Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on March 12, 2004, 02:44:31 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3506352.stm
-
Yeah, that was pretty ****ing impressive.
-
Imagine if there was a terrorist attack when they were marching, that would have been pretty sad. Anyways, I'm glad for what they did, and I also support the US in their stopping terrorism.
-
Impressive indeed.
-
It is impressive, but I doubt the terrorist assholes will get the message and stop being terrorist asshole.
-
It did work last time when ETA were responsible. I doubt it would work against terrorists from a foreign country though.
-
It's good to see the people march, but thank god the terrorists didn't bomb them again during this. That would have COMPLETELY sucked (to put it mildly).
-
Borrowed from http://forums.somethingawful.com:
Post-Iraq
"LONDON : Tens of thousands of people are expected to take to Spain's city streets on Friday in a show of solidarity following Thursday's terror attacks.
The demonstration was called by Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.
Pre-Iraq
Having confronted some of the biggest antiwar demonstrations seen anywhere in the world in recent months, the Spanish government of Prime Minister José Maria Aznar is planning to introduce legislation allowing for the severe punishment of those taking part in such protests. Earlier this month, the Spanish Defence Ministry confirmed a report on plans for new repressive laws that were first revealed by the Madrid daily newspaper El País.
"
Hmmm.
-
I don't know how the Madrid bombing will affect it, but on March 20th there is supposed to be international demonstrations against the war in Iraq (March 20th being the one year anniversary).
Its a shame that the Spanish people got hit. As I remember, they were over 90% against the war, so this really isn't their fight.
edit: An estimated twelve million people took part across Spain.
(http://www.antiwar.com/photos/zaragoza.jpg)
-
You're assuming it was Al Qaeda and not ETA.
-
I am. That, or it was a set up to gain the support of the Spanish people for America and Israel's escapades. And I am not at all discounting that possibility.
The general elections are scheduled in I think 2 days, and this seems likely to push a large amount of people to Aznar's side (pro war).
-
Yessssssssssssss!!!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/spain_bombings_arrests
Let's hope they get all of the cowardly bastards :)
-
yay, terrorism shot itself in the foot again. Instead of freakin the ppl out, we get 2mill to march together.
ofc, it would be alot happier if spain just killed all of those ETA tards...
Rictor, its a slim chance al qaeda was responsible.... its ranks have been decimated ever scince 9-11.... somthing like %80-%90
-
Er, not sure about that. It would be almost impossible to wipe out an organisation like al-Qaeda. It has lots of separate cells all over the world, and the central command structure is probably still there.
ETA, however, is thought to have less than 200 members active, so the chances they could pull off an attack of this scale is minimal (so I've read). And it's really not their style of attack - they tend to do precision hits on politicians and stuff.
Either way, I'd go along with David Blunkett's opinion - the perpetrators of attacks like this don't deserve to be classified as human...
-
I'm not going to get into the same old discussion here, but how is this attack any worse than the 10,000 dead in Iraq? If you don't think these guys should be classified as human, what do you think of Bush?
And for pretty much the same reasons listed, I do not believe it was ETA.
-
I think we actually did **** up the top-tier command chain in al Qaeda pretty bad. But then, that's almost certainly not worth much, 'cos the lower tiers would actually be the functional leaders, orchestrating everything but the really huge things. I mean, it's really unlikely bin Laden personally masterminds every bomb that gets placed, or even necessarily knows anything specific about a given local division at all. Guerilla organizations don't work that way, it'd defeat the whole purpose of the cell system. He's a figurehead and a financier, basically, and most of the guys we caught were technicians and the like. The beauty of a system like al Qaeda is that every part is inherently replaceable, and that you could destroy 90% of the system without crippling the last 10% substantially, rendering the organization functionally immortal unto the point when it serves no more purpose (the cause is either finally won or finally lost), and probably a little while after that. At this point, the US has probably eliminated more around 5%- at best- and they've probably replaced what was lost by now and then some.
The downside of this, of course, is that organization is crap. I mean, if you look at it, the 9/11 guys pretty obviously went in with no planning and no caution whatsoever, and the whole thing could have been drawn up in about fifteen minutes by somebody who didn't even particularly know what they were doing. Anything that involves more than a couple of cells working in close coordination is simply out of the question. For this reason, really advanced attacks and nukings and all that stuff... just aren't gonna happen. For an organization that's based mostly on survival and sniping occasionally when it can get the chance, that's an acceptable payoff. But it means that really massive terror attacks are going to be a rarity, and they're certainly not going to be part of any greater plan.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I'm not going to get into the same old discussion here, but how is this attack any worse than the 10,000 dead in Iraq? If you don't think these guys should be classified as human, what do you think of Bush?
And for pretty much the same reasons listed, I do not believe it was ETA.
Well - and not that I'm supporting the war or anything - to be fair, they didn't exactly aim or intend to kill civillians. Terrorists do.
I think that is a valid distinction to make.
NB: 5 have been arrested - 3 Morroccans and 2 Indians. 2 Spaniards of Indian origin are also apparently in questioning.
Originally posted by Stryke 9
I think we actually did **** up the top-tier command chain in al Qaeda pretty bad. *snip* At this point, the US has probably eliminated more around 5%- at best- and they've probably replaced what was lost by now and then some.
Chimera organisation.... chop off 1head and 2 grow to take its place.
-
al-Queda is a perfect military tool - no matter what you do to the upper echelons the ground commanders and troops have clearly defined goals, enemies and strategy.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well - and not that I'm supporting the war or anything - to be fair, they didn't exactly aim or intend to kill civillians. Terrorists do.
I think that is a valid distinction to make.
Well, there's two parts to it really. One is the intent. The other is result. Now, obviously, the results are the same (well, worse).
The intent, which is what I think you were reffering to, is a much smaller part of the guilt equation. Even so, its iffy. I mean, you can think that the Army went to great pains to avoid civilian casualties, in which case they're off the hook for the intent. Or you can think that they just didn't care, in which case they're guilty but not as much as if they had intentionally harmed civilians. And thats the third one, in which case they're identical to the terrorists.
Frankly, I don't know the intent. I can make some educated guesses based to the actions of soldiers during the occupation, but thats it.
What I think most people have, and I'm not laying any blame, is that in their minds, you've got two categories. One is the Army (any Western army) and the other is terrorists and dictators. The Army is professional, loyal, compassionate and so forth. The terrorists are ther opposite of that, savage, brutal, crazed, fanatical. You've got them firmly established as such and its very unlikely that you're going to attribute the characteristics of one to the other. Its takes alot of effort to say that terrorists are "heros" and that soldiers are "fanatics"., even if there is ample evidence to suggest that. Its just rooted in your mind that way. And you know, thats pretty human. Its not a stereotype that you should consciously cling to, but its acceptable cause its only human nature to think that way.
-
Vyper: "Blow **** up" isn't a clearly defined strategy. Give centralized control of all of al Qaeda's operations to one person or group, give the extent of leadership an American general has over his troops to one officer over all those sleeper groups, bombmakers, local cells and information runners... and the "war on terror" would be over in a week. It would not be a victory for the US. It's not like it'd be that hard to take out the White House, or the Capitol building, or any of a hundred other juicy targets, it'd just involve a good bit of planning and a lot of expendables.
However, were al Qaeda to have initially grown that way, it would not have made it this far- the damages inflicted to the command chain would have been fatal long ago. And it's too late to change now.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, there's two parts to it really. One is the intent. The other is result. Now, obviously, the results are the same (well, worse).
The intent, which is what I think you were reffering to, is a much smaller part of the guilt equation. Even so, its iffy. I mean, you can think that the Army went to great pains to avoid civilian casualties, in which case they're off the hook for the intent. Or you can think that they just didn't care, in which case they're guilty but not as much as if they had intentionally harmed civilians. And thats the third one, in which case they're identical to the terrorists.
Frankly, I don't know the intent. I can make some educated guesses based to the actions of soldiers during the occupation, but thats it.
