RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Nearly 200 Killed in Madrid Explosions

Quote:

---

Multiple Blasts in Madrid Leave 190 Dead
Newpaper Receives Claim of Responsibilty in Name of al-Qaida


MADRID, Spain (March 11) - Ten terrorist bombs tore through trains and stations along a commuter line at the height of the morning rush hour Thursday, killing more than 190 people and wounding 1,200 others three days before Spain's general elections.

Spain initially blamed Basque separatists for the bombings, but the interior minister also said other lines of investigation were opened after police found a van Thursday with detonators and an audiotape of Quranic verses near where the bombed trains originated.

The Arabic newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi said it had received a claim of responsibility issued in the name of al-Qaida.

The e-mail claim of responsibility, signed by the shadowy Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri, was received at the newspaper's London offices and said the brigade's ''death squad'' had penetrated ''one of the pillars of the crusade alliance, Spain.''

''This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and America's ally in its war against Islam,'' the claim said.

Spain had backed the U.S.-led war on Iraq despite domestic opposition, and many al-Qaida-linked terrorists have been captured in Spain or were believed to have operated from there.

After an emergency cabinet meeting, a somber Prime minister Jose Maria Aznar vowed to hunt down the attackers.

''This is mass murder,'' he said.

The bombers used titadine, a kind of compressed dynamite also found in a bomb-laden van intercepted last month as it headed for Madrid, a source at Aznar's office said on condition of anonymity. Officials blamed the ETA separatist group at that time.

Police found a van with detonators and an Arabic-language tape with Quranic verses in the town of Alcala de Henares, 15 miles east of Madrid, Interior Minister Angel Acebes said Thursday night.

Police found seven detonators and the tape on the front seat of the van, Acebes told a news conference.

He added that ETA remained the ''main line of investigation'' in the blasts, Europe's worst terror attack since the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270.

Three of the four trains bombed Thursday originated in Alcala de Henares and one passed through it, the state rail company said.

Panicked commuters abandoned bags and their shoes as they trampled each other to escape the Atocha terminal, where bombs struck two trains. Some fled into darkened, dangerous tunnels at the station, a bustling hub for subway, commuter and long-distance trains just south of Madrid's famed Prado Museum.

The bodies of the dead, some with their cell phones ringing unanswered as frantic relatives tried to contact them, were carried away by rescue workers. The wounded, faces bloodied, sat on curbs as buses were pressed into service as ambulances.

One firefighter said he saw 70 bodies along a platform at El Pozo station, just east of downtown Madrid. One corpse had been blown onto the roof.

Forty coroners worked to identify remains, the national news agency Efe said, and a steady stream of taxis carried relatives to a sprawling convention center where the bodies were taken.

A total of 10 bombs, nearly all in backpacks, exploded in a 15-minute span along nine miles of the commuter line - running from Santa Eugenia to the Madrid hub of Atocha - killing 192 people and injuring more than 1,240, Interior Minister Angel Acebes said.

Police found and detonated three other bombs.

The blasts began about 7:40 a.m., tearing through trains or platforms on the commuter line running to the Atocha station. At least two of the bombs went off in trains at that station.

ETA has been blamed for more than 800 deaths in its decades-old campaign to carve an independent Basque homeland from territory straddling northern Spain and southwest France. However, its attacks have been on a lesser scale than Thursday's bombings, with the largest toll being 21 killed in a supermarket blast in Barcelona in 1987.

Spanish officials had said ETA was against the ropes after the arrest last year of more than 150 members or collaborators in Spain and France, including the leaders of ETA's commando network. Last year, ETA killed three people, compared with 23 in 2000 and 15 in 2001.

Spain held peace talks with ETA in the late 1980s and again in 1998 after the group declared a cease-fire that lasted 14 months. But ETA resumed attacks, and Aznar has insisted on crushing it with police measures.

''No negotiation is possible or desirable with these assassins who so many times have sown death all around Spain,'' Aznar said Thursday.

Acebes said ETA tried a similar attack on Christmas Eve, placing bombs on two trains bound for a Madrid station that was not hit Thursday. He also noted the Feb. 29 police interception of a Madrid-bound van packed with more than 1,100 pounds of explosives. Authorities blamed ETA.

''Therefore, it is absolutely clear and evident that the terrorist organization ETA was looking to commit a major attack,'' Acebes said. ''The only thing that varies is the train station that was targeted.''

A top Basque politician, Arnold Otegi, denied the separatists were behind the blasts and blamed ''Arab resistance.''

Otegi told Radio Popular in San Sebastian that ETA always phones in warnings before attacking. Acebes said there was no warning Thursday.

President Bush called Aznar to express solidarity and sympathy, condemning ''this vicious attack of terrorism in the strongest possible terms,'' National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said.

''The United States stands resolutely with Spain in the fight against terrorism in all its forms and against the particular threat that Spain faces from the evil of ETA terrorism,'' added Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Rescue workers were overwhelmed, said Enrique Sanchez, an ambulance driver who went to Santa Eugenia station, about six miles southeast of the Atocha station.

