Terrorist Attack in Spain - Over 60 dead

[Graham]

Graham,

I consider my time to be of some importance. I post here because I enjoy logical debate. I enjoy having my opinions and perceptions attacked, in this way I get to rethink them to be sure that I'm defending a logical and correct position.

I cannot do that when my positions are attacked by angry ad hom and strawman arguments. Please cease trying to demonize me in such ways and we can return to a polite and logical discussion of actual facts.

If you cannot in good faith do so then I cannot spare any more time in responding to you.

Regards,
-z

Your refusal to address my points is noted.

 

[Graham]

- Are you claiming that Al-Q don't consider New York more important than Madrid? (i.e. the US is the target of choice). Nothing beyond that could reasonably be read into Skeptic's post but it didn't stop you trying...

No, I'm claiming that Skeptic considers Madrid a less important target than New York, which is an entirely different kettle of fish and is there in Skeptic's post in plain English for all to see.

Graham

 

[Kodiak]

Somos todos espanoles, indeed then, eh?

I'll read your links later btw, thanks for that but I'm off home in a minute.

Graham

Skeptic can only show you the real world, he can't make you give up your Utopian dreams...

 

[Graham]

Skeptic can only show you the real world, he can't make you give up your Utopian dreams...

Rikzilla - your PM mailbox is full - I was going for heated debate rather than personal attack but apolgise if I overstepped the line.

Later guys.

Graham

 

[epepke]

So in essence, you are agreeing that as long as there are no more attacks on US targets, the war on terror can be counted as a success?

No, but even if he was, it would certainly be a good measure to its success in the USA.

Um, not really.

Before 11 Sep 2001, the most recent major foreign attack on US soil was the first attempt at bombing the WTC in 1993.

For the mathematically challenged, that's eight (8) years, during which time there was no particular War on Terrorism.

And the fact that there hasn't been a major foreign terrorist attack on US soil in 2 1/2 years demonstrates the efficacy of the War on Terrorism exactly how?

Did we leave our skeptic hats at Pizzeria Uno or something?

 

[Darat]

No, I'm claiming that Skeptic considers Madrid a less important target than New York, which is an entirely different kettle of fish and is there in Skeptic's post in plain English for all to see.

Graham

Graham, I think you may have misread what Skeptic posted, he said (bold & underline by me):

...snip...

In reality, of course, putting a lock on the door is a victory for the store owner: it frustrated the burglar, forcing him to look for other, less important tagets in his eyes. It is at least partial victory: there is at least one shop, his preferred shop, that the burglar can't rob. The point now is to make the other shops burglar-proof as well.

Similarly, if the terrorists like the attack the USA and now cannot, then the war on terror won at least a partial victory: it denied them their most important target. Sure, now they'll try for less important targets if they can; but they have been at least partially defeated. The point now is to make sure that they are defeated elsewhere as well, until they have no targets left (at least ideally).

...snip...

In context it is quite clear that Skeptic is talking about the distinction that terrorists make between targets, not his own distinction. (I do not know what Skeptic's view is of important and non-important targets.)

 

[Giz]

Graham, I think you may have misread what Skeptic posted, he said (bold & underline by me):



In context it is quite clear that Skeptic is talking about the distinction that terrorists make between targets, not his own distinction. (I do not know what Skeptic's view is of important and non-important targets.)

That's certainly how I read it.

My thoughts are with everyone in Spain tonight.

 

[rikzilla]

Rikzilla - your PM mailbox is full - I was going for heated debate rather than personal attack but apolgise if I overstepped the line.

Later guys.

Graham

accepted.

I look forward to further discussion with you.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Um, not really.

Before 11 Sep 2001, the most recent major foreign attack on US soil was the first attempt at bombing the WTC in 1993.

For the mathematically challenged, that's eight (8) years, during which time there was no particular War on Terrorism.

And the fact that there hasn't been a major foreign terrorist attack on US soil in 2 1/2 years demonstrates the efficacy of the War on Terrorism exactly how?

Did we leave our skeptic hats at Pizzeria Uno or something?