What I think most people have, and I'm not laying any blame, is that in their minds, you've got two categories. One is the Army (any Western army) and the other is terrorists and dictators. The Army is professional, loyal, compassionate and so forth. The terrorists are ther opposite of that, savage, brutal, crazed, fanatical. You've got them firmly established as such and its very unlikely that you're going to attribute the characteristics of one to the other. Its takes alot of effort to say that terrorists are "heros" and that soldiers are "fanatics"., even if there is ample evidence to suggest that. Its just rooted in your mind that way. And you know, thats pretty human. Its not a stereotype that you should consciously cling to, but its acceptable cause its only human nature to think that way.
Well, there's an induilt human instinct not to kill... even in soldiers. I think a study found that very few soliders in the Iraq war - and also WW2 before that - actually shot to kill. There's also evidence from the Napoleonic wars and American civil wars, etc, to support this. It's slightly different when it comes to bombing, of course (the 'not kill' response is largely due to the eyes and facial expresions seen, apparently).
But to deliberately deviate from that genetic 'programming' (i.e. as psychopaths does) and actually intentionally aim to kill people - is something that's very... wrong (and scary).
I mean, i'm not saying there aren't soldiers who are nutcases (there are....they're often the best soldiers or simply the best at killing), just that the vast majority would not intentionally set out to kill as many civillians as possible. Whereas terrorists do just th
-
The reason people don't shoot to kill is because most soldiers are too poorly trained to hit a human-sized target from 100 yards.
This was especially the case in WW1 and WW2.
As for the 'genetics' thing for not killing, that's a load of ****.
-
Originally posted by an0n
The reason people don't shoot to kill is because most soldiers are too poorly trained to hit a human-sized target from 100 yards.
This was especially the case in WW1 and WW2.
As for the 'genetics' thing for not killing, that's a load of ****.
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/science/society/killing.html
-
****ing bunch of pussies.
And I maintain my views on the genetics aspect.
Also, you've got to consider that the percentage is probably disproportionate thanks to the fact that better marksmen would also have become bigger targets and thus not survived to take part in any surveys on their willingness to kill.
-
Eh? you mean better marksmen would have had big signs over them saying 'kill me first'?
-
You'd be surprised how well those signs stabilize your aim.
-
Originally posted by an0n
And I maintain my views on the genetics aspect.
http://www.umass.edu/preferen/mpapers/Greene-Haidt.pdf
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20...trunc_sys.shtml
http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/...enessVolume.pdf
http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004...ch2_040301.html
http://existentialmoo.com/moo/archives/culture/2003/%20what_the_monkeys_can_teach_humans_about_making_america_fairer.php
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/about/media/1999_11_06_guardian.html
http://www.naturalism.org/morality.htm
and better marksmen would survive longer becase they would be killing more of the enimy, befer the enemy would have time to prioritize them
-
Think of it this way, who's more likely to get killed: The guy whose gunshots just happen to coincide with your friends heads exploding, or the guy who's run off like a whiney little pussy and is pretending to have a gun-jam?
Yes, better marksmen would have more kills, but they'd also be a bigger target (especially considering more capable soldiers got more dangerous missions).
-
Well sticking with the WWI/II examples, that's not a fair point. When you're running out of your trench or up the beach of a Pacific island, you're not picking and chosing your targets. Your basic infantryman isn't in a position to spot the better marksmen among the enemy, assuming he can even see the enemy clearly.
Special forces misisons are a different matter, of course, but that's not what the study linked to earlier covers
-
when you have 40,000 shots going off at the same time how are you going to link wich shot can from wich person, as your frends heads are explodeing left and right?
-
The kill count on your HUD. :rolleyes:
-
that'll only tell you how many you've killed...
-
i think he's talking about something like death message display. ie:
"bobboau's head was made extra crispy from phreak's lightning gun"
-
Man, I need a HUD.
