Spanish court sentences Imad Yarkas

[Charity Case]

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

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). 

[POPmetal]

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.

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?

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!!!

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.

[POPmetal]

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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."

[pilferk]

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

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).?

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.

[jarmo]

Okay, then say that, but don't paint me as being anti-Spain.

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

I don't get it.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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."

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

[POPmetal]

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."

You believe that excuse, that's fine.

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

[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.

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.

Your actions speak volumes

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



/jarmo

[POPmetal]

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.

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.

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

[Axls Locomotive]

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

[POPmetal]

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 ...

[Axls Locomotive]

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?

[POPmetal]

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.

[Axls Locomotive]

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

[jarmo]

You could say that the sky is red if you want.

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



/jarmo

[POPmetal]

You could say that the sky is red if you want.

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



/jarmo

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

[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

[POPmetal]

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:

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.

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?

[Axls Locomotive]

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?

[POPmetal]

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?

[Axls Locomotive]

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?