Author Topic: Appeasement has the expected result (Read 2095 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #90 on:** April 07, 2004, 03:04:08 AM »

Oh my error. Only part of the spanish socilaist party secretly negotiates with terrorists. Yea!!!

Nash · « **Reply #91 on:** April 07, 2004, 03:06:57 AM »

Well then Grun,

By what you wrote we're left with two choices.

Incompetence or deceit.

Sound familiar?

But no... it was on account of Rosa waking up one morning and saying "shreck it, I don't like bombs and besides... with the right acoutrements burkas can be made to fit any social occasion."

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #92 on:** April 07, 2004, 03:08:13 AM »

You would like it to be so simple...

Thrawn · « **Reply #93 on:** April 07, 2004, 03:11:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You would like it to be so simple...

No, you made even simpler, one choice "appeasement".

Nash · « **Reply #94 on:** April 07, 2004, 03:11:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Anyway, your saudi masterminds, the ones who are "the weels of this whole mess" could you elaborate some on exactly what the hell you mean when you say that? I suspect this is not some independent analysis made by you, so maybe you could point us in the direction of the webpage you got that from?

I said "behind the wheel"... as in driving the planes. I also said it was the al Quaeda that were the "masterminds" as you put it.

Language problem I guess, so you'll excuse me for not arguing the points you make based on that.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #95 on:** April 07, 2004, 03:14:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
No, you made even simpler, one choice "appeasement".

Actaully whether we agree on appeasemt or not is rather pointless by now - I'm assuming that by now we are locked in firm and wont budge. Thats what i think ultimately, though I'll be be sucked back in to the same old argumets we have had so far.

I'm far more concerned by the fact that terrorists are going to see this as a victory and that they will see it as appesement.

Nash · « **Reply #96 on:** April 07, 2004, 03:22:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You seem to be saying it BS because its too high order of a satement, too complex for this context - but its not, its real and its what they are thinking about when they analyse our responses?

I just quoted the one bit above because it's basically the gist of your post.

Lemme say... it's YOU who is more concerned about *something*... be it changing the government or a way of thinking based on terrorists, than anyone else... and certainly not the Spanish government which holds true to its promises since well before there even was a terrorist act.

Here:

"its real and its what they are thinking about when they analyse our responses?"

Okay erhm... lets change our "responses" because terrorists may "analayse" them in some way or another? (who cares).

Seems like it's you that's advocating taking their wishes into consideration.... the very thing yer blaming Spain for.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #97 on:** April 07, 2004, 03:31:34 AM »

So basically what you are saying is that you value the ideologocal inflexibility of the socialist government more than you would value them responding flexibly to changing events they occur.

How would you feelif they reverse their stance and stay in Iraq? Would you then say they are immoral liars?

And about responses to terrorism. Do you not feel that we have to take into account what affect our responses to terrorists will have on them?

Here is a really basic examle: (this is abstarct not meant be spain per se)

BOOM! Bombs goes off kills 1000 people.

Government responds:

a) We will not give in to terrorist demands, this nations policy will not change.

OR:

b) We are willing to negotiate with this group in the intrests of peace but only after the guilty are punished.

OR:

c) We give up, we will change the offending national policy.

So can you agree how the terrorists would view these three responses differently and why that would matter?

Nash · « **Reply #98 on:** April 07, 2004, 03:34:34 AM »

No - I would say they are retarded.

Gotta sleep - ciao!

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #99 on:** April 07, 2004, 03:41:15 AM »

Nite!

You are then dedicated to giving them a victory!

Nash · « **Reply #100 on:** April 07, 2004, 03:42:49 AM »

WTF?

You totally edited your post.

Now mine makes even less sense than it did before.

Very insensitive of you, Gurnhortz.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #101 on:** April 07, 2004, 03:46:18 AM »

Sorry that idea I had took longer to type than i imagined . I understand yiur response though.

Nash · « **Reply #102 on:** April 07, 2004, 03:52:21 AM »

Yeah no doubt. Especially 'cuz you then make some kind of uppity stance at my responce to your post-turned-ghost.

NOW I go to bed...

and this time.... no funny business...

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #103 on:** April 07, 2004, 05:42:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Gscholz personal attacks get a bit old, but no reason to go psycho on us Steve.

mmm just remembered why Steve is on ignore