-
The trick is, when playing Laser Quest, to register yourself as 'your mother'. Thus when you zap a bad guy his read-out will say 'you were killed by your mother'. Hilarity ensues
-
Or "A Big Penis."
-
which is odd since the laser tag place near me won't let players use the name "Hunter". lame ass soccer moms ****ed this country
-
Aznar is voted out. Socialists win. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3511280.stm)
-
Countodown for some retard to come shout "SPAIN SURRENDER TO TERRISTS COMMUNISTS RULE THE EARTH USA USA USA #1" in 5... 4... 3...
-
2....1......
Naaaaaaaaaa.. I'll wait for the Sun tomorrow morning ;)
-
SPAIN SURRENDER TO TERRISTS COMMUNISTS RULE THE EARTH USA USA USA #1
-
Oh noes!
-
ROFL Red Rag. I'd like you to meet Bull ;)
-
Schwing!! (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040315/ap_on_re_eu/spain_elections_8)
Not that 1300 troops is a big deal. Its more of a symbolic victory than practical one.
-
yeah, so who is actualy going to say Al Qaeda didn't win in Spain?
-
You seem to think that there are only two sides, America and al Queda. If you don't support one, you support the other.
This is, of course, total nonsense.
The war in Iraq was opposed by over 90% of the Spanish people. Aznar had it comming.
-
Aznar's party was expected to narrowly come out ahead (I think), they got there asses handed to them, this is exactly what Al Qaeda wanted to happen, therefore they win.
due to this reaction I would live in a bomb shelter for the few weeks leading up to your local elections if I were you, I know I'm not going to any major land marks or public institutions for the month or so leading to ours, largely becase of this.
-
If anything, IMHO it would have been the PPP's strategy of deliberately blaming ETA - to avoid questions over the war- that would have swung it.....
I wouldn;t chalk it up as an al-Queda victory, though. Spain haven't pulled out of fighting terrorists, after all - only in supporting a war and occupation which the vast majority of the poulation oppossed.
-
Oh please. Three thousand people died in the single worst terrorist attack in US history. Thats out of a total population of around 200 million. If you think you're lucky enough to be killed in a terrorist strike, I'de start buying lottery tickets if I were you.
And I hardly call losing the election by 5% "getting their asses handed to them". Its still a minority government, so don't you fret over Aznar. I'm sure he'll have his bloddy little paws in all sorts of affairs.
Oh and, before I forget, who exactly predicted that Aznar would squeeze out a victory, and why should it be taken as anything other than what it was, a predicition? Here's a prediction. Come next election, Japan's PM will be voted out. If I'm wrong, al Queda wins. Great how that works, eh?
-
In a way, I agree with you Bobboau, sadly enough, had it been a close thing then it would have been fair enough, but I really do feel the bombs pushed the public against the Prime Minister, because they blamed him for getting involved in Iraq.
However, I don't think this is a win for Terrorism, don't forget the march earlier this week. Yes, it's a pity Spain allowed the bombers to influence them, but then, every country in the world has been influenced by them. Take the loss of civil liberty in the US & UK, I don't believe for one moment that ALL of this is for our protection, so in a way, yes, the Terrorists are destroying freedom, one law at a time.
-
there will be bombings in Italy and the UK, they will be from AL Qaeda, and Al Qaeda will say they did it becase these contries suported the US in the Iraq war.
this will happen shortly before elections
my prediction.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Oh and, before I forget, who exactly predicted that Aznar would squeeze out a victory, and why should it be taken as anything other than what it was, a predicition? Here's a prediction. Come next election, Japan's PM will be voted out. If I'm wrong, al Queda wins. Great how that works, eh?
That's a silly statement - the result prediction would have been based upon polling an questionnaires of the voters.
-
In a way I agree with bobboau. Terrorists are going to look at this as an example of how they can force their agenda through bombing. They should have instead left the troops in Iraq for a few months, let the public complain and then bring them back making it look as though it was public opinion that forced the issue rather than terrorism.
This decision has made life more dangerous for Brits and Yanks because they've made it more likely that terrorists will try to do the same here but it's also made the current Spanish goverment look weak which will probably embolden ETA somewhat.