Are you in denial about Al Qaeda(tm) brand terrorism? Well, here's a little heads up. They were responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing,...the Tanzania/Kenya embassy bombings,...the USS Cole,....as well as 9/11. Lets look at the frequency; June 25, 1996 (Khobar Towers bombing), November 16, 1997 (blackhawk down firefight, Somalia), 7 August 1998 (Tanzania/Kenya), October 12, 2000 (USS Cole bombing), September 11, 2001 (No explanation needed).

Oh, I almost forgot; They were also responsible for the first WTC bomb in 1993....(Ramzi Yusef was an Al Qaeda guy)

So;
February 1993, first WTC bomb....Al Qaeda warmup.
June 1996, Al Qaeda getting more efficient
November 1997, Al Qaeda learns that killing Americans on tv is effective....Osama seeks to work this angle in earnest.
August 1998, Al Qaeda's first big coordinated hit,...their trademark. The event that should have awoken Bill Clinton from his stupor. (it didn't) Clinton responds by blowing up pill factory.
October 2000, USS Cole bombing...Al Qaeda again....lessons still unlearned apparently. Several million $ in cruise missiles decimate deserted Al Qaeda campsite. Many expensive tents destroyed.
September 11,2001, No comment.

Since Sept 11,2001.........................? Zero against either soft targets on US soil, or hard US targets on foreign soil. That is the criteria. There is no point in pointing to Bali, or Madrid and saying Bush's policies aren't working....he is not omnipotent. He can protect ALL people in ALL countries in the exact same way he can order the Mississippi river to start flowing north.

-z

 

[Kodiak]

Um, not really.

Before 11 Sep 2001, the most recent major foreign attack on US soil was the first attempt at bombing the WTC in 1993.

For the mathematically challenged, that's eight (8) years, during which time there was no particular War on Terrorism.

And the fact that there hasn't been a major foreign terrorist attack on US soil in 2 1/2 years demonstrates the efficacy of the War on Terrorism exactly how?

Did we leave our skeptic hats at Pizzeria Uno or something?

Again, please check these out:

Managing the War on Terror

Marines claim terror attacks thwarted in Africa

Are we winning the War on Terror?

Counterterrorisn Coordinator claims continuing success of Global War on Terror

 

[zenith-nadir]

I heard a quick blurb on the radio while I was driving...If you discount the leap year in 2004 the Madrid bombings come 911 days after 9-11. (with the leap year, 912 days).

Coincidence?

 

[epepke]

Are you in denial about Al Qaeda(tm) brand terrorism? Well, here's a little heads up. They were responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing,...the Tanzania/Kenya embassy bombings,...the USS Cole,....as well as 9/11. Lets look at the frequency; June 25, 1996 (Khobar Towers bombing), November 16, 1997 (blackhawk down firefight, Somalia), 7 August 1998 (Tanzania/Kenya), October 12, 2000 (USS Cole bombing), September 11, 2001 (No explanation needed).

Oh, I almost forgot; They were also responsible for the first WTC bomb in 1993....(Ramzi Yusef was an Al Qaeda guy)

YES! Because I assert that the Khobar Towers, Tanzania, Kenya, and the high seas are not on US soil, then I must necessarily be in denial of Al Qaeda! You've caught me out. It's a fair cop.

Congratulations! You win the supreme Galactic award for intelligegence! All hail rikzilla, Supreme Brainiac!

 

[Kodiak]

I heard a quick blurb on the radio while I was driving...If you discount the leap year in 2004 the Madrid bombings come 911 days after 9-11. (with the leap year, 912 days).

Coincidence?

Ask Silvia Browne...

 

[rikzilla]

YES! Because I assert that the Khobar Towers, Tanzania, Kenya, and the high seas are not on US soil, then I must necessarily be in denial of Al Qaeda! You've caught me out. It's a fair cop.

Congratulations! You win the supreme Galactic award for intelligegence! All hail rikzilla, Supreme Brainiac!

Not on US soil,...but most assuredly high profile US government targets. Or do you disagree?

The rest of your post is a testament to the present level of your intellectual maturity. Thanks for sharing.

-z

 

[epepke]

Not on US soil,...but most assuredly high profile US government targets. Or do you disagree?

No, but in that case, let's start with Beirut, 1982.

But that's not what the original claim was about. The original claim was about the absence of attacks on US soil being evidence of the efficacy of the War on Terror.

Surely you're heard about one or two attack on US forces outside the US since then.

