Thanks for posting those pictures, Sailor. They remind me, of course, of the images that could be witnessed all over the world right after 9/11.
My thoughts are with the Madrileños. GD MF’ing cowards, they surely ain’t.
Great! Glad to hear it. 
Um…no! The issue is Spain’s voters allowing AQ to bully them into voting they way AQ wanted in the election, and the subsequent impetus this will give for terrorists to do more of the same, and much more of it at that!
I’m wondering the same thing!
I’m going to let this idiotic statement stand as its own condemnation.
No, I think you’ve got that backwards there, dumb ass.
sailor, I can’t even hold my tears looking at the damn photos; I can’t imagine how you contained yourself. I commend the people of Spain, and you personally, for your restraint and common sense in the face of some mighty immense evil and ignorance (both in the political arena at large, and on this board in particular).
Just out of curiosity, is there any particular significance to the red candles?
Un abrazo inmenso a toda España de mi parte. And if this sort of evil makes some Spaniards more politically active, especially in the foreign policy arena, I think nothing but good can come of that. I’m just sorry it had to take so much innocent blood to do it.
There are without doubt terrorists who would like to see GWB defeated in the next election.
Coincidentally, I also want GWB to go down in flames (metaphorically speaking) in the next election.
Does that mean the terrorists and I have a similar agenda?
Does that mean that by voting for someone other than GWB I am “capitulating” to terrorists who comitted the atrocities of 9/11?
:rolleyes:
Saying the vote in Spain is a capitulation to terrorists is fucking idiotic.
The “coalition” supporting Bush’s “damn fool war” is weak, weak, weak. The populations of those countries are strongly against the war, and the governments supporting it are hanging by a thread. It’s no surprise that some terrorists are hoping to drive a wedge between the U.S. and it’s few remaining allies (wrt the Iraq war). The fault for this lies solely with the administration of GWB. His failure to ensure the support of our major allies in the Iraq war was a major, major blunder of foreign diplomancy. If GWB and his minions had done their job properly (via diplomacy and making sure he had a good case for war), we wouldn’t be concerned about another terrorist attack on a country (which has suffered plenty from terrorists for decades) removing its support…
…if the Iraq war had fuck-all to do with fighting terrorism in the first place, that is, instead of how it has really turned out, which is to exacerbate and motivate terrorists, and to distract the country from how inept, naive, and above all short-sighted GWB’s handling of fighting terrorism really is.
Do you also condemn the other posters who are on your side of the debate in this thread who have offered the observation “so what if they wanted to get AQ off of their ass? It’s their right. (Uh, this means capitulate, correct?) Who are you (i.e., me) to tell them how to vote in their own country?”
I’m wounded to the core! The dreaded “m” word has been drug out yet again, and by a *true * moron, as usual.
Coldfire,
Can I copy the posts or is it the rule that I give links to this thread?
Thank you.
Salaam. A
You can C&P the relevant text, put it in quote tags with correct attribution to the poster at hand, and include the link to the relevant page. That pretty much covers all ground.
OK. Thank you.
hmmmm… You are quite a night hawk, no?
Salaam. A
And let’s not underestimate the fallout from the government’s rather transparent attempts to pin the whole thing on Eta well past the point that an Al-Quaeda link was obvious. I could see the clumsy attempt at handling the situation from two countries over; it’s not unreasonable to think that this might have pissed off more than a few people in Spain itself.
An assertion which has been refuted several times over by those in a much better position to know, despite your and Sly Frog’s continued repetition of it.
Frankly, I say if you vote for Bush or Blair or Aznar or whoever just because you think Al-Quaeda won’t like it, you’re the one too chickenshit to keep from letting the terrorists rule your life.
capitulate, v. To make terms of surrender; to surrender or yield on stipulated terms, in opposition to surrendering at discretion. The ordinary use; said of a general, force, garrison, fortress, town, etc.
(from the Oxford English Dictionary).
The problem is that you and your mindless cronies are constantly implying, or in some cases stating outright, that the Spaniards voted the way they did specifically in order to surrender to Al Qaeda. There is no room for nuance in your “analysis,” no concession that that this may have simply been the straw that broke the camel’s back, and that helped to confirm what 90% of Spaniards had felt all along–that Spain had no reason to be helping the US in Iraq. It never even enters your head that the Spanish people, in their commitment to fight terrorism, might truly feel that the PSOE is the best party for the job. No, they’re just a bunch of capitulators.
