Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on April 06, 2004, 01:30:02 AM
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4651993/
Straight from Neville Chamberlain and your history books, the inevitable consequence of appeasement has occured. Spain's apparent willingness to negotiate with Al Qaida has been met by threats to do more or expect bloodbaths.
Again, I don't blame the new Spanish government, they're just doing their thing. I chastise the Spanish voter who was moved to change their vote as a result of the bombing. Appeasement isn't just something that happens at the government level, it happens in the hearts and minds of every voter in every country.
This, more then ever, shows the value of living every aspect of your life with the same convictions you argue about politics. An open mind is wonderful, but when you change your views on something, make sure that YOU'RE the guy at the rudder and not someone else.
-
Yep... :(
And I see GScholz is still deeply in denial...
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
[url] Spain's apparent willingness to negotiate with Al Qaida [sic] has been met by threats to do more or expect bloodbaths.
Ya lost me.
So the real actual bombing that did happen, (your "bloodbath"), was due to appeasement also? If not, what's that distinction worth?
And to what do you attribute that terrorist group's arrest and suicide? Appeasement?
Is this new threat the result of this, erhm, appeasement? Yes, they must be pissed at getting appeased.
And how exactly has Spain negotiated with al Qaeda? (from that article, Spain is deciding to bolster their support of the fight against al Qaeda, and not this bogey man Iraq.)
-
The Spanish Appeasement, a play in two acts.
Terrorists:
Hey you, Spainish people, please leave Iraq.
BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!
Spain:
Hmmm, OK! Good Idea, we'll start packing immediately!
-
More like....
"boom boom boom boom"
Okay, wipe out the folks that did it. Then go after the folks that actually organize it.
Meanwhile....
-
No, the appeasement happened when the voters changed their votes BECAUSE of something Al Qaida did. The voters elected a new government because of the train bombings.
Maybe you didn't read what I said: The spanish government did NOT negotiate with the terrorists, each of the individual voters who changed their votes did by letting Al Qaida change their minds.
The headline, btw, is this:
Group threatens to turn Spain into ‘inferno’
Maybe you selectively ignored that?
-
If some terrorist or dictator kills your people, and tells you to stop doing something (be in Iraq) and threstens to kill more of your people if you dont pull out, and then you immediatly announce that you are pulling out - well thats appeasement. And unforunately just like the Brits and french found out long ago, the Spanish too are on a road to finding out juat how deadly that inital appeasment will be in the long run, no matter what action you take afterwards.
-
Maybe the people in Spain came around to the idea that their bro's gettin' killed in Iraq has little if nothing (nothing) to do with al Qaeda blowing up their trains?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Maybe the people in Spain came around to the idea that their bro's gettin' killed in Iraq has little if nothing (nothing) to do with al Qaeda blowing up their trains?
It has everyting to do with it. The terrorists directly linked the train bombings to a desire to see Spain pull out. An al qaeda website said just that in december 2003, that they would make spain pay for being par of the iraq coalition.
Terrorists kill 200 spaniards..
Spain pulls out of Iraq...
Terrorists win..
They dont care if they die, its actually prerable for them. The only thing they care about is intimidating us and making us afraid to confront them so they have a free hand to do their bidding in the world.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The terrorists directly linked the train bombings to a desire to see Spain pull out.
Lets get something straight. The people of Spain didn't want to be in Iraq.
Who cares if the terrorists wanted them to pull out also? Should they all of a sudden decide to change their minds and stay in there BECAUSE of a terrorist act?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Lets get something straight. The people of Spain didn't want to be in Iraq.
Who cares if the terrorists wanted them to pull out also? Should they all of a sudden decide to change their minds and stay in there BECAUSE of a terrorist act?
Its an intrsting idea Nash, yey how much wight do you wanna put to that and a coorrolation to voting behavior. Because election results one of our Spanish BBS readers provided showed that the spanish people voted for the incumbent Iraq war party in the most recent pre-attack elections after the spanish troops were in iraq...
So even as some polls showed that perhaps 90% were initally opposed to war early last year, the people certainly did not vote that way - even when the socialist party was offering the same out of iraq platform, the spanish did not vote for them - of course not until the terror attacks.
"Who cares if the terrorists wanted them to pull out also?"
Any smart leader who does not want to hand islamic terrorism an easy victory on a proverbial silver platter. The new PM still has a chance to be that leader.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
And I chastise you for being an ignorant twit.
Wow, the lefties are getting more concise, cutting straight to ad hominem in one post. Good work, cuts down on bandwidth and storage requirements. :)
-
You're making a bit of an assumption...
90% against the war and +51% for the government that got them into that war can co-exist. There's more to life in Spain than the war.
But whatever...
If you're saying that the population can turn around that fast in a matter of 1-2 years without trains blowing up, why then is it now only via bombs on trains that the reverse can occur?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Chairboy, I dare you to stand in the streets of Madrid and call the Spaniards terrorist appeasers. I wonder where the police would find your body ... and in how many parts.
And death threats...
-
Oh no.... yer not gonna get all sensitive are you?
