership charge held up...it's the only incident's that actually occurred IN SPAIN.? Therefore, they were the only charges the Spanish Court could hear.

I think the guy should be extradited to the US to stand trial on the conspiracy to commit murder, etc.

He'd likely think 74000 years in prison would look good.

Man, some of you don't really have any idea of what's going on. The reason why I don't normally post in al the politics related thread is because pretty much every post there is either stupid or has been posted 20 times. There are a few members though whose posts are worth reading. They know who they are...

Let me shed some light here.

First of all, you should change that title. It's offensive and far away from the truth, not too mention, your own interpretation of such article.

Ok, some of you need to know that the reason why this guy has been taken to court in Spain is because he belonged to an Al-Qaida branch that had been operating in Spain for a while now. Yes, the attacks were aimed to the US, but as some of you may know, the planning of such attacks was held in Spain.

Our law system is different than America's. We, for one, don't support death penalty and don't have lifetime penalties. The longest penalty for any criminal is 30 years. So it doesn't really matter if the prosecutor seeks sentences of 74,000 years when they will get 30 max. I know, I'm not particulary too happy with our system, but then again, legal systems aren't flawless.

One more thing, do your homework before posting. Spanish authorities have arrested many terrorists linked to the 9-11 attacks. More than any other country in the world. That and our support to the US war against Irak cost 197 lives in 2004 when 3 bombs went off in Madrid.

On a side note. This is why these political threads don't ever appeal to me. This one did cause I had to clarify a few facts since I'm spanish, but some of you would just post an article an make up a whole different story out of it.

Ahhhh, some answers.

Thanks Ignatius.? That clears up a lot!

Gotta love facts, eh?

Well he might yes.

I doubt the person who started the thread do though.

Thanks for the info.

Again, I am not sure how conspiracy works in Spain.  If you are guilty of conspiracy, are you guilty of the underlying crime and all crimes in furtherance thereof?  The article claims that the prosecutors were trying to pile on years for each individual that was killed.  That is a very technical legal argument that goes toward statutory interpretation and the sentencing guidelines. 

Do you know the answer to either of these questions Ignatius?

It's offensive that a legal system exists, which would not put away for life an al Qaeda cell leader linked to the killing of 2,973 people.


The least they could have done is given him the maximum 30 years.


Could that be because terrorists find it advantageous to do their planning in Spain, and more terrorists operate there? In light of this ruling, I can see why Mr. Yarkas would choose to operate from Spain. 27 years from now he'll be free to recruit more suicide bombers for Al Qaeda


This says it all right here! Never mind the fact that bin Laden considered Spain an Islamic apostate that should be re-conquered by Islam long before the war in Iraq started. No! It's Spain's initial support for the war in Iraq that caused the Madrid bombing ::) The fact that you would blame the war in Iraq for the 3/11 bombing tells me all I need to know about your view point.

the guy will be 69 years old when he is released...the threat pretty much eliminated...you speak like 27 years is a couple of years...27 years is a hell of a long time...or are you envisaging that you will still be looking for terrorists and invading other countries 27 years from now?

It may be a long time, but the man conspired to kill 2,000 people.  Those killed are gone forever.  Should someone like that ever be let out?  I don't think so.  What is the age of Bin Laden or Al Zawhiri?  They seem pretty old.

there was not enough evidence to convict him of any murders...the people directly responsible for the murders were on the planes...conspiracy is one crime and murder is far more serious...you should also consider that the prosecutor requested access to another al queda operative who was in US custody but was refused by the Bush administration...the Bush administration obviously not interested in yarkas being convicted of said crimes or they would have given access to him without question hmmm...

Charles Manson did not personally kill anyone, but he's in prison for life.

Isn't is interesting that the same person who makes excuses for Mr. Yarkas not being sent away for life, somehow manages to pin the blame for this on Bush as well?

i make no excuses...27 years, my opinion, slightly lenient, should have been around 35-40 years...i pin no blame on bush for any crimes apart from hindering an investigation into those conspiracy charges...you have to have all the facts,and that was not true of this particular investigation...

In the United States if you are conspire to commit a crime and the crime is committed, then you are also guilty of the crime.  Here, murder.  The Spanish system must not have the same conspiracy laws.

Yah, I am sure that is the case.  I am sure the Bush Administration wants him loose. ::)

A charge that he was convicted with.? Here the crime is not on the Bush Administration, the Spanish Judge, nor the Spanish prosecutors.? Here, the crime is on the Spanish legal system which seems to have too soft of sentencing for criminals.

Ok.. I could post a lot of offensive things here but I won't.



Maybe the system hasn't been tried with this kind of cases before?

But I guess you're the expert on Spanish law.



Funny how you seem to claim the war and the Madrid bombings had nothing to do with each other. Is there proof that you're right? How about the first London bombings? I guess those weren't caused by the war either?





/jarmo

One does not have to be and expert on Spanish law to see the injustice in this inappropriately lenient ruling.


What do you have to say about all the al qaeda terrorists acts before the war in Iraq? Keep flaunting your blame America first mentality. Show your true colors.

Popmetal...

See the reason I replied to this thread to begin with was so I wouldn't have to do it again. You again proved to have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

You started the thread by saying Spanish legal system spitted on the families of the 911 victims because Imad Yarkas didn't get a lifetime penalty. ?You made it sound like we had no respect for the victims who passed in NY and DC. And that's not true. You gotta see the big picture. We are doing as much as everybody else to stop terror, as a matter fact - as I mention ?earier - we've done way much more than anybody else. So that should give you an idea about how much we care about the issue. I know you are upset because Yarkas didn't get lifetime, but we have our law here and that's not going to change only because Americans will feel better if he got lifetime. I said, and I will do it again, 30 years is the most any criminal get in this country. If you don't like it, fine, start a thread about it. I'll make sure I start another one about how the US is the only "civilized" country where criminals get death penalties.

Saying Al-Qaida planned the attack in Spain because the terrorists find it adventageous is stupid. I mean, it's not like we train them here, did we? or wait a minute, you guys did. America trained the terrorists who killed 3,000 people so don't get me started on that.

For your information, Spain has lived with terrorism long before you were born. It may be something new to you, but the bloodbath created in this country directly by terrorism goes back to the late 60's early 70's. Our problem though has been domestic - with the execption of the Madrid bombings - and although France has helped us a lot to stop our share or terrorism, we still suffer from it, alone. Again, try to see the big picture.

I'm not gonna say that I'd disagree with you there, but then again, our system is not going to change because of this incident.

Like I said earlier, every system have flaws, even the American legal system, but that's not the subject right now, is it?

Islamic terrorists see time differently than we do.  They view 27 years as a lot shorter time than we do.