Furthermore, you have ignored the repeated observation, made by me and other Dopers in this thread, and often supported by cites from various news sources, that Spain’s intended withdrawal from Iraq is only conditional on continued US control of the country. If the United Nations assumes control of the operation, as many (probably most) of the world’s nations would prefer, then Spain will most likely keep troops in the country. From the BBC:
He sounds like a real terrorist appeaser, doesn’t he? :rolleyes: Sorry if it burns your ass that some people prefer not to take their marching order directly from the Americans.
Also, while Al Qaeda may have said that the bombing was in retribution for Spain’s involvement in Iraq, it does not necessarily follow that Spanish withdrawal from Iraq will necessarily help the terrorist organization. Too many people forget that Osama bin Laden had no love for Saddam Hussein, and that there is still no real evidence linking Iraq to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Apart from vague assertions about “showing terrorists that they can get their way,” none of you people who are slamming the Spaniards have shown how, in even the smallest way, a PSOE victory will help Al Qaeda.
There have been some half-assed theories about using the PSOE victory to recruit and indoctrinate new members, but you could say exactly the same about the US presence in Iraq. Sure, Al Qaeda might use the bombings and their alleged political consequences as evidence of “weakness” to stir up the recruits (“We bombed Madrid and turned the outcome of the national election”). But they could just as easily use evidence of “strength” to do the same thing (“The infidel Americans are still bombing muslims; we must kill them all”). If the PP had won the election, they might also have used that as a rallying cry (“Despite our bombing, Aznar remains in power. We must renew and strengthen our efforts”).
Do you numbskulls get it? The crackpots that run this organization can and will use anything in order to get more recruits for their cause. You can’t appease them, because there is no appeasing them.
To answer your question regarding Spanish motivations: no, i don’t condemn them, because i agree completely that the bombing probably had an effect on the election’s outcome, and that there are probably people in Spain whose vote was swayed by last week’s terrorist attack. If you’d actually been reading the thread, youd have seen that i made this clear on more than one occasion. What i refuse to do, however, is to label any change in voting as “capitulation,” or to assert that it’s nothing more than giving in to terrorism. Motivations are much more complex than some people in this thread have suggested, and to imply or state that the Spanish voters were simply out to appease the terrorists is offensive in the extreme.
Interesting factual assertion, with not a shred of evidence to support it. Point to exactly where Al Qaeda said that they would prefer a PSOE victory in the election. And outline the evidence that the election result will lead to “more of the same.”
The logical corollary of your argument, also, is that if the PP had won the election, then Al Qaeda would have shrugged and said, “Hey, it’s obvious that this terrorism stuff doesn’t work. Maybe we should all go get a real job.” Do you think they would have done this? No? Well, if “failure” (i.e., a PP victory) wasn’t going to stop their terrorism, then how is “success” (i.e., a PSOE victory) going to do any harm to the fight against terrorism? As i said before, these people are nutcases, bent on vioence and destruction, for whom sophistry and post-facto rationales are a way of life. No election result, short of Osama bin Laden being elected Prime Minister, was ever going to appease them.
Finally, i think that one of the most offensive aspects of this thread is one that has nothing to do with the substance of the debate. It is, rather, a question of attitude. I went through this whole thread, looking at the posts of those who have been calling the Spanish people “cowards,” “appeasers,” “negotiating with terrorists,” “capitulators,” and a whole bunch of other unsavory things. What is most noticeable about those posts is not what they say, but what they leave out: i found, among those posts, not a single sentence expressing sympathy for or solidarity with the Spanish people in their time of grief after a massive and violent terrorist attack.
Contrast this with the way that most people on these boards behaved after 9/11. Even those who didn’t support US foreign policy were generally quick to express their shock and outrage at the terrorist acts and their consequences, before addressing the issue of whether or not the US response was appropriate. Anyone who didn’t do this was roundly (and rightly) vilified. Some of the Dopers most considerate in this regard were from countries where much of the population was critical of US foreign policy. The weeks after 9/11 saw greater world sympathy for and sense of solidarity with the United States than at any time since WWII. Memorial services–some official, some spontaneous–were held all over the world, and even critics of American policies prefaced their arguments with disclaimers about the horror of the terrorist attacks. It’s a shame that some people can’t muster similar levels of human feeling when the victims aren’t American, and when they then vote for the wrong political party.
