Madrid Bombing Terorrist killed by heartbreak....

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2007-10-23 07:06pm

and automatic weapons fire....mostly automatic weapons fire in Iraq.

Link

The Associated Press
Sunday, October 21, 2007

MADRID, Spain: An Algerian fugitive suspected of playing a key role in the Madrid terror bombings of 2004 died in Iraq while fighting U.S.-led forces, a newspaper reported Sunday.

Spanish investigators learned from foreign intelligence services that Daoud Ouhnane died in Iraq in October or November 2006, El Pais said, quoting a confidential police report.

The report said that after fleeing Spain following the string of bombs that targeted the Madrid commuter rail network on March 11, 2004, Ouhnane was in contact with suspected Islamic extremists in Spain's northeast Catalonia region in 2005 and 2006, El Pais said.

Police could not be reached for comment on Sunday.

Spanish investigators have said another key suspect in the Madrid attacks, Moroccan Mohamed Afalah, is believed to have died in a suicide attack in Iraq in 2005.

Over the past two years Spanish authorities have arrested dozens of people suspected of recruiting Islamic fighters for the insurgency in Iraq.

At least two other suspected ringleaders of the Madrid massacre are still apparently at large, although they are believed to have fled Spain shortly after the attack.

The Madrid bombings killed 191 people and wounded more than 1,800. A total of 28 people who stood trial in the case are awaiting a verdict on Oct. 31.

The attacks were claimed by Muslim militants who said they had acted on behalf of al-Qaida to avenge the presence of Spanish troops in Iraq, but Spanish authorities say there is no evidence al-Qaida ordered or financed the attacks.

Pelranius · Post by **Pelranius** » 2007-10-23 09:50pm

What does heartbreak have to do with anything?

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » 2007-10-23 10:12pm

Pelranius wrote:What does heartbreak have to do with anything?

The answer is obvious if you read the first line of the OP.

Sidewinder · Post by **Sidewinder** » 2007-10-23 10:52pm

Good riddance. Now if only the 250,000 other Islamofascists would be kind enough to offer themselves as targets for various armies' rifle marksmanship course...

ray245 · Post by **ray245** » 2007-10-24 03:24am

No...let them live for a while first as you brainwash them...making them feel regret over their actions and make them believe they will go to hell instead...

THEN you kill them...

Although I know that is STILL too sadistic...

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2007-10-24 12:41pm

^Oh, great, tough man posturing on the internet. Can't say I'm surprised.

Oh, and to Sidewinder: WTH are "Islamofascists"? Please explain to me how the term makes sense.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-10-24 12:43pm

Its just an overgeneralizing slander directed at Islamist militants of any stripe who are opposed to U.S. foreign interests, as opposed to a useful descriptor of their behavior or politics. Its a rhetorical gimmick favored by the American right-wing, and is a talking point - nothing more, nothing less.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-10-24 01:02pm

Islamofascist makes no sense. A fascist is a rather strict political definition which can't apply to a very large range of those currently labelled with it. Radical islamist militant, jihadi or muhjahed are far better terms to explain what those are.

fgalkin2 · Post by **fgalkin2** » 2007-10-24 01:16pm

Stas Bush wrote:Islamofascist makes no sense. A fascist is a rather strict political definition which can't apply to a very large range of those currently labelled with it. Radical islamist militant, jihadi or muhjahed are far better terms to explain what those are.

Well, you can't call them Islamo-commies, now can you? And commies and fascists are the only two "real" enemies in the US popular imagination (that, and people of varying shades of non-white, but people don't like to talk about that)

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Ubiquitous · Post by **Ubiquitous** » 2007-10-24 02:39pm

I didn't know this forum now had rules on using correct terminology for certain groups, such as 'Republitards'. Islamofascists is just an insulting term for a group that we as westerners do not like. I wouldn't read too much into the name in the same way that no way near all Republicans are 'tards.

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2007-10-24 07:20pm

To Stas and Illuminatus Primus: Yeah, that's what I figured already. I just wanted Sidewinder to explain why he uses the term and if he knows what he means.

Ubiquitous wrote:I didn't know this forum now had rules on using correct terminology for certain groups, such as 'Republitards'. Islamofascists is just an insulting term for a group that we as westerners do not like. I wouldn't read too much into the name in the same way that no way near all Republicans are 'tards.

There is a difference between Republitards and Islamofascists, IMO. The first is a rather self-explanatory term based on the behaviour of a group of people.

Also, Republitard as a designation makes sense for labelling a stupid politician. Mixing fascism and islamism into one word is rather stupid in itself, and using it to label the insurgency in Iraq is not only wrong, but misleading and illogical considering the level of complexity involved in Iraq. Islamofascist is a political invented talking point, trying to throw all those muslims who oppose the US into one category. It is misleading. e muslims who oppose the US into one category. It is misleading, and by its very use tries to turn the war into a simple matter of us-vs-them, playing right into the thands of this administration.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-10-25 12:45am

Ubiquitous wrote:I didn't know this forum now had rules on using correct terminology for certain groups, such as 'Republitards'. Islamofascists is just an insulting term for a group that we as westerners do not like. I wouldn't read too much into the name in the same way that no way near all Republicans are 'tards.