-
Well Nash, I dont have the Canadian government protecting me against bad people from the internet like you do, so I gotta a bit more worried.. :)
-
Good night. :)
-
I feel compassion for all those hurt and otherwise affected by terrorist attacks. This doesn't mean that I ignore the fact that enough people let terrorists scare them into voting for a new government. Polls indicated that the election would have turned out quite different if the trains had not been bombed.
It's a simple correlation: The terrorists managed to change an entire government. Because of the spanish voters who changed their minds, the entire world is in danger of attracting massive attacks immediately before elections with the intent of changing the outcome.
Once again I implore: When you change your mind on something, be absolutely certain about WHO is in charge. Is it you? Or is some other person setting the drumbeat you march to?
-
Ok. Terrorist are saying "troops out of Iraq AND Afghanistan or there will be more bombings".
Spanish government promised troops out of Iraq, not out of Afghanistan.
My bet? We'll take our troops out of Iraq, as promised, but those stationed in Afghanistan will stay.
I'm sure some of you will call this "semi-appeasement"...
Daniel
PS: BTW GScholz, you are close in your assessment, I feel less and less compelled to participating in these threads. I keep on posting the same and, judging by the results, I must be in a lot of people's ignore lists.
-
Chairboy, stop dealing w/ that racist POS, Gscholz. Anything American is wrong, evil, and bad for the world. He's a racist waste of human flesh. I'd happily kick his face in if I met him in person.
-
There is hardly unaniminity by spanish posters on this issue, we have seen evidence by both sides from yur country (you and pepe) which supports their view - so cyrano dont be discouraged by the lack of agreement here, its not insensitity its simply disagreent at this point. Some people here share a view closer to your own and others do not.
My selfish inital post election outrage aside, I have felt much sympathy for the 311 victms who could be my family and friends just as as easily as they were perfect strangers an ocean away.. And, ironically enough, it is in their memory and sacrafice that I am taking such a strong and, perhaps to you offensive position, about what I percive in a historical p[erspective to be blatant, dangerous and ultimarely fruitless appeasement. Because whaterver our disagreemts about the issue, let us be clear - the terrorists will have no such concerns. THey will hail a Spanish pullot from iraq so quickly after the bombings as a tremendous victory, hail their recenbt dead as holy martyrs and see the favorable Iraq withdrawal outcome as a validation of and encourgement for further use of their tactics.
Appeasement or not, if spain pulls out of iraq it will be a great victory for global islamist terror. Your new PM has an opportunity to deafeat then and deny them this victory by staying commited in Iraq and defying the terrorists demands!
-
Your assumptions that the spanish are appeasers, and that they are now in a frame of mind to negotiate with Al-Qaeda are short sighted, but are I supposed in keeping with the black and white/with us or against us attitudes when it comes to Iraq.
The fact there was a second attempt to bomb the spanish rail system makes it clear that terrorism has not suddenly been halted in Spain.
Much like our own opposition parties who want the return of our forces from Iraq, the spanish plan to fight terrorism on their own backyard, like they have for decades.
Perhaps the spaniards are realising the war on terror has nothing to do with the war in iraq evidenced by the fact spanish troops will remain in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile the speed in which Spanish authorities tracked down these terrorists should be applauded. Their intelligence services must be excellent and a lesson to other nations.
Tronsky
-
Tronski the spanish terrorists clearly said the bombing was intended to break spain from the US coalition, and thats exatly what they got. Clear link. So whether you think iraq is terror war related is pointless, the terrorists sure do and they will consider this a great victory - a victory we can yet deny them if Spain decides to stay in Iraq.
You say that the recent high speed train bombing attempt is proof that Spain did not give in to the terrorists and did not appease them... Are we suppose to think that you also think hitlers invasion of poland is proof that he was not appeased and encouraged by the 1938 munich debacle where france anmd UK gave into his demands for the sudetenland under direct threat of war?
-
What about Afghanistan Grun? You didn't address that part.
Do we get half the bombings? Half the deaths?
Sorry but it doesn't work that way. The current gov promised our troops out of Iraq, and it will happen, but the troops will stay in Afghanistan, whether the terrorists like it or not.
Daniel
-
This is very simple.
After the first Al Qaeda attack on European soil, the target country declares it will leave Iraq.
All the pacifist a-holes try to spin it naturally. "the war on terror has no relation to Iraq" or "the bombings had no influence on the election" or whatever.
Since all those arguments are irrelevant, I wont go into the right or wrong part of them.
Because they are irrelevant. What is the issue here is:
After the first Al Qaeda attack on European soil, the target country declares it will leave Iraq.
These are the facts. They are clearly visible to everyone.
This means that Italy will be next. All according to al Quaedas own list of targets. Read their fatwas, they spell it out right there. Turkey, Spain, Italy, Prague, UK and US.
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
What about Afghanistan Grun? You didn't address that part.
Do we get half the bombings? Half the deaths?
Sorry but it doesn't work that way. The current gov promised our troops out of Iraq, and it will happen, but the troops will stay in Afghanistan, whether the terrorists like it or not.