All in all I feel this was a very bad thing to do so early after the election.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
so in a way, yes, the Terrorists are destroying freedom, one law at a time.
sure the terrorist do the bombings etc.
but they aren't the one destroying "freedom" that would be our governments, they are the ones pushing out these laws, not the terrorists
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
there will be bombings in Italy and the UK, they will be from AL Qaeda, and Al Qaeda will say they did it becase these contries suported the US in the Iraq war.
this will happen shortly before elections
my prediction.
I second that, it's about the same as I said earlier in the thread.
if not tomorrow, they WILL probably be struck by terrorist bombings in the following months, it wouldn't surprise me one bit
-
Zuljin, yes, that's exactly what I meant ;)
I know our own elections will be steeped in security, but it could backfire here. A lot of people want to get rid of Blair, but if people are nervous about going to polling stations, there will be a low turnout, which makes it very difficult to oust the current government, so the Terrorists could actually be keeping in the very people they want to get rid of.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
In a way I agree with bobboau. Terrorists are going to look at this as an example of how they can force their agenda through bombing. They should have instead left the troops in Iraq for a few months, let the public complain and then bring them back making it look as though it was public opinion that forced the issue rather than terrorism.
This decision has made life more dangerous for Brits and Yanks because they've made it more likely that terrorists will try to do the same here but it's also made the current Spanish goverment look weak which will probably embolden ETA somewhat.
All in all I feel this was a very bad thing to do so early after the election.
It was an election pledge for the Socialist party to remove the troops, anyway...... you can't really question what the people want (i.e. what they elected), regardless of their motives behind it.
I just don't like the insinuation that the Spaniards are somehow 'running scared' of al-Queda...... people will try and skew this way, and I don't think it's fair to do so.
Originally posted by Flipside
Zuljin, yes, that's exactly what I meant ;)
I know our own elections will be steeped in security, but it could backfire here. A lot of people want to get rid of Blair, but if people are nervous about going to polling stations, there will be a low turnout, which makes it very difficult to oust the current government, so the Terrorists could actually be keeping in the very people they want to get rid of.
Although the anti-war parties in the UK aren't nearly as strong as in spain..... the Tories did support the war, after all.
-
Zapatero (Aznar was a whole bunch easier to remember) ran on 'USa is Teh bAd!!!11!!1!!' as far as I'm aware, so saying that he's pulling there troops out is sort of the only political move he can make at this moment.
-
I don't think of it as cowardice on the part of Spain aldo, after all, America's reaction to being bombed was to invade Afghanistan, Spain isn't really in a position to get pissed off, so they have no choice really but to take a step backwards.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I don't think of it as cowardice on the part of Spain aldo, after all, America's reaction to being bombed was to invade Afghanistan, Spain isn't really in a position to get pissed off, so they have no choice really but to take a step backwards.
I didn't say you did... just that some people will do.
I just don't want to see the same sort of reprehensible attitude that was directed towards France and Germany in the run up to the Iraq war.
-
So, they're not cowards, they're...cowards?
Its a different mentality. When the US gets hits, they lash out and call for a crusade against a vague, shadowy enemyt; a war that in theory has no end and no criteria for victory or defeat. The Spanish, being in my opinion more reasonable, recongize that it is their own actions which prompt these attacks, and they simply stop doing what they think provoked the attack.
Despite the strong antiwar sentiments in Britain, I doubt that New Labour will be overthrown. Somehow, Labour fits in with what people percieve to be "the new, 21st century world". And as aldo said, the Tories also supported the war.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
So, they're not cowards, they're...cowards?
Its a different mentality. When the US gets hits, they lash out and call for a crusade against a vague, shadowy enemyt; a war that in theory has no end and no criteria for victory or defeat. The Spanish, being in my opinion more reasonable, recongize that it is their own actions which prompt these attacks, and they simply stop doing what they think provoked the attack.