''There was one carriage totally blown apart. People were scattered all over the platforms. I saw legs and arms. I won't forget this ever. I've seen horror,'' Sanchez said.

Shards of twisted metal were scattered by rails in the Atocha station at the spot where an explosion severed a train in two.

''I saw many things explode in the air ... it was horrible,'' said Juani Fernandez, 50, a civil servant who was on the platform waiting to go to work.

''People started to scream and run, some bumping into each other and as we ran there was another explosion. I saw people with blood pouring from them, people on the ground.''

The attack horrified Spain on the eve of Sunday's general election. Campaigning was called off and three days of mourning were declared. Newspapers ran special editions.

The campaign was largely dominated by separatist tensions in regions like the Basque country, with both the ruling conservative Popular Party and the opposition Socialists ruling out talks with ETA. The Socialists had come under withering criticism because a politician linked to them in the Catalonia region admitted meeting with ETA members in France in January.

The government convened anti-ETA rallies nationwide for Friday evening and announced three days of mourning.

''What a horror,'' said the Basque regional president, Juan Jose Ibarretxe, who insisted ETA does not represent the Basque people. ''When ETA attacks, the Basque heart breaks into a thousand pieces.''

More than eight in 10 Spaniards said in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken last month that they are worried about the threat of terrorism in their country. That was the highest level of concern about terrorism in five European countries polled - Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain.


03-11-04 1557EST

---

Quote:

---

D. McDonagh said:
Hasn't taken Bush long to try to turn it into a PR stunt, has it? I know there's an election coming up, but doesn't the fuckwit have any class at all?

---

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:
This is just sickening. There's no way to possibly justify murder, especially on a scale like this. Whoever is behind this ought to be hunted down and wiped off the face of the earth.

And Bush had the gall to claim not long ago that we were succeeding in our war against terror. How many Shiites died that day in Iraq and Pakistan a couple weeks ago? What about the terrorists who attacked the synagogues in Turkey? How many people have been murdered in Israel over the past three years? What did we do to prevent those killings, or bring the people behind them to justice? Were those behind 9/11 ever brought to justice? Bush declared war on terrorists - period. He didn't limit it to Al-Qaeda, or terrorists who were only interested in attacking the United States. He said (or it sounded like he was saying) that he was going to do whatever it took to wipe out terrorist organizations. And considering the bodycount from the past month alone, it seems like he's doing a pretty piss poor job. Was all that just talk, playing to the camera like the politician he is?

Don't mind me, I'm just ranting. I just can't hold it in any longer. I'm tired of hearing about people getting slaughtered for no goddamn reason!

---

Quote:

---

PJP said:
.........he's got our best interests at heart..........

---

Quote:

---

Wingnut-EL said:

Quote:

---

PJP said:
.........he's got our best interests at heart..........

---

What a hoot! You're smarter than that PJP. Don't mistake wanting your support for looking out for you.

Cheers!

---

Quote:

---

PJP said:

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:
This is just sickening. There's no way to possibly justify murder, especially on a scale like this. Whoever is behind this ought to be hunted down and wiped off the face of the earth.

And Bush had the gall to claim not long ago that we were succeeding in our war against terror. How many Shiites died that day in Iraq and Pakistan a couple weeks ago? What about the terrorists who attacked the synagogues in Turkey? How many people have been murdered in Israel over the past three years? What did we do to prevent those killings, or bring the people behind them to justice? Were those behind 9/11 ever brought to justice? Bush declared war on terrorists - period. He didn't limit it to Al-Qaeda, or terrorists who were only interested in attacking the United States. He said (or it sounded like he was saying) that he was going to do whatever it took to wipe out terrorist organizations. And considering the bodycount from the past month alone, it seems like he's doing a pretty piss poor job. Was all that just talk, playing to the camera like the politician he is?

Don't mind me, I'm just ranting. I just can't hold it in any longer. I'm tired of hearing about people getting slaughtered for no goddamn reason!

---

He's doing the best job he can..........let me ask you.......do you think John Kerry will do better.......slahing defense budgets and getting into bed with France.

---

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:
He said (or it sounded like he was saying) that he was going to do whatever it took to wipe out terrorist organizations. And considering the bodycount from the past month alone, it seems like he's doing a pretty piss poor job.

---

Quote:

---

Rob Kamphausen said:
penny .... y'know thats almost the identical article i posted above it?

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:
He said (or it sounded like he was saying) that he was going to do whatever it took to wipe out terrorist organizations. And considering the bodycount from the past month alone, it seems like he's doing a pretty piss poor job.

