Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on March 17, 2004, 07:42:33 PM
-
See? Cowering DOES work! :cool:
Al Queda calls "Truce" in Spain
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/18/1079199323371.html
-
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/17/1079199285597.html?from=storyrhs
Commentators have suggested that the devastating defeat of the Spanish Popular Party (PP) indicates a similar fate may assail the Bush, Blair and indeed Howard Governments as their own populations condemn the war in Iraq. Such speculation comes amid reports that Spain’s new Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is intending to withdraw all of the 1300 Spanish troops that have so far played a peace keeping role with the Coalition in Iraq.
Out of either a sincere fear for the consequences of these circumstances or with the intention of scoring domestic political points through instilling such fear, Governments throughout the Coalition have claimed that a Spanish withdrawal from Iraq would not only bring needless destruction to the occupied country, it would also send a message to terrorist organisations that bombings and terror campaigns are effective tools that bring about change in Western policies.
Such claims are simplistic and misleading, as they seek to frame the debate in a ‘black and white’, either/or analysis similar to the belligerent ‘you’re either with us or against us’ rhetoric of the Bush Doctrine which took us to Iraq in the first place.
..and
In addition to leveling refreshing criticism at Bush and Blair for the invasion of Iraq the new Spanish Prime Minister said the following:
“I want to create an alliance against violence and all kinds of terrorism.”
“The Socialist Party is going to keep relationships with all the governments of the world, including the United States, even though we don't agree on some issues.”
Neither of these statements are acknowledged by commentators whose black and white interpretation of Spain’s options lead them to believe the Socialist Government is on the verge of withdrawing completely from the war against terrorism and turning its back on the alliances fighting this war. Nor do they pay heed to the following notable statement, repeated more than once since the election:
“If the U.N. doesn't take control of Iraq, I think Spanish troops are going to come back, and the date is June 30... I don't think the administration in Iraq is the best."
Here we see the Prime Minister acknowledging the ineffective nature of the US led invasion and occupation of Iraq. He is moving his Government away from the either/or of the former Aznar Popular Party and drawing closer to the alleged ‘old Europe’ of France and Germany, who through out the entire debate have subverted black and white analysis by demanding the consideration of ‘other options’ in dealing with Iraq. What these other options are is made obvious by the above statement. Spain will withdraw IF the United Nations doesn’t take control.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/17/1079199285597.html?from=storyrhs
Such claims are simplistic and misleading, as they seek to frame the debate in a ‘black and white’, either/or analysis similar to the belligerent ‘you’re either with us or against us’ rhetoric of the Bush Doctrine which took us to Iraq in the first place.
[/i]
Tronsky
That was not rhetoric. That was speaking directly. Maybe the President could have also added a 3rd caveat of "or just get out of the way".
I am truly saddened by the loses in Spain and know it will be difficult for the families, friends, as well as the entire country to deal with the loss.
However, apeasement is not the best path. There are many examples of such in history, all over the world. It may work in the short-term but the long-term results can be devastating to a sovereign nation.
It's just that this appears to us as "terrorism really does work".
-
What is this miracle you libs/euros expect will take place if the UN is in charge? Will it change anything? What would the UN do differently than the US troops in dealing with insurgents?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
What is this miracle you libs/euros expect will take place if the UN is in charge? Will it change anything? What would the UN do differently than the US troops in dealing with insurgents?
I agree.
The insurgents will still attack the UN. It was a cold reminder when the UN HQ in Baghdad was bombed.
-
why grun, you should know better than that.
If the UN was in charge, theyd probably argue and debate themselves to death while their 100 man 'peacekeeping' force gets shot at.
Then 'old europe' will start screaming and demanding the US do something. Because its their fault..always. you know :)
-
Originally posted by OIO
why grun, you should know better than that.
If the UN was in charge, theyd probably argue and debate themselves to death while their 100 man 'peacekeeping' force gets shot at.
Then 'old europe' will start screaming and demanding the US do something. Because its their fault..always. you know :)
Well I am still asking for the perspective of those who ask for UN control.
-
Grun-
I'm surprised at you! Don't you know you cannot get killed when you wear the blue UN helmet?
Thats why we're had all these losses in this "Fiasco". Because we dont have the magic Blue helmet.
Look...apparently if you bomb a piece of Europe, you get capitulation.
You knock down 2 towers and kill 3,000 Americans and you get the other 250 million pissed off at you.
It seems to be different on this side of the pond.
I get the feeling any thing the terrorists try to pull before our election would work in favor of Bush.
-
Rip, we'll have an election here soon too. Currently, "conservatives" are in power - as in Spain.
