If one wants to ask "what's the ROOT of the problem, what has the US done to make people hate it so...", I'd ask that they first go to the families of the hundreds of Tanzanians and Kenyans who were murdered (most of them muslim) in the East Africa embassy bombings of 1998. What was the root cause of their deaths? What had Tanzania and Kenya done to make people hate them so much? Nothing, you say? Well, that did not deter the enemy from targeting them for death , now did it.

So what has the US done to Afghanistan? We are its largest provider of humanitarian aid, and a deacde ago we helped them rid themselves of Soviet occupation. What have we done to the Muslim world? We've risked our blood and treasure to protect muslims in Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo. What have we done to the Palestinians? We are also the largest donor of aid to the Palestinian Authority. Meanwhile, Palestinian schools continue to drill the vilest, most vicious forms of anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish and racist ideology into the heads of their young. Thousands of refugees continue to languish in the camps for thirty years now. And not one Arab 'brother' nation has opened up the possibility of citizenship to these people, giving them the chance leave the camps, to lead a normal life. NOT ONE! They'd rather these people live in squaller, so they can point to them and say "see how evil America and Israel are for keeping these people here." And the enemy apologists believe this and claim that the US bears responsibility for what happened.

People who give a large measure of justification to the enemy acts of Sept. 11 by claiming that somehow the US brought this on are full of it. These were no 'freedom fighters', or a group of poor, oppressed people lashing out in anger and frustration. These acts were determined assaults, deliberatly planned and executed by skilled, intelligent men for concrete purposes.

The enemy hates Spain, hates France, hates the UK, Germany, Japan, hates the free expresion of ideas, hates equal rights for women, hates freedom of religion. The aims of the enemy are quite clear, they have made no effort to hide them. They seek the destruction of western civilization and the acsendency of Islamic rule, 13th century style.

There has been alot of talk about what we "should do" or "shouldn't do." Absent in these discussions are what the enemy will do, and is doing right now. The acts of Sept. 11 took years to plan and finance. What new enemy plots are unfolding right now, maybe in your city or country? The smoking hole in Lower Manhattan is all the proof we need of the enemy's resolve to strike at us in the worst ways. Some say "let's not make things worse." How much worse can it get?

The lines are so clearly drawn here that I am shocked that any doubt the need for sustained and decisive action against the enemy. But, it is the right of the free to express ones ideas, so God bless you for it.

Peace to all-

Kurt

There must be retribution for the horrific slaying of over 6,000 innocents; however, the response must be measured and defined in advance. President Bush has unleashed a campaign to eleminate international terrorism, one that he has designated as the first war of the 21st century. Why just a campaign agaignst terror, perhaps it should be expanded to include famine, pestilence, and poverty? The outcome would be the same. The vile assassins and their financeers should be punished, but the stream of political and military developments from the United States suggest a nebulous strategy that may bring greater hardships to the United States than the ones suffered on September 11.

The deployment of the aircraft carriers and Marine forces to the Middle East is a shortsided political response to the attack on the United States. Cruise missiles and B2 bombers will not destroy the terrorist cells that we all wish to see eradicated. We need to cut the cancer out with a laser scappel, not a chainsaw. The clamouring for a revenge has clouded good judgement with emotions. Many Americans believe that pulverising the Taliban into sumbision will efect the caputure of Bin Laden and his henchman. This viceral reaction is dangerous. Soviet Hind-D gunships in the 20th century and British rifles in the 19th century could not pacify the Pushtuns, nor will our military marvels.

Bin Laden's network of terror reaches nearly all corner of the earth, with some soverign nation tacitly, or openly, supporting his treachery. Will the United States move on Afghanistan, thence to Sudan or Iraq? I could even sugget attacks against the powerfull nation of Somalia, but that target has already been tried with sad results. The politcal rhetoric of a war against international terrorism and the states who sponsor it necesitates that all these countries be targeted. This resembles the crusades of the middle ages, not the crusade led by Eisenhower against Nazism.

What is the answer? Like all highly complex subjects, it is a multifaceted one. A military componet that should mirror the actions of the Massad or the SAS- covert, fast, and highly targeted. An economic atribute focused on siezing the capital of terrorists and their patron states. Finally, a long term cultural commitment to foster respect and understanding of Islamic customs, so as not to push future generations of Arabs into the embrace of madmen like Bin laden with a grudge against Western culture. We will never eliminate all terrorists, McVeigh and Rudolph were home grown, but we can be vigilant and prepared.