Things people gain from pulling out of Iraq
Spain –
- Money and troops that were committed to Iraq now available for other things like actually fighting real terrorism
- Citizens happy, because you’ll recall they didn’t want to be there in the first place
- Not getting heat for actions of US, because no one really likes the US at the moment
- Citizens hopefully safer
- More respectability on world stage because they did an about face on a stupid illegal war.
AQ
- Looks like they got their way
Let’s throw all those positive things out for Spain, because we don’t want insane AQ to think they won one. :rolleyes:
The point is who gives a shit if it looks like they got their way, we can easily determine by looking at the facts that they didn’t, it’s just a stupid coincidence.
There are many steps the US should take, yet never will because god fucking forbid anyone even falsely gets the slightest impression the terrorists have won. Of course by only being able to pursue a course of action that always gives the impression they’ll never win, we play right into their hands. Do you consider it a smart move to instantly remove options off the board because a particular action might give a few insane people the impression that they got their way? That’s what your suggesting.
Take any situation, and they can say, “now guys, knowing that the US will always push when we pull, or pull when we push, how do we want to do this?” The obvious answer is not to have a standard boilerplate response to every event, because they can’t predict how we’ll react, and that will throw a wrench into their plans. Of course there will be times we need to pursue a course of action that will make it look like we’re giving them what they want, and other times there won’t be. Of course appearances aside, the most important thing is doing what’s best for us, to secure our fucking country, and frankly, that’s all I give a shit about.
We can’t hand Iraq over to the UN, because the powers that be think this will make us look “weak”. And if we look “weak”, then shit, AQ has already won, so in Iraq we stay, solely for appearances. Of course the correct move is to hand over control, send those resources over to Afghanistan, and kick their asses once and for all, but this will never happen for previously mentioned reasons.
Like I said, we’re more about keeping appearances instead of taking actual concrete steps to solve the problem of terrorism. The Spanish don’t seem bound by such limitations, to which I say good for them.
Refuted? How?
Denied, maybe…claimed otherwise, maybe…blindly ignored, maybe…but I have seen no proof or even evidence that my position regarding the Spanish election providing even greater impetus to terrorist activity is wrong or inaccurate.
I defy you to show me proof that the result of the election in Spain is not going to result in greater, more enthusiastic terrorist activity!
Let’s see if i have this straight.
-
You and your cronies assert that the result of the Spanish election will lead to more terrorism.
-
Others in this thread (including me) point out that you have nothing but speculation to support your assertion.
-
You, in turn, claim that the burden of proof rests with us to show that the election result will not lead to more terrorism.
Sorry, buckaroo, but if you’re the one making the assertion, then you need to be the one to back it up.
The problem for you is that your hypothesis is not even testable, because now that the election has passed, we have no way of knowing whether any future terrorist activities will present an increase or a decrease on the number of terrorist actions that would have occurred is the PP had won the election.
Even if there are 100 terrorist acts in the next five days, or five weeks, or five months, there’s no way that you can show that these resulted in any way from the outcome of the Spanish election. In fact, if more terrorist activities happen very soon, this would actually indicate that such actions had been planned well before the Spanish election, and would thus tend to refute your hypothesis.
Even if Al Qaeda comes sends out a press release saying that its terrorist acts are being stepped up in response to the Spanish election result, you can’t make a firm connection, unless you’re the sort of person who believes that terrorists always tell the truth about their motives.
Have you an idea, with hindsight, how ludicrous the logic is? In that statement? You’re challenging us to prove you’re position is wrong by pointing out that an abscence of things which have yet to happen in the future may, or may not happen? Ergo, since such a position cannot be proven empirically because it remains in the future, you feel that your position is inherently correct? Can you not see how ludicrous that logic is?
I believe it is your job to prove that the future terrorist activity is more than what it would’ve been if the Spanish voters had gone the other way.
You make the assertion, you must provide the proof.
“Independent polls carried out on Wednesday, the day before the bombings, showed the Socialists ahead with a slight majority.”
Linkage
Now hold on 1920s Style Death Ray, I think your logic might be getting a little bit too obtuse for the parade of knuckledraggers in this thread. 
Different dictionaries give somewhat different definitions. I think everyone here knows and uderstands what I mean. It’s obvious by their responses. Is your problem with my argument that I’m misusing the word, or is this simply an attempt to derail the thrust of my argument?
