I’ve got a question for you: Why didn’t you quote the direct insult? You went to all the trouble of the quote tags and then talk about something else. What gives?
Cause all I see is people questioning your ability to produce a rational argument on the evidence that you have failed to produce one. No one said a negative thing until after your second post declaring the author’s name is too goofy to be taken seriously (thoughtfully spelling it out for us dummies in the back)
The statement may be fraud, misdirection or spot on- who the hell knows. But your “Hyuk,hyuk what a bunch a’ moroons” schtick rubs on the nerves. FYI
It occurs to me, xenophon41, that it is going to take an overwhelming groundswell of voters to overcome the climate of fear and intimidation which could easily be exploited by the sitting President in the wake of a terrorist attack. At this point, I wonder if anyone would ever know if someone were to look the other way…
Attached to that is this Administation’s apparent fearlessness in telling lies in order to realize a (yet unrealized) greater truth.
I’m unwilliing to invoke Godwin here, but given the untruthfulness of this Administration, shouldn’t we be planning ahead for some sort of burning of the Reichstag before all of this goes down?
I seriously believe these people are criminals. How do criminals act when they hold the seat of power in the most powerful nation on earth?
Dogface, I have told you before that invoking formal logic is rarely useful in political threads. I have also pointed out that the labyrinthine syntheses you trot out are actually more like Denial of the Antecedent fallacies than Reductio Ad Absurdans operations, the misspelling of which leaves you with even less dignity.
Dogface, I didn’t insult you, but I did insult your basis in reality of the preposterous insinuation that the reporter with the funny name indicated that Reuters was perpetrating a hoax; which insinuation you have thus far failed to retract.
What was Jefferson’s quote about “the tree of liberty” having to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of “patriots and tyrants”? -But we are a constitutional republic and a nation of laws, and I still hope to see the political process correct for the abuses of this administration. If they are criminals (and I don’t contest the language, just the process of determination), our system of laws must be employed “to the breaking point” before we abandon it.
(Please forgive this wildly overdramatic post. I know of no other way to give enough emphasis to the importance of lawful means of civil resistance.)
So far he has proven he is a man of courage. Or do you have proof otherwise? He has been promising since day one of the war that if he was elected he would pull the troops. He has been elected and, so far, has vowed to keep his promise in spite of any pressure from the USA.
Previous prime minister Aznar bowed to Washington’s arm twisting and went against the wishes of the Spanish people. He was the puppet.
I know you hate it when someone stands up to the USA and charts their own course but just save your gratuitous insults for those who deserve them. The new Spanish premier is not one of them.
ISTM that the terrorists are already doing this in Iraq. They seem to be targetting civilians - including Iraqis - of late, and my perception was that they were attempting to discourage the process of installing democracy in Iraq.
I would expect that most of those committing such acts are not Ba’athists, but fundamentalist Islamic terrorists who want a Sharia-based system. It is hard to say how successful they are in achieving the perception of success or influence - in fact, apart from the Spanish withdrawal of troops, I don’t think they are achieving much. Except to build themselves up in their own eyes, and in the eyes of their sympathizers, and to proactively discourage the average Iraqi from committing to real democracy.
Thus I expect the idea is to create chaos, and hope to be able to gain power with a coup once coalition forces are out of Iraq. I think the terrorists think (and I agree with their assessment) that the UN can safely be disregarded once the responsibility for maintaining order in Iraq goes to the blue hats. It would be rather similar to the North Vietnamese calculations after US withdrawal from Viet Nam. They realized it wasn’t politically possible for the US to re-enter the conflict, therefore once Hanoi had rebuilt her military, she could wait a decent interval, and then invade the South.
Same in Iraq. If Kerry is elected, he couldn’t do anything. If Bush is re-elected, he would get zero cooperation from the UN, fierce resistance from the Democrats in Congress, and either act nearly unilaterally, or refer it to the UN for them to do nothing about.
I don’t know. If they attempt an attack and it is prevented, naturally the anti-Bush forces in the US will claim it was all a fraud. That could hurt Bush, although it is not likely there will be enough time to build a plausible case and hurt him in the election. Nothing short of nuclear war will actually postpone or cancel the elections, so if they are pinning their hopes on that, they will fail (and be seen to fail). And any significantly successful attack will cause America to rally 'round the President as we did in 9/11, and Bush wins by a landslide, and then has a massive edge in popular support such that he could act against an Islamic coup in Iraq with military force.
The problem is, every time al-Queda or its supporters acts against the US or her allies, it will be attributed to the invasion of Iraq. This creates a tighter and tighter association between Iraq and terrorism, and retroactively justifies the invasion. And frees the hands of the President to go after terrorists.
Of course, all this is predicated on the idea that the terrorists actually have a well-thought out plan and a clear set of objectives - which may be total hogwash. I suspect in a lot of cases, they are acting out of simple hatred for the West, and adding rationalizations for their acts after the fact, as I believe bin Laden with with his statements about the Palestinians (and the Kyoto Treaty, for heaven’s sake) after 9/11.
I don’t buy the first sentence. AQ will undoubtedly attempt to attack the US again, this would have happened regardless of Bush’s folly in Iraq. The second sentence is completely preposterous. I suppose Hitler claimed that the French resistance retroactively justified the invesion of Czechoslovakia. And of course the president always was free to go after terrorists. But he chose to invade a nation that had little or nothing to do with it.