Daniel
We all know the socialist party platformn was to get out of Iraq - the voters voted for that party, some say, beacuse of the train bombings.. Thats what terrorists asked for and that they got, they are happy.
We'll see about afghanistan.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
This is very simple.
After the first Al Qaeda attack on European soil, the target country declares it will leave Iraq.
All the pacifist a-holes try to spin it naturally.
-
I still don't understand how you can conclude it's a form of appeasement.
FYI the Spain fought terrorist long before the American discovered ALQueida and Iraq.
Look at the timeline :
Before Desert War II ,spanish citizen made huge demonstration against any involvement in this war
Long before the Madrid bombing the socialist said they will get out of Iraq if elected.
The bombing happen.
Aznard and his governement say it's not AlQueida it's ETA
They even make a internal memo stating it ,contradicting Spanish intelligence agency
Foreign Minister Ana Palacio :
You should use any opportunity to confirm ETA's responsibility for these brutal attacks, thus helping to dissipate any type of doubt that certain interested parties may want to promote"
Interior Minister Angel Acebes :
"The Interior Minister has confirmed ETA's responsibility," This is confirmed by the explosive and style used, as well as other information that has not yet been made public for obvious reasons"
==> at this point the elections are lost.
Aznar governement shot in his foot.
Spain will get out of Iraq
Now for once a politician is doing what he promised you call that appeasement ?
I call that more a glaring Aznar tactical error.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Chairboy, stop dealing w/ that racist POS, Gscholz. Anything American is wrong, evil, and bad for the world. He's a racist waste of human flesh. I'd happily kick his face in if I met him in person.
Gscholz personal attacks get a bit old, but no reason to go psycho on us Steve.
-
This doesn't mean that I ignore the fact that enough people let terrorists scare them into voting for a new government.
Talk about being dense :rolleyes:
The people of spain decided to change leadership because the current leaders blamed the attack on ETA when they knew it was Al Qaida.
I guess The people of Spain dont like it when the goverment lies to them... And i can fully understand that...
Its only in the USA that this kind of behavior is condoned by their citizens.
Regards.
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
What about Afghanistan Grun? You didn't address that part.
Do we get half the bombings? Half the deaths?
Sorry but it doesn't work that way. The current gov promised our troops out of Iraq, and it will happen, but the troops will stay in Afghanistan, whether the terrorists like it or not.
Daniel
I just noticed the terrorists are now also demanding that Spain leaves Afghanistan too... Not surprising at all considering the succes they see their first attacks brought in pulling Spain out of Iraq coalition.. They just get greedier and will now try to kill more people and commit more terror hoping you will give up in Afghanistan as well.. What will they demand next? How many more people will they kill, how much death will they bring because they have a reason to belive their tactics are succesful?
Oh well, I wish you the best and hope you stay safe.
-
And how many new fanatics/terrorists have the USA created by invading Irak?
Oh well, I wish you the best and hope you stay safe.
-
You guys are talking in circles. What I see is a matter of perception instead of intent. What gsholz is saying is they did not necessarly vote to appease the terrorists and others are sayign they did. While I agree with Gsholz that it was probably not the reason for the votes of most Spanish voters the perception the change in vote had on the rest of the world, especially the terrorists, is that terrorism can change elections. There are a few more angles and qualifiers but I think thats what everyone is saying. Steve, threatening to hurt someone over the free and genuine exchange of ideas does nothing to forward your case and undermines us all. Please apologize.
-
By Claudia Parsons
(Reuters) - April 6 2004 13:56
MADRID (Reuters) - Ask the average Spaniard why Madrid was the target of a suspected al Qaeda attack and he will say because Spain sent troops to Iraq, but analysts say it's not that simple and very few countries can feel secure.
"The reason we've got terrorists on our doorstep is the war in Iraq, it's pretty clear," said Toni, a 40-year-old woman attending a demonstration in the suburb where up to six suspects in the Madrid train bombings blew themselves up at the weekend.
The march honouring a policeman killed by the bombers turned into an anti-war protest demanding Spain bring home the 1,300 troops it has sent to Iraq.
Charles Powell of San Pablo-CEU University said Spain's very visible support of the war in Iraq was partly behind the attack.
Outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar joined George W. Bush and Tony Blair at a summit in the Azores days before the war, and Spain backed Washington strongly at the U.N.
Moreover Powell said a purported al Qaeda text found on the Internet last December contained a sophisticated analysis of the political situation in Spain, where the opposition Socialists had opposed the Iraq war long before March elections.
Professor Fernando Reinares, author of a recent book on terrorism, said in an editorial in El Pais that Spain was a target simply for being a Western country.
Moreover it was a soft target "because of the porous nature of its frontiers and the presence of dense communities of immigrants from north Africa", and Spanish authorities have arrested a number of al Qaeda suspects in recent months.
El Pais said in February the final details of the September 11 attacks on U.S. cities were worked out at an al Qaeda summit in Spain.
WHERE NEXT?