---

c'mon now.

terrorists are essentially invisible operatives, that can be found in any corner of the planet. they've been training and preparing for lifetimes of explosive idiocy, and america only declared the "war" on terrorism just over 2 years ago.

a declaration, to note, that has been more aggressive than any other in modern times, from any leader, american or otherwise. one thats also been vastly succesful.

just because terrorism continues doesn't mean the war against them is a failure.

how long has there been general crime? and yet, there've always been cops -- are they failing as well? does every fire that burns down a house mean the fire fighters are doing a "piss poor job"?

can't this tragedy just be seen exactly as it is? a horrific tragedy? without justifying actions or causes or agendas... thousands of people were injured and hundreds were killed. thats a staggering and morbid realization that deserves a little more respect.

---

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:
I'm just pissed because almost 200 people died today

---

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:I feel that something could have been done to prevent it. Exactly what, I don't know.

---

Quote:

---

Rob Kamphausen said:
penny .... y'know thats almost the identical article i posted above it?

---

Quote:

---

Darknight613:
Okay, point taken. But two triple-digit-bodycount attacks in a matter of weeks is a pretty big deal. I'd guess that something like this (at least the attack in Spain) would have gotten someone's attention beforehand if they were really paying close attention. Granted we can't be everywhere at once, but...oh, I don't know. I'm just pissed because almost 200 people died today, and I was just lashing out because I feel that something could have been done to prevent it. Exactly what, I don't know. I just wish it could have been prevented, as I'm sure the rest of us do.

And as you said, terrorists are very difficult to track down. I know it's tough, but as I stated in a previous post, I feel that Bush may have gotten side-tracked from his hunt for terrorists with everything else he's dealing with.

---

This incident in Spain is equivalent there, to what 9-11 was here.
It's a major terror incident, and was completely unexpected by the Spanish government and its citizens.

Al Qaida released a statement shortly after the Iraq War began, saying that Britain and Spain were targets for retaliation for their participation in the Iraq war (as well as Poland and Japan). But that was a while ago.

I think this makes it clear that it isn't just a war between the U.S. and Al Qaida. That in fact, the entire world is a target for Muslim extremism. (As if the point were not already made clear by Muslim terrorism and violence in Russia, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Sudan, Algeria, Yemen, China and elsewhere. )

But, y'know, blame it on Bush. ("Not partisan" ?!?!? )


This terrorism began under Clinton, and Clinton had 8 years to deal with it.

But he sat by and let happen:

• The 1993 World Trade Center bombing
• The ambush in Mogadishu, Somalia (because Clinton did not station adequate backup troops, if the troops came under heavy fire, because for politically correct reasons, he minimized the troops he sent there. Which resulted in a unit of Army Rangers getting slaughtered, and their corpses dragged through the streets on global television)
• Also in 1993, Clinton cut and ran from Somalia instead of militarily finishing the job. Paying more attention to popularity polls than doing the job right, he pulled our troops out. Muslims all over the world, and Al Qaida in particular, still cite this as proof that Americans are cowards, which further incites them to attack us.
• The 1995 bombing of U.S. troop barracks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Clinton's inaction led to later Al Qaida terror on a greater scale.
• The 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in the capitals of Kenya and Tanzania. Clinton's answer to this was to lob a few cruise missiles at Al Qaida camps in Sudan and Afghanistan. But it well acknowledged by Pentagon insiders at the time that this was known in advance to be a minimal, inneffectual illusion of action, that would not stop the threat, but would look tough to the American public. Clinton didn't do a larger and more effective attack in 1998, because he was attempting to negotiate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. And a larger attack would have upset that agreement.
• And furthermore, Clinton's inneffectual 1998 cruise missile attack is what made Osama Bin Ladin an international hero to the entire Muslim world, for standing up to the United States and surviving. If a real effort was made THEN, to really stop Bin Ladin, then 9-11 would never have occurred.
  Again, Clinton's inaction led to later Al Qaida terror on a greater scale.
• The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, at port in Yemen, in October 2000. Again, no response, because Clinton was negotiating peace in Israel/Palestine, and didn't want to upset the Arabs.
  Again, Clinton's inaction led to later Al Qaida terror on an increasingly greater scale.
• And likewise, beyond Al Qaida and terrorism, if Clinton had not naively signed away roughly a billion a year in energy give-aways to North Korea, with no verification required regarding inspection of their nuclear facilities, then North Korea would not have had 10 years to secretly build nuclear weapons.
• And likewise, if Clinton did not have a contempt for national security, and fill his administration with liberals who likewise had a contempt for national security, China would not have had the opportunity to steal nuclear secrets and missile technology, to build better ICBM's that can now reach the United States. This is something that will come back to haunt us, in the coming decades.
• Clinton also had incentive to invade Iraq in 1995, when high-level Iraqi military defectors first began telling that Saddam Hussein had a secret WMD program, that he was hiding from U.N. weapons inspectors.
  And again in 1998, when Saddam Hussein pushed out U.N. weapons inspectors entirely from Iraq (violating the 1991 peace terms), Clinton again did nothing. Again demonstrating weakness that invited attack on the U.S.
• And likewise, not resolving the situation in Iraq, maintaining Northern and Southern no-fly zones in Iraq, and troops in Saudi Arabia, was the specific reason Osama Bin Ladin declared his Al Qaida Jihad on the United States.
  Again, a situation where, if Clinton resolved the Iraq situation, rather than leaving our troops there indefinitely, the Al Qaida rationalization for 9-11 might have ceased to exist.
  