I think this one is impossible to call. But my impression, should we even regard this letter as authentic, is that this is more of an “F.U. George you can win the election but we will win the war” than any concerted effort to affect the election.
I should have said, “Creates a tighter and tighter association between Iraq and terrorism in the mind of the general public”, and "frees the hands of the President to go after terrorists because he enjoys widespread public support, which tends to work retroactively". If that clarifies anything.
But I have not heard anyone suggest, nor can I come up with a reason myself, as to why al-Queda should have attacked in Spain apart from their being ticked about the Iraq war. So if the terrorists responsible meant to dissociate themselves from Iraq, they sure picked a bad way to do so, since it is having exactly the opposite effect. In fact, it is reinforcing what Bush has been saying repeatedly, that it is international terrorism that is the enemy, not solely al-Queda. Which, again, reinforces what Bush said to justify the invasion, and strengthens his hand.
We are talking about perceptions here. If it was al-Queda who bombed Madrid, they may have gained in the short run (if it hastened the Spanish pull-out from Iraq). But in the medium to long-term, it helped retroactively justify the Iraq invasion, tightened the association between international terrorism and Iraq (since the apparent motive for the Madrid bombing showed the bombers to be, at the least, Iraqi sympathizers), and thus, indirectly, helped the re-election of Bush.
Although I disbelieve that the terrorists really care who wins the election in November. If Kerry wins, I don’t believe it will change the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the US and her interests at all. They will continue to try to kill us no matter who is President, partisan attacks notwithstanding. But if they genuinely want Bush to be re-elected, an attack near the election will nearly guarantee this. And AFAICT, the attacks in Madrid showed the terrorists don’t seem to want Bush to continue to do what he has been doing.
But God, or Allah, only knows how closely the terrorists are following the US election campaign. And maybe it was Basque separatists after all.
I should have said, “Creates a tighter and tighter association between Iraq and terrorism in the mind of the general public”, and "frees the hands of the President to go after terrorists because he enjoys widespread public support, which tends to work retroactively". If that clarifies anything.
But I have not heard anyone suggest, nor can I come up with a reason myself, as to why al-Queda should have attacked in Spain apart from their being ticked about the Iraq war. So if the terrorists responsible meant to dissociate themselves from Iraq, they sure picked a bad way to do so, since it is having exactly the opposite effect. In fact, it is reinforcing what Bush has been saying repeatedly, that it is international terrorism that is the enemy, not solely al-Queda. Which, again, reinforces what Bush said to justify the invasion, and strengthens his hand.
We are talking about perceptions here. If it was al-Queda who bombed Madrid, they may have gained in the short run (if it hastened the Spanish pull-out from Iraq). But in the medium to long-term, it helped retroactively justify the Iraq invasion, tightened the association between international terrorism and Iraq (since the apparent motive for the Madrid bombing showed the bombers to be, at the least, Iraqi sympathizers), and thus, indirectly, helped the re-election of Bush.
Although I disbelieve that the terrorists really care who wins the election in November. If Kerry wins, I don’t believe it will change the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the US and her interests at all. They will continue to try to kill us no matter who is President, partisan attacks notwithstanding. But if they genuinely want Bush to be re-elected, an attack near the election will nearly guarantee this. And AFAICT, the attacks in Madrid showed the terrorists don’t seem to want Bush to continue to do what he has been doing.
But God, or Allah, only knows how closely the terrorists are following the US election campaign. And maybe it was Basque separatists after all.
Let’s say that my cousin rapes your daughter. You can’t locate him so you bomb my house, thinking I must have had something to do with the rape. My cousin then bombs your house, not because he and I are in cahoots over rapes and bombings, but because you bombed his cousin’s house. Well ok, I am a wife beater, and for a while that was your excuse for bombing my–and her–house. My cousin may be a rapist/bomber, but you picked a fight with my whole family. The fact that my cousin acted on my behalf does not prove I ever acted on his.
So sqweels, what if my cousin’s brother-in-law’s niece had evidence that the rape was actually consensual? You see, of course, how this would mean that the no fly zones were legitimate extensions of UN Resolution 1441.
I’m afraid Shodan is right to a certain degree. Certainly the US population will have the connection implied often enough. I would answer this:
With: It is in aQ’s interest to help Bush associate Iraq with their network. It bolsters their image, like they are in direct warfare with the U.S. (without the problem of being annihilated) They also get credit for unclaimed guerrilla actions. So it’s not necessarily about being “ticked”. Not a distinction that the rabble will be musing I bet though.
Terrorists who kill lots of innocent people say Bush is foolish for using force? I just can’t believe real terrorists would say something so blatantly self-contradictory.
AQ are the best trolls in modern history. Too bad they couldn’t stick to Usenet.
We are doing exactly what they wanted us to do - that is, let them get into our heads and change our perceptions on a general election. I could see them wanting Bush to win, but on the other hand, I can also see them wanting Kerry to win.
Bush wins) They continue their recruitment drive and extend the resentment
Kerry wins) They can probably regroup and use the fact that America “folded” as part of recruitment
No win situation either way, for America. So wondering about their intentions is somewhat of a moot point.
So fark what the terrorists think, vote the way you think.
