Terrorist Victory In Spain - Page 4

joncha · March 21, 2004, 00:12

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You aren't required to click on it. Idiot.

Thank you for your informed opinion.

Let's recap the thread so far, shall we?

page 1, wherein we discuss the relative merits of Putin and Stalin, and Fez informs us that, apart from his ideology, Stalin was an ok guy.

page 2, in which we play "caption the photo."

page 3, which consists of an in depth discussion of whether in fact it is possible to capture CharlesBHoff in a photographic image.

Excuse me for not taking this thread seriously enough...

Pax · March 21, 2004, 00:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
"The Spanish troops are leaving Iraq not Spain. Also, if the Spanish Army is like the American Army it's trained to be a an army not police force. I don't think that the Spanish Army or people have anything to be ashamed of if they don't want to be involved in someone else's affairs."

...and yet they came to be there somehow, and are turning tail at the first sign of trouble.

Actually they are bowing to the will of the Spanish people that they are sworn to protect and serve.

Giancarlo · March 21, 2004, 00:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus

Actually they are bowing to the will of the Spanish people that they are sworn to protect and serve.

That's BS. They are an offensive unit that was designed to serve in international operations. And the Army doesn't patrol the streets in Spain, that is left to the Police and Civil Guard.

Lancer · March 21, 2004, 00:37

Quite right, my mistake. The Spanish nation is turning tail.

DinoDoc · March 21, 2004, 00:38

Quote:

Originally posted by joncha

Thank you for your informed opinion.

Let's recap the thread so far, shall we?

You aren't required to click on it. Idiot.

joncha · March 21, 2004, 00:44

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You aren't required to click on it. Idiot.

That's the second time you've called me that... I'm beginning to think you don't like me!

Pax · March 21, 2004, 00:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo

That's BS. They are an offensive unit that was designed to serve in international operations. And the Army doesn't patrol the streets in Spain, that is left to the Police and Civil Guard.

I'm not saying they are policemen. I'm saying there duty is to there people. Even then I guess I was wrong. They are an offensive unit designed for international operations who have nothing to do with protecting and serving the spanish people. Got it.

Giancarlo · March 21, 2004, 00:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus

I'm not saying they are policemen. I'm saying there duty is to there people. Even then I guess I was wrong. They are an offensive unit designed for international operations who have nothing to do with protecting and serving the spanish people. Got it.

They are an offensive unit. Their duty is to the country. The former government of Aznar directed they serve their country in a foreign land. They aren't meant to protect the Spanish homeland, again that is meant to the police and Civil Guard. Something difficult for you to understand in that?

(Note: The deployment in Iraq is the Plus Ultra Division, an offensive unit. It does not protect the Spanish homeland)

Pax · March 21, 2004, 01:01

I don't know the exact oath for Spaniards but the concept in the U.S. is that the young men and women join to defend the country against all enemies both foreign and domestic. The government decides who the enemies are. But the government answers to the people. If the people don't look at Iraq as an enemy then government has a problem. Of course the government sometimes has to make unpopular decisions for the good of the people. Then it falls on the government to successfully defend it's position to stay in power. It's apparent that Aznar's government failed to have the support of Spain in the war against Iraq. That means that a good portion of the populatiion of spain never believed that this war was in defense of their country or way of life.

Giancarlo · March 21, 2004, 01:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
I don't know the exact oath for Spaniards but the concept in the U.S. is that the young men and women join to defend the country against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

All enemies foreign, and that is what happened with Saddam Hussein.

Quote:

It's apparent that Aznar's government failed to have the support of Spain in the war against Iraq. That means that a good portion of the populatiion of spain never believed that this war was in defense of their country or way of life.

Aznar did what he had to do. He did in the good for the nation and aswell as the Iraqi people. If no western country can get involved to help the Iraqis out, who can? Who can help them? Should we just let them die? You are seriously misinformed.

Pax · March 21, 2004, 01:19

It annoys me that your response is basically a reiteration of my post with an insult thrown in.