And, yes, 27 years from now we will still be looking for terrorists and invading countries that harbor them.  At least I hope to god we are.  This "war on terror" is like dieting.  As soon as you let up, you will revert back to being fat. 

popmetal was only trying to state that he thinks a that this guy getting only 27 years is an injustice....and it is.  Hopefully he will be buttfucked in prison and then shanked. 

And I'll say it again, the least you could have done was given the maximum in accordance with YOUR system so that it won't appear like a slap in the face to the victims' families. It wasn't me that made it sound like you have no respect for the victims. Your legal system did that by not giving him the 30 years it considers maximum.

As for the death penalty in the US, I'm against it and I agree with you one that.

And stop saying "you have no idea what you are talking about." It's sounds like a cheap excuse for not having real arguments against me.


This is such a blatant and base Strawman Fallacy, I won't even say anything else.


I'm looking at teh big picture and it looks like you'll be living with terrorism for a long time to come with such a lenient legal system.

The American legal system definately has its flaws.  One prime example was the leniency tha child molesters were getting under the the laws of many states.  We are, however, attempting to change this.  Hopefully, Spain will do the same.  Sometimes it takes cases like this to illuminate flaws in the system.  I am sure Spain will fix it.

I'm gonna tell you one more thing.

Think before you post next time. Don't get involved in discussions where you have no idea what you are talking about. You know nothing about Spain, so keep your opinions to the Bush threads where you seem to fit a little bit more...

Is that supposed to be a threat?? :confused:? ?:rofl:? And are you are intentionally trying to sound like a chauvinist who can't take criticism of his country?

If you know so much, surely you can come up with better than "you have no idea what you are talking about." Explain to me how it isn't a slap in the face of the 9/11 victims' families when an al qaeda cell leader linked to the planning of 9/11 is not given the 30 years your legal system deems maximum punishment?

I agree that people should not comment on stuff they know nothing about; however, I see people do it everyday on this board about the United States. ?Everyone presumes to know so much about our country enough to ridicule it.

I fuckin' love you guys.  It's good to know that we have some people with practical and realistic common sense.  I laughed out loud for two minutes after reading your reply charity case.

Wow! Still using the "into the future" argument? I love it ! :hihi:

I guess Bush's war on terror won't be that successful after all eh? I mean, still invading countries after all those years......yikes!

I wouldn't go that far....

The war in Iraq is not the reason why Al Qaida hates the west, it goes way beyond that. The shit started several decades ago and only in recent history has these fringe groups gained worldwide attention.

Please don't say they hate us for our freedom.

Please spare us at least that line.....

Well, maybe it would help if you understood how the Spanish system works?





Well, as far as I remember they weren't attacking Madrid and London before the war.




Have you ever thought that maybe the maximum penalty is for other crimes and not for planning attacks? I know it makes no sense to you since you keep going on and on about spit, but I suspect the laws were written before international terrorism existed.


Sure, it would've been nice if he was sent away for life. But that seems impossible in a country where life sentences don't exist.


Oh, and since when are you the spokesperson for the victims' families?




/jarmo

the average age of a middle easterner/ north african is about 60, 15 years less than the western world average age...i love the way your clock works....can i have one lmfao


quite amusing since the fat ones are the countries that america are invading and not the ones with muscles...and is certainly a great analogy appropriate for bullies...which country is next? luxembourg?  :hihi:

I think you missed both points entirely.  The concept of time in the Islamic world is quite different from that of the fast food, got-to-have-it-now world of the US.  We basically kicked the terorists asses out of Afganistan after 911.  It was a one sided ass whippin if there ever was one.  What have they done to retaliate?....not much.  Is it because they are not capable anymore or because they are planning and waiting for the right opportunity?  See if they had a western mentality they would have tried to strike us by now to get back at the ass whipping they took in Afganistan.  Butg they don't think like that.  If they have to wait 10 - 20 years to exact revenge, then that works just fine for them.  See my point?

As for the dieting analogy, it is a perfect analogy for the war on terror.  I'm not sure how the concept of a war that will last for many decades is hard to grasp?  Look at the enemy.  He has no country and does not operate like an army.  we will be fighting terror organizations forever (yes slc, even if we have a liberal president).

well sorry for missing the forst point but since it doesnt make much sense then i guess it doesnt matter too much...10-20 years to exact revenge...funny, isnt there plenty of fighting going in in iraq?...and there have still been many killed in afghanistan of recent times...i think this 10-20 years thing is all in your head and is certainly not present in reality

such a dramatic statement..."fighting terror organisations forever"...as if you are the only one who fights terrorist organisations and as if it is just a recent thing...and yes i do grasp your concept such as it is...this "war" is doomed to failure

What is it I don't understand about the Spanish justice system that precludes me from commenting on it? Please enlighten me ....


And Europe did not reject a constitution before the war either ::)
What your trying to say does not follow. Islamic terrorists had declared war on the West long before the war in Iraq.


When did I say I was a spokesperson for the victims families? Will you stop with the cheap Strawman attacks? Just because I'm not a spokesperson for the victims does not mean I don't have the right to comment on this. Same thing goes for not being from Spain.

If the maximum penalty is reserved for other crimes, why did the prosecution, which DOES know about Spanish law, feel that it was justified to ask for much more than the maximum?

I believe that when Al Qeada claimed responsibility for the Madrid and London bombing they said it was for their support on the war on terror and in Iraq. 

Look at the challenges these terrorists have had on the US law system so why wouldn't this be the same for other countries? 

If you want to take their word for it, I guess that's your right. But do you honestly think, they would have not carried out those attacks had there been no war in Iraq? The only thing that would have been different is the excuse.


Actually that's a good point, I'm not thrilled about the US justice system either.

Maybe if you had known what you were told about the length of the sentences they have, you wouldn't have had to expect impossible sentences?





Sure, but isn't it weird that the attacks in Madrid and London happened after the war had started and in countries who were supporting USA?

Maybe that's just some weird coincidence. You must be pretty sure that no terrorist has used the war as another reason to attack Madrid and London right?




Strawman? Is that the new "in" word among you Americans?

I see you using it quite frequently.

You said the sentence was a spit in their face. Certainly to make that kind of statement about the victims' families would require you to have some kind of background information on how the victims' families really feel about this?





Sure, you can comment on anything you want. But when you don't know all the facts and speak out against a whole nation in order to make you look more American (because that's what it looks to me like you're doing), then it can make you look bad.

I'm pretty sure the US courts and legal system have spit in many victims' families over the years. But maybe it's easier to attack countries that aren't currently supporting your war?



You tell me, you seem to know the sentence was a spit in the face of the victims' families.

I thought the prosecution side always wanted more than the maximum sentence. Besides, maybe they asked for it to see what the praxis would be for future cases.

I told you, a longer sentence would've been better. But I'm not gonna start calling Spain and the Spanish members of this board names because of that. I don't know how their system works.

I'm sure they had a fair trial and came to the conclusion that this is what they could do.