Okay -trying to cut to the gist of where I think MM's post was going - We all agree that terrorism and its perpetuators - on an international level - need to be stopped. Acts of terrorism - anywhere - anytime - by anybody/organization are morally and ethically wrong. We all agree on this. Question is - what constitutes the moral and ethical method of containing terrorism.

Every country is potentially subject to bin Laden or the like. I think we all agree that, among others, bin Laden should be apprehended, tried and punished. But, is it solely the U.S.'s role to both try and punish - or, because the 'war on terrorism' is an international effort, should not the said trial and punishment be metted out by the World Court and/or under the auspices of the UN?

I realize invoking the UN here might raise some shackles - i.e., Iran's comments. However, if one can separate the issues ....

We are trying to build an alliance of nations dedicated to the erradication of terrorism worldwide - ergo - the trials of terrorists, and the resulting punishments, should be decided and implemented on an international level.

I've refrained till now on this post. First of all, I don't think there's anyone who has not been profoundly shocked and moved by recent events.
But I'd like to adress a few points. First of all, a minor one. Many elements in the media, and a post or two on this board, refer to the Taliban regime as a medieval or 13th century variety of Islam. The unhappy Afghans would probably be better off if this were so. Medieval Islam and civil society was quite enlightened compared to late 20th century fundamentalist interpretations.
Also, most fundamentalist Muslims are not terrorists. Neither has Islam a monopoly on intolerance - witness the recent comments by Jerry Falwell.
Another point which bothers me is the view that in trying to explain the atrocities, we are somehow justifying them. I do not, nor does the often maligned European media, try to justify mass murder. But I think it necesary to try and understand such a terrible event, seek out its causes, try and imagine what went through the minds of the terrorists... In short, by explaining it, we try to understand, and hopefully find a solution. Everyone should reflect on what caused this. Saying the perpetrators were mad or fanatic is simply not enough. There are many explanations I'm sure, and many avenues of response. The more we address, the more thoroughly we can deal with the problem. My thoughts are with any of you who have suffered personal loss.

I didn't want to participate because MM didn't want another discussion like the ETA one, and I didn't have words for all the people who has lost loved people but I just want to give some points of view that I think could be more or less general here in Spain.
Nobody justify the terrorism.
When we look for the reasons why the arab world hates western world we find lots of them. I personally think that the best way (and probably the only one) to combat terrorism is to finish with this hate.
The palestinian-israeli problem is one of the biggest reasons. Why Israel doesn't obbey the UN resolutions? Why still the western countries defend them? Why Israel doesn't accept UN observers? Why is still occupying foreign territories?
About Spain being the last country accepting Israel, what do you mean with that Ben?,I know that now we think it's not possible to go back and we must look for another solution, but I don't find reasons for it creation, I don't find reasons to make a massive inmigration of jews to a land to create a jew state, what about the people who leaves there? why there? because two thousands years ago there was a jew state?....
Why must the other arab countries give a citizenship to palestinians? Although we see all arab countries like the same, they are really different...they also see all western countries like the same.
We have a lot of manipulation with information about this. CNN has change the language, ie. when they talk about the settlement of Gilo, they don't talk anymore about settlements or colons, they talk about citizens or neibourghoods. I think the palestinian people are fighting for their freedom and they are so desperate that they don't mind loosing their lifes. The Israel army has even destroy thousands of trees forcing lots of people to migrate to the cities....I think that until they don't make rights concesions to palestinians they won't live in peace.
There are more problems, ie. Algeria was the only arab country with a democracy, when the islamist party won the elections there was a coup d'etat by the government with the help of Europe (are we defensors of democracy or only when wins who we want?). This is also a difficult problem I think (Hitler also won the elections).... and many, many more
Why only fight terrorism? Why not any crime? Why can Fujimori be refugee in Japan?...
I think we have a double way to see things depending on our interest..

Miguelito,

If that's what the consensus is in Spain, you're telling us that people are totally misinformed. They don't have any idea what's happening around the world, and don't even have a clue that they themselves are "part of the problem," as they maintain two colonies in Morocco. They also don't understand that roughly 90% to 95% of the people in the Moslem world support human rights, that aren't accepted in the fudamentalist belief.

Please, seperate the Nation of Moslem from the fundamentalist Moslem movement, which is dividing the Arab world intentionally. If we continue to think that "all Arabs are alike," we will lose credibility amongst those that are our friends.

You're also saying that we are supposed to "negotiate" with people whose only intent is world domination, not sharing the planet with others.