I'm not sure how old you are. But I was reading about Saddam Hussein mass killings when I was 15. That was 18 years ago. If that was the justification for war it's a little late don't you think? The answer is that that was not the reason for the war. If you think it was then you are misinformed.

Giancarlo · March 21, 2004, 01:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
It annoys me that your response is basically a reiteration of my post with an insult thrown in.

Calling you seriously misinformed is not meant as an insult but as criticism.

Quote:

I'm not sure how old you are. But I was reading about Saddam Hussein mass killings when I was 15. That was 18 years ago.

What difference does it make what my age is? Pat Robertson is like 80 but he's an idiot.

Quote:

If that was the justification for war it's a little late don't you think? The answer is that that was not the reason for the war. If you think it was then you are misinformed.

Incorrect. You are the misinformed one.

Pax · March 21, 2004, 01:38

I'm pointing out that the time to action on Saddam for human rights violations was 18 years ago. Read the post.

You constantly repeat and qoute my statements then only say something like wrong,incorrect, misinformed, or idiot. Make a point.

My point about the Spanish government is that Aznar decided Iraq was an enemy but the Spanish disagree so they are not running. Please don't say something to the effect that Aznar did what he had to do. He ignored the people. He did not have to do that.

Giancarlo · March 21, 2004, 01:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
You constantly repeat and qoute my statements then only say something like wrong,incorrect, misinformed, or idiot. Make a point.

My point about the Spanish government is that Aznar decided Iraq was an enemy but the Spanish disagree so they are not running. Please don't say something to the effect that Aznar did what he had to do. He ignored the people. He did not have to do that.

You learn that you cannot negogiate with terrorists. They are out to kill you. I don't know what is so difficult for you to understand about that.

Aznar was right and did what was necessary. But now that idiot Zapatero is backstabbing the Iraqi and American people. Well it is his choice.

Aznar had to ignore the misinformed opinion and do what was right.

Pax · March 21, 2004, 02:00

I think the use of the word terrorists is basically political propaganda. Before AQ targeting the U.S. they were known as freedom fighters. semantics and politics.

In effect, any group that views are different from your can and will be labeled. Do you think a bunch of moslems are not saying right now that you can't negotiate with the great satan. We have to show these people that we are not inherently evil at the same time they've got to show us that they are not evil.

Giancarlo · March 21, 2004, 02:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
I think the use of the word terrorists is basically political propaganda. Before AQ targeting the U.S. they were known as freedom fighters. semantics and politics.

Freedom fighters? Your statements are blatantly arrogant. They are not freedom fighters. They are hated by much of the arab world.

Quote:

In effect, any group that views are different from your can and will be labeled. Do you think a bunch of moslems are not saying right now that you can't negotiate with the great satan. We have to show these people that we are not inherently evil at the same time they've got to show us that they are not evil.

I have a few friends who are muslim. They have to learn the US is not inherently evil and by singing cumbaya and talking with terrorists we do not teach them this. We have to go after terrorists and kill them or jail them.

Pax · March 21, 2004, 02:35

The fighters that went to afghanistan in the 80's. The ones that were supplied by the U.S. government were referred to as freedom fighters in the American Press.

I'm not going to be commenting any further because I get your basic point.
KILL THEM or JAIL THEM

Giancarlo · March 21, 2004, 02:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
The fighters that went to afghanistan in the 80's. The ones that were supplied by the U.S. government were referred to as freedom fighters in the American Press.

That was against Soviet Invasion. I have no objections and would of had no objections to that at the time. However, the US should of stayed by Afghanistan after the Soviet pull out.

Az · March 21, 2004, 02:46

Quote:

That was against Soviet Invasion. I have no objections and would of had no objections to that at the time.

typical hypocricy. So you'd rather have the Taliban than the soviet union? It's that kind of thinking that got us where we are, anyway.

And when One says Democracy, one doesn't mean just the rule of the majority, but personal freedoms, as well.