/jarmo

The prosecutor is Spanish and knows the system better than you or I, and it was he who called for an "impossible sentence." Are you now going to argue he doesn't have the right to say anything as well ???

Either way, the 30 years is not impossible, Mr. Yarkas didn't even get that.


Another is the keyword.


No logic whatsoever here. One does not have to have to have "background information on how the victims' families really feel about this" in order to make the observation that in his/her opinion the court was disrespectful to the families.



More anti-American bigotry. This has nothing to do with 'my' war. If it was an Italian or British or American court, I'd feel the same way.

And I did NOT "speak out against a whole nation," only against their court and legal system. Can you try actually READING what I said.

If anyone is speaking against a whole nation, it's the hypocrite who just said looking more American can make you look bad.



You don't know?

If I shouldn't talk about this because I don't know everything about the Spanish legal system, neither should you, and you just self-defeated your own defense of the Spanish court's decision ::)

The court thought it wasn't possible and funny how you ignored my guess that the prosecutors always tend to ask for longer sentences than they'll get.





I guess it makes you feel better about the war when you can tell yourself it wasn't the main reason for the attacks?




If you said XXXXX is like a spit on the face of YYYYY, then maybe it's a good thing to know what YYYYY thinks before speaking on behalf of them. You don't know.

You had to drag the families into all this instead of just saying you were disappointed by the sentence.




Anti-American bigotry? You gotta be fucking kidding me.





Oh, and if I said "The US legal systen and laws suck" I'm sure you wouldn't be calling that "Anti-American bigotry" would you?
 




Funny coming from you. Read below.






You didn't understand what I said or you didn't want to.

It seems like you want to show everybody how American you are by attacking anybody who's even questioning the war or those who opposite it. That's the impression I get from reading some of your posts....



I didn't say you couldn't talk. I wish you'd pay attention.


I believe the words I used were:




Read it and think about it until you understand what I said.


I said you can comment on anything you want. But don't be surprised if somebody thinks you're wrong and that you're out of line by saying things like "Spanish court spits in the faces of victims' families" when you do.




/jarmo

It's a "guess" by your own admission, what am I supposed to say?

The prosecutor asked for 74,000 years, but didn't even get the 30 years court considers maximum. That's for a guy involved in the planning of a terrorist attack that resulted in the death of 2,973 people. That's an outrage! Anyone with some common sense can see that not giving him at least the 30 years is a slap in the face of the victims!


You have absolutely no grasp whatsoever of geopolitics if you can't see that Islamic extremists who hate the West had declared war on all of us long before the war in Iraq even started, and will launch attacks on all of us regardless of what wars we fight or not. Sure, they'll say the bombings in Madrid and London are a direct response to the war in Iraq. They say that because they can sore political points against the US by turning people like you against America. It doesn't mean the bombings wouldn't have happened anyway. What was the cause behind the 1995 bombings in France? Their hate of the West doesn't change, only their excuses change. If people like you would only see that the radicals who want to blow themselves up in the name of Islam are your real enemy and not America ...



It's common sense. Do you think the families will be satisfied that this monster will be free in 27 years to recruit more suicide bombers? ::)


Well, if you put it so childishly (i.e. "laws suck") I might, but if you criticize the it for valid reasons,? no, I wouldn't. There are many things I don't like about the US legal system myself.


Your impression is wrong. The spanish justice system has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. If you're talking about other threads, I'm not attacking anybody who questioning the war. It is usually America that gets attacked for the war in Iraq and I defend the war because I believe it was strategically the right thing to do. This whole idea that I'm doing it to 'show everyone how American I am' is ridiculous. And so is insinuating that it is "American" to attack everyone who questions the war. Many Americans are against the war, in fact right now the majority do not support the war.


America gets savaged on a daily basis on this message board. But if somebody says something negative about another country, even if it's as warranted as this topic is, all of you immediately get offended. I didn't criticize Spain! I don't say anything against its people! In fact I would guess there's a good amount of Spaniards who feel the same way I do about this decision. It doesn't mean the legal system does not deserve criticism. And I stand by what I said: it was a slap in the face of the victims and their families. The least they could have done was given this monster the 30 years they consider maximum.

I actually agree with most of what you wrote Pop.? However, I still think you could have chose the title of the thread a little more tactfully.

Jarmo, popmetal has not yet in this thread attacked the citizens of spain; only their legal system.  You state in the inital post that he spit in the faces of spanish members of this board and were "bothered" enough by it to alter it.  I'm suprised that you aren't "bothered" by the fact that the spanish legal system did not place the maximum penalty under their law for a man who aided in the death of 3000 innocent civilians to agree that there is a problem with that.  I understand that Spain's system only allows for a 30 year maximum ( If I found him I would use methods worse than death or life in prison - "eye for an eye" you know?) but they didn't utilize it.  In America we have consecutive life sentences and the death penalty.  If I aided some yahoo in the bombing of Stockholm and 3000 swedes died and the American legal system only sentenced me to one life sentence, don't you think you'd be a lil outraged?  Would you alter the posts of the swedish member who said that the American system would be problematic and a slap in the face of every Swede who died in that tragedy?

Well, I never attacked the american people only its government but I can't even count the number of time I was labelled anti-american on this board ! So here you go !
And by the way I find it a bit offensive to say that the spanish court system spits on the victims family ... do you have information we don't ? you made a survey ?

I'm not gonna quote every line Popmetal typed cause it'll be impossible to reply then...

It's funny how pretty much everybody else found the original title of the thread offensive but you two (GNA and popmetal).

Anyway, I don't know where you get your sources Popmetal, but though I could give you mine. On March 13th 2004 a note was sent to one of the most important newspapars in Spain, such note suggested in order to find evidence on who was behind the bombs that went off in Madrid, there was a video tape hidden in a trash can in - let's call it -"X" street located in the corner "Y". Such Videotape had just been recorded and it showed a member of Al-Qaida (Morrocon branch more accurately) confirming the acts. This was done right before our presidential elections by the way. The voice said? "these attacks are a consequence of your support to the US in the war against Iraq". Full Stop.

There is no other? reason why we were attacked, same as London a few months ago. So don't be saying you know somthing else we don't. Our governments made the decission to stick by the US regardless the opinion of 95% of the people in Spain who disagreed with such decission. I'm not blaming the US for what happened, I'm blaming our government to stick by a decission our people was totally against.

Another thing, what's the big deal with 27 or 30 years? Yes the prosecutor asked for 74,000 but he knew he was gonna get 30 max anyway. And as I already mentioned, this guy was arrested by our authoirties because he planned in Spanish soil. Hadn't had been for us, many terrorists linked to the 911 attacks wouldn't have been arrested. So consider yourself happy we have been efficient enough to put many of the responsibles behind bars, otherwise they could be planning another attack to your country or any other country.