You are making several incorrect assumptions and implications in this post. I can’t speak for others, nor will I try, but I have never said there is no room for nuance, nor that 90% of Spain’s population opposed the war, nor that Spain did or did not have a reason to be involved. It is incorrect to say it has never entered my head that Spain’s population might truly feel that the PSOE is the best party for the job. And when I speak of Spain’s capitulation, I’m speaking of the country as a whole based on the results of the election, just as it’s said that the U.S. elects its President, as opposed to saying a certain percentage of the population elects its President.
The fact remains, however, that Aznar’s party was expected to win (and please spare me the hair-splitting over poll percentages, every newscast I’ve seen and every account I’ve read outside of here, has clearly indicated Aznar’s party was expected to win) despite his policy’s unpopularity. The bombing happened, and three days later the opposition was elected. It is exceedingly clear that due to the attacks, Spain as a country, voted differently than it would have had not the attacks occurred, i.e., my assessment that they capitulated to AQ in the hope that the new party would get them out of AQ’s crosshairs.
I’ve ignored it because I don’t think it’s pertinent. I don’t know of anyone who would be willing to lay money that the U.S. is going to turn control of Iraq over to the U.N. Your argument in this regard is specious.
Again, I’ve said nothing whatsoever to indicate that anyone take marching orders from the U.S. My position is that they should have reacted with unquestionable strength to AQ’s obvious attempt to sway their election and gone the other way. I would feel the same way here. As is probably apparent, Clinton was not someone who would have been my favorite President. But if AQ had deliberately and obviously committed an atrocity such as 9/11 in an attempt to get me to vote the other way, I would have voted for Clinton. It’s much more important to show terrorists that their tactics aren’t going to work. Clinton could have been dealt with in the next election.
It’s amazing to me the things that anger and rage make people think about the positions of their opponents. You make up a position I supposedly hold, and then attack me for holding it. It reminds me of someone I knew at one time who would get mad at me for things I did in her dreams. Hmmm…come to think of it, you *are * doing pretty much the same thing.
I never said Spanish withdrawal would help AQ. My beef is that terrorism has been given a huge shot in the arm, and that many more people are going to be killed in future terrorist attacks than would have been otherwise due to the success of their use in Spain.
Your first two sentences in this paragraph appear to contracict one another. Are you saying your own assessment is half-assed?
And do you really think that an attempt at recruiting based on “they’re still bombing Muslims” is going to be more, or even as, effective as turning an entire country’s election on its ear?
Exactly! This is way it’s foolish to attempt to appease them. Capish?
And if *you * had been reading the thread, you would have seen that I asked if you also condemned the other *posters * to the thread who are on your side of the argument, but who also assert that that if Spain voted the way it did to get AQ off its ass, it was their right to do so. In other words, admitting capitulation was ideed the idea behind the election’s results. I said *nothing * about you condemning the Spanish.
I point out again the fact the election was by all reliable accounts going to go the other way, and the bombings reversed it. What better cite do you need?
Did you not see my post quoting CNN?
Forgive me for being flippant, but as Dr. Phil would say, the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. If they acheive success by terrorist attacks, is it not logical to expect that even more will follow. This is silly. If you disagree I’m going to have to reassess whether responding to you is worth the time.
The logical corollary of your argument, also, is that if the PP had won the election, then Al Qaeda would have shrugged and said, “Hey, it’s obvious that this terrorism stuff doesn’t work. Maybe we should all go get a real job.”
[/quote]
Logical corollary or idiotic sarcasm? Hmm…I think I’ll go with the latter.
Do you know why I haven’t said anything in this regard? Because it would only open the door to my being attacked as hypocritical and it would become a tool to attempt to derail my position, as I couldn’t possibly believe what I say and still have sympathy for the people of Spain. I know this is bullshit and I see no point in inviting it into the debate. For the record, I am very sympathetic to the family and loved ones of those who were killed and maimed in the attacks in Spain. Where it seems to me I differ with most of those on this board is that I am also extremely sympathetic toward the people who will be killed and the families of those who will be killed as a result of the encouragement Spain’s election is going to afford to the terrorists, and I’m furious about it!
So you believe that they should ignore what they actually want and just do the opposite of what they think AQ wants them to do?
Most people mature past this line of thought in their early teens.
It is extremely stupid.
That bunny must be using Energizer batteries, just keeps going and going and going… :rolleyes: