As stated by many, a major factor in all of this is that Aznar et al kept insisting it was an ETA bombing, despite evergrowing evidence that it was indeed an Al Queda attack. Aznar tried to spin the speculation surrounding the events in his favour, and the people of Spain punished him for trying to capitalise on the tragic events in a desperate attempt to retain Conservative power over Spain. The bombings themselves did not cause the swing per se: the aftermath did.
And I see our friend Muad’Dib triumphantly returns, whilst apparently not having learned a single thing from 4 pages of criticism. Why does this not surprise me?
No, that would be the invasion of Iraq. We eliminated a secular government that suppressed Islamic fundamentalism within its borders and replaced it with a broken state that’s now a breeding ground for terrorists. Now Iraq is a recruiting tool for AQ.
George W. Bush, because of his weakness and cowardice and ineptitude, has played right into the hands of OBL.
Didn’t they say the increase in attacks in Iraq meant that we had the insurgents on the ropes? I remeber some general or even Rummy himself saying something to that effect.
I’m willing to be convinced otherwise but from what I’ve read so far, the primary reason for the turn was the belief that the bombing was retaliation for cooperating with the US–government disinformation was a distant second. Well over 2 million people showed up to protest terrorism and the war in Iraq. Only 5000 showed up for the protest on government misinformation.
Well, sure, but it’s not as if they set any sort of precedent there, is it? I mean take… oh, gee I don’t know… I might just pull an example out of the air, totally at random. Take… say, AMERICA, you tool. Take BRITAIN, take AUSTRALIA. Take two world wars, Vietnam, the Korean war, the Gulf war… take centuries of imperialism, forcing Japan into international trade in the 19th century, take the annexation of Hong Kong, the opium war, take the economic opression of miniscule and financially powerless middle eastern nations. Take hundreds of thousands of deaths, men, women, children… oh but lookit, they blowed up a train, and our nice big buildings went boom! Well, you better not vote left-of-centre or you’re a coward.
Oh but the Socialists win a single election in Spain, and suddenly they’re cowards, and are capitulating to the terrorists. I tell you what, I say Americans capitulated to Bin Laden by voting for Bush (it wasn’t ALL Americans, but then, not all Spaniards voted for their Socialist party either). I say, fie on them, those bad, gutless, cowardless Bush-voters. Giving in to the easy answers, the simplistic economics, the us-and-them, exclusionist, hate-based foreign policy. Shame indeed, for giving in to their most base and animal emotions, and to a short-term ‘solution’ that will only further destroy infrastructure in nations that are already suffering. For agreeing to a war that will further skew the imbalance of wealth and make it even easier for the odd mad fundy git to recruit legions of disenfranchised, hopeless youths; damn them, those cowardly anti-intellectual hicks from the USA.
Oh and don’t anybody on the OP’s side DARE call me an anti-American… you might well have to then withdraw your claims about Spaniards being ‘cowards’ for voting for the policital party they wanted. Then you’d look silly.
I’m hesitant to respond to this because it’s just not relevant to the argument, but if you’re suggesting that the article is propaganda, let me point out that
doesn’t have half the ax to grind that Rummy does.
Haven’t you been reading your own thread? Yes, it is idiotic to think that this election has been “de-railed” in any way, shape or form. The people of Spain decided that the interests of their country could be better served by having someone other than the current administration, and did so by voting peacefully for the opposition. This exactly how democratic elections are supposed to work. It is equally iditotic to view this as “playing in to the hands of murderers,” because Al Qaeda doesn’t care what sort of secular/Christian government holds power in Spain. They are violently radical Muslim extremists. They don’t want peace, not even on their terms. If the Spanish voters had gone to the polls and elected a fuckin’ mullah as their president, they’d still be targetted by AQ for electing the wrong flavor of muslim, or he was elected on the wrong day, or he once failed to spit on a Jew, or some other damn excuse for them to keep killing people. Because that is all they want. Do you get it? They’re psychopaths and megalomaniacs who thrive on the prestige of going up against legitimate governments and poking them in the eye. You think Osama wants to go back into the family business? You think anyone in Al Qaeda is thinking, “Gosh, I hope I can stop running around with guns and fighting for a noble and holy cause and being admired by millions of my countrymen soon. I really want to get back to being a poor and anonymous dirt farmer, like everyone in my family has been since the dawn of time.” Fuck no. If they win, they stop being outlaw icons to the poor and disenfranchised. They stops being special. So, even if this election were a concession to the terrorists, it still wouldn’t change a goddamn thing.
And you’re a fucking moron for thinking otherwise.
1: Almost all polls have a margin of error of 5% (at least all the polls in the US that I see). So, to say that one group had a 5% lead in the polls really translates to 0-10%. Then the other group wins by 3-5%, which is perfectly within the margin of error. Not to mention that polling does not involve 100% of the voting population - just cross-sections of certain voters. So, no, 8% of the population didn’t change their minds. Sure, some could have, but polls aren’t exact.