The plan is to stop terror, not to discuss whether a criminal gets 27 or 30 years in jail. Sure you want lifetime penalties, but unfortunately for you, that option is not available here as you already know. Why 27 insteasd of 30? well, I'm no a lawyer and I don't know the laws regarding conspirancy and planning to kill, but I guess the judge didn't find him as responsible as Mohammed Atta who was one of the pilots.? Like I said, I don't know how the conspiracy laws work in Spain, but I do know you get 30 years max if you kill someone. Yarkas was responsible of the terrible crime of planning to kill so many innocent lives, but as you were talking about it earlier, the keyword there is planning. He did not kill personally those 3,000 people. That is my interpretation.

By the way, this is not an anti-american cruzade. Some of you tend to think we are all here to critize America. I can speak for myself and say that I haven't been involved in any political thread involving America. I don't hate America, actually I really like it there. I lived there 4 years and met amazing people with whom I keep contact very often. So don't aim your "anti-american" bigotry on me or people like Jarmo or IQ cause it's far away from the truth. You, on the other hand, insulted me by typing that kind of title to start your thread. I felt ofended and didn't like it. You had no reason to say that other than your ignorance and frustration cause one of the guys responsible for the planning of the 911 attacks got only 27 years. It's ok, you didn't know the max in this country is 30. I forgive you.

One more thing, the same applies to all the terrorists link to the 311 attacks in Madrid. The judge is gonna aplly the same criteria to sentence anyone involved in such an attrocity. Max they are gonna get is 30 years as well. I do feel like terrorists should get lifetime penalties, but it's not gonna happen for the time being. Yes, I don't like things from our system either, but hey, so far our authorities haven't been that bad arresting so many terrorists link to both attacks.

Exactly.

I thought the words chosen were a bad choice.



He doesn't and I wonder what he calls the fact that the main guy behind the attacks still hasn't been caught or the fact that the president used the attacks (war on terror) as an excuse to attack Iraq.

If this is sentence a slap in the face of the victims' families, what's the other things then?



Yes, I know you have many things in America, but this took place in Spain.



I should be outraged over the fact that you're gonna spend years in jail instad of spending 10000000 years in jail?


He didn't pick the right words to voice his opinion on the sentence and he didn't seem to know how the system worked. Ignatius explained it to him. I think his explanation seems reasonable and explains why popmetal was out of line.





You could say something since you spend time arguing whether or not I said you couldn't comment.? :hihi:




There you go again.



So you refuse to acknowledge the interesting coincidence that out of all the Western countries in the world, two countries who are also allies with the USA in the war in Iraq, get attacked?

Let's assume all these are related:

France 1995
Madrid 2004
London 2005

Why the gap?



Take off your American glasses for once and see that I don't consider America an enemy. I just don't agree with what you're saying.

I also know radical people can do radical things.




My guess is that some won't, some will.

Can you prove me wrong? Oh, sorry you don't comment on guesses!






Maybe you could start a thread with the title "US legal system spits in the face of (insert name)"?




Ok, your post just reminded me of a little school boy who's desperately trying to impress the older boys by showing how tough he can be.....? Nothing serious. :hihi:




Because:

A - They're at war
B - They have big cars
C - They call football soccer and a lift an elevator

Pick one.

Remember how popular France was when thry did the nuclear tests in the Pacific?



Are you saying the "Anti-America" posts are never warranted?

You're offended by anti-America posts so you feel you have to start one about another country?


And I still wanna know how you feel about the attacks being used as an excuse to attack Iraq and the fact that the leader who's the main enemy is still out there.

Puts things into perspective for me at least.


I also agree with what Ignatius has said.




/jarmo

I think the ability to attack the west has changed over the years.? But there really isn't that many gaps when you consider the other places they have attacked, most of which were before the war in Iraq.? This is exactly how terrorism works, they use one issue as the reason for attacks.? Then when we pull out they will use a different reason, perhaps our support for Israel.? Next, they will use another reason, perhaps Catholicism.? Then another and another.

But the strategy is brilliant, and I think that it is working.? They are trying to isolate the U.S. by threatening attacks against anyone that helps the U.S. in its war on terror.? In doing so, the U.S. will be forced to fight terrorism by itself, something they know we cannot do.? Remember, they aren't just claiming the war in Iraq for the attacks, but also Afghanistan.? Does anyone suggest that we shouldn't have attacked terrorism there?

I think a key thing to remember is that the recent attacks have all occurred after the world has actually started to go after terrorism.  I think that is more key than the fact that it has occurred after the war in Iraq.


Feb. 26, 1993: A massive bomb explodes in a garage below the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and more than 1,000 injured in the blast. Analysts cite some links to al Qaeda in the attack, though Osama bin Laden disavowed any connection.

June 25, 1996: A powerful truck bomb explodes outside a U.S. military housing complex near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and wounding several hundred people.

Aug. 7, 1998: Two bombs explode within minutes of each other near the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The blasts kill 264 people.

Oct. 12, 2000: Seventeen American sailors are killed and 39 wounded by a bomb aboard a small boat that targets the the USS Cole, a U.S. Navy destroyer refueling in Aden, Yemen.

Sept. 11, 2001: Hijackers commandeer four commercial jetliners, crashing two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and another into the Pentagon outside Washington. The fourth airliner crashes in a field in Pennsylvania. Some 3,000 people die in the attacks.

April 11, 2002: A truck carrying natural gas explodes outside a Tunisian synagogue, killing 19 people.

Oct. 12, 2002: A bomb explodes in a resort area on the Indonesian island of Bali, setting off fires and explosions that destroyed two nightclubs. More than 200 people are killed, most of them foreign tourists.

Nov. 28, 2002: Terrorists stage coordinated attacks on Israeli tourists in Mombasa, Kenya. Three suicide bombers crash an explosives-laden sport utility vehicle into an Israeli-owned hotel, killing themselves as well as 10 Kenyans and three Israeli tourists, and wounding dozens of others.

May 16, 2003: Thirty-three people are killed and about 100 others injured in five nearly simultaneous suicide bombing attacks in Casablanca. Twelve of the 14 bombers, all of whom were Moroccan, also die in the attacks.

Nov. 15 & 20, 2003: Car bombs explode within minutes of each other at two Jewish synagogues in Istanbul Nov. 15. A second pair of bombings five days later strike the British consulate and the offices of the London-based HSBC bank in Istanbul. The four bombings kill 58 people and wound about 750.

March 11, 2004: Ten bombs explode within minutes of each other on four crowded commuter trains in the center of Madrid, killing 190 people and wounding more than 1,400.

They'll always have reasons.

But I just don't understand how you can deny the fact that thee might be some connection between the attacks in Madrid and London and the war.



I think the whole Western world is helping in that war. Just because our countries aren't taking part in the war in Iraq doesn't mean we're not working against international terrorism.