Kevin Rosser, terrorism expert at consultancy Control Risks Group, said the Iraq war was "a convenient excuse".
"Plenty of other countries have been targeted by terrorists whatever their foreign policy," he said. Al Qaeda is linked to attacks from the United States to Indonesia, from Saudi Arabia to Turkey, from Morocco to Kenya.
"We've got to get out of the mode of seeing individual attacks as being linked to individual policies," Rosser said.
The March 11 bombings of four Madrid commuter trains killed 191 people three days before general elections. Aznar's government was thrown out with many voters blaming him for initially insisting Basque separatists were behind the attacks.
The incoming government has pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq unless the U.N. takes more power, but it is under pressure not to be seen to bow to militants' demands.
Powell said Italy now looked vulnerable since Romano Prodi, leader of the opposition centre-left, said he would bring Italian troops back from Iraq if the left was in power.
"That's an open invitation," Powell said. "Also Rome is an obvious target because there's the religious significance."
Portugal, which hosts the Euro 2004 soccer championship in June, was also vulnerable, and it was likely that Spain itself had more independent groups of militants waiting to act.
"They're warming up towards the November elections in the States and trying to create as much havoc as possible between European states and in transatlantic relations," Powell said.
Jonathan Stevenson, senior counter-terrorism fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said Olympic host Greece was another obvious target, while past attacks indicated a pattern of moving up the chain of U.S. allies -- from Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, to Spain, with Britain next.
"It doesn't mean that eliminates countries like France and Germany that opposed the war," Stevenson said. "Al Qaeda, because it's decentralised and has to relinquish initiatives to local affiliates, has to be opportunistic as well as focused."
An "apocalyptic" attack on the United States, he added, was the ultimate goal.
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
My bet? We'll take our troops out of Iraq, as promised, but those stationed in Afghanistan will stay.
Not only will the stay. Spain is doubling the number of soldiers in Afghantistan.
I have mentioned this on this BBS before. But apparently some of our US friends have chosen to ignore this because then they couldn't lie about Spanish "appeasement".
-
Originally posted by GScholz
He doesn't need to apologize. Anyways, even if he did I've got him on ignore, so what's the point.
why do you advertise the people you have on ignore? What's the point? I never understood why people would even have an ignore list, let alone put the ignored list in their signature.
By the way, I'd suggest you change your sig.
Ignored Fascists: Martlet, Steve, weaselsan.
Ignored for being an absurd bastard: Grunherz.
Personal attacks are not acceptable here.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Chairboy, I dare you to stand in the streets of Madrid and call the Spaniards terrorist appeasers. I wonder where the police would find your body ... and in how many parts.
Because it takes a mob of brave, logical, righteous men to kill and mutilate the body of an individual.
-
Iraq wouldn't be a part of the "War on Terror"ism if we hadn't decided to go invade it based on some ****ty or fabricated intel. The irony of it all, is that we actually made it part of the "War on Terror"ism.
We actually stretched our forces thinner so we couldn't dedicate a larger force to the "War on Terror"ism.
-SW
-
Gscholz personal attacks get a bit old, but no reason to go psycho on us Steve.
Gosh, I guess it's ok for him to have a personal attack in his sig about me though right?
Fug Gscholz. As long as he is allowed to spew his anti-American rhetoric, I'm gonna hold to my opinions and state them as I see fit.
-
Iraq and the UN found out again what happens when you appease an aggressor.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Not only will the stay. Spain is doubling the number of soldiers in Afghantistan.
I have mentioned this on this BBS before. But apparently some of our US friends have chosen to ignore this because then they couldn't lie about Spanish "appeasement".
Nobody is ignoring it at all. In fact I brought it up in the above post.
You see after the appeasement the terrorist percieved they got on Iraq they are now asking for a DUAL pullout from both Iraq and Afghanistan. So in a few words, they see they have been rewarded for terror and now are asking for more on the threat of more terror.
Its like how hitler was enouraged by the easy way he got the sudetenland in Munich 38. And then he thought he could get Poland too...
Of course the western powers resited at Poland, but then it was too late and we see how that turned out, dont we?
Appeasent just enourages more demands... And this case more terror attacks, in conjuction with demands for a dual pullout from iraq and afghanistan.
So is anybody surprised the Iraq appeasement now brings demands for afghan pullout.
Whether they do or dont stay in afghanistan is pointless, they have now invited more terror by opening hopes of terrorists that they can change policy...
How many more will have to die?
-
Wait a sec....
"You see after the appeasement the terrorist percieved they got..."
Backpeddaling? Was it real or "percieved"?
-
I think it was appeasemet, that it was real. You dont think it was appeasement.
We disagree - so there is not much point discussing thta any
more or at least thats how I felt whan I wrore that last post.
However there can be no disagrrement that the terrorists will see this as a victory, as appeasemet. Not even the most luny of you left wing guys can make the arguement that the terrorists will take this as victory - they will see that spain has given them a victory. So thats what I'm saying.