Ah, to be back home and beleive that. No, they're being promoted as such. 'Islamofascism Awareness Week' has kicked off, apparently, by Horowitz and his usual sludge-encrusted idiot brigade. Unsurprisingly, few universities are thrilled to have that kind of nonsense at those kind of prices(Leftist nutjobs, it seems, are cheaper).

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2007-10-25 12:55am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Its just an overgeneralizing slander directed at Islamist militants of any stripe who are opposed to U.S. foreign interests, as opposed to a useful descriptor of their behavior or politics. Its a rhetorical gimmick favored by the American right-wing, and is a talking point - nothing more, nothing less.

It's also a textbook case of projection on the part of genuine American fascists.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-10-25 01:30am

I hear pointing out a term is essentially meaningless in itself is bad these days...

I thought we were supposed to have meaningful thread titles these days, and less retarded 'zomg hurt them rar' stuff, too.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-10-25 02:16am

Stark wrote:I hear pointing out a term is essentially meaningless in itself is bad these days...

I thought we were supposed to have meaningful thread titles these days, and less retarded 'zomg hurt them rar' stuff, too.

Indeed we are. But there will always be retards, and sadly, no one lets me ban on my own initiative.

Ryan Thunder · Post by **Ryan Thunder** » 2007-10-25 09:37am

Thanas wrote:Also, Republitard as a designation makes sense for labelling a stupid politician. Mixing fascism and islamism into one word is rather stupid in itself, and using it to label the insurgency in Iraq is not only wrong, but misleading and illogical considering the level of complexity involved in Iraq.

Complexity? I think you people can greatly over-complicate things sometimes...

How many different types of allegiance can you have with somebody in a war? Either you're involved, which means you're fighting for a side (your own side is included in this), or you're not involved, which can mean any number of different things but basically boils down to you not actively going out and damaging any involved parties.

So, in short, they're either trying to do away with us (one way or another) or they're not. What would make it more complicated than that?

Islamofascist is a political invented talking point, trying to throw all those muslims who oppose the US into one category. It is misleading. e muslims who oppose the US into one category. It is misleading, and by its very use tries to turn the war into a simple matter of us-vs-them, playing right into the thands of this administration.

Geez... What other kind of a war is there? How can you separate "Us vs. Them" from violent competition between parties?

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2007-10-25 09:44am

I think that Islamofascist is also a reference to historic co-operation between various Arab leaders and Hitler - most famously the Mufti of Jerusalem. Because, of course, if Arab leaders sixty years ago dealt with Hitler, their leaders now must still be Nazis...

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2007-10-25 05:24pm

Ryan Thunder wrote:
Thanas wrote:Also, Republitard as a designation makes sense for labelling a stupid politician. Mixing fascism and islamism into one word is rather stupid in itself, and using it to label the insurgency in Iraq is not only wrong, but misleading and illogical considering the level of complexity involved in Iraq.
Complexity? I think you people can greatly over-complicate things sometimes...

How old are you, again?

How many different types of allegiance can you have with somebody in a war? Either you're involved, which means you're fighting for a side (your own side is included in this), or you're not involved, which can mean any number of different things but basically boils down to you not actively going out and damaging any involved parties.

Trying to spin this into a war of allegiances? Great, cause that is of course the only complex thing in Iraq.

Of course, you have no grasp of the insurgency as a whole. Let's start with their politcal ranges. We have sunni nationalists, sunni islamists (who clash with nationalists), tribal alliances, the mahdi "army", the shia groups clashing with Sadr and countless others. It is not just "the insurgency". All groups have different allegiances (whether those are to Sadr, al qaida - which is a study of complexity in itself-, Iran, Syria, tribal allegiances, mob bosses etc) and political aims which range wildly from "kick the US out" to "keep them here and bleed them dry" to "establish a nationalist state again" to "theocracy. 1111." (Just in case you are wondering, the list is not complete).

So, in short, they're either trying to do away with us (one way or another) or they're not. What would make it more complicated than that?

All those goals outlined above are different and require different responses. In fact some of them suit the US which has worked with Iraqis in the past, you know? The division into groups like "those want to kill us = bad guys" and "those do not = good guys" is simplistic and to be honest not a sign of a good grasp of the situation.

Geez... What other kind of a war is there? How can you separate "Us vs. Them" from violent competition between parties?

See above. Also, you will of course demonstrate now how the war in Iraq is the same as the war in Afghanistan, and how all the groups involved in those wars have the same goals, tactics and aims. Also, you will demonstrate how those aims, goals and tactics are Islamofascist, right after you demonstrate how the term makes any sense.

Androsphinx wrote:I think that Islamofascist is also a reference to historic co-operation between various Arab leaders and Hitler - most famously the Mufti of Jerusalem. Because, of course, if Arab leaders sixty years ago dealt with Hitler, their leaders now must still be Nazis...

Yeah, right, because the Bush cabal of course nows about all those things and has not just invented the term because they are loosing popular support. Or do you really thing that they know anything about Mohammad Amin al-Husayni? I betcha most americans don't know jack about him.

Furthermore, anyone who tries to make a connection between Nazis-Arabs vastly underestimates the complexities of WWII. To apply it to the present situation is a sign of a severe lack of historical knowledge at best and most likely a sign of severe idocy.

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2007-10-25 05:36pm

Yeah, right, because the Bush cabal of course nows about all those things and has not just invented the term because they are loosing popular support. Or do you really thing that they know anything about Mohammad Amin al-Husayni? I betcha most americans don't know jack about him.

Furthermore, anyone who tries to make a connection between Nazis-Arabs vastly underestimates the complexities of WWII. To apply it to the present situation is a sign of a severe lack of historical knowledge at best and most likely a sign of severe idocy.

While the neo-cons may well be delusional, they (unfortunately) aren't stupid. They certainly known about al-Husseini and the rest of the gang. By tracing modern Islamism back to them, they can associate the current crop of Muslim fundamentalists with the Nazis for two groups - the "OMG! Fascist!" group and a slightly (very slightly) more educated audience as well.

And yes, it isn't historically relevant. Unfortunately, while this is undoubtedly a skillful propaganda piece, it is also also believed by too many people who should know better. Heck, I once heard someone blame the Mufti for the Holocaust, and that he talked Hitler into in when they met in 1941.

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2007-10-25 06:21pm

Androsphinx wrote:While the neo-cons may well be delusional, they (unfortunately) aren't stupid. They certainly known about al-Husseini and the rest of the gang. By tracing modern Islamism back to them, they can associate the current crop of Muslim fundamentalists with the Nazis for two groups - the "OMG! Fascist!" group and a slightly (very slightly) more educated audience as well.

It is just a soundbite for Fox News, and there is no mention of the mufti as they do it. It is nothing but a ploy to equal the insurgents and the taliban to the Nazis. The widespread usage of the term by right wingers does not make it anymore than a label, a label that is wrong to boot.

Ryan Thunder · Post by **Ryan Thunder** » 2007-10-25 07:31pm

Thanas wrote: How old are you, again?

Irrelevant.

All those goals outlined above are different and require different responses. In fact some of them suit the US which has worked with Iraqis in the past, you know? The division into groups like "those want to kill us = bad guys" and "those do not = good guys" is simplistic and to be honest not a sign of a good grasp of the situation.

So wait, are you saying that the ones that want to kill us can be on our side too? That's a new one.

More seriously; ok, I think I see what you meant by what you said earlier. I simply misinterpreted you.

Also, you will of course demonstrate now how the war in Iraq is the same as the war in Afghanistan,

Can't, because it isn't. When did I suggest that it was?

and how all the groups involved in those wars have the same goals, tactics and aims.

They might not have the same goals, but the pursuit of their goals tends to generally have the same effect; they stick their fingers in the gears and jam things up, while accomplishing nothing worthwhile...

If it weren't for that sort of scum-sucking idiocy the Americans could have come home years ago.

Also, you will demonstrate how those aims, goals and tactics are Islamofascist, right after you demonstrate how the term makes any sense.

Forget the term; as you said its incorrect and doesn't make any sense. I never disputed that.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-10-26 09:12am

By this clown's egocentric logic, Japanese were Nazis because they wanted the U.S. to lose WW2.

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2007-10-26 09:24am

Also because it seems that "islamofascist" is the White House's preferred epithet, it's easier for lazy reporters to use. Not that that's excusable either.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2007-10-26 10:43am

Androsphinx wrote: And yes, it isn't historically relevant. Unfortunately, while this is undoubtedly a skillful propaganda piece, it is also also believed by too many people who should know better. Heck, I once heard someone blame the Mufti for the Holocaust, and that he talked Hitler into in when they met in 1941.

Israelis naturally think the Arabs are no better than WWII Nazi Germans and often use the Grand Mufti as a historical bogey man and representative for all Semitic anti-Semitism (although modern Arabs don't help either with Hamas and Hezbollah followers doing Nazi salutes, with many Arab authorities spreading anti-Jewish hate propaganda inspired by former Nazi mercenaries working with Arabs during the 1950s and 60s).

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2007-10-26 10:58am

Israelis naturally think the Arabs are no better than WWII Nazi Germans and often use the Grand Mufti as a historical bogey man and representative for all Semitic anti-Semitism (although modern Arabs don't help either with Hamas and Hezbollah followers doing Nazi salutes, with many Arab authorities spreading anti-Jewish hate propaganda inspired by former Nazi mercenaries working with Arabs during the 1950s and 60s).

Exactly. That Yassir Arafat revered Husseini, and repeatedly emphasised fighting for him in Gaza in 1948, hardly helped matters.