Giancarlo · March 21, 2004, 02:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

That was against Soviet Invasion. I have no objections and would of had no objections to that at the time.

typical hypocricy. So you'd rather have the Taliban than the soviet union? It's that kind of thinking that got us where we are, anyway.

And when One says Democracy, one doesn't mean just the rule of the majority, but personal freedoms, as well.

Nope not total hypocrisy. In fact the taliban were welcomed in the beginning when they were more moderate.. welcomed as a stablizing force. They went radical and started blowing up statues, executing women, and killing whoever opposed them.

notyoueither · March 21, 2004, 02:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
The fighters that went to afghanistan in the 80's. The ones that were supplied by the U.S. government were referred to as freedom fighters in the American Press.

I'm not going to be commenting any further because I get your basic point.
KILL THEM or JAIL THEM

Uhmmm, they also went there to fight the Red Army, not to Moscow to blow up civies.

Pax · March 21, 2004, 03:01

It's not what they went there for that I'm pointing out. It's the label they were given.

Giancarlo · March 21, 2004, 03:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
It's not what they went there for that I'm pointing out. It's the label they were given.

Terrorist = People who blow up civilians

I think they fit the profile.

Az · March 21, 2004, 03:06

Quote:

Nope not total hypocrisy. In fact the taliban were welcomed in the beginning when they were more moderate.. welcomed as a stablizing force. They went radical and started blowing up statues, executing women, and killing whoever opposed them.

**** the Taliban. I am talking about the warlords the USA supported against the Soviets. Sure, they were "Moderate" at first, at that they didn't attack the USA. If you think that their internal policies changed, you're oh so wrong. In fact, the Soviet Union would've turned it into a second world country. Now, it's probably the most ****ed up nation on earth.

Giancarlo · March 21, 2004, 03:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
**** the Taliban. I am talking about the warlords the USA supported against the Soviets. Sure, they were "Moderate" at first, at that they didn't attack the USA. If you think that their internal policies changed, you're oh so wrong. In fact, the Soviet Union would've turned it into a second world country. Now, it's probably the most ****ed up nation on earth.

Somebody had to fight against the Soviets. Sorry that was how the situation was. That last part about the Soviets turning it into a second world country is questionable... like Somalia? Angola? Or how about some of the other soviet backed regimes in Africa? The Soviet Union wouldn't of done **** and in fact made the situation a lot worse. The country actually had infrastructure before the Soviet invasion. So don't you give the soviet union credit for anything.

notyoueither · March 21, 2004, 03:09

The label was Mujahedeen, btw. These people were not in the same category as AQ, Hezbollah, or assorted other flavours of murderers.

They went and fought people with guns who were perfectly able to defend themselves. They did not go to other countries and murder civies. Can you see the difference?

Az · March 21, 2004, 03:14

Quote:

The label was Mujahedeen, btw. These people were not in the same category as AQ, Hezbollah, or assorted other flavours of murderers.

They went and fought people with guns who were perfectly able to defend themselves. They did not go to other countries and murder civies. Can you see the difference?

I, of course, can see the difference in methods. In fact, I never claimed that their methods were wrong. It was their end goal that was THE REAL problem. Just like with Al Qaeda, really.

Pax · March 21, 2004, 03:14

So what happened to the Mujahedeen? Where did they go? was OSL a Mujahedeen?

GePap · March 21, 2004, 03:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo
The country actually had infrastructure before the Soviet invasion. So don't you give the soviet union credit for anything.

Yes, it did, which was destroyed during the war that the west and the saudis helped bankroll. A lot of that infrastructure had been paid for by the soviets, as both the US and USSR helped build p afghanistan to curry favor.

GePap · March 21, 2004, 03:16

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
They went and fought people with guns who were perfectly able to defend themselves. They did not go to other countries and murder civies. Can you see the difference?

Certainly they stayed home..though the people of Kabul might might disagree with the whole "not killing civies" bit.