You can't have it both ways.

The rest of your post is a testament to the present level of your intellectual maturity. Thanks for sharing.

You're welcome.

 

[Skeptic]

That's certainly how I read it.

Indeed so. All I said was that the US is a more important target FOR THE TERRORISTS than Spain is; given the choice, they'd rather strike the US rather than Spain--an obviously true statement, and hardly one that makes Spain "less important" in any other sense.

I, for one, would be very happy if there was some way to make israel, or jews in general, an uniportant target to terrorists. Trust me on this one, Graham: I know all too well what being important in a terrorist's eyes REALLY means. Take my word for it: you don't want to be there.

But what did you expect? Graham's position--that the US should not defeat terrorists on its soil, since that might cause them to try and strike elsewhere--is both morally and practically indefensible, for the reasons I've shown above.

Naturally, the only "reply" he can make is try to take three words out of 1,000 or so in my post totally out of context, and then feign "moral outrage". The idea, of course, is to move the thread's subject from his endorsment of cowardly appeasement to my alleged "insensitivity".

Ah well.

 

[rikzilla]

No, but in that case, let's start with Beirut, 1982.

Since that pre-dates Al Qaeda I fail to see it's relevance.

But that's not what the original claim was about. The original claim was about the absence of attacks on US soil being evidence of the efficacy of the War on Terror.

That is only a tiny part of what I've said. Is the absence of further Al Qaeda attacks on US soil evidence of the efficacy of the WOT? Partially so. What I actually said was that GWB's comprehensive national security policies (including in part the WOT) are showing themselves more effective than the approach taken by President Clinton. Under Clinton I gave you a list that showed American government targets being hit with relative impugnity. After 9/11 the American response under the Bush admin was markedly different that under Mr. Clinton....and coorespondingly we see less terrorism against the type of targets that were earlier preferred by Al Qaeda....ergo it appears the policy of GWB is working, whilst Mr. Clinton's was not.

Surely you're heard about one or two attack on US forces outside the US since then.

Not outside what would be expected against US troops doing battle with the insurgents in Iraq. There was an attack against civilian housing area in Saudi recently which killed 8 Americans....but that is generally not the scale of attack we've seen in the past....and was not a government target either.

-z

 

[epepke]

That is only a tiny part of what I've said. Is the absence of further Al Qaeda attacks on US soil evidence of the efficacy of the WOT? Partially so. What I actually said was that GWB's comprehensive national security policies (including in part the WOT) are showing themselves more effective than the approach taken by President Clinton.

So the absence of Al Qaeda attacks on US soil for 2.5 years under Bush shows that Bush is effective. The absence of Al Qaeda attacks on US soil for 6.5 years shows Clinton ineffective.

The attack on the Cole and the various embassies show Clinton ineffective.

The attacks in Iraq don't count, because we've decided that "War On Terror" means "War On Terror Only If It's Al Qaeda." And the attacks in Bali and (probably now) Spain don't count, because the're not in the US and are not embassies or ships at sea, and Spain is a mere ally, and who cares about US tourists anyway?

And therefore we know for sure that the "War on Terror" is working really well.

Gotcha.

 

[rikzilla]

So the absence of Al Qaeda attacks on US soil for 2.5 years under Bush shows that Bush is effective. The absence of Al Qaeda attacks on US soil for 6.5 years shows Clinton ineffective.

The attack on the Cole and the various embassies show Clinton ineffective.

The attacks in Iraq don't count, because we've decided that "War On Terror" means "War On Terror Only If It's Al Qaeda." And the attacks in Bali and (probably now) Spain don't count, because the're not in the US and are not embassies or ships at sea, and Spain is a mere ally, and who cares about US tourists anyway?

And therefore we know for sure that the "War on Terror" is working really well.

Gotcha.

Glad to be of help. Teaching "Special" students can be so fullfilling!

-z

 

[epepke]

That and just about anything electronic can be (and probably has been) described as a "detonator". A digital watch, a scrap of copper wire and a AAA battery lying loose around the floor of someone's car could well turn into a "detonator" by the time the media had finished with it.

Valid skepticism, but I wonder if we'd see it but for the early accusation of the ETA.

That is, people have been thinking ETA for 24 hours now, and perhaps it's become a bit of an idee fixe.