Additionally, you've indicated that it's okay for fundamentalist Moslem nations to turn their female populations into slaves, by allowing them to refuse women the rights to anything as basic as medical attention, because the only person allowed to touch their body, or view it, is their husband. These women die because they are not allowed medical attention, and are stoned to death, if they teach, or are even taught the fundamental basics of reading and writing. You'd condemn them, without considering their position.

Personally, I will fight against any world leadership that says it's okay to allow women to die for appendicitis, because of their archaic laws. Yet, in the name of justice, you'd allow that?

Take a moment and read what the fundamentalist movement is, and what they openly say their plan is. If that doesn't sink in, you're welcome to do anything you want personally to appease them, but as for the rest of us, who believe in human rights, we'll do what's necessary to insure this barbaric belief doesn't spread throughout the world, like they intend.

Incidentally, Spain is on their list of targets in the near future. Right now, the ambivolence in Spain works well for them. But, according to their plans, Spain will suffer their wrath in a large scale, because of the two Moroccan colonies. When that happens, should the rest of us suggest that Spain "negotiate" their own surrender to these terrorists? Apparently that's what you're asking of the rest of us.

The only way we can defeat terrorism is by doing it as a world coalition, and if people offer comfort and aid to these people, by offering up excuses for their actions, the rest of the Arab world looks at us as incapable of understanding their plight, and the fact that they need outside help to stop the violence, by dealing with those who would cause it, using force.

I don't want to belabor this point, but I think you failed to grasp the ramifications of what many of us have indicated from first hand knowledge, and information, about what we've seen throughout the world, in our travels.

To be honest, I don't believe for a minute that the majority of Spanish people are so naive as to believe what you said. I think most people, who have studied the issues, are very much aware of the threat to the entire world that exists, and will support any plausible effort by a coalition of forces, to end this reign of terror. I know first hand, from dozens of Spanish friends, that they are concerned, and feel a world coalition is needed to resolve these issues, and if necessary, force should be used.

I do agree with you about ending violence. Yet, at the price of allowing half the world to be enslaved is not my idea of an acceptable agreement.

As for the situation in Palestine, and Israel, remember that the fundamentalist Moslems do not want peace there. Even if the Israelis pulled everything out of Palestine, the attacks against Israelis would continue. Why? Because the fundamentalist nation of Islam has indicated that Judaism must be scourged from the face of the earth.

As for the UN, I would suggest you look at their "humanitarian intent." They want countries to open their borders for all these refugees. Guess what? The militant hardline Muslims are amongst them, and after they get into a neighboring country, they begin their attack against that nation, to undermine their government, and replace it with their own, even if it means killing all Muslims who don't agree with their philosophy. Take a good look at the precipice that the Pakistani government is on, and that of Jordan, when you realize that both nations already have been infiltrated by these people, because of the UN.

If I was Israel, I'd tell the UN the same thing. They will only cause more death and destruction in the end.

Wolf

Aahhh... The thing I learned quickly when I first visited Spain: Never talk about religion or politics. "Those People" are excellent debaters and EVERYONE is happy to voice their opinion. Good for "them", but I'll keep my mouth shut. :p

"...as they maintain two colonies in Morocco..." This is too much for my taste :P

Wolf, if I see throught your eyes it seems there is nothing spanish at all in Spain. Basque Country is a separate country... I guess that also Catalonia and Galice, now Ceuta and Melilla are colonies in Morocco. Maybe Madrid is also a colony or independent country?

Ceuta and Melilla were conquered in 1492-3. The kingdom of Morocco was founded in the XVI century, 100 years later. Since then, this two autonomous cities have been spanish. They are as colonies as they could be the Canary Islands.

Macao was a colony, Equatorial Guinea was a colony, Mexico was a colony and Hong Kong was a colony, but Ceuta and Melilla are not. They have never been moroccian (though they would want to own them as well as the Canary Islands).

I don't agree with Miguelito, nor all spaniards think like him (it is his well respected point of view).

Arabs and moslems are not terrorists as a whole. There are arabs and muslims who are terrorists, just as there are american or spanish terrorists and criminals. We can't judge a whole group for the crimes of a minority.

I won't negotiate with terrorists. You can only negotiate with those fanaticals when and where they will surrender.

Now: I don't care if Bin Laden is jailed or killed, and I don't care if talibans are removed from the government of Afganistan. They have already commited enough crimes to be punished. I think that what is doing american government (introducing commandos in Afganistan) is the most inteligent thing that can be done. You save the lives of your soldiers and the ones of the population of Afganistan.