Actually its funny yiou even brought it up, it proves just how anal people here are in reading the wording here trying hard, reaching for even the slightest point we can try to turn to our advantage to make a point in our favor or try to be clever...
-
Bull....
It was the current government's platform to yank Spain's troops from Iraq. Well before the bomb. Well before the troops even arrived, actually.
Now because of the bombing, you think think the government's policy should change on account of it. If that were to happen, then the bombing would have achieved a policy change. Not the other way around.
-
Nash, I had a good counter point for your view of this discussion but lost in completely when I got caught by your avatar. You win.
-
No worries. Happens all the time.
(bamboozlement, heemotizement)
Why ya think I have it? :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
No worries. Happens all the time.
(bamboozlement, heemotizement)
Why ya think I have it? :)
I wonder if adding guns and cars would increase the effect?
-
Funny you should mention that.
Did some testing using just that sort of thing. Didn't get a response.
Then I got many emails from businesses from all over the country. I'll use Boeing's as an example. Theirs said, simply, "cut it out".
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Not only will the stay. Spain is doubling the number of soldiers in Afghantistan.
I have mentioned this on this BBS before. But apparently some of our US friends have chosen to ignore this because then they couldn't lie about Spanish "appeasement".
Do the numbers. So they double in Afghanistan, from 100-something to 200-something, meanwhile they pull back 1000-something from Iraq.
The Spaniards are dropping the ball, I would expect nothing else from a pacifist socialist government. shreck em.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Backpeddaling? Was it real or "percieved"?
Real.
-
Ooh... "You heard me for I have spoken".
Compelling ah... argument there Hortz.
Or do you think your ideas need only be backed up by the mere presence of your... arrogance?
Throw us a bone, sir.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I would expect nothing else from a pacifist socialist government. shreck em.
LOL this coming form a dude from sweden LOL:rofl
-
Which one did you have in mind? The numbers in Afghanistan or the folding of the Spaniards?
-
Originally posted by LAWCobra
LOL this coming form a dude from sweden LOL:rofl
This coming from a guy who could probably not point out Sweden on a map...
-
I'm tempted to say "the folding of the Spaniards" but you know better than me that which I should hear first.
You tease me.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Bull....
It was the current government's platform to yank Spain's troops from Iraq. Well before the bomb. Well before the troops even arrived, actually.
Now because of the bombing, you think think the government's policy should change on account of it. If that were to happen, then the bombing would have achieved a policy change. Not the other way around.
No it just happends that there is evidence the Spanish people voted in that party in responbse to the terror attacks when before that party was not going to win.
But we have all had this argument before, havent we? I pretty much know what you will say next and you likewise - so whats the point?
Anyway the terrorists are happy that the new govt is in power and that they can say they caused it and cause the iraq withdrawal. They will ask for more, in the unique way they ask for things...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
No it just happends that there is evidence the Spanish people voted in that party in responbse to the terror attacks when before that party was not going to win.
So you're saying it was the people's response to the attacks and ruling out that it was the former government's response to the attacks?
Edumacate me on this point, will ya?
Unlike you, I have no idea what yer gonna say next.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Tronski the spanish terrorists clearly said the bombing was intended to break spain from the US coalition, and thats exatly what they got. Clear link. So whether you think iraq is terror war related is pointless, the terrorists sure do and they will consider this a great victory - a victory we can yet deny them if Spain decides to stay in Iraq.
You say that the recent high speed train bombing attempt is proof that Spain did not give in to the terrorists and did not appease them... Are we suppose to think that you also think hitlers invasion of poland is proof that he was not appeased and encouraged by the 1938 munich debacle where france anmd UK gave into his demands for the sudetenland under direct threat of war?
Well it seems we are (not for this first time) looking at the same things at completely different viewpoints.
The fact is, the terror campaign is going to continue in spain, and the spanish are going to fight that campaign. The spanish are also not going to leave afghanistan.
If spain was easily frightened there would be a basque state in existance there since the late 60's.
Tronsky
-
Both are possible. But the outcome was clear, they voted for the prty they felt would make the terror go away. Unfortunately it was from a point of view of appeasement. Give terrorists what they want and asked for - a pullot of iraq. And I must be clear on this, i'm not saying this genearally that terrorists want soain to be out of iraq. There was a specific plan outlined on al qaeda websaites to that end to get spain out of iraq and also an al qaeda operastive was detained earler in year and promised bloodshed in the very same train station (atocha) that took worst of attack.
-
Btw, Grun....
When, on the second of November, George Bush is voted out of office, will you call this appeasement? Will yours be a nation of appeasers also? Will you move to France in disgust?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Both are possible. But the outcome was clear, they voted for the prty they felt would make the terror go away.
See, my thinking says they voted for the party they felt would make the LIES go away.
That's what I need ya to nail down here. Which was it?
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
If spain was easily frightened there would be a basque state in existance there since the late 60's.
Tronsky
It has nothing to do with national character, I am not implying that at all.
