Spanish court sentences Imad Yarkas

[POPmetal]

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.?

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.

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

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

[jarmo]

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

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?

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.

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?

When did I say I was a spokesperson for the victims families? Will you stop with the cheap Strawman attacks?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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

[POPmetal]

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

Another is the keyword.

When did I say I was a spokesperson for the victims families? Will you stop with the cheap Strawman attacks?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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

[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.

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.

Another is the keyword.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

And I did NOT "speak out against a whole nation," only against their court and legal system.

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?
 

Can you try actually READING what I said.

Funny coming from you. Read below.

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

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....

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

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


I believe the words I used were:

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.

Sure, you can comment on anything you want.

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

[POPmetal]

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.

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.

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!

Another is the keyword.

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

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 ...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

And I did NOT "speak out against a whole nation," only against their court and legal system.

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?
 

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.

Can you try actually READING what I said.

Funny coming from you. Read below.

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

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....

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.

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

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


I believe the words I used were:

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.

Sure, you can comment on anything you want.

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

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.

[Surfrider]

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.

[Guns N RockMusic]

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?

[Rain]

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 ?

[Ignatius]

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.

[jarmo]

I still think you could have chose the title of the thread a little more tactfully.

Exactly.

I thought the words chosen were a bad choice.

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 ?

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?

In America we have

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

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?

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.

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

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

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!

There you go again.

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.

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?

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 ...

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

America gets savaged on a daily basis on this message board.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

[Surfrider]

Let's assume all these are related:

France 1995
Madrid 2004
London 2005

Why the gap?

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.

[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.

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.

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.?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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




/jarmo

[Surfrider]

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.

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.

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.

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.?

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.

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.?

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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




/jarmo

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?

[SLCPUNK]

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.

[Surfrider]

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.

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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.

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.

[Charity Case]

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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.

[jarmo]

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

[Charity Case]

Other threads I have asked why you aren't mad at Bush for continuing the search for Osama, yet turning his attention to Iraq.

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!