"Incidentally, Spain is on their list of targets in the near future. Right now, the ambivolence in Spain works well for them. But, according to their plans, Spain will suffer their wrath in a large scale, because of the two Moroccan colonies. When that happens, should the rest of us suggest that Spain "negotiate" their own surrender to these terrorists? Apparently that's what you're asking of the rest of us."

Could you explain this Wolf? It is really annoying for me. Ambivalence? Ha! Our government has give permission to use militar bases, has promissed logistic support, inteligence support, and our president has even said that spanish troops will participate in a military action. 80% of our population according to polls are for a military action. Keep in mind that we don't have a big army and our ships/fighters can't reach Afganistan (we have only one aircraft carrier, no cruisers, no destructors, 8 submarines, a dozen frigates and two dozens of corvettes).

Of course we are a target of those fanaticals: They have recently (3 days ago) dimantelled a Bin Laden cell here. 8 people jailed by now. We are very near from muslim countries and we have an extense colony of moroccians and muslims.

Yes, a coalition of countries is the best for me, and is what would do the best in this situation.

"As for the situation in Palestine, and Israel, remember that the fundamentalist Moslems do not want peace there. Even if the Israelis pulled everything out of Palestine, the attacks against Israelis would continue. Why? Because the fundamentalist nation of Islam has indicated that Judaism must be scourged from the face of the earth."

Yes, palestinians are not saints... nor israelis are. In the confusion after the WTC attack they have conquered 3 palestinian cities and destroyed the Gaza port. Does this help to easy the situation with the arab countries? Ariel Sharon is a disgusting governor and one of the worst diplomats.

I feel that this situation is a very delicate one to deal with. Diplomacy must be used with military actions, inteligence agencies and police work. I really believe that US president is handling it fine, much better than I thought he will do. I wish those bastards jailed and prosecuted all around the world, no matter what democratic countries have to do (except breaking our own laws of course).

Regards

Fernando

Fernando,

Sorry! Even the Spanish government refers to both Moroccan locations as colonies. The only reason I left The Canarias off is because Spain itself hasn't referred to them as colonies to my knowledge.

Yes, Spain conquered the Moors, and did take both areas of Morocco as colonies. It's even written in your history as being that. Just because it was 500 years ago doesn't change the issue, and since the Moroccan government wants both territories back, that creates a rub between the Spanish government and Muslims. No matter how you add it up, two and two still equals four.

To the Fundamentalist Moslem nations, "Spain is occupying sovereign Moslem territory." It's even in their decrees indicated as such, and they say they will take them back, and make Spain pay for the occupation.

I'm a bit confused. Didn't Spain rightfully kick the Moors out of Spain? Aren't Moors and Moroccans the same people? History says they are, but you say they aren't? Also, rest assured, I totally understand why Spain maintained both colonies for centuries. It insured them that there would never be another invasion of Spain from that source again.

Main Entry: am·biv·a·lence
Pronunciation: am-'bi-v&-l&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
Date: 1918
1 : simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings (as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or action
2 a : continual fluctuation (as between one thing and its opposite) b : uncertainty as to which approach to follow

Above as defined by the Merriam Collegiate dictionary.

What is perceived as a "lack of action" against ETA, on the part of Spain, is considered ambivalence by Fundamentalist Muslims. They felt the same way about the U.S., and may still feel that way, until they see what happens over the next few months, maybe even years. Since the fundamentalist resolve is in total, without reservation, anyone who doesn't oppose them with the same fervor is considered ambivalent. To be honest, the U.S. was more ambivalent about terrorism than almost any other nation in the past.

I totally agree with you on Sharon. I believe he may very well be a major part of the world's problem with the increased amount of terrorism. He's an Arab/Muslim hater, who seems to thrive on confrontation, and killing. That doesn't work for a nation that claims they want peace. In my opinion, the U.S. has to quit backing people like him.

I agree... to this point... Bush is doing well in handling the situation. Let's hope he continues doing so, with the wise counsel and support of governments like Spain's, and leaders like Aznar.

I totally understand that Spain cannot be involved in any actions that may have to take place in Afghanistan. The efforts taken by Spain in rounding up Al Qaida suspects, and offering their Intelligence muscle to the cause is greatly appreciated and accepted. The world couldn't ask for more.

Spain is more than an ally in this cause, they are a friend who is standing with us, and counseling "prudence," and that's what we all need now.


Wolf

MadridMan,

Let's see. You've made three posts.

"How can that happen here?" was the first.

My lady friend enlightened me. That was #2.

I don't understand the last one. Would you care to elaborate?

Wolf (Who believes adding a smily face doesn't change the tone of what's said.)