However we must remember that the same socialit party that won these elections had a somewhat cozy relationship with the basque terrorists, in IIRC fact there was great public emarasement for them when it was discoverd they were in scret talks recently with the basque terrorists. And just recently, before the train attacks there was a basque terriorist cough with hundreds of pounds of explosvies...
-
Originally posted by Nash
Btw, Grun....
When, on the second of November, George Bush is voted out of office, will you call this appeasement? Will yours be a nation of appeasers also? Will you move to France in disgust?
Well if bush is leading the poolls and kerry runs on a left wing terrorist negotiationg (like the socialists in spain) get out of iraq NOW agenda and a huge terror attack happends three days before the election and there is a massive turn, then yes that would be unfortunate and a mistake. The terrorists would be happy.
-
So, if terrorists blow up the... erhm... Sears Tower 3 days before the election and Kerry wins, it's appeasement?
-
Originally posted by Nash
So, if terrorists blow up the... erhm... Sears Tower 3 days before the election and Kerry wins, it's appeasement?
LOL, thats far too simple and you know it... :rolleyes:
Why not be really crude and phrase your question like this...
If Kerry is leading bush by 40 points, and bush was just convicted of child molestation, and then the terrorists blew up sears tower and still Kerry won would that be appeasement?
-
uhm... no, I don't follow, sorry.
-
Comparing ETA to Al Quaeda is like comparing the Norwegian army to the US army. Sure they are both armies, and sure they are all armed, but basically that is where the similarities stop. The continous Spanish war against ETA says nothing about Spains dedication in the war on terror.
Spain has 1300 troops in Iraq, 125 in Afghanistan.
Nash, you only need to look at the sequence of events... Its quite simple really, no matter how bad you want to spin it.
-
A December posting on an Internet message board used by al Qaeda and its sympathizers and obtained by CNN, spells out a plan to topple the pro-U.S. government.
"We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it," the al Qaeda document says.
"If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed -- and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto."
-
Hortherz,
Your 1st post makes about as much sense as your second.
That aint saying a lot.
Your second post is the ramblings of a terrorist's mind. If you want to now use terrorist's assumptions as proof of anything whatsoever, then you are nothing more than their messenger.
Who gives a watermelon what they think?
-
In December Al Quaeda publicly announces its plans in regards to Spain: Attack Spanish targets to force a Spanish retreat from Iraq. Our estimates are that the Spanish government will not survive more than 2-3 attacks before public opinion will force them from power.
Well, it only took one attack.
-
Yeah and it only took a few years PRIOR to that attack that Spain's government said they were gonna pull out.
Terrorist mind warp tactis now?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Who gives a watermelon what they think?
They do...
You just dont get it do you?
-
Originally posted by Nash
uhm... no, I don't follow, sorry.
You were seeting up the question in yur scenario by ignoring a whole range of relevant background info.
For exaple was kerry projected to win? Did kerry run on a get out of iraq now platform and did his party negotiate with terrorists? Did terrorists specifically say the sears tower bombings were for USA top leave iraq - like in spain.
All of those things are relevant.
Obviously if kerry is running on a stay in Iraq policy and he is leading in polls and he still wins after attacks then no it couldnt be appeasement.
But lets say he was running on leave iraq now platform. And that he was behind in the polls, and suddenly after attacks specifically linked to get out of iraq deamds (like spain) he wins...
Well those are two different scenarious.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Who gives a watermelon what they think?
Whoa!!!
So whatever response we make to the terrorists is irrelevant because we shouldnt be concerned about how our actions will affect their assesement of us, their assesement of their tactics, their planning for future operations etc? Those are all influenced by the way they think, and what they think - especally in response to our actions..
So its a terrible mistake to not consider and not care what the enemy is thinking....
Because thats exactly the full implication of what you just said Nash...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
LOL, thats far too simple and you know it... :rolleyes:
Why not be really crude and phrase your question like this...
If Kerry is leading bush by 40 points, and bush was just convicted of child molestation, and then the terrorists blew up sears tower and still Kerry won would that be appeasement?
Hmm sounds to me like you're arguing against your original position there.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yeah and it only took a few years PRIOR to that attack that Spain's government said they were gonna pull out.
No, the socialists were in the opposition, with no chance of winning the election. Therefore (because they are socialist) they naturally took whatever position on the war in Iraq that they felt would gain them most votes...Im sure you understand.
So we have the government having committed itself in the war against terror. And we have the opposition, desperately trying to get votes by saying "we will pull the troops out as soon as we can because we are chicken**** pacifist ****heads". The government has a 15-20 point lead in all polls.
This is the situation in Spanish politics when Al Quaeda enters the equation.
The decided that if they attack Spanish targets, the public opinion will swing in favour of the pacifists. They think it will take 2-3 attacks to scare the spaniards into submission...Well, it only took one.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Hmm sounds to me like you're arguing against your original position there.
Please clarify.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Please clarify.
Well you seem to be stating that given about the same conditions in the US, it would be too simple to say it was appeasement. Yet you assert it's simply appeasement in Spain's case.