Everybodt supported the war in Afghanistan. People in America seem to forget that and only attack countries like France for not supporting the war in Iraq.

The was in Afghanistan was a war on terror, the war in Iraq seems to have become a war on terror because there was no other reason.



Still, the fact remains the UK and Spain both had troops in Iraq.




/jarmo

Certainly, in the sense that they are helping the U.S. in this part of the war on terror.? While I agree that Iraq should not have been part of the war on terror to begin with necessarily, it has turned into a central part in the war.? There are probably as many al qaeda there as anywhere.? They certainly have an incentive to not allow the U.S. to get any help there.

I am not denying that.? However, one of the key places to fight terrorism right now is in Iraq.? Regardless of the motivations for Iraq and the big mistake it was to initially set foot in there, the world will be worse off if the terrorists win in Iraq.? The terrorists know this.? It is a tactic they are using to meet the most important short term agenda of theres.? If they start attacking countries regardless of their help in Iraq, then they know that countries that were against Iraq may become more involved with that struggle; something the terrorists definately do not want.?

Enough with the generalizations; I am sick of them coming from both sides.? I agree though, everyone supported the war in Afghanistan.

I think it has become a war on terror because the terrorists moved into the country after the coalition moved in.? Nevertheless, it is part of the war on terror.? I believe that it was always intended as such, but it was obviously strategically a wrong move.? However, that doesn't take the importance away from it now.? I think it is important that we separate the Iraq that the U.S. attacked from the Iraq of today.? While the former may not have had ties to Al Qaeda, the latter certainly does.

You are right, they both did.? But here is the question: Do you think that if we leave Iraq, and say Afghanistan also, that Al Qaeda would no longer target the west?? If so, don't you think that is a risky strategy?

You guys really take the cake don't ya?

You claim the sentence is a slap in the face of the victims?

Other threads I have asked why you aren't mad at Bush for continuing the search for Osama, yet turning his attention to Iraq. And you would reply "do you really think that capturing Osama is going to stop the terror movement? He is really just a figurehead." Just about every right wing poster that I can recall, has made statements similar to that. Especially when it came time to defend the Iraq invasion. The capture of Osama, you claimed, was merely a trophy of sorts and would not change a thing.

So in the same vein, is that not a "slap in the face" to the families? To waive off the capture of Osama as unimportant in the war on terror? Also, by your own reasoning,  this man being sentenced  "isn't going to stop the terror movement" so why do you care about the low amount in years? He is just a figurehead right? Or is it different now when you want to make a point? At least he has been captured and sentenced, more than I can say for Osama.

So who is the hypocrite again? Who is contradicting themselves again?

You can't have it both ways.

Well, come on, you know we can't go after him in Pakistan.  Anyway, you can't point to one wrong by pointing to another.  That is a logical fallacy.

Who said what was wrong?

Going into Pakistan is not the argument either.

They are condradicting themselves, that is the argument.

What makes you think we have stopped looking for Bin Laden?  I'm sure we are very, very actively and very, very aggressively searching as we speak.  They don't need to hold news conferences to tell us their every move (and with the liberal media it would be best if they didn't).  I am 100% sure there is a huge effort to find and secure Bin Laden.  He will be captured at some point and you can bet your ass he won't get 27 years in prison (and keep in mind the only crime he is guilty of is conspiracy whereas he didn't directly murder anyone either).

You act like the US has given up the search.  Ridiculous.

Change the subject again? Re-read my post boy.

Don't make me eat your own words again.

Court convicts 'Spanish Taliban'
From Al Goodman
CNN Madrid Bureau Chief


MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- A Spanish court Wednesday convicted a man, known in the local media as the "Spanish Taliban," of membership in the al Qaeda terrorist group, and sentenced him to six years in prison, a court spokeswoman told CNN.

Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed -- born in the Spanish enclave of Ceuta on Morocco's north coast -- was detained in Pakistan, then held for two years at the U.S. base at Guantanamo, Cuba, and finally delivered to Spain in February 2004.

Spain's state-run news agency EFE reported that the sentence held that Abderrahman Ahmed "had full knowledge of the terrorist profile" of al Qaeda, and he decided to go to Afghanistan several years ago "with the aim of becoming a mujahideen (holy warrior) and carrying out Jihad (holy war)."

The Spanish prosecutor sought nine years in prison, but the National Court judges who heard the case decided on a lower sentence of six years.

Abderrahman Ahmed professed his innocence during the trial and at one point, according to the Spanish newspaper El Pais, declared that he was a "martyr" for having endured detention at Guantanamo.

"It's destroyed my life," the newspaper quoted the 31-year-old defendant as testifying during the trial.

The sentence comes 10 days after Europe's largest trial to date against al Qaeda suspects concluded in Madrid, with the National Court convicting 18 defendants of membership in or collaboration with al Qaeda, while acquitting six others.

The main defendant in that trial, Syrian-born Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, got the stiffest sentence, of 27 years. That included 12 years for leadership of al Qaeda in Spain and 15 years for "conspiracy" in the planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

He was not convicted, however -- as the prosecution had sought -- of being an accessory to murder, which could have brought a sentence of more than 74,000 years, computed for the murders of each of the 9/11 victims.

The Spanish court, in the sentence handed down on September 26 in the earlier trial, also found Al-Jazeera television reporter Taysir Alony of collaboration with al Qaeda and sentenced him to seven years in jail. Alony, a Syrian-born Spaniard, was not charged in connection with 9/11.

Spain has various other cases pending involving suspected Islamic terrorists, most notably the Madrid train bombings last year that killed 191 people and wounded more than 1,500. Authorities blame the attacks on Islamic terrorists.

A total of 109 people have been charged in the train bombings, and 26 remain in jail. Indictments are expected soon, and a trial would follow, a court official told CNN.

Spain also has a separate case under investigation against suspects who allegedly plotted to send a truck bomb to the National Court headquarters, which handles cases of terrorism.

Arrests were made before the attack could occur, authorities say.

---

That explains a bit.

They couldn't convict him for being an accessory to murder. That's why he only got 27 years.

I still wouldn't use the phrase spit in the face like the original poster did. The guy's going to jail for several years instead of walking away from it all like a free man (which sometimes happens).

Seems like take part in the planning and collecting money for a terrorist attack isn't the same as actually killing people.




/jarmo

How have I changed the topic? ?You brought it up. ?I simply stated that we are most definately still aggressive looking for him. ?Will capturing him end terror? ?No. ?You know we can look for him AND fight a war in Iraq. ?One is not exclusive of the other in any remote way. ?

Are you going to continue with the name calling? ?If so, I can resort to that if necessary. ?I really don't want to, but I also don't need to be called a 'boy' by an extremeist liberal. ?Remember, most liberals eventually grow up, buy a house, have kids and become good republicans. ?There is still hope for you...BOY!

It is in the US. 