You blame it all on Bush, some of which I actually agree with. But Bush was only in office 8 months, so he didn't have time to implement anything.
Even if Bush signed an anti-terror initiative the day he took office, it would not have been ready in time to prevent 9-11.

But at the same time, Bush ignored warnings of the Pentagon in early 2001 to implement anti-terror preparation, and instead Bush put his focus on an incredibly expensive and unproven ballistic missile defense program.

But it pisses me off to no end that you and others are so quick to heap all the blame on Bush.
Clinton laid the groundwork for 8 years, that resulted in Al Qaida's success on 9-11-2001. But you seem blind to that.

Blame it on Bush.

~

Regarding your comments that Bush should have done more to prevent the bombing of Shiites in Iraq 2 weeks ago, or to prevent what happened in Spain:

First of all, do we have ANY troops in Spain? Isn't that a job for the Spanish government? How is that Bush's fault?
We can share intelligence with Spain, advise them, but it is ultimately their job to defend their own country.

In Iraq, if we put more troops in Iraq, Bush-hating liberals say we're escalating the war (as happened in the summer of 2003).
If we put less troops in Iraq, then Bush-hating liberals say we're spread too thin and we're working our military too hard, and we're not doing enough.

So basically, no matter what the President does, Bush-hating liberals will bitch. No course of action will be acknowledged as the right thing.

And also regarding your "non-partisan" Bush-bashing "Bush should have done more" remarks:

How many hundreds of billions have we spent on homeland security?
And still, we know, shipping crates could be used by Al Qaida to bring in nukes or other WMD's for a terror bombing.
Or trains, or 18-wheeler trucks, or other means.
Despite the maximum effort within our own borders, we are still vulnerable, and our government tries every day to close those gaps. It doesn't happen overnight, or even in two and a half years.
And yet on local news, I still see a story every two months or so of how local reported snuck guns or knives or other more potentally dangerous materials through airport security. If we spent double the money and manpower, there would still be gaps.

~

It bothers me that your reaction, and the liberal reaction in general, is to blame Bush first, and irrationally, for ANYTHING that goes wrong.

Yes, I have some problems with Bush's military policy, and I think he could have done more, or pressed for more efficient and less wasteful use of military and security resources. But I still feel he is the strongest President we could ask for in the present post-9/11 situation.

Bush is the President who will pursue the U.S. interest first, and not waffle and cave in to the U.N., Saudi Arabia, France, Germany or anyone else, putting meaningless diplomacy in greater priority than U.S. national security, as I guarantee you Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Dean, and other Democrats would, and have clearly stated they would.

~

Finally, you can take your "non-partisan" remarks about Bush, and shove them up your ass.

I'm so sick of you voicing your "non-partisan/neutral objectivity" even as you make blatantly partisan remarks.

And I'm sick to death of you, Darknight613, and liberal assholes like you, who always blame America, and especially the Republicans, first.
And then don't even have the guts to admit it.

What about Clinton, asshole. What the hell about Clinton ?!?



I feel very badly for the people of Spain. I know the anger and the tears I had on 9-11, and my heart goes out to them.
I have a former fiance in Almeria, on the Southern coast of Spain. And if circumstances were just slightly different, I might be there right now, and this would be even closer to home for me.

Quote:

---

PJP said:

Quote:

---

D. McDonagh said:
Hasn't taken Bush long to try to turn it into a PR stunt, has it? I know there's an election coming up, but doesn't the fuckwit have any class at all?

---

Fuck you you piece of shit..........he's got our best interests at heart and he at least has the balls to do something about it..........you mean to tell me if someone punches you in the face........you're just going to let them and walk away.......you're a fucking pussy.

---

I think you just inadvertently called Jesus a pussy.

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
This incident in Spain is eqiuvalnt there to 9-11 here. It's a major terror incident, and was completely unexpected by the Spanish government and its citizens.

---

Quote:

---

Al Qaida released a statement shortly after the Iraq War began, saying that Britain and Spain were targets for retaliation for their participation in the Iraq war (as well as Poland and Japan). But that was a while ago.

---

Quote:

---

I think this makes it clear that it isn't just a war between the U.S. and Al Qaida. That in fact, the entire world is a target for Muslim extremism. (As if the point were not already made clear by Muslim terrorism and violence in Russia, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Sudan, Algeria, Yemen, China and elsewhere. )

---

Quote:

---

But, y'know, blame it on Bush. ("Not Partisan" ?!?!)

---

Quote:

---

This terrorism began under Clinton, and Clinton had 8 years to deal with it.

---

Quote:

---

You blame it all on Bush, some of which I actually agree with. Bush was only in office 8 months, so he didn't have time to implement anything.

---

Granted I lashed out pretty blindly during my rant, nowhere did I say that I'm blaming it ALL on Bush. I don't. I just wish (and to a degree, feel) that MAYBE he could have prevented this. It's wishful thinking and just pure rage that so many people have been butchered in such a short period of time, and I blamed more of it on Bush than was reasonable. Surely you know what its like to lash out at someone in blind anger who maybe doesn't deserve it.

Quote:

---

Regarding your comments that Bush should have done more to prevent the bombing of Shiites in Iraq 2 weeks ago, or to prevent what happened in Spain:

---

Quote:

---

And also regarding your "non-partisan" Bush-bashing "Bush should have done more:
How many hundreds of billions have we spent on homeland security? Ans still they say, shipping crates could be used by Al Qaida to bring in nukes or other WMD's for a terror bombing. Or trains, or 18-wheeler trucks, or other means. Despite the maximum effort within our own borders, we are still vulnerable, and our government tries every day to close those gaps.
And yet on local news, I still see a story every two months or so of how local reported snuck guns or knives or other more potentally dangerous materials through airport security.

---

Quote:

---

It bothers me that your reaction, and the liberal reaction in general, is to blame Bush first, and irrationally, for ANYTHING that goes wrong.

---

Actually, if you wanna get nitpicky, read my first post, you'd see my first reaction was to condemn this attack and hope that whoever was behind it was exterminated.

As for flying off the handle at Bush, I've already acknowledged that I was out of line on some of it, and I'm going to say it straight out - it was wrong of me to do so.

Quote:

---

Yes, I have some problems with Bush's military policy, and I think he could have done more, or pressed for more efficient and less wasteful use of military and security resources. But I still feel he is the strongest President we could ask for in the present post-9/11 situation, who will pursue the U.S. interest first, and not waffle and cave in to the U.N., Saudi Arabia, France, Germany or anyone else, putting meaningless diplomacy in greater priority than U.S. national security, as I guarantee you Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Dean, and other Democrats have clearly stated they would.

---

Quote:

---

Finally, you can take your "non-partisan" remarks about Bush, and shove them up your ass.

I'm so sick of you voicing your "non-partisan/neutral objectivity" even as you make blatantly partisan remarks.

---

Quote:

---

And I'm sick to death of you, Darknight613, and liberal assholes like you, who always blame America, and especially the Republicans, first.

---

Quote:

---

And then don't even have the guts to admit it.

---

Quote:

---

What about Clinton, asshole. What the hell about Clinton ?!?

---

Quote:

---

I feel very badly for the people of Spain. I know the anger and the tears I had on 9-11, and my heart goes out to them.
I have a former fiance in Almeria, on the Southern coast of Spain. And if circumstances were just slightly different, I might be there right now, and this would be even closer to home for me.

---

Quote:

---

PJP said:

Quote:

---

D. McDonagh said:
Hasn't taken Bush long to try to turn it into a PR stunt, has it? I know there's an election coming up, but doesn't the fuckwit have any class at all?

---

Fuck you you piece of shit..........he's got our best interests at heart and he at least has the balls to do something about it..........you mean to tell me if someone punches you in the face........you're just going to let them and walk away.......you're a fucking pussy.

---

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

• The 1993 World Trade Center bombing
  
• The ambush in Mogadishu, Somalia (because Clinton did not station adequate backup troops, if the troops came under heavy fire, because for politically correct reasons, he minimized the troops he sent there. Which resulted in a unit of Army Rangers getting slaughtered, and their corpses dragged through the streets on global television)
  
• Also in 1993, Clinton cut and ran from Somalia instead of militarily finishing the job. Paying more attention to popularity polls than doing the job right, he pulled our troops out. Muslims all over the world, and Al Qaida in particular, still cite this as proof that Americans are cowards, which further incites them to attack us.
  
• The 1995 bombing of U.S. troop barracks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Clinton's inaction led to later Al Qaida terror on a greater scale.
  
• The 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in the capitals of Kenya and Tanzania. Clinton's answer to this was to lob a few cruise missiles at Al Qaida camps in Sudan and Afghanistan. But it well acknowledged by Pentagon insiders at the time that this was known in advance to be a minimal, inneffectual illusion of action, that would not stop the threat, but would look tough to the American public. Clinton didn't do a larger and more effective attack in 1998, because he was attempting to negotiate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. And a larger attack would have upset that agreement.
  
• And furthermore, Clinton's inneffectual 1998 cruise missile attack is what made Osama Bin Ladin an international hero to the entire Muslim world, for standing up to the United States and surviving. If a real effort was made THEN, to really stop Bin Ladin, then 9-11 would never have occurred.
  Again, Clinton's inaction led to later Al Qaida terror on a greater scale.
  