-
(http://death.innomi.com/uploads/TMW04-07-04.gif)
-
Okay I see what yer getting at Grunland,
Lets say that Kerry does want out of Iraq, is behind in the polls, is getting big-time pats on the back from terrorist countries like France (heh), and that the terrorists blow up the Sears Tower 3 days before the election.
And Kerry won.
That would be appeasement, according to your "relevant background info".
So, up until we have the actual terrorist attack all of that more or less parallels your scenario... depending on which week the polls come out.
Now we get the attack, and the Sears Tower no longer towers.
Then the current admin comes out and says "This was the work of a sick Timothy McVeigh type person. Anti-government. We remain secure from outside terror".
He might even bolster that argument with such zingers as "... thanks to our war in Iraq." A lie.
But then it becomes appearent... or excuse me, is "perceived".... to be the work of actual al Quaeda.
and....
Bush gets tossed, Kerry wins.
Appeasers?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Whoa!!!
So whatever response we make to the terrorists is irrelevant because we shouldnt be concerned about how our actions will affect their assesement of us, their assesement of their tactics, their planning for future operations etc? Those are all influenced by the way they think, and what they think - especally in response to our actions..
So its a terrible mistake to not consider and not care what the enemy is thinking....
Because thats exactly the full implication of what you just said Nash...
Ah... So you recommend changes in policy based on the terrorists demands?
Spare me the "tactics and planning" BS.
Their thinking, according to you was: bomb = change in government.
Yeah... lets consider that for 5 seconds.
Now we must be oh so careful in considering this?
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Well you seem to be stating that given about the same conditions in the US, it would be too simple to say it was appeasement. Yet you assert it's simply appeasement in Spain's case.
Oops nevermind - curse my reading comprehension!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
So we have the government having committed itself in the war against terror.
Oops. Was that a typo? Because actually they commited themselves to a war in Iraq.
Like you said: "I'm sure you understand".
though... in my case, I am not as sure. ;)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oops. Was that a typo? Because actually they commited themselves to a war in Iraq.
Like you said: "I'm sure you understand".
though... in my case, I am not as sure. ;)
Ah, time to start flogging the "there were no ties between Iraq and Terrorism"-horse again I see.
Try to get it into your head that there are other terrorist organizations on this planet than Al Quaeda.
I know there were ties between Iraq and Al Quaeda, everyone knows about the cell operating in northern Iraq, but you will never believe or acknowledge that, simply because it doesnt fit the pacifist agenda. Lets ignore Al Quaeda for now, and focus on Hamas and Al Acqsa martyrs brigades and Hezbollah. Three terrorist organizations responsible for the deaths of hundreds of civilians.
There were ties betwen Iraq and these...yes? The Iraqi government did pay 20 000 USD to the families of every suicide bomber...yes? Or are you denying that too?
-
Wow, Iraqis responsible for the deaths of hundreds of... Iraqis?
That's just terrible. I agree.
Now how about the Saudis that were behind the wheel of this whole mess. Or the al Quaeda that organized them? Maybe that's just a wee bit more on point, wouldn't you agree? Funny you should mention Al Acqsa whoever the shreck they are... but yet somehow ignore the, ya know, obvious. Doesn't work so well for you?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Okay I see what yer getting at Grunland,
Lets say that Kerry does want out of Iraq, is behind in the polls, is getting big-time pats on the back from terrorist countries like France (heh), and that the terrorists blow up the Sears Tower 3 days before the election.
And Kerry won.
That would be appeasement, according to your "relevant background info".
So, up until we have the actual terrorist attack all of that more or less parallels your scenario... depending on which week the polls come out.
Now we get the attack, and the Sears Tower no longer towers.
Then the current admin comes out and says "This was the work of a sick Timothy McVeigh type person. Anti-government. We remain secure from outside terror".
He might even bolster that argument with such zingers as "... thanks to our war in Iraq." A lie.
But then it becomes appearent... or excuse me, is "perceived".... to be the work of actual al Quaeda.
and....
Bush gets tossed, Kerry wins.
Appeasers?
Well I'm curious as to the exent of this ETA focus theory you hold as cause of the election turn. Yuy are aware that the spanish did just recently before the 311 train attack arrest an eta terrorist with several hundred pounds of explosives in a van headed for a major spanish city.. You would think that would make them have give serious consideration to an eta source of the bombings, particularly since early tests indicated that the explosive used was often used by eta and of course becaiuse it appeared they were not suiced bombings as recently favored by the islamic terrorists. Plus IIRC we knew on the first day that that they found a stolen van with koranic tapes near the train bombings, so I'm not sure how much they govt could have been trying to cobver up an islamic cause for the bombings.
-
The Spaniards are dropping the ball, I would expect nothing else from a pacifist socialist government. shreck em.
Ok, ill say it then, And this coming from a guy in Sweden!!!
90% of the Spanish population was against sending troops to Iraq.
The Goverment that was in charge when the terrorist attack took place blamed it on ETA when they knew that Al Qaida was behind the attack.
The Spanish people dont like it when their goverment lies to them, so they vote for changing goverment...
It all makes sence...