It does look like Spain is being aggressive in prosecuting known terrorists to the fullest extent of their laws and that is a good thing.

Sorry but technically, that is not true. The sentence can be as long at the judge wants it to be, but you will only spend a maximun of 30 years in prison. Let me give you an example: A well known ETA terrorist was sentenced to more than 3000 years in prison for 25 murders. He was due for release in August 2005 after just 18 years served. Outrageous, I know. This caused quite a political storm in Spain. In the end the Prosecutor had to charge him with something else to avoid his release.

But the point here are the charges this guy was convicted for. The Prosecutor failed to prove a direct link between him and the 9/11 attacks, so the Court could not convict him for the murders.

Don't you think we are happy in Spain about this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1800494,00.html

...but I too think the the title of the thread was a really poor choice of words...

Not to backpedal, but I meant the longest a criminal can be in jail is 30 years. Max. I was actually gonna supply a lin but i guess i don't need to anymore.

You did change the subject. Because I stated that you two contradict yourselves. And you ramble on that we are still looking for Osama. That, my dear boy, is changing the subject....

Will sentencing this guy in Spain to a death end terror?

See your doublespeak now?

Or wanna change the subject again?

Well that is one place where the Spanish laws are probably stronger than the US.  In the US you would run into double jeopardy problems by charging them later.

This reminds me. I think we have similar system in Sweden. A life sentence doesn't automatically mean that you'll spend the rest of your life in jail. It means you'll spend at least 18 years in jail. 18 years is currently the longest time limited sentence here.

I think you can get released earlier if you get pardoned by the goverment.




/jarmo

I love the irony of this. The real outrage here is not that an al Qaeda cell leader involved in the planning of the 9/11 attack will be free in 27 years, but that I used incendiary language to describe the Spanish Court's decision ::)

Why am I surprised? What else can you expect from people like you who take al Qaeda's rhetoric at face value?!?!?!

Keep displaying your true colors.

How many times are people gonna have to tell you that this thread isn't against any country ??? Only a chauvinist who can't take any criticism towards anything related to his country, or a fellow EU member nation, would see this as attack on Spain. It is not!




Iraq was not invaded in response to 9/11. It was invaded for violating UN resolutions. Also, it factors into the war on terror because Iraq was a terrorist sponsoring nation, which openly funded and encouraged terrorist attacks. Just because it didn't attack the US, doesn't mean it wasn't involved in terrorism.

As for bin Laden still being out there, obviously I don't feel good about it. Unfortunately the US armed forces don't have a magical genie that can find out where he is and fetch him. It's a huge planet, and it's difficult to find one cockroach with so many nests all over the place. When it is found, I'm sure it will be exterminated.

That's a blatant LIE, I never asked anyone if they really think that capturing Osama is going to stop the terror movement. He might be a figurehead but it's very important to catch that figurehead. So NO contradictions here.

And why are you (and Jarmo since he first raised this issue) incapable of comprehending the distinction between not being able to incapacitate a terrorist because you can't find him and not incapacitating permanently a terrorist you already have in custody? You appear to be intelligent educated people. Why can't you see that glaring difference?

Who two? Be clear when you make accusations like that! It sure seems like I'm one of the two you're referring to and I never said that and I'm not contradicting myself. So STOP lying or implying lies!

And yet people think you choose a bad phrase to display your outrage....



Ok, if you believe that, fine.

I don't buy it and I think there are other countries who are more into sponsoring terrorism and helping terrorists.

Also, don't you think people in USA associate the war on terrorism with 9/11? So it kinda automatically becomes about 9/11.




Would you use the phrase "spit in the face of the victims' families" to describe your outrage that he hasn't been caught in four years?

So, Spain is actually sentencing people involved in terrorism while USA went after Saddam and made him the big enemy because they failed to capture the real enemy.

I just happen to think that it's amusing how somebody who supports the war in Iraq (supposed to be a war on terror) and then posts how an actual sentence is a "spit in the face". In my opinion, you're supporting a war based on lies and then attacking Spain for sentencing terrorists. That's what my "problem" is.




/jarmo

I'm going with C.  It always pisses people off when we're talking Football on an elevator.  If looks could kill!!!!

How has this reverted to this type of arguement?  All popmetal was indicating in his original post is that he thinks sentencing a murderer (and yes planning the eventual deaths of 3,000 people is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as murder), to a 27 year sentence is a joke.  And let's be clear, it is in fact a injustice.  I commend Spain for being proactive in this war on terror and for prosecuting known terrorists to the fullest extend of their laws.  The problem that popmetal, and for that matter anyone with a morsel of brains, has with Spain is their legal system is obviously way way too liberal.  There is a difference between being anti-spain and being anti-spain's legal system.  He may have chosen wording you guys don't like, and you are all liberals who probabaly feel criminals should be given second chance, so you see the arguement through a different lense.  Point of fact, giving a known conspirator in the murder of 3,000 innocent lives a 27 year sentence is fucking ludicrous. 

It is sad, but as far as I know they couldn't prove some of the things he was accused of.

You can't just convict people without proper proof...



I guess it depends on the case, extremists are extremists and they should be put away.


But I guess even a conservative like yourself thinks people should be given a second chance. I mean, you begged me to let you come back to this board.  :hihi:



/jarmo

First, I'd like to see some proof that we're still making a concerted (ie: as vigorous as we were prior to the Iraqi invasion) effort to hunt down Osama. ?You've made the assertion...I'd like to see some proof. ?I've read, both in the media and from military reports that efforts have been EXTREMELY curtailed, since resources in Afghanistan are so scarce. ?I'd love to see some evidence to the contrary.

Second, while you're right....Iraq and the hunt for Osama are NOT mutually exclusive, in the sense that they could, feasibly, occur at the same time, both operations pull from the same resource pool. ? I think the "problem" is obvious, in that.


I love seeing that assertion...that "most liberals eventually grow up, buy a house, have kids and become good republicans". ?It's a good urban legend. ?Statistically, though, I've seen evidence that completely minimizes your assertion. ?If you've seen otherwise (something other than anecdotal information, by the way) I'd really like to see it.

Just for reference purposes, here was the 2004 election voting breakdown by age:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Bush ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Kerry
18-29 (17%) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 45% ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?54%
30 - 44 (29% ? ? ? ? ? ? ?53% ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?46%
45 - 59 (30%) ? ? ? ? ? ? 51% ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?48%
60+ ? (24%) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?54% ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?46%

And then for the 2000 elections:
http://www.udel.edu/poscir/road/course/exitpollsindex.html

 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Bush ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Gore
18-29 ?(17%) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 48% ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?46%
30 - 44 (33%) ? ? ? ? ? ? ?48% ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?49%
45 - 59 (28%) ? ? ? ? ? ? ?48% ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?49%
60+ ? ? ?(22%) ? ? ? ? ? ? ?51% ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?47%


I don't see much significant "slippage", over that 4 years, on either side. ?And comparing candidate votes for EITHER election shows that, while there is a difference in ideology (apparently) in '04 in the younger sect, it's not very significant. ?And, in the 2000 elections, it's nonexistant.

