BF2S Forums So much for Spain's appeasement of anti-islamic activity

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

well, how about the classic approach ? police work and counter-terrorism/intelligence ? Isn't that what the link in the OP is about, in essence ? There was a plot to bomb the public transport system in Madrid, and the police uncovered it and stopped the criminals/terrorists before it could be carried out.

You always seem to imply that Europeans "kneel" to the threat of terrorism. Seriously, I don't know where you are getting this idea from. A lot of European nations are involved in Afghanistan, to the degree that our laws will allow us to, and the rest is fighting terrorism with the means at their disposal. with considerable success, I might add.
Not every nation's military is so readily at the hands of their leader as the US armed forces, you know.

As far as the Spanish "appeasement" is concerned, as has been pointed out, Spaniards were growing increasingly unhappy with their country's involvement in Iraq before the elections, and the fact that Aznar tried to blame ETA for the bombings didn't really help his credibility.

The Spanish people made a democratic choice, and as an American, you should be the first to respect that.

Call it appeasement, if you want, but I don't think the Spanish people are any less safe today in their country, without military involvement in Iraq.
The law enforcement and counter-terrorism community are doing a good job at fighting terrorists and the added bonus is that

a) no Spanish soldier has to risk his life in some ME shithole for questionable motives, and
b) the Spanish government can spend their money on issues that are really important for the future of their nation.

and to be honest, looking at the number of US soldiers killed or wounded in Iraq, and the costs to your economy, an argument can be made that the Spanish people made a wise choice after all.

I asked, clearly, what is a third option in dealing with an attack AFTER the fact. Hunt them down and cower  are 2 options, what is the third. Spain made its choice, and your approval of it figures.

This OP speaks directly to Spains reation in the face of terrorism. The terrorist set out to achieve a specific goal, and that goal was achieved. It is cut and dry, and indisputable. THe fact that the ISLAMIC TERRORISTS ( can I say that?) was poised to do it again PROVES that appeasement, negotiations, rationalizations, understanding or what ever else you wanna call it will not work as long as we live our western lifestyles against the teaching of the peace loving and tolerant prophet Muhammad.

THe fact that you approve of sitting back and watching other countries fight this war that you know needs to be fought is exactly the European mentality that I speak of. If you had it your way, there would be no war on terror, ( I am sorry, on ANTI-ISLAMIC ACTIVITY  ), there will only be a clean up after the terrorism. Iraq ,is not the war on terror, Iraq is a front on the war on terror.

Spain made its choice to continue the fight against terrorists with the appropriate means, police and counter-terrorism. And yes, I approve of that.
What that is supposed to "figure", I'd be glad to hear from you. Implications ftw.

And who said "europeans are sitting back and watch other countries fight this war" ? Are you insane ? If I am informed correctly, european nations are involved in Afghanistan, including Germany. German soldiers have died there, you *********, *********** !!
We are fighting this war, with the means that we consider to be appropriate.
Just because we have chosen not to give in to US pressure as far as the tactics are concerned, doesn't mean we're appeasers.

Seriously, I don't get your black and white world. "Hunt them down" US style, aka send in the Marines, or "cower" and appease, EU style ?
Come on, you're not that shallow. You know life is not that simple. There is a middle ground here.

We are not cowering, we are not appeasing. We are fighting the terrorists with the means that we consider appropriate. And as far as I can tell, with sufficient success. If you can say the same thing about your campaign in Iraq, well, good for you. Then we're both doing good jobs, I suppose.

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

We are fighting this war on all fronts, Iraq is just as much a front on the war on terror as afghanistan is. It would be the same as the US fighting in WW2 except we will not will not fight it inEurope, only Asia. A lot good that will do. Attacks have been planned and carried out in Europe, your enemy is not just in Afghanistan.

oh, I realize that. But what are we supposed to do ? Invade ourselves ? Or bring back the Concentration Camps, this time for muslims ? /irony

We are doing in Europe what our laws will allow us to do. I wouldn't know what's wrong with that. You of all people should know that operating within the boundaries of the law is the only thing that sets us apart from the terrorists.

I have full confidence in our law enforcement and counter-terrorism community. From what I can tell, they are doing a good job at countering terrorist activities. Of course, there is some risk involved. But I can live with that. The chances of me dieing as a result of a terrorist attack are miniscule compared to the chances of being the victim of a "normal" crime, or a traffic accident.

And no german soldier dieing from an IED in Iraq is gonna change that.
I realize that sometimes, military action can not be avoided, but only when you're getting more out of it than you're putting in. And with Iraq, that's simply not the case.

We are with you, lowing. But not on your terms.

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

We are fighting this war on all fronts, Iraq is just as much a front on the war on terror as afghanistan is. It would be the same as the US fighting in WW2 except we will not will not fight it inEurope, only Asia. A lot good that will do. Attacks have been planned and carried out in Europe, your enemy is not just in Afghanistan.

I agree that Iraq is now a front in the war on terror, but it wasn't before we invaded. Our invasion dragged Iraq into the war on terror.

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

We are fighting this war on all fronts, Iraq is just as much a front on the war on terror as afghanistan is. It would be the same as the US fighting in WW2 except we will not will not fight it inEurope, only Asia. A lot good that will do. Attacks have been planned and carried out in Europe, your enemy is not just in Afghanistan.

oh, I realize that. But what are we supposed to do ? Invade ourselves ? Or bring back the Concentration Camps, this time for muslims ? /irony

We are doing in Europe what our laws will allow us to do. I wouldn't know what's wrong with that. You of all people should know that operating within the boundaries of the law is the only thing that sets us apart from the terrorists.

I have full confidence in our law enforcement and counter-terrorism community. From what I can tell, they are doing a good job at countering terrorist activities. Of course, there is some risk involved. But I can live with that. The chances of me dieing as a result of a terrorist attack are miniscule compared to the chances of being the victim of a "normal" crime, or a traffic accident.

And no german soldier dieing from an IED in Iraq is gonna change that.
I realize that sometimes, military action can not be avoided, but only when you're getting more out of it than you're putting in. And with Iraq, that's simply not the case.

We are with you, lowing. But not on your terms.

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

oh, I realize that. But what are we supposed to do ? Invade ourselves ? Or bring back the Concentration Camps, this time for muslims ? /irony

We are doing in Europe what our laws will allow us to do. I wouldn't know what's wrong with that. You of all people should know that operating within the boundaries of the law is the only thing that sets us apart from the terrorists.

I have full confidence in our law enforcement and counter-terrorism community. From what I can tell, they are doing a good job at countering terrorist activities. Of course, there is some risk involved. But I can live with that. The chances of me dieing as a result of a terrorist attack are miniscule compared to the chances of being the victim of a "normal" crime, or a traffic accident.

And no german soldier dieing from an IED in Iraq is gonna change that.
I realize that sometimes, military action can not be avoided, but only when you're getting more out of it than you're putting in. And with Iraq, that's simply not the case.

We are with you, lowing. But not on your terms.

read the papers things are getting better in Iraq, any thoughts to the notion that if Europe joined the fight in force on all fronts, that less people might have died since we could have had this war won by now instead of fighting each other over what to fucking calling it.

It isn't about YOUR safety, it is about our western society and our morals and our values.

Or we could have not invaded in the first place and stopped the entire thing, no thousands of dead allies, no hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, no massive increase in world terrorism.

{TUF}Catbox wrote:

Yeah... the radical Islam guys had pretty much gone away...
They just wanted to blow up a few places around the world to get a little attention... Then they would go back to banging goats in their caves...

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

read the papers things are getting better in Iraq, any thoughts to the notion that if Europe joined the fight in force on all fronts, that less people might have died since we could have had this war won by now instead of fighting each other over what to fucking calling it.

It isn't about YOUR safety, it is about our western society and our morals and our values.

well, am I not part of our western society ? I worry about my safety as much as I worry about the safety of those who might be asked to put their life on the line for me. And because of that, I don't want them to risk their lifes in a conflict for questionable reasons and with little chance to succeed.

And how the war in Iraq is supposed to help fighting terrorism still escapes me. If anything, it helped create more terrorists. But that's for another debate.

You speak of western morals and values that we need to defend. I agree to some extent. But I also think that those are best defended at home, in our daily life, by living the way that we have come to love, and by making our society better; not by invading other countries and feeding other people our version of freedom and democracy. You can't force people to be free.

As far as I am concerned, the terrorists are no threat to our morals and values, as long as we stick to them, whatever they throw at us. But as soon as we start being the aggressors ourselves, and leave our principles behind, we are doing more damage to our own morals and values than any terrorists ever could.

remember the saying, "bombing for democracy is like fucking for virginity" ? I know it's old, but still kinda true, don't you think ?

CNN wrote:

The principal reason cited for the coalition invasion was that Iraq was violating U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up chemical and biological weapons, long-range missiles and efforts to build a nuclear bomb.

B.Schuss wrote:

it was shitty airport and airplane security.

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

..The war in Iraq is two different books..The first was not about terrorism, it was about Saddam and the perceived dangers he posed to the world. It was in agreement by democrats, republicans, and UN countries alike that this guy was dangerous, especially in the light of increased and more severe terrorism. It was not a GB thing, the world agreed that he needed to be removed. The European countries like Germany and France, did not agree, not because they felt he was not a danger but because of the impact on their own economies.  It was not a moral issue for these countries, it was a money thing.

oh, really, a money thing ? You mean the fact that it was considered to be an illegal war by the german administration, and various german courts played no role in that decision ? And the fact, of course, that elections were coming up ?
seriously, that money argument is getting old. If wars have proven anything, it would be that they are good for the economy. At least that's what Haliburton and Blackwater would say...

The world agreed that Saddam needed to be removed ?! What ? It's more like the USA bullied 49 other nations in following them into this pre-emptive, illegal military operation, aka the coalition of the willing. Hardly the world, if you ask me.
Also, some of the troop contributions by various countries are so laughably small, that one cannot help think that most of them traded in the lifes of their soldiers for US foreign aid and economic / political perks.

"According to a recently released report by the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, the nebulous coalition represents barely a tenth of the world's population -- and many of the countries didn't join out of an idealistic commitment to the liberation of Iraq. "Almost all, by our count, join only through coercion, bullying, bribery, or the implied threat of U.S. action that would directly damage the interests of the country," the report states. "Far more impressive is the list of nations that have stood up to U.S. bully tactics and stand opposed."

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature … reign_aid/

Yes, I know, left-leaning IPS, but still...

lowing wrote:

The terrorists want to topple western civilization, if you do not think they will do so if you let them you are naive. I believe these radicals have more support from Islam as a whole than you or Cam, are willing to admit to.

paranoia, anybody ? "topple western civilization" ? give me a break. Even if that were the explicit intent of the radical muslims, their number is so ridiculously small, they have so little political representation, and so little military capabilities, that it is absolutely unimaginable that they could ever pose a realistic threat to the combined economic, political, and military powers of the western world.
I mean, there isn't even a union among islamic countries, for god's sake. To the contrary, most islamic nations have strong economic and political ties with the western world. Some are even close US allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Pakistan.

What we are talking about here is a tiny, miniscule minority among radical muslims. And all they can do is blow up a car bomb here, or an embassy there, or maybe send a couple of airliners into the WTC. Tragic, sad, horrendous crimes, I agree, but not a threat to western societies.

Those can easily be dealt with through a combined effort of the world's police and counter-terrorism communities, without us having to force our version of freedom and democracy onto other cultures. That is my strong conviction.