Despite the strong antiwar sentiments in Britain, I doubt that New Labour will be overthrown. Somehow, Labour fits in with what people percieve to be "the new, 21st century world". And as aldo said, the Tories also supported the war.
Actually, I doubt labour has anywhere near the support of the last election - everything has gone to hell (NHS, transport, policing, universities & education, civil rights being suspended, etc) - there's just not a credible opposition.
-
Yis are better off with the tories, tell you straight up exactly how and where they're going to screw you, no bs.
-
Well, I'm not quite up for hoisting Maggie through the streets, rocking chair and all, but right now, I'd most like to see a hung parliament, since then every party climbs over itself trying to be nice to every other parties' supporters ;)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
It was an election pledge for the Socialist party to remove the troops, anyway...... you can't really question what the people want (i.e. what they elected), regardless of their motives behind it.
I just don't like the insinuation that the Spaniards are somehow 'running scared' of al-Queda...... people will try and skew this way, and I don't think it's fair to do so.
I never said that Spain did this cause they were scared. Mearly that it will look like they did it cause they were scared to the idiots in al-Queda and ETA.
That's why I suggested waiting a little while. It wouldn't be that hard to fob of the electorate for a month or two and they'd have another 4 years or so to regain any popularity they may lose. It would certainly be better than risking letting ETA think that the current government are wimps.
-
I managed to do it! :D
1. Goverment goes: "Hay d00dz, we have this Iraq, let's go there yeah?"
2. People go like "Oh ****, 91% of us resist this idea, we don't like it at all."
3. Government: "STFU assholes, we go regardless of your will!"
4. Ppl: "what the ****"
5. People: "I don't think we're too happy of your success in Iraq."
6. Goverment: "Still STFU, we know better than you do! Oh, our support is spiraling downwards, what do we do?"
7. Bomb goes BOOOOMMM
8. Goverment: "Oh ****, oh **** oh ****, they've bombing us! QUICK, tell everyone it was ETA! And our support is still going down!"
9. People: "You misanthropic ****sacks, it does not look vaguely like ETA. Hay, what is this Al-Quada evidence?"
10. Goverment: "Leftist commie-nazi-pinko whatever thing! It was the ETA!"
11. People: "FU dudes, this was due to Iraq, wasn't it?"
12. Goverment: "Nope. Look, a butterfly!"
13. Election day. PP loses ~5% of it's votes, but those who previously hadn't bothered to vote zerg rush the election sites and elect someone else.
14. USA: "TERRORISTS WIN!!!1"
15. Spain: STFU wankers
This message is completely unintelligable. Yeehaa.
-
Its funny cause its true.
"Zerg rush the election"
:lol: :lol:
-
I just hope that the Tories don't win the next election here. Michael Howard scares the **** outta me. Just look at him...
-
It doesn't really matter here anymore, they are all the same party, just different names. We are probably going to be the worlds first case of Beaurocide :(
-
Originally posted by Flipside
It doesn't really matter here anymore, they are all the same party, just different names. We are probably going to be the worlds first case of Beaurocide :(
Still, I'll be voting Labour cause it's always nice to have the choice between being ****ed in the arse roughly, in the sand, with a broken glass bottle, or being ****ed in the arse and being told how great you are and everything is.
:)
-
Zerg rush. :lol:
they did though, didn't they.
-
hear it comes
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/international/europe/17FRAN.html?ex=1080104400&en=2fd5a39b20e1ab73&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
-
Islamic terrorist groups have threatened the US about a thousand times since 9/11. Its like a hobby. Every month, they threaten and threaten and never do anything. If they followed up on half of what they threatened to do, America would be a smoldering crater right now.
-
yeah they treaten us constantly, they havn't been threatening Europe that much, but now that they know they can get what they want...
-
We'll see. If the Madrid bombing never occured, this threat would pass by unnoticed. You're just love being able to add *another* country to your big ol' list of "appeasers" don't you?
-
france hasn't capitulated to this, yet,
not that ther is realy anything to capitulate to, yet,
but there will be, and we will see what happens
my point was they're going to start targeting Europe now