Touchee.  But let's make 1 thing clear.  I did not beg you to allow me to come back to this board.  I had already returned to the board under a different name/IP/email address (I operate this same SMF 1.0.5 board of my own in my gaming community and there isn't much that can be done to permanently ban someone).  What I did do was request of you to allow me to continue posting under my old name (TyRod Tulip) whereas I had over 1,500 posts I think.  Which, of course, you denied.  So, in the same vein as your comment above, I guess you're liberal with what you allow some posters to say and not with others (this is obvious anyway).  Like I said earlier, we all have biases and I would probably treat liberals differently than conservatives if I adminned this board.

And all kidding aside, I was under the impression they found this guy guilty on a bunch of conspiracy charges.  So it appears they had proof that he was involved in the planning of the 911 attack.  At least that was my understanding.  The problem is not with Spain, it's with a legal system that won't people people like this away forever or put them to death.

pilferk, I did not state that with evidence it hand.  It was, as you state, anecdotal in nature.  It stands to reason that the young are more liberal.  In general, they don't have kids, assets or interests to speak of, and they are either in school or closely removed from school where the overwhelming majority of teachers that influence on them are liberals (some say mostly because they lack real word experience and only have knowldge of things based on theory - I am not necessarily saying this).  So it stands to reason that the older one gets, the further he/she moves away from the liberal influence of teachers and the more assets they acquire.  It also stands to reason that most will have kids and that their ideology changes from a selfish one to one where they now have to put the safety and interest of their kids first.  Those things combined often lead to a change in political views.  I am not making this up.  I do not have the "proof" in front of me.  I do not have proof in front of me that Jupiter exists either, but I think I can safely say that it does.

Also, using voting results to indicate whether someone is a liberal or a conservative is very misleading and not proof of anything.  I am a card carrying member of the conservative party.  I have stated before that I have voted for both democrats and independents for the presidency.  For example, in 2000 I voted for Gore.  So I am speaking of one's politic ideologies and not theor voting record.

I do find it very interesting that the number of 18-29 year olders that voted democratic went from 46% to 54% between 2000 and 2004.  That is significant to say the least, but it doesn't speak at all t the point being made here by you or by me.

I said "you guys" meaning, you neocons on this board who constantly back Iraq by claiming the capture of Bin Laden really would not stop terror at this point.

And I ask AGAIN what is the difference from what your camp says and what you are crying about here?

Why are you incapable of comprehending the question asked instead of trying to change the argument? The argument is that because we went into Iraq, we took focus on finding Osama. Is that not a slap in the face to the victims families?

Stop twisting it around.

Your doublespeak is amazing really.

It's ok to go into Iraq and divert attention away from finding Osama (by your very words we are there to start democracy and "free" these people). Right? After the lack of WMD, lack of ties to AQ, we now are there to free these people, correct?

But what about Osama? Wasn't it a slap in the face of the victims of 9-11 to go nation building instead of capturing the man who attacked us on 9-11?

Or are you going to contradict yourself again and claim it is not?

Doublespeak!!!

So it was speculative opinion based on flawed logic and no proof.

That's pretty much as I suspected.

The term "most" would indicate a majority.  It's obviously not true that "most" people grow up, buy a house, have kids, and become republicans.  What statistical data exists shows that not to be true.  If you'd like to provide some evidence to bolster your case...please, fell free.  What evidence I've seen directly contradicts it, so....

Watch out...they don't like the "C" word...

I'd say the logic is not flawed at all.  I laid out the logic in my previous post.  Where is the flaw?  Regardless, I did say however that is was said anecdotally.  Where do you think anecdotes (and sterotypes for that matter) come from?  The answer is "real life experiences".  I did not make up the concept that liberals grow up to be conservatives.  You even stated yourself that it is an "urban legend".  Therefore the concept existed before my comment.  And I indicated in my previous post as to why the "urban legend" exists. 

And I'd also repeat that using voting records to determine where people's ideologies lie is flawed logic in itself.  It is proof of nothing.  But I'm not gonna argue the point anymore.  It is irrelevant to the topic at hand and going round and round over everything with you guys is getting old.

The topic is about the short sentence of this shitbag terrorist in Spain.  And I think everyone reading this can agree that 27 years for his crimes is no where near harsh enough (and again I am not blaming Spain at all). 

After that you also referred to "you guys" as "you two,"? so you're not fooling anyone. All backpedalling aside, you were either referring to me when you said that, or you were implying that I don't think we should catch bin Laden because he's just a figurehead. I'm sick and tired of your lies. What? Your real world arguments are so powerless, that you now have to make up stuff? I never said or implied in any way that we shouldn't be looking for bin Laden or that it is not important to catch him, period. No doublespeak, no contradictions.

And you're really incompetent if you think the US Military is incapable of searching for bin Laden while fighting a war in Iraq. You don't use a bazooka to get rid of a cockroach. That's what sending the 130,000 troops in Iraq after bin Laden would amount to. There are special ops after his ass for that task. So your argument that by going to Iraq, the US is taking the focus off of finding Osama does not hold water because it's pointless to send 130,000 soldiers to look after one man. You use small commando task forces, specially trained for the job, to do that.

Okay, then say that, but don't paint me as being anti-Spain. It's a beautiful country, with even more beautiful women :) , and good people in general. Just because I think some of its laws are outrageous doesn't mean I don't like the country. I also think the fact that the US still uses the death penalty is outrageous.


It automatically becomes about 9/11 but that doesn't mean that 9/11 was "being used as an excuse to attack Iraq," which is what you first said. Saddam had provided plenty excuses himself to be attacked and deposed long time ago. That should have been done after the first Gulf war. I think Bush Sr.'s biggest blunder was not getting rid of him back then.


If the US Army knew his location and for some reason refused to go and get him, that would be a spit in the face of the victims' families. This is not what we have here. Afghanistan is a nation of almost 30 million people. Bordering Pakistan, where many believe Osama is hiding, is a nation of 160 million people. It's quite a challenge to find one man hiding out among 200 million. That's why he hasn't been caught yet, not because the US doesn't care to catch him ::)


This is a common distortion dispersed by the media as to why the US went after Saddam. The reality is that: President Bush believed Saddam had WMDs and it was important to depose his regime because of the danger that they might land in the hands of terrorist groups.


That's because you don't understand why I support the war. Bush did not 'lie' about the war. The intelligence he had led him to believe that Saddam had WMDs. The intelligence was wrong. That does not amount to "lies."

If you'd REALLY like, I can point out the flaws in the logic....you know, using correlations that have no basis in fact and making "leaps of logic" that have no sound proof to support them.? That is, if you really need me to....