2: Here how I see this.
Country A goes into Country B. B doesn’t want A in their country. B is too weak to fight A and get them out. So, B does what seems like a logical choice, and attack A on their own land, to “get even.”
A has now been attacked on their own turf. They have two choices:
1: Pull out, avoiding future attacks and military casualties,
-or-
2: Stay in B, risking further attacks and more military casualties.
Why is getting out of a country that you’re NOT wanted in such a bad thing? For as long as I can remember, I can’t think of a reason why it’s so “cowardly” to accept the wishes of another country. I’m actually asking for reasons here, not attacking anyone. What’s the difference between terrorism and invading another country? In both situations, innocent civilians are dying, except that one has government backing and the other doesn’t. Both have political reasons behind them.
I’ll concede that this guy does indeed have an ax to grind. I’m too busy burning half a dozen other effigies of straw men in this thread. Aren’t I reasonable?
Even half the ax would be more then enough, but no that’s not what I’m suggesting. It seems to be another stupid article full of speculation, and I for one am colored unimpressed.
From the article
And they wouldn’t be able to recruit without this feather in their cap? Without this they would have to resort to giving out free Subway sandwich coupons?
They exploit anything! They’re a bunch of assholes if you haven’t noticed. If you are suggesting that this will embolden them further, I don’t think that’s possible. Are you trying to say that additional operations will now be planned to disrupt other elections? I say that’s not possible. If AQ has the resources to plan say 10 attacks this year, are you saying that since this Spain thing went off so well, they will now plan 15 attacks? It seems to me that if AQ could pull off 15 attacks they would, not because they were only going to do 10, but that thing worked out well, so they’re going to try extra hard now.
If AQ wants to think they can change elections, let them think that, they’re already delusional enough. A country, any country should not conduct it’s business with concern as to how AQ might interpret their actions. I’m sure they can come up with plenty of reasons to attempt as many attacks as possible.
You’ve already gone so far over Muad’Dib’s head he’d need a telescope to see you go by.
It’s the same as France’s unwillingness to join in the Iraq war. When speaking to the neo-conservative drones, you must understand that the logic is very, very simple; those who oppose America are evil cowards who make baby Jesus cry. Other countries do not have complicated motivations or internal politics; they are uniform, homogenous groups of swarthy people who are either Cowardly Evil Enemies or who Help America In Its Noble Quest From God. Since the United States is always right, adopting a different course of action is wrong; in fact, it is immoral for non-Americans to hold elections and vote against American interests. If you don’t do things the way the Americans want, you’re a coward. Or evil, or an evil coward. That’s the mentality you’re working against.
(DISCLAIMER: Only a minority of Americans think this way. Muad’dib is one of them. People from other countries often have parallel thoughts. This post may include metaphor. Consult with your physician.)
Excuse me, but where in these so-called cites is the proof that Bush is weak, cowardly or inept?
Cite 1) Apparently, one month before he was to leave office, after eight years in which to deal with AQ, the Clinton administration comes up with a plan to take on AQ. But conveniently, a change of power was to take place and they nobly didn’t want Bush to inherit a war they started a month before.
What horseshit!!! Actions speak louder than words, and Clinton’s actions during his time in office were more of the bombing aspirin factory type.
Cite 2) Bin Laden escaped the Tora Bora bombings?? This is your cite as to Bush’s cowardice or ineptitude?
Cite 3) We are pulling our planes out of Saudi Arabia to a more strategic location in Qatar. There is no need for them to do fly-overs over Iraq, and the Bush administration, wanting to in effect thank Saudi Arabia for it’s (tepid, I’ll admit) cooperation during the two Gulf wars and the crackdown on terrorism, begins a pull-out of planes and forces from Saudi Arabia, especially now that they are less needed, is your evidence of caving to Bin Laden?
I’m almost speechless! Your post only goes to support a theory I’ve developed that people are psychologically predisposed to a certain point of view and then begin casting about for arguments to support it. This applies to the death penalty, abortion, homosexuality, the war in Iraq, the election in Spain, etc. It doesn’t really matter what the facts are. Shoot one argument down and a different one will appear, shoot that one down and a different one will appear, and so on and so on. Either a person is in favor of the death penalty, or they aren’t. They are in favor of homosexual rights, or they aren’t. Their various arguments pro and con are simply ammunition they use to try to bolster their pre-existing beliefs. I’m sure these cites qualify as proof to you, however, they are anything but. You are reading into them what you want to see.
I tend to agree with Muad’Dib, though I admit I only read about the first page or two, in that a populace switching about face in response to a terror attack gives the terorrists more ammo.
“We got Spain to flip, so another good attack or three on the 'States and they’ll be afraid of us too. I bet we can get them to vote for an isolationist. Yeah! We’ll turn the US into another Sweden! Brilliant!”
I think the pile-on [the OP] is unjustified, and it only proves to me that this board’s liberal majority tends to be a little heavy handed in their coordinated response.