We contributed to the war effort. Spain's socialist future leaders immediate response of yelling at the top of their lungs "WE'LL PULL OUR TROOPS AWAY RIGHT NOW, SORRY BIN LA...ERR...MR. BIN LADEN!" has made my security situation worse. His desire to pull troops back was well known, but he as a politician should know that the timing of his remarks was awful and that it sends a very strong signal. He knew just what signal it'd send and went ahead regardless, caught up in the unexpected rush of victory.
Only difference is that our social democrats this far has said that pulling our troops from iraq would be a mistake, because the war did happen and we do have to deal with it.
Al Qaeida could try something similar in Denmark, especially with the eoncouragement their last acts of murder gave them. There was great opposition to the war here too (60% against), so I doubt the spine of the doubters would be strong enough to resist "appeasement". After all, the Nazis dinnae bomb the **** outta us coz we were basically conquered in three days.
I'm with the Yankees on this one. The response to a direct attack on civilians should not be appeasement - it should be direct response by all military and economical means, followed up by a campaign to remove or lessen the conditions that make recruiting so easy for fundamentalists. Dunno if the Yankees are with me with the last line there, but that's how I see it.
Damn terrorists can wreck havoc to the economy, aside from murdering in cold blood innocent people and causing massive grief. And by the looks of it, they're taking their fight to my back yard, then my kitchen. I won't end up in the bedroom with 'em, that's for sure.
-
Just for you to know, Rip.
Socialists are governing Catalonia with the support of Esquerra Republicana (Republican Left). The head of this party had the guts to go to France some two weeks before the elections to have an interview with ETA terrorists. After that was known, our soon to be president not only did not break the coalition, but showed full support to it. Although he condemned the talks (Oh, thks, we now all feel better). One of the results of the talks was a truce declared by ETA to his operations in Catalonia. They will kill people from the rest of Spain.
Fortunately, there is a lot of people in Catalonia that feel sorry for this. I can assure you there is a lot of people in Spain that feel sorry for what we are planning to do with our troops.
There is nothing these people (I am one of them) can do about our troops that show my support for what they are doing, and hope my president realize that there is a fundamental error in retiring them, and that it is a shame for us not being a terrorist target in this terms.
-
So these terrorists were from Iraq? I can't see any other reason why Spanish forces should be occupying that country ?
-
Oh, the Abu Hafs al-Masri brigades... the ones that claimed responsibility for the East Coast blackout. Real credible source there Rip.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
Oh, the Abu Hafs al-Masri brigades... the ones that claimed responsibility for the East Coast blackout. Real credible source there Rip.
Daniel
I think they were the ones that claimed responsibility on Madrid bombings....and they were taken seriously from the very first moment by socialists, so seriously as to call "liar" the government, right?
They are, or they aren't, credible?
-
Originally posted by Pepe
I think they were the ones that claimed responsibility on Madrid bombings....and they were taken seriously from the very first moment by socialists, so seriously as to call "liar" the government, right?
They are, or they aren't, credible?
Pepe, Pepe... the fact is not that they claimed responsibility (EVEN the cadena SER said that the source of information was not credible since they had claimed the east coast blackout), the fact is that the government denied any possibility other than eta even when the investigation clues were pointing elsewhere.
Don't blame it on the bombings, blame it on the poor management of the crisis.
Daniel
PD: Como ya te había dicho, no nos pondremos de acuerdo. Tú crees a Urdaci, y yo a Gabilondo... es lo que hay :)
-
Spot on Staga.
Pepe/Daniel, how many bombings have ETA carried out in Catalunya since their inception? Just interested.
I think the point about UN control of the Iraq situation is that it would legitimize the operation in the eyes of the Arab public. But given that Bush & co plainly don't give two hoots for Arab opinion, it kind of gives the lie to all the crying about "appeasement".
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
Pepe, Pepe... the fact is not that they claimed responsibility (EVEN the cadena SER said that the source of information was not credible since they had claimed the east coast blackout), the fact is that the government denied any possibility other than eta even when the investigation clues were pointing elsewhere.
So it is OK say that "truce" declaration is not believable on the terms of lack of credibility of the mentioned "organization" but it's not for the Government to make the same assumption about the bombing? Because, and this is a fact, when the van appeared, the Government changed his "ETA was the author" to "We think ETA was the author, but we investigating any other possiblity". And this is a fact, not an oppinion.
Don't you think that the most likely authors, on the absence of any proof, were ETA?
PD: Daniel, Daniel, no es que nos pongamos de acuerdo sobre opiniones, se trata de llegar a los hechos primero, sobre los que no debería haber dudas ;)
-
telling how this guy planted the bombs so his party could take over the gov
(http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2004/03/15-zapatero2.jpg)
you know, j like Bush/CIA allowed 911 to happen so we could take Iraq oil and charge the highest price in history for gasoline :rolleyes:
though Jose didn't actually plant the bombs, he has become a puppet for those who did
-
Yeah, the source *is* indeed questionable...sorry I was so brash in my original thread...I just hate to see any Gov't give in to terrorism, I hold no grudges against the people of Spain, mind you.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
snip
I'm with the Yankees on this one. The response to a direct attack on civilians should not be appeasement - it should be direct response by all military and economical means, followed up by a campaign to remove or lessen the conditions that make recruiting so easy for fundamentalists. Dunno if the Yankees are with me with the last line there, but that's how I see it.
First allow me to take exception with the "Yankee" label, Texans tend to find it insulting ;)
But, yes, I believe you may be assured that most of us here agree.
Reading what many foreigners post, I get the impression that there's a perception that folks here in the USA have a bias against Arabs/Muslims, because of our support of Israel. Well, its not true.
The anger you see expressed by us should be understood as directed toward those that seek to influence us by conducting and supporting terror attacks against us. One thing we do tend to be guilty of is reactionism, and we react to attacks by wanting to retaliate. I won't apologize for that.
But our support for Israel should be taken into context and understood. Its about supporting an underdog, another tendency of ours.
I believe you'd find that if the Arab/Muslim world would work to elminate their terrorist elements and demonstrate a willingness to allow Israel to survive, while at the same time demanding that all involved find some way to afford fair treatment for the Palestinians, Israel would lose its US support if it didn't cooperate - because then we'd have no reason to resent those in opposition to Israel. The Palestinians would then become the underdogs and you'd see US support for their position.
If you think about the whole situation in these terms. I believe it should make sense.
culero
-
No, Israel would have to do something really atrocious to lose US support. So that's not going to happen.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
I think the point about UN control of the Iraq situation is that it would legitimize the operation in the eyes of the Arab public. But given that Bush & co plainly don't give two hoots for Arab opinion, it kind of gives the lie to all the crying about "appeasement".
How would you explain the destrutction of the UN headquarters in Baghdad then, one of the earlier big acts of terror in the post war period?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, Israel would have to do something really atrocious to lose US support. So that's not going to happen.
If Israel's right to survive became acknowledged by its current opponents, and Israel received cooperation from its neighbors to stop the terror attacks against its civilian populace, then Israel would IMO be compelled to reciprocate by negotiating a fair and equitable settlement with the Palestinian population.
Under those circumstances, I believe that if Israel refused to do so, it would be seen as atrocious here in the US.
culero
-
Seems to me that post partition, the Palestinians have always been the underdogs and mistreated by the Israeli state and the rest of the Arab world.
Ravs.
-
I think we would all agree that a terrorist attack in the U.S. before the American elections this year would probably solidify Bush's candidacy and likely lead to another squashing... of somebody.
But, what if Al Queada offered to disband and never kill again.... in exchange for a Democratic Administration?
... discuss.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think we would all agree that a terrorist attack in the U.S. before the American elections this year would probably solidify Bush's candidacy and likely lead to another squashing... of somebody.
But, what if Al Queada offered to disband and never kill again.... in exchange for a Democratic Administration?
... discuss.
If somebody gave me a check for US $100,000,000 to vote for John Kerry I would do so in a second.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think we would all agree that a terrorist attack in the U.S. before the American elections this year would probably solidify Bush's candidacy and likely lead to another squashing... of somebody.
But, what if Al Queada offered to disband and never kill again.... in exchange for a Democratic Administration?
... discuss.
Al Queda does not "negotiate", nor do we. If Democratic votes were swayed to the republican vote due to terrorism, it would be because Bush has a track record of "no B.S." stance against terrorists, just the opposite of the Spain swing in the vote (which at this point appears pacifist)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think we would all agree that a terrorist attack in the U.S. before the American elections this year would probably solidify Bush's candidacy and likely lead to another squashing... of somebody.
But, what if Al Queada offered to disband and never kill again.... in exchange for a Democratic Administration?
... discuss.
dicuss what? another left pipe dream? maybe moveon can make a commercial saying as much LOL
-
1. Spain's population disagreed with its Gov't about Iraq since long ago
2. Aznar was far from a sure winner of the elections before the bombing
3. Results of the elections were mostly influenced by the poor crisis management of the previous Gov't, not by the bombings themselves
4. Before the vote, there was no ultimatum from the terrorists threatening the country with other attacks if the Gov't wasn't switching to left
Spain hasn't cowered from anything. Don't expect a european country to capitulate to terrorists issuing an ultimatum. Spain, France, Germany... proved it more than once in the past: hijackings, hostages, kidnappings... Europe has had its share of that, and in my knowledge never freed a terrorist or answered any other extorsion.
Besides, the spanish people are hot tempered and proud about their country. They won't be cowering from terrorists. But they won't necessarily use the US methods and go for a target bis when the main target is still running...
-
Originally posted by deSelys
1. Spain's population disagreed with its Gov't about Iraq since long ago
2. Aznar was far from a sure winner of the elections before the bombing
3. Results of the elections were mostly influenced by the poor crisis management of the previous Gov't, not by the bombings themselves
4. Before the vote, there was no ultimatum from the terrorists threatening the country with other attacks if the Gov't wasn't switching to left
Spain hasn't cowered from anything. Don't expect a european country to capitulate to terrorists issuing an ultimatum. Spain, France, Germany... proved it more than once in the past: hijackings, hostages, kidnappings... Europe has had its share of that, and in my knowledge never freed a terrorist or answered any other extorsion.
Besides, the spanish people are hot tempered and proud about their country. They won't be cowering from terrorists. But they won't necessarily use the US methods and go for a target bis when the main target is still running...
You have to remember most americans still believe saddam had something to do with 9/11. And most are still sold on the fact he was trying to supply terrorists with WMDs,
-
Spain hasn't cowered from anything. Don't expect a european country to capitulate to terrorists issuing an ultimatum. Spain, France, Germany... proved it more than once in the past: hijackings, hostages, kidnappings... Europe has had its share of that, and in my knowledge never freed a terrorist or answered any other extorsion
Na...... of course not.
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,,1430_A_954283,00.html
-
Originally posted by Eagler
dicuss what? another left pipe dream? maybe moveon can make a commercial say as much LOL
Sorry. We like to call it a hypothetical situation. Or maybe "what if" would be clearer. Kinda like "what if" you were to try to see both sides of an issue before making a decision.
If this is too much to comprehend I'll do a crayon drawing next time.
-
Its fine idea MT, but boy is that reaching.
-
I wonder if the young Turks in ETA will see the new Spanish government capitulation in Iraq as an invitation to use mass casualty terror bombings within Spain to create their seperate state? Must be tempting more now then ever for them.
-
*SIGH* How many times do I have to repeat that the promise of withrdrawing the troops from Iraq was made LONG before the terrorist attack? :rolleyes:
Daniel
-
It wasn't the timing of the promise to pull out of iraq that sparks discussion of appeasement, it's how the spanish voters did a 180 and voted the socialist ticket in response to the attack on their soil.
The socialists aren't the appeasers, they are just the instrument. The voters have democratically decided to take a stance of appeasement by wielding the political parties in power appropriately.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Besides, the spanish people are hot tempered and proud about their country.
That potato peeling temper has been are will be our doom forever. And you are wrog about the probable results before the bombings. PP was a very clear winner.
BTW Pepe, open your eyes, now you have not a president, all you'll have is a retarded clown surrounded by even more retarded, stinking and oportunistic ones, the same as in the black Gonzalez days, but with much less experience.
MANDOBLE
-
Originally posted by ravells
Seems to me that post partition, the Palestinians have always been the underdogs and mistreated by the Israeli state and the rest of the Arab world.
Ravs.
I wouldn't disagree that the Palestinians are being done no favors by either the Israelis or their fellow Arabs.
However, they are part of the "Arab world". Given the avowance from the rest of that "world" that Israel must not be allowed to survive, the perception is that they have many allies locally, while Israel has none.
Thus, Israel seems to be the underdog in the region, since the Palestinians seem to have many allies in the effort to expel or exterminate the Israelis.
culero
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
*SIGH* How many times do I have to repeat that the promise of withrdrawing the troops from Iraq was made LONG before the terrorist attack? :rolleyes:
Daniel
They dont want to believe that. They still see iraq as part of the war on terror, that it was a threat to the US that could strike at anytime. Then if you bring up the fact that it wasnt and boroda was right and indeed iraq was no threat to the US, they tell you how evil saddam was to his people.
So which is it? Was it a war to liberate iraq, or was it a war to stop saddam from trying to get WMD's he didnt have to terrorists that didnt work with him?
And how does spain pulling out of iraq(the will of the people since they went it) have anything to do with the war on terror, because its blatenly obvious that attacking iraq had nothing to do with it.
-
Frogman,
Spain pulling out of Iraq is not a symbol of bowing to the terrorists, it's the election results that made that decision possible that indicate appeasement.
The socialists said all along they would pull out of Iraq if they had the chance, and that's a perfectly legit stance for them to take. My only problem with the whole situation is that the Socialist party ended up getting the majority vote BECAUSE of something terrorists did. They weren't going to win before the bombings, but the bombings shocked the populace into changing government.
The week before the election of any democratic country is now going to be frought with peril because all terrorist organizations have PROOF that a well timed attack can actually change the government of their target.
I have no beef with the Spanish socialist party, I don't know anything about them. They are just doing their thing and representing the will of the people. My beef is with how the individual voters just validated a terrible new tactic for imposing political change.
Best regards,
Chairboy
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
So which is it? Was it a war to liberate iraq, or was it a war to stop saddam from trying to get WMD's
can't it be both?
do you think Libya would have coughed up her nuclear program if the US hadn't invaded?
And how does spain pulling out of iraq (the will of the people since they went it) have anything to do with the war on terror, because its blatenly obvious that attacking iraq had nothing to do with it.
then why did the terrorists blow up their train because they had troops in Iraq if Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism?
-
Originally posted by GODO
...And you are wrog about the probable results before the bombings. PP was a very clear winner.
...
Well it didn't seem so sure to some of you:
Originally posted by CyranoAH in this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=111534)
- First of all, the Popular Party was sure to lose the absolute majority by a good margin. Things like the war in Iraq, the management of the "prestige" spill, and the fact that the popular party didn't want to participate in a televised debate against the other parties played an important role in that.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Well it didn't seem so sure to some of you:
previssions march 4 (http://www.libertaddigital.com:83/php3/noticia.php3?fecha_edi_on=2004-03-04&num_edi_on=1348&cpn=1276216760&seccion=ESP_D)
-
Ok I stand corrected. Can somebody summarize to me what is being said about the number of seats. Was PP gaining a few more seats in the predictions, or losing some?
-
deSelys, I think you need to update your information about Spain ;)
First, Popular Party, as Mandoble said, was a clear winner on the elections. The only issue on the table was wether they have absolute majority or relative one. That was acknowledged even by Socialists. And this is the reason why Socialist party has an "opposition" program, full of promises never ment to be fulfilled. Life is ironic sometimes, I guess.
Second, although there were huge demonstrations against war in Irak, and Spain involvement, council & autonomous governments elections held after them gave Popular Party the victory. Again. I guess there was not so "majority" support. Maybe I'm wrong, but elections' numbers tell it.
Third, anyone with two eyes in his face, and most of the ones on some other cathegory, can see that communication skills had been horrible with Popular Party Government. They made is so bad as to give PRISA (the villain press that manipualted the facts in March 11th.) a monopoly in pay Satellite TV. However, the polls were influenced by an emotional reaction to 200 deaths, fuelled by media....that one who fancy and support socialist ideas....in the optimist assumption they have any.
Fourth, you can choose to see it or not. Islamic radicals had given an ultimatum to occidental way of life looooooooo (oooo) ng before Twin Towers killings in 1.993. We are all targets. The sooner we realize it, the better. Pity that new Government in Spain wants to sell some other message...yet to see. And pity there is still people who do not realize it.
It is not a matter of cowardice, as most americans seem to agree. This is short-sighted. What is happening is not spanish cowardicing about being in Irak. Neither is retreating in front of terrorism. What is happening is even poorer.
What is happening in Spain is a Socialist Party Candidate who never dreamt we would be President. And, as responsible as they use to be, fill a government program with promises they simply can't comply with. Among others, they stated that they would pullout troops from Irak. Why they said that? Simply because it's good electoral merchandising. There is quite a bunch of spaniards still tied to Vietnam, who think that anything labelled american equals imperialism. Socialists don't care this is false, as they didn't care in 1.930 when republicans burned churches, and murdered nuns. They will do whatever it takes to touch power. In their intimate believing only they are true "democrats". Right wing liberals are point less than fascists, or plain fascists. If something history has tought Spain is that Socialists, precisely PSOE, will do anything to stay in power. They will lie, manipulate, negotiate with terrorists or with the ones who negotiate with them (as they did in Catalonia), if they see the reward of power at the end. Take the bandage on your eyes off. Spain did not cowardice. Spain has been betrayed by a bunch of irresponsible fourty years teenagers. These clowns have chosen to comply with their word in the best possible selling way: let's not follow america's rule. As idiot as it can be, this is a good selling point.
They can sell you that Spain has talked. While this is strictly true, there is another truth lying within: Spain has been manipulated to tell what they were seeking to be told. We are starting to see it when the current Government is declassifying intelligence knowledge and documents after the killing. NOTHING, absolutely nothing suggest they were lying.
Shame on the socialist party, who is bringing shame on us. For what they are doing to Spain is betrayal. Traición, in Cervante's language. Same as they did in 1.930, 1.934 or did to their own electors with NATO issue.
I accept the election's results. It's my duty. But the truth is the truth. And the truth is far, far, very far away from these people who is taking charge of the my country's Government.
Now the pain for 200 coutrymen killed is starting to fade away I'm starting to realize the fraud these guys have commited. As the terrorists, perfectly timed. And almost as repugnant.
I can only protest by using this boards or some other similar to this, and by writing letters to the editor. Of course, I can suspend my subscription to the media endorsed by these clowns. Which I'm doing, by the way. But not much more than this, and wait for the next 4 years with not a lot of hope in the future.
[Edit] Daniel, no me has contestado ;) [/edit]
-
So which is it? Was it a war to liberate iraq, or was it a war to stop saddam from trying to get WMD's
====
Apart from both the above reasons being valid, my own personal reason for justifying Gulf War II is that Hussein absolutely should have been eliminated at the end of the first gulf war. Thats how I justify the current operation in my own mind. It was a success but now there is hard tragic work going on as Iraq tries to stabilize as a democratic society.
There are other valid reasons for the successful effort to depose Hussein but I also see and understand why many people feel that GW2 was wrong and even illegal. Im just glad Bush2 succeeded where Bush1 failed. Now all attention should be on supporting the overwhelming majority of free Iraqis as they build a lasting government.
-
Originally posted by culero
I wouldn't disagree that the Palestinians are being done no favors by either the Israelis or their fellow Arabs.
However, they are part of the "Arab world". Given the avowance from the rest of that "world" that Israel must not be allowed to survive, the perception is that they have many allies locally, while Israel has none.
Thus, Israel seems to be the underdog in the region, since the Palestinians seem to have many allies in the effort to expel or exterminate the Israelis.
culero
That is the sadness of it. I believe that most Palestinians, like most people just want to get on with their lives and are quite happy to let bygones be bygones to achieve this. the problem is that the majority get hijacked by a minority that then allow us to paint in broad colours.
The Palestinians have been footballs for a long while know, and they know this. Most people on this planet don't want to exterminate anyone, they just want to live in peace and have a shot at making a bit of money.
Israel will do just fine but bulldozing people's houses and building 'settlements' won't endear them to the local populace.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Ok I stand corrected. Can somebody summarize to me what is being said about the number of seats. Was PP gaining a few more seats in the predictions, or losing some?
Losing some, but still with or near the absolute majority, PSOE was far behind.
Year 2000 results: PP 183 (44.54%), PSOE 125 (34%).
CIS official predictions 2004 (4 March 2004): PP 176 (42.2%), PSOE 131 (35.5%).
Year 2004 results: PP 148 (37.7%), PSOE 163 (42.67%).
BTW, different spanish media predictions (March 7 2004):
La Razon: PP 171/176, PSOE 135/141.
El Pais: PP 168/172, PSOE 134/141.
La Vanguardia: PP 162/167, PSOE 143/147.
El Periodico de Catalunya: PP 169/173, PSOE 135/140.
-
Unfortunately this was a clear victory for world terror and a loss for freedom and democracy that that spanish elections were dictated by terrorist bombs. Its sad but true. I'm personally sad too because I upset so many people over this with my anger and so may have hardened their hearts against this very obvious truth by my own poor choice of words and emotions. In some ways 311 in Spain is much worse than 911. The terrorists won on 311 while they lost on 911.
Spain and good luck in your dark days ahead...
-
Very happy that you're keeping you're temper under control, Grunz.
Good brain in that head.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
Very happy that you're keeping you're temper under control, Grunz.
Good brain in that head.
Ravs
Thanks ravells, I have calmed down a lot from my intial outrage that day. Now its time to accept it.
-
Unfortunately this says it all.......Praise be to God who gave us this victory in the conquest of Madrid... where one of the pillars of the axis of Crusader evil was destroyed. To some people they didn't die in vain.
-
Or it could say...the Spanish didn't agree with the war in the first place.
Don't know, it's a hard one to call.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
from my intial outrage that day. Now its time to accept it.
You cant even imagine mine. In fact, I'm unable to accept it. First my country was bombed, inmediately after that, my country was betrayed and sold.
MANDOBLE.
-
It's a hard one to call.
Ravs
-
Very good article, adresses and weighs many points of view but reaches a definite and terrifying conclusion.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4556943/
-
Originally posted by Pepe
[Edit] Daniel, no me has contestado ;) [/edit]
No me acuerdo exactamente de cual era la pregunta, pero que taches a la SER de "manipuladores" con todo lo que han hecho entre la 1, A3, la razón, ABC y amigos, me parece de chiste.
Ayer mismo hubo una entrevista con directores de periódicos donde se afirmaba, después de las pistas que apuntaban a otros autores, Aznar les había llamado para dejarles claro que era ETA, sin lugar a dudas. Está claro que es parte de una gran conspiración social-comunista...
Lo dicho, voto a la alternancia. Vamos a ver cómo lo hacen.
Daniel
PS: Y no, no fui de los que me tragué el "España va bien". Macroeconómicamente saneada, pero a la cola de Europa en el 99% de las partidas relacionadas con el gasto social... y eso no lo dice sólo la SER
-
La pregunta venía de tu apreciación sobre la falta de credibilidad del grupo que reivindicó el atentado. Por lo que dices, el grupo carece de credibilidad en lo que respecta a la tregua. Sin embargo, por lo que dices, el PP manipuló la verdad, entre otras cosas, porque no admitió la autoría de Al-Qaeda cuando este mismo grupo reivindicó el atentado. ¿No te parece una contradicción? ¿No te parecía ETA la hipótesis más verosímil a falta de pruebas?
Y con respecto a la manipulación, no te quedes en la retórica. ¿A qué hechos/frases/noticias concretas te refieres?
Un abrazo :)
P.D.: Sorry for English. If anyone is interested, I will translate. ;)
-
Había varias pruebas anteriores que dejavan entrever que, cuando menos, la hipótesis de ETA tenía que ser tomada como "una más".
Yo no soy ningún experto en lucha antiterrorista, pero lo primero que comentamos aquí en el trabajo era "qué raro, no parece el modus operandi de ETA". Luego el desmentido de Otegi (que le quitarás toda la credibilidad que quieras, pero ya era raro que se desmarcara cuando nunca lo había hecho).
Sobre la manipulación, lo que quieras: desde lo de ce ce o o, no ha tenido NADA de éxito la huelga general, hasta cosas puramente cómicas como el Urdaci a la entrada de los premios Príncipe de Asturias diciendo mientras se escuchaban abucheos (sí, en la propia TVE1) "entra la ministra Ana de Palacio entre aplausos".
Y ya te digo, lo del mensaje de la Ana de Palacio se hizo después de que el gobierno tuviera conocimiento de la cinta en árabe. La SER (sí, esos "villanos") han afirmado que ellos tenían conocimiento desde fuentes policiales de que lo de la furgoneta se supo hacia las 11 de la mañana, así que me extrañaría que la radio de los sociatas lo supiera y el gobierno no....
En fin, como ya te he dicho, tú no te crees nada de lo que diga la SER, así que toda mi argumentación no te valdrá un pimiento.
Daniel
-
How would you explain the destrutction of the UN headquarters in Baghdad then, one of the earlier big acts of terror in the post war period?
I'm not talking about legitimizing the operation in the eyes of the terrorists, but in the eyes of the wider arab public. It seems you can't distinguish between the two.
Would UN control of the operation from the outset have precluded the attack on the UN headquarters? Maybe not, but that's not the argument. The point is that the UN is still held with a degree of respect in the arab world not generally accorded to the USA and a UN operation in Iraq might not have served as the clarion call to every jihadi in the middle-east that the current US led operation seems to be doing. Public perception is important in fighting terrorism, since terrorists generally need at least the tacit cooperation of elements within a local population to operate effectively. No matter how welcome the "freedom" being imposed by the coalition might be, the USA and UK will still be held in great suspicion by sections of the population, largely due to the continued and often unauthorized (by the UN) bombing carried out on a regular basis since 1991.
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
Había varias pruebas anteriores que dejavan entrever que, cuando menos, la hipótesis de ETA tenía que ser tomada como "una más".
Yo no soy ningún experto en lucha antiterrorista, pero lo primero que comentamos aquí en el trabajo era "qué raro, no parece el modus operandi de ETA". Luego el desmentido de Otegi (que le quitarás toda la credibilidad que quieras, pero ya era raro que se desmarcara cuando nunca lo había hecho).
Sobre la manipulación, lo que quieras: desde lo de ce ce o o, no ha tenido NADA de éxito la huelga general, hasta cosas puramente cómicas como el Urdaci a la entrada de los premios Príncipe de Asturias diciendo mientras se escuchaban abucheos (sí, en la propia TVE1) "entra la ministra Ana de Palacio entre aplausos".
Y ya te digo, lo del mensaje de la Ana de Palacio se hizo después de que el gobierno tuviera conocimiento de la cinta en árabe. La SER (sí, esos "villanos") han afirmado que ellos tenían conocimiento desde fuentes policiales de que lo de la furgoneta se supo hacia las 11 de la mañana, así que me extrañaría que la radio de los sociatas lo supiera y el gobierno no....
En fin, como ya te he dicho, tú no te crees nada de lo que diga la SER, así que toda mi argumentación no te valdrá un pimiento.
Daniel
Claro que me valen tus argumentos, como los de cualquier otro si son correctos. Pero, en tu caso, no lo son. Por lo siguiente:
En primer lugar, ETA se ha desmarcado de varias de sus acciones anteriores como, por ejemplo, el atentado contra el Corona de Aragón (y no es el único). Luego nada nuevo por esta parte. Estáis equivocados cuando decís que "no es el modus operandi de ETA". ETA también miente, cuando le conviene.
"pruebas anteriores":
1º Declaraciones de Belén González Peñalba en 1.984: no tendréis más remedio que negociar cuando pongamos 100 muertos encima de la mesa. Lejos en el tiempo, pero...
2º 24 de diciembre del 2.003, dos etarras detenidos por colocar sendas mochilas con 35 Kg. de explosivo cada una en el intercity Irún - Madrid. (más del doble de lo que utilizaron los de Al-Qaeda)
3º 25 de diciembre del 2.003, explosivos desenterrados de la vía Zaragoza madrid. (Otra vez, objetivo: el tren)
4º Uno de marzo del 2.004 (dos semanas antes de la masacre): Una furgoneta de ETA interceptada en Cuenca camino de Madrid con 500 Kg. de cloratita, 30 de tytadine y 90 metros de cordón explosivo. (Suficiente para una masacre...¿O no?)
La única "prueba anterior", que yo sepa, que podría hacer pensar en un atentado islamista es el de mayo del 2.003 en Casablanca. En este atentado hay suicidas, que sí es un modus operandi habitual en Al-Qaeda, y no en los de Madrid.
¿A qué pruebas anteriores te refieres?
Manipulación: ¿Qué éxito tuvo la huelga general del 20J? ¿Cuál fué el descenso en consumo de energía eléctrica (magnitud habitualmente manejada para medir el descenso de actividad)? Yo te lo digo: 20'88% (Datos de REDESA), y eso incluyendo la labor de multitud de piquetes violentos....¿Es eso un "gran éxito"?. No, en esto no hubo manipulación. La huelga general del 20J fue muy inferior a la de Diciembre del 88. Y tuvo una repercusión muy limitada sobre los ciudadanos. Y esto son hechos basados en seguimiento y consumo de electricidad, no opiniones. NO hay manipulación si se dice que el éxito fue escaso. Sí la hay cuando se dice que fué un éxito masivo.
La furgoneta: Aparece una furgoneta con unas cintas en árabe y un detonador. Las cintas ni siquiera tenían un menasje, sino que eran cintas con frases en árabe. Que pasa, ¿que en España no hay emigrantes árabes? ¿O es que cualquier árabe es sospechoso en potencia? ¿Es motivo suficiente para abandonar la hipótesis de ETA? ¿O bien es motivo para abrir, como admitió el Gobierno, otras posibles autorías? Yo creo que no es motivo suficiente para descartar de plano a ETA. Y, desde luego, decir que si no se abandona esa hipótesis se está manipulando la verdad me parece delicuescente en términos intelectuales. O interesado, claro está.
Sobre le tema de Ana de Palacio en los premios Príncipe de Asturias, no me parece ni siquiera opinable. Admitiendo que eso sea una manipulación, no creo que a nadie en su juicio se le ocurra comparar la entidad de ésta con falsear la verdad con 200 muertos encima de la mesa.
No se trata de creer a la SER o a TVE, o al lucero del Alba. Yo no creo en nadie, a priori. Sí trato de leer todas las opiniones y pruebas y sacar mis propias conclusiones.
Tus argumentos me parecen válidos en tanto en cuanto hablas de opiniones personales sobre modus operandi, o verdades a medias cuando hablas de la secuencia temporal de hechos. Pero son erróneos. Insisto, mira las pruebas y luego discutimos.
Échale un vistazo a los documentos desclasificados, a ver si te parece que hubo manipulación.
-
No acabaremos nunca Pepe, si quieres seguimos por e-mail :)
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
No acabaremos nunca Pepe, si quieres seguimos por e-mail :)
OK :)