Anecdotal evidence is meaningless.? That's why it's anecdotal.? Everyone's life experiences are different, and tend to be influenced by their ideology and socialization, so, without some kind of valid, unbiased, statistical or scientific study.....it's worthless in "proving" anything.

I realize the concept existed before you made the statement.? I've seen it made before.? That doesn't mean it's any more valid.? That particular "assertion" is a pet peeve of mine.? Many Republicans make it to somehow validate their viewpoint, insinuating that "liberals" are just young fools, while Repubs are older, wiser, more experienced, and are somehow, therfore, right.? But, there is ample evidence that it is a fallacy.

Unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary.

Voting records may not be the "best" source of support, but they're clearly indicative of the "leanings" of America (take into account, too, the % of registered party members, also on the pages I linked to, and you can figure out, roughly, some other statistics).? Since you MADE the assertion, it's not really my job to disprove it if you are unable to provide actual evidence to support it.? I put the voting records up because they clearly show a specific type of trend.? There's other evidence out there, as well, but....given your inability to prove your own assertion, I have no need to provide it.

We'll just call it what it is (an "urban legend") and move on.

Well, if you can paint me as being "anti-American", how can you get upset over that?

I don't get it.



In my opinion it looked like they used the old terror "excuse" in the end when everything else failed. As I said, many people associate terror with 9/11. If you say "we're doing this to stop terrorism", then my guess is that many people will think "good, we don't need another 9/11".



I guess he thought it was a bad idea.....

I remember that war, USA was supported by the rest of the world. How things change.



Ok, so it's not an insult at all or a failure that he's still a free man?



Sure, but I know where the 9/11 terrorists came from. It wasn't Iraq. I also know there are other countries who can be a threat an they're not attacked.




You believe that excuse, that's fine.

Makes the intelligence look good doesn't it...


Anyway, my opinion on the originla topic still is: You chose the wrong words and that it's a shame they couldn't sentence him for a longer time, but it looks like they couldn't provide enough evidence. He's not out there recruiting terrorists now so that's good.



/jarmo

So, you gave al-Qaeda the benefit of the doubt and took their declaration that the bombings in Madrid and London were in response to those nations' support of the war in Iraq at face value. But you won't give President Bush the benefit of the doubt that he went into Iraq because the intelligence given to him indicated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Your actions speak volumes

I don't need to listen to their propaganda.

I can come to my own conclusions. 1+1=2.

Like this:

War in Iraq starts in 2003 -> Madrid bombings in 2004 -> London bombings in 2005.

Madrid = capital of Spain
London = capital of the UK

What countries were allies in the war? Spain and the UK.... Makes you think. So instead of denying it, it's my opinion that the extremists used the war as fuel for their hate.




I don't think you're the right person to make statements like that about others...



/jarmo

That's shows correlation, not causation. Nice try to backpedal though.

sorry to butt in to this thread but those 2 words are very much similar...if there is a strong correlation then that suggests that there is a direct link of cause and effect...since al queda were involved in all the aforementioned bombings then theres pretty much very little doubt of cause and effect

More flawed logic ...

no explanation = little fairies in your head

i know what im talking about .... do you?

I don't need to explain anything. Your opinion does not amount to fact. Maybe to you correlation equals causation, but not to anyone who actually cares about and understands logic. You could say that the sky is red if you want. I'm not gonna bother proving you wrong.

statistics was the core of my degree...and i am now a programmer...i understand logic well enough to know where both logic and supposition is needed...as well as common sense...the sky is blue

I guess you'd believe that if it came from the White House.  :hihi:



/jarmo

I guess you'd believe that too if an al Qaeda bomber said it

Learn how to read what I said.

I never claimed to believe what those nuts have said. You on the other hand seem to repeat the stories that the White House are already telling us.


I think IQ explained it quite nicely.



/jarmo

It's really your actions that count more than your words, but I'll play along ...

What's the reason behind your belief that the attacks on Madrid and London were in response to the war in Iraq?
What you said:

Does not prove causation. Why weren't Italy and Poland also attacked? And what was the cause behind all the pre war in Iraq attacks BerkeleyRiot listed?

London was attacked because Britain have the second largest amount of troops in Iraq, Spain was attacked because of its ease of travel from Morocco and other African countries to Spain, Bali was attacked because its an easy target near Indonesia which has known al qaeda supporters...Turkey was attacked because of it's support of American troops/air force and its adjacency to Iraq...Poland and Italy are not as high profile targets and probably dont have al qaeda cells...Just because neither of these countries were attacked doesnt mean there is no causal link, it may happen in the future or al qaeda may not regard Italy as an important target...judging by todays media content, nobody really cares about news from Poland or Italy do they?

Has Jarmo appointed you as his official spokesperson?

i have my own point of view...this is a forum...i can join in conversations on a public forum cant i?...if is a conversation between only you 2 then shouldnt you take it to pm's?

I am not denying that there is a link, but I don't think that it is the link that many think it is.  You (not to put words in your mouth) seem to think that they attacked Britain and Spain because they were part of the war in Iraq and were offended that the west is meddling in their affairs.  I on the other hand, believe that they attacked because they know that they can scare other countries, that may or may not be easier to attack than the US, from helping us.  The news today in this intercepted letter states that Al Qaeda is making their stand in Iraq.  If that is true, wouldn't it be a good strategy to try and prevent other countries from helping.  By scaring other countries from participating in the war, they have a much better chance of victory there.  The US on the other hand knows better.  We were attacked before the war, thus the argument that being in Iraq is the reason for more attacks would not fly here.

Again, I am not trying to claim that the rest of the world is not helping in Iraq.  However, the main fighting ground right now is in Iraq, whether you like it our not; or whether you agreed with the war or not.  Helping with intelligence or other ways is just not as important as defeating terrorists in Iraq.  Certainly, anyone that claims the rest of the world is not working against terrorism is absurd.  But, the most important battle against terrorism right now, whether it was created by the US or not, is in Iraq; a war that the US is getting less and less support for by the day.

Woops.  I just realized that I already had responded to that post.  Sorry.

No, I have no problem with you opining, but since I was asking Jarmo the question, I want to make sure whether he agrees with you or if he has a different take on this, before responding.

Thanks IQ.

Just because the things he listed doesn't prove the attacks are linked to the war for you, maybe it does make it the most likely reason for some of us.

To me it seems like a big possibility instead of them just randomly choosing Madrid and London. They may hate all of the Western world, but they used the war as the last excuse so to speak. That's the best explanation for me at the moment. I think I'm not the only one who feels that way.



I don't think you're "anti-Spain" because you don't agree with the sentence, but try to remember that when you feel like calling people here "anti-American bigots" because they don't agree with US foreign policy.


Now I'm done with this topic since I'm tired of explaining the same thing over and over again.



/jarmo