• The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, at port in Yemen, in October 2000. Again, no response, because Clinton was negotiating peace in Israel/Palestine, and didn't want to upset the Arabs.
  Again, Clinton's inaction led to later Al Qaida terror on an increasingly greater scale.
  
• And likewise, beyond Al Qaida and terrorism, if Clinton had not naively signed away roughly a billion a year in energy give-aways to North Korea, with no verification required regarding inspection of their nuclear facilities, then North Korea would not have had 10 years to secretly build nuclear weapons.
  
• And likewise, if Clinton did not have a contempt for national security, and fill his administration with liberals who likewise had a contempt for national security, China would not have had the opportunity to steal nuclear secrets and missile technology, to build better ICBM's that can now reach the United States. This is something that will come back to haunt us, in the coming decades.
  
• Clinton also had incentive to invade Iraq in 1995, when high-level Iraqi military defectors first began telling that Saddam Hussein had a secret WMD program, that he was hiding from U.N. weapons inspectors.
  And again in 1998, when Saddam Hussein pushed out U.N. weapons inspectors entirely from Iraq (violating the 1991 peace terms), Clinton again did nothing. Again demonstrating weakness that invited attack on the U.S.
  
• And likewise, not resolving the situation in Iraq, maintaining Northern and Southern no-fly zones in Iraq, and troops in Saudi Arabia, was the specific reason Osama Bin Ladin declared his Al Qaida Jihad on the United States.
  Again, a situation where, if Clinton resolved the Iraq situation, rather than leaving our troops there indefinitely, the Al Qaida rationalization for 9-11 might have ceased to exist.
  

---

Quote:

---

D. McDonagh said:
First, I'm British and the stupid cunt definitely doesn't have our best interests at heart. If he did he wouldn't be doing his best to alienate us from the rest of the EEC (don't know if you'd have heard of that, you're obviously not very bright) and expecting us to provide him with cannon fodder so that the terrifying US military can fuck around with guided missiles a safe distance away from the enemy, and so avoid the bad PR he'd get from a lot of American soldiers getting killed.

---

And how did the Middle East get so screwed up in the first place?

oh, gee, I dunno....ya think maybe several hundred years of British Imperialism !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
And how did the Middle East get so screwed up in the first place?

oh, gee, I dunno....ya think maybe several hundred years of British Imperialism !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Exactly. We propped them up. We have the right to take them out.

---

Quote:

---

D. McDonagh said:
Bush's activities also wouldn't have been necessary if his old man had finished the job properly back in '91. It isn't a purely British mess there.

---

Quote:

---

By Andrew Cawthorne

MADRID (Reuters) - ETA said on Friday it was not responsible for the Madrid train bomb blasts that killed nearly 200 people, but Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar said the Basque separatist group remained the focus of inquiry.


"An ETA message has arrived saying that it bore no responsibility for the attack," ETB Basque public television reported.


But two days before a general election he said would go ahead as planned, Aznar stuck to his initial accusation that ETA was behind Thursday's bomb blasts on four packed commuter trains that also wounded nearly 1,500 people.


Fears that Muslim militants linked to Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda might have been behind the coordinated bombings put security forces on alert across Europe and beyond.


A six-and-a-half-month-old baby girl died in hospital on Friday, taking the official death toll to 199 in what Spanish media have dubbed "Our September 11."


"No line of investigation will be ruled out," Aznar said minutes before Spaniards fell silent across the nation to mourn the dead at midday.


Hundreds of thousands later took to the streets of Madrid in response to an appeal by Aznar to show their opposition to the bombings.


Many analysts say any proven ETA involvement in the bombings would likely benefit the ruling Popular Party (PP) in Sunday's general election because of its tough anti-ETA stance.


PRICE OF IRAQ WAR?


But they said that if the killings were the work of Muslim militants, it could be viewed as the price for Aznar's backing of the U.S.-led war in Iraq (news - web sites) in the face of strong domestic Spanish opposition.


"Why does the government think there may be evidence that leads us to the terrorist organization we know so well here?" Aznar asked, before citing foiled ETA plots and intelligence suggesting the group was aiming at transport targets.


"What did this terrorist organization want when they tried to enter Madrid last week with 500 kilos of explosives? It's a line of investigation any Spanish government that hasn't lost its head has to follow. It's the one we are following and if there are other hypotheses, we'll follow them too."


Victims of the Madrid bombs included 24 nationals of 10 other countries: Peru, Honduras, Poland, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Guinea Bissau, France, Morocco and Colombia.


Shocked Spaniards left flowers and messages next to the mangled wreckage of trains and station platforms on Friday.


Witnesses spoke of their horror at the carnage -- including mobile phones ringing on dead bodies.


As condemnation poured in from Pope John Paul (news - web sites) to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), jittery European nations tightened security and bomb scares in Spain kept nerves strained.


Washington said a purported al Qaeda letter claiming responsibility for the bombings and threatening another September 11-style strike could be the "precursor" of another plot against the United States.