As i said before, it seems its only in the USA that the citizens like to be lied too...
-
Originally posted by Nash
Wow, Iraqis responsible for the deaths of hundreds of... Iraqis?
Israelis...and Americans.
That's just terrible. I agree.
Now how about the Saudis that were behind the wheel of this whole mess. Or the al Quaeda that organized them? Maybe that's just a wee bit more on point, wouldn't you agree? Funny you should mention Al Acqsa whoever the shreck they are... but yet somehow ignore the, ya know, obvious. Doesn't work so well for you? [/B]
You should read up a tad more on the conflict in the mid east before issuing statements on what should or should not be done in the war on terror. You say alot about how the saudis are behind everything, but you dont even know who the AL Acqsa martyrs brigades are? It kinda lessens the impacts of your words if you dont mind me saying so.
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?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Ah... So you recommend changes in policy based on the terrorists demands?
Spare me the "tactics and planning" BS.
Their thinking, according to you was: bomb = change in government.
Yeah... lets consider that for 5 seconds.
Now we must be oh so careful in considering this?
Yes thats exactly what they would think and if they think they are succesful they would to to repaeat it, more likely than if they though it would not be succesful.
Why sapre you the tcatictics and planning BS? Do you have any idea how those are really just simple every day concepts that all of us engage in our daily lives to make decsion based on responses and results and percetions. 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?
Or are you saying the arab islamic terrorists are thoughtles? Now of course we shouldnt be praising them as clever, but they are rational thinking human beings who choosde actions logically (our logic and intent differ naturally) in part based on our responses..
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Do the numbers. So they double in Afghanistan, from 100-something to 200-something, meanwhile they pull back 1000-something from Iraq.
Nice catch Hortlund.
The Spanish have about 1,200 in Iraq.
In Afghanistan they have about 125, and are doubling up to 250. But it still isn't appeasement. At least in my opinion. Those 250 will still be in Afghantistan fighting against the Tailban and Al Quaeda. Which is certainly more than any of us are doing and alot more than other countries are doing.
PS: Sweden gave us Daniel Alfredson and lost to Byelorussia, so it will always have a soft spot in my heart. ;)
Grun,
"But the outcome was clear, they voted for the prty they felt would make the terror go away. Unfortunately it was from a point of view of appeasement. "
Can you please demostrate how the outcome is clear. Because every I have read seems to indicate otherwise. The party in power had already lost a great amount of approval rating and was still in decline.
After such a controversial statement, I imagine you actually have some sort of demostratable proof that, "They voted for the part they felt. Unfortunately it was from a point of view of appeasement.".
I doubt you can. I imagine you are either lying are spreading lies. How many people voted for the PP last election, how many this? What was the reasons stated by the Spaniards in the exit polls?
However we must remember that the same socialit party that won these elections had a somewhat cozy relationship with the basque terrorists, in IIRC fact there was great public emarasement for them when it was discoverd they were in scret talks recently with the basque terrorists.
Liar or spreader of lies, which is it?
"ETA seeks talks, Spain Socialists scoff at it
ANDREW CAWTHORNE & ESTELLE SHIRBON
MADRID, MARCH 21: Basque separatist group ETA called for dialogue with Spain’s incoming government but pledged to maintain its armed campaign for an independent homeland, according to a new communique. The overture follows PM-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero’s surprise win in last week’s polls and the March 11 Madrid train bombings, initially blamed on ETA but now linked to Muslim militants.
The Socialists immediately poured cold water on the words of a ‘‘terrorist’’ organisation. ‘‘We give no validity to a communique from ETA which is a terrorist group,’’ a spokeswoman said. Sources in the moderate nationalist Basque regional government were also unimpressed."
"Spain Socialists Reject Dialogue With ETA
By ED McCULLOUGH Associated Press Writer
MADRID, Spain (AP) - Spain's incoming Socialist government on Sunday rejected an offer for dialogue from the Basque separatist group ETA, calling it "a communique by a terrorist group."
Liar or spreader of lies, which is it?
Come on Grun. Are you an ignorant sycophant than merely parrots that which is told to you, without bothering to take two second to put "Spain Socialist ETA" into a search engine because it might make you think? Or are you a liar?
Let me guess. It was neither you read your documentation without at all understanding it. And thought some how that the Catalonia was all of Spain?
"is campaign was marred by the disclosure that his party's coalition partner in the Catalan regional government had held secret talks with ETA, after which ETA declared a partial ceasefire limited to Catalonia."
-
Oh my error. Only part of the spanish socilaist party secretly negotiates with terrorists. Yea!!!
-
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."
-
You would like it to be so simple...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You would like it to be so simple...
No, you made even simpler, one choice "appeasement".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
No - I would say they are retarded.
Gotta sleep - ciao!
-
Nite! :)
You are then dedicated to giving them a victory!
-
WTF?
You totally edited your post.
Now mine makes even less sense than it did before.
Very insensitive of you, Gurnhortz.
-
Sorry that idea I had took longer to type than i imagined . I understand yiur response though. :)
-
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... :)
-
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