"CRUSADER EUROPE"

"We have succeeded in infiltrating the heart of crusader Europe and struck one of the bases of the crusader alliance," said the letter, a copy of which was faxed by a London-based Arabic newspaper to Reuters in Dubai.

No authentication was available of the letter attributed to the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, a group aligned to al Qaeda.

Practically all of Spain, from homes to workplaces, came to a halt at midday for silent vigils.

Broadcasters fell silent and drivers stood by their cars on main roads. Spanish flags and black ribbons fluttered from houses.

At Aznar's residence, a silent vigil was broken by an official shouting: "Send the terrorists to the firing squad."

Joined by the prime ministers of Italy and France, as well as other senior officials from around Europe, millions of Spaniards gathered for the evening protest called by Aznar.

Solidarity rallies were also scheduled in Venezuela, Mexico, Peru and Argentina. President Bush (news - web sites) planned to join a wreath-laying ceremony at the Spanish ambassador's Washington residence.

Fueling suspicions of a possible al Qaeda link, Spain has found a van containing seven detonators and a tape in Arabic at a town near Madrid.

"If the hell unleashed which burned the whole of Madrid on Thursday is the result of Islamic fanaticism, we must look at Spain's role in the Iraq war: an involvement which our citizens rejected," said newspaper commentator Antonio Gala.

ETA has killed about 850 people since 1968 in its fight for a separate Basque homeland in northern Spain and southwest France. It has been branded a terrorist group by the United States and the European Union (news - web sites).

Thursday's death toll was the biggest in a guerrilla attack in Europe since December 1988 when a bomb exploded on board a Pan American Boeing 747, bringing it down on the Scottish town of Lockerbie. In all, 270 people were killed. (Additional reporting by Marta Calleja, Adrian Croft, Elisabeth O'Leary, Daniel Trotta, Emma Ross-Thomas and Andrew Cawthorne)

---

Quote:

---

"If the hell unleashed which burned the whole of Madrid on Thursday is the result of Islamic fanaticism, we must look at Spain's role in the Iraq war: an involvement which our citizens rejected," said newspaper commentator Antonio Gala.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't

Bush Jr is wrong to ivade Iraq.
Bush Sr was wrong NOT to ivade Iraq.

You're either for peace or your not.

Clearly, you just want an excuse to bash the President and there are no principles whatsoever to your stance.

---

Quote:

---

D. McDonagh said:
Not really, I just feel that if somebody starts a war they should make the effort to get it finished off properly before leaving the country. The elder Bush didn't do anything of the sort.

---

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
It bothers me that your reaction, and the liberal reaction in general, is to blame Bush first, and irrationally, for ANYTHING that goes wrong.

---

Actually, if you wanna get nitpicky, read my first post, you'd see my first reaction was to condemn this attack and hope that whoever was behind it was exterminated.

As for flying off the handle at Bush, I've already acknowledged that I was out of line on some of it, and I'm going to say it straight out - it was wrong of me to do so.

---

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Finally, you can take your "non-partisan" remarks about Bush, and shove them up your ass.

I'm so sick of you voicing your "non-partisan/neutral objectivity" even as you make blatantly partisan remarks.

---

Look, just because I don't like Bush or many of his policies doesn't mean it's because of partisanship. We don't see eye to eye on many of the issues, I don't like his attitude, and I honestly don't trust the guy. But that doesn't mean I hate Republicans or conservatives or "blame them for all the problems in the world." If you think otherwise, you're wrong. End of story.

---

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
And I'm sick to death of you, Darknight613, and liberal assholes like you, who always blame America, and especially the Republicans, first.

---

Excuse me...I can't speak for anybody else, but I have never "blamed America" for anything. I don't always agree with everything America does, but I have NEVER said (or even thought) that America is "the bad guy." I rarely (if ever) accuse republicans or conservatives in general of anything. My negative views about Bush do not represent my views on all republicans or conservatives. I have a problem with Bush, not the Republican party, and not with conservatives, although I admit that I don't agree with where they stand on a lot of issues. There are some issues agree with liberals about, some I agree with conservatives about, and there are others that I'm still trying to figure out where I stand.

But once again, that's not the same as "bashing conservatives/republicans" or "blaming them for everything." You have a problem with liberals, that's your right. I'm not going to try and tell you you're wrong to do so anymore. But don't try to label me as something I'm not just because I don't like ONE PARTICULAR Republican conservative.

---

Well, I'll grant you this, Darknight613, you certainly don't rise to the partisan venom level of, say, Whomod or Jim Jackson.

But at the same time, I've seen you make several remarks of a partisan nature attacking Bush. And I don't think you're as non-partisan as you'd like me to believe.
Or perhaps you're more partisan than you yourself realize.

I've seen you consistently take the liberal side, I've never seen you once criticize the Democrats on any specific issue, except to give vague assurances to the rest of us of your "objectivity" by saying:
"well, I criticize the Democrats too..."

But I've never seen you actually criticize liberals and Democrats.
And you said in one topic that I never back up what I say (despite my many posted links) and at the same time said that Whomod is "objective".

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
What about Clinton, asshole. What the hell about Clinton ?!?

---

What ABOUT Clinton? He did his fair share of screwing up (not including his actual screwing). I never agreed with the way he handled the peace process in Israel. You think that just because I slam Bush that I never slammed on Clinton? Or that I haven't slammed Kerry or Dean or some of the other Democratic presidential candidates? I care about the issues, not pathetic political alliegences.

---

Implying that I have pathetic political allegiences.

Regarding Clinton, I detailed a partial laundry-list of his overwhelming 8 years of negligence that Bush is attempting to clean up. I find it deeply frustrating that you blame Bush circumstantially, without the slightest mention of Clinton's clear negligence.
As I detailed (with Bush's backburnering terrorism in early 2001 to focus on an expensive and questionably effective missile defense shield program) I think Bush also bears some blame.
But since this happened barely 8 months into his presidency, as I said, there wasn't time for Bush to implement anything anyway.

I support a President I didn't vote for (G.W. Bush) in time of war. I question many of Bush's policies, but for the lack of a decent Democrat alternative, I may actually vote for Bush this time.

It just galls me to have you blame bombings in Madrid and Baghdad on Bush's alleged negligence.
If a girl gets raped in Miami, is that Bush's fault too?
( Oh, wait a minute: is Clinton in town ? )

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:

So, now that that's been cleared up, shall we let this drop and we go our separate ways, or are we going to repeat the pattern of "I say something stupid/thoughtless, you slam me for it, I try to make amends while still trying to defend my position but accidentaly end up digging myself deeper, things get ugly, etc.?"

To be very honest with you, I'm more than happy to just let this end here and now. My schedule is finally starting to fill up, and I don't have the time to spare engaging in a pointles fight that probably won't change anything in the long run except create more bad feelings. I'm sure you have much more important things to do with your time than fight with some brash, reckless kid.

So what say we at least agree to disagree and let this mini-fight die a quick, painless death, and move on to more important things in our lives?

---

I'm not above saying things in anger either. I think we've all crossed that line.

Consider it dead.

Quote:

---

D. McDonagh said:

Quote:

---

PJP said:

Quote:

---

D. McDonagh said:
Hasn't taken Bush long to try to turn it into a PR stunt, has it? I know there's an election coming up, but doesn't the fuckwit have any class at all?

---

Fuck you you piece of shit..........he's got our best interests at heart and he at least has the balls to do something about it..........you mean to tell me if someone punches you in the face........you're just going to let them and walk away.......you're a fucking pussy.

---

First, I'm British and the stupid cunt definitely doesn't have our best interests at heart. If he did he wouldn't be doing his best to alienate us from the rest of the EEC (don't know if you'd have heard of that, you're obviously not very bright) and expecting us to provide him with cannon fodder so that the terrifying US military can fuck around with guided missiles a safe distance away from the enemy, and so avoid the bad PR he'd get from a lot of American soldiers getting killed.
Second, using a terrorist attack in another country to try to justify pushing Iraq over may well count as doing something, but it's not doing anything very helpful. The technical term for what he's doing is "talking shit", which is a concept you're obviously very familiar with. I doubt Bush would have paid any attention at all if this had happened before September 2001: just a bunch of dead Europeans, no votes in it.
Third, Bush doesn't have any balls: Rumsfeld is keeping them in a jar and might give them back to him if he wins the election in November. This is why Bush does everything Rumsfeld tells him to, however pointless or absurd it may be.
And no thank you: I wouldn't even fuck you with someone else's cock, you ill mannered little shit.

---

Quote:

---

whomod said:

Quote:

---

PJP said:

Quote:

---

D. McDonagh said:
Hasn't taken Bush long to try to turn it into a PR stunt, has it? I know there's an election coming up, but doesn't the fuckwit have any class at all?

---

Fuck you you piece of shit..........he's got our best interests at heart and he at least has the balls to do something about it..........you mean to tell me if someone punches you in the face........you're just going to let them and walk away.......you're a fucking pussy.

---

I think you just inadvertently called Jesus a pussy.

---

Dude you are twisted....... .......but funny at times.

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

D. McDonagh said:
Bush's activities also wouldn't have been necessary if his old man had finished the job properly back in '91. It isn't a purely British mess there.

---

Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't

Bush Jr is wrong to ivade Iraq.
Bush Sr was wrong NOT to ivade Iraq.

You're either for peace or your not.

Clearly, you just want an excuse to bash the President and there are no principles whatsoever to your stance.

---

Quote:

---

britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
i think with the 9-11 it showed that the terrorist had a capability and will to do major attacks, im assuming that since they have been few and far between the war on terror is working, i do not believe that they suddenly decided they went to far and decided